[RDS-WHOIS2-RT-Leadership_Staff] Status update
Susan Kawaguchi
susankpolicy at gmail.com
Fri Nov 10 23:55:01 UTC 2017
Hi Alice,
Thank you for your informative and thorough email.
*Work Plan *- We have a good start from our work in Brussels. Since we
have the subgroups determined we should ask each RT member to pick one
subgroup in which they would like to act as rapporteur. Probably should
ask for a first and second choice so that we have flexibility in
assignments. This way it spreads out the workload and will provide
opportunity for more engagement from all team members. Then whatever
subgroups were not selected I thought the leadership team could pick a
second subgroup each. On the next plenary call we could start this
process and explain to the members that we have plenty of guidance and help
from the staff to set up doodle polls, schedule subgroup calls and provide
adobe connection access.
Since the team developed the planning document and subgroup team report
template I think these subgroups will be fairly easy to lead from a process
point of view and the results should be somewhat standardized.
We should get started working in our subgroups as soon as possible so I
would recommend that we propose this via email and then discuss and ask for
their choices during the next plenary call. We should set the expectation
that each subgroup meet at least once in the next two weeks so that we get
started on our work.
Alan - I noticed your name is on all the subgroups my recollection is that
you wanted be on all the email lists but not necessarily be considered on
each subgroup. Is this correct?
*Scope Table - *Is there anything that the ICANN board was concerned with
the SSR2 RT Scope that we should consider in our scope?
*Terms of Reference* - Same question as above for the Terms of Reference
*Fact Sheet - *I find the fact sheet confusing and hard to read. I object
to publishing this fact sheet until it actually provides information that
is easily interpreted. Much more detail is needed.
The following are my concerns
The timeline reflects that we have been an RT for 4 months and used up 33%
of expected duration. We may have been seated in June and had an
orientation meeting but did not have our first substantive plenary call
until mid July. If July was indicated as the date we started then our
duration would be at 25%. This seems much more accurate.
As of September 30th we have had 8 plenary calls. We may want to indicate
leadership calls in the fact sheet because a lot of the work to ensure the
productivity of this team goes on in the leadership calls.
For the 8 plenary calls we have had 303 staff hours expended in supporting
the RT. If you view the staff hours per plenary call 37.87 staff support
hours per call seems excessive. I do not doubt the staff is working very
hard and has provided us with amazing support but pulling out statistics
that are not correlated properly results in skewed stats. I would suggest
we break down in general categories how many staff members are supporting
the team and how many hours per staff member. Since the RT is responsible
for the success of the review we need to understand what support is truly
being utilized and how we might reduce the burden on staff.
Financial Resources - I am assuming on the travel spend this was to send
the RT to the Johannesburg meeting? Is this accurate?
Can you help me understand what committed resources are? We spent $120,000
on travel so far for committed resources how many people traveled to the
meeting to support one orientation meeting with the RT? Did they also do
any other work on behalf of ICANN while they were at the meeting?
What is the other $40,000 for in travel spend? Is this review team travel?
Assuming not all RT members needed travel support, for instance 3
council members are RT members so our travel funding should for the most
part be out of the council budget. If we assume that 8 members traveled
from the RT budget at an expense of $5,000 per person you could extend this
logic to the $120,000 on travel for committed resources as spending travel
budget for 24 support staff.
I am not trying to lay blame here but I am trying to illustrate how
statistics without clear information can be skewed and interpreted in a
bizarre manner.
I recommend that we rethink the Fact sheet and provide clear,
understandable statistics that honors the hard work that all are putting
into this RT.
Best regards*, *
Susan
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>
wrote:
> Dear RDS-WHOIS2 Leadership,
>
>
>
> We hope this message finds you well. In anticipation of our leadership
> call, please find attached a status update and proposed items for
> discussion:
>
>
>
> *Questions on WHOIS1 implementation *
>
> Attached to this email you will find answers to the list of questions
> received on WHOIS1 implementation. This document will be circulated to the
> Review Team and added to your background materials wiki page.
