From omar at kaminski.adv.br Mon Oct 25 02:35:25 2010 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:35:25 -0200 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair In-Reply-To: <8EABDC35-EEB9-4A2F-9D5A-DD22D97237E8@etlaw.co.uk> References: <87E2F4F00724B74781794CD88DBC997D072157E4@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> <8EABDC35-EEB9-4A2F-9D5A-DD22D97237E8@etlaw.co.uk> Message-ID: Kathy and Emily nominations are great choices. Best from .br, Omar 2010/10/24 Emily Taylor > Dear all > > Thank you Kathy for nominating me as Vice Chair of the Whois Review Team. > Thank you Kim and Sharon for your endorsement. I am honoured to be > nominated, and confirm that, if elected, I would be willing to serve the > Team and support the Chair. > > Kind regards > > Emily > > > On 24 Oct 2010, at 14:14, wrote: > > *NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED * > Hello All, > > I too support the nomination of Emily as vice-Chair. > > Sharon > > > > Sharon Lemon OBE. Deputy Director** e-Crime, Crime Techniques, Prevention > and Alerts* |* Serious Organised Crime Agency* |* PO BOX 8000* |* London*| > * SE11 5EN* |* Tel: +44 (0)20 7238 8583* |* Mobile: +44 (0)7768 290902* |*Email: > * sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk* > > *Get Safe Online Week 2010 runs from 15th-19th November. Visit the* *** > website* to learn > more or follow us on twitter @GetSafeOnline > > Get Safe Online is a joint initiative between the Government, the Serious > Organised Crime Agency, and public and private sector sponsors from the > worlds of technology, communication, retail and finance to raise awareness > of internet security, and help individuals and smaller businesses in the UK > to use the internet confidently and safely. > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] *On > Behalf Of *Kim G. von Arx > *Sent:* 23 October 2010 02:46 > *To:* Kathy Kleiman > *Cc:* rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review > Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > I second Kathy's suggestion and nomination of Emily for a vice-chair. > > Kim > > > On 22 Oct 2010, at 18:58, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > Dear Kim and the WHOIS Review Team, > I am honored to be nominated as Chair of this Team, and if elected, I would > be pleased to serve. My warm thanks to Kim for the nomination, and James, > Emily, Sharon and Lynn for their endorsement. As I mentioned at the end of > our call, we are a great group for the challenging work ahead, and I am very > impressed by the range of experiences and expertise we bring together. > I would like to recommend that we also elect a Vice Chair. With the many > meetings ahead, by telephone and in person, it will be good to have a > Vice-Chair provide continuity of leadership and assist with the duties of > the Chair. > For this position, I would like to nominate Emily Taylor. Emily served as > the Director of Legal and Policy for Nominet (.UK) from 2000 to 2009. There > she led the creation of Nominet?s WHOIS policy, working closely with law > enforcement and privacy regulators, as well as other internal and external > stakeholders. Emily represents the ccNSO on our Review Team and also served > as Director of Counsel for European Top Level Domain Registries (CENTR). She > is intricately familiar with the complexity of the issues represented by the > Whois from a ccTLD perspective, and brings a wealth of experience in the > challenges of bottom-up, consensus policy processes in this area. > Best wishes, > *Kathy Kleiman* > *Director of Policy*** > *.ORG The Public Interest Registry* > *Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846* > ** > *Visit us online!* > Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! > Find us on Facebook | dotorg > See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr > See our video library on YouTube > *CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:*** > Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry. If > received in error, please inform sender and then delete. > *From:* rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Kim G. von Arx > *Sent:* Friday, October 22, 2010 12:39 PM > *To:* Olof Nordling > *Cc:* rt4-whois at icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review > Team > All: > > Thank you very much for a very fruitful and productive call on Wednesday. > I thought it went exceptionally well considering that many of us do not > know each other at all. > > In line with one of our agenda items for next week, I would like to > nominate Kathy Kleiman to be the chair of this committee. Kathy has been > involved in the ICANN world from its inception and has significant > experience in the industry and the WHOIS issues. She was one of the > co-chairs of a special Whois conference which took place in conjunction with > the 2005 ICANN meeting and tried to educate and inform the stakeholders, > objectively, of the different views on WHOIS ranging from law enforcement to > public interest groups. Kathy understands the issues that are of concern to > each of the major constituencies of ICANN and can, as she has shown in the > past for many sensitive issues, guide the discussions and resolutions to an > outcome that is acceptable to all parties involved. In light of that, I > submit that Kathy's proven credibility, expertise, skills, integrity and > sense of fairness will give all of us the assurance that no one group will > receive preferential treatment, but all will be on equal footing. > > I am looking forward to speaking with all of you again next week. > > Best wishes, > > Kim > On 22 Oct 2010, at 12:13, Olof Nordling wrote: > > > Dear Review Team members, > This is a gentle reminder about a key aspect brought up at our first > conference call? nominations for the role of Chair are very welcome indeed! > Please consider volunteering yourself ? or nominating one of your team > colleagues. Initiatives in this regard will be most appreciated! > Thanks in advance ? and wishing you all a nice weekend. > Best regards > Olof > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > > This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government > Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in > partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In > case of problems, please call your organisation?s IT Helpdesk. > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or > recorded for legal purposes. > > All