>
>
>
> *Subgroups*
>
> We have set up wiki pages for each subgroup. Publicly archived
> mailing-lists were also created. See details below:
>
> Master subgroups page - https://community.icann.org/display/WHO/Subgroups
>
>
>
> *Subgroup 1 - WHOIS1 Recommendations
> <https://community.icann.org/display/WHO/Subgroup+1+-+WHOIS1+Review+Team+Recommendations>*
>
> *WHOIS1 Rec #1 - Strategic Priority
> <https://community.icann.org/display/WHO/WHOIS1+Rec+%25231+-+Strategic+Priority>
> *
>
> Alan, Carlton Cathrin, Volker
>
> rds-whois2-stratpriority at icann.org
>
> *WHOIS1 Rec #2: Single WHOIS Policy
> <https://community.icann.org/display/WHO/WHOIS1+Rec+%25232%253A+Single+WHOIS+Policy>*
>
> Alan, Carlton, Cathrin, Thomas
>
> rds-whois2-whoispolicy at icann.org
>
> *WHOIS1 Rec #3: Outreach
> <https://community.icann.org/display/WHO/WHOIS1+Rec+%25233%253A+Outreach>*
>
> Alan, Carlton, Erika
>
> rds-whois2-outreach at icann.org
>
> *WHOIS1 Rec #4: Compliance
> <https://community.icann.org/display/WHO/WHOIS1+Rec+%25234%253A+Compliance>*
>
> Alan, Erika, Susan, Thomas
>
> rds-whois2-rec4-compliance at icann.org
>
> *WHOIS Rec #5-9: Data Accuracy
> <https://community.icann.org/display/WHO/WHOIS+Rec+%25235-9%253A+Data+Accuracy>*
>
> Alan, Cathrin, Dmitry, Lili
>
> rds-whois2-dataaccuracy at icann.org
>
> *WHOIS Rec #10: Privacy/Proxy Services
> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=71604717>*
>
> Alan, Cathrin, Stephanie, Volker
>
> rds-whois2-privacy-proxy at icann.org
>
> *WHOIS Rec #11: Common Interface
> <https://community.icann.org/display/WHO/WHOIS+Rec+%252311%253A+Common+Interface>*
>
> Alan, Susan, Volker
>
> rds-whois2-comminterface at icann.org
>
> *WHOIS Rec #12-14: IDNs
> <https://community.icann.org/display/WHO/WHOIS+Rec+%252312-14%253A+IDNs>*
>
> *IDNs*
>
> Alan, Dmitry, Lili
>
> rds-whois2-idns at icann.org
>
> *WHOIS Rec #15-16: Plan & Annual Report
> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=71604726>*
>
> Alan, Chris, Lili
>
> rds-whois2-reports at icann.org
>
> *Subgroup 2 - Anything New
> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=71604731>*
>
> Alan, Stephanie, Susan
>
> rds-whois2-anythingnew at icann.org
>
> *Subgroup 3 - Law Enforcement Needs
> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=71604734>*
>
> Alan, Cathrin, Chris, Thomas
>
> rds-whois2-lawenforcement at icann.org
>
> *Subgroup 4 - Consumer Trust
> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=71604737>*
>
> Alan, Dmitry, Erika, Stephanie, Susan
>
> rds-whois2-consumertrust at icann.org
>
> *Subgroup 5 - Safeguard Registrant Data
> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=71604740>*
>
> Alan, Dmitry, Stephanie, Volker
>
> rds-whois2-safeguard at icann.org
>
> *Subgroup 6 - Compliance
> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=71604743>*
>
> Alan, Carlton, Chris, Erika, Susan
>
> rds-whois2-compliance at icann.org
>
>
>
> Cathrin had suggested having members of subgroups test the planning
> document
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/71604702/First%20Pass%20-%20Planning%20questions%20.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1510149125000&api=v2>
> and subgroup report
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/71604702/Proposed%20Subgroup%20Report%20Structure%20.docx?version=2&modificationDate=1510149120000&api=v2>
> structure at the informal session in Abu Dhabi. Since we did not get a
> chance to run a test, my recommendation would be to ask all RT members to
> do this exercise prior to the plenary call (individually or in subgroup) so
> the group can determine if any adjustments are needed to the papers.
>
>
>
> *Work Plan*
>
> Attached to this email you will find an updated work plan. I would suggest
> setting 05 December as the deadline for the subgroups to complete the
> planning document. The planning document regroups steps embedded in the
> work plan’s admin duties bucket (under subgroup). Please let me know
> whether you believe this is a reasonable deadline.
>
> This document, as you know, is a “living document” and will be adjusted as
> work progresses. We will make sure to maintain it and to flag suggested
> edits for your approval.
> It is my understanding that you wish to have RT members run an in-depth
> analysis of the document prior to its approval for submission to ICANN
> Board (along with Terms of Reference). I believe it might be helpful to
> identify a couple of volunteers to be your work plan experts to carry
> through the “sanity check”, and then potentially “supervise” work plan
> progress (in collaboration with ICANN org). This, of course, is a
> suggestion for your consideration.
>
>
>
> *Scope table*
>
> On 19 October 2017, you asked Review Team members to review scope items
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64084100/Scope-and-Objectives-v12-draft-redline.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1508508504000&api=v2>and to
> confirm by 27 October that the Scope discussion can
> be considered frozen (adopted). My understanding is that you will seek
> final confirmation on scope items on the next plenary. Please confirm. If
> that is accurate, we will need to include a clear note indicating
> objectives of the call in the agenda.
>
>
>
> *Terms of Reference *
>
> I circulated an updated Terms of Reference draft (including a shopping
> list of edits that were incorporated) on 19 October (see attached). I am
> happy to walk you through this document and edits that were made on the
> leadership call. I welcome any input you may have in the meantime.
>
>
>
> *Process for Engaging Contractors *
>
> As requested in Brussels, please find attached the process for engaging
> contractors. We hope this will help inform your planning discussions. We
> are happy to address any questions you may have.
>
>
>
> *Scheduling*
>
> As indicated in my note earlier today, Monday – 14:00 UTC – appears to be
> the only feasible option. Do you wish to include this timeslot and
> additional options in a doodle poll for the Review Team to complete?
>
>
>
> *Fact Sheet and Participation*
>
> Jean-Baptiste has sent a request for approval (by 13 November, close of
> business) of the fact and participation sheets.
>
>
>
> Thank you and have a nice weekend,
>
> Best regards
>
> Alice
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>
> To: <rds-whois2-rt-leadership_staff at icann.org>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 10:39:49 +0200
> Subject: Updates to Draft Terms of Reference
>
> Dear RDS-WHOIS2 Leadership,
>
>
>
> As requested, please find attached a clean and revised draft version of
> the Terms of Reference for your consideration. Edits were made as requested
> by the Review Team in recent meetings/action items and to align the ToR
> with ICANN operating standards for specific reviews (out for public comment
> – see here
> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reviews-standards-2017-10-17-en)>).
>
>
> To help you navigate through edits, see below a laundry list of the
> changes made to the document since the prior version.
>
>
>
> - Page 1 – confirmed leadership
> - Page 2 – removed text on ICANN’s Mission
> - Pages 3-4-5 – On scope – Added a reference to an appendix where we
> suggest plugging in the scope; mirrored what we have in the scope table
> - Pages 5-6-7 – On definitions – shortened IDNs definition and added
> the RDAP definition
> - Pages 7-8 – On timeline – Mirrored what we have in work plan
> - Page 8 – Deliverables – Added preliminary feasibility assessment
> based on subgroup report template; added items (bullet points 3, 4, 9) in
> light of draft operating standards for specific reviews; clarified
> sub-bullet point list; removed GNSO hints and tips reference. In last
> paragraph of deliverables, added a reference to the need for documenting
> how public comments were handled and inserted a reminder of need for level
> of consensus to be provided for each recommendation
> - Page 9 – On recommendations section – removed the notion of
> prioritized recommendations as that is already available in that list;
> included the language of the related Bylaws provision
> - Page 11 - On Roles & responsibilities of Review Team Members – Added
> bullet point 2 in light of Draft Operating Standards; added clarifications
> to bullet points 3 and 4
> - Page 11 – On Roles & responsibilities of Review Team Leadership -
> Added clarifications to bullet points 1 and 12
> - Page 12 – On replacement and removal of members – added a comment on
> Draft Operating Standards
> - Page 12 – On dependencies section – augmented GDPR related reference
> for additional clarity
> - Pages 12-13-14 – On decision making - aligned with current Bylaws
> and draft operating standards, replacing language which had become outdated
> as a result of updates to operating standards
> - Page 15 – On accountability and transparency section – removed “off
> the record” to add reference the confidential disclosure framework; added
> decisions reached/action items to list of wiki components
> - Pages 17-18 – On independent experts – added a provision that if
> designated RT members want to participate in the selection process, they
> will need to sign designated NDA, per process for engaging contractors;
> added section on considering advice from independent experts per draft
> operating standards
>
>
>
> I believe you are planning to read through this in detail. In the
> meantime, please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
>
> Thanks
>
> Kind regards
>
> Alice
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez <jean-baptiste.deroulez at icann.org>
> To: "rds-whois2-rt-leadership_staff at icann.org" <
> rds-whois2-rt-leadership_staff at icann.org>
> Cc:
> Bcc:
> Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2017 12:44:38 +0000
> Subject: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT-Leadership_Staff] RDS-WHOIS2: Approval needed on
> Fact Sheet and Participation
>
> Dear RDS-WHOIS2-RT Leaders,
>
>
>
> Please find attached the latest versions of the “Fact Sheet” and
> “Participation” (as of 30 September 2017)of the RDS-WHOIS2 Review Team.
> Thank you for reviewing and confirming, by Monday 13 November COB, that
> these two documents can be posted on the wiki at the following wiki page:
> https://community.icann.org/x/eNjRAw[community.icann.org]
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_eNjRAw&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=hgoi2V8bykqXjZC9kZZRTDSEJ4lQIyKh6k8Q-TUv6Ks&m=CAwe-rotBuQGsr04QSzSYPZNZPJvSrgU3nYljy1X9SY&s=kmaEcXn2G_4qIVCknR2SYD86XskEFAZPXDEHadtkCPM&e=>
> .
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Jean-Baptiste
>
> _______________________________________________
> RDS-WHOIS2-RT-Leadership_Staff mailing list
> RDS-WHOIS2-RT-Leadership_Staff at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt-leadership_staff
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rds-whois2-rt-leadership_staff/attachments/20171110/dc83a917/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the RDS-WHOIS2-RT-Leadership_Staff
mailing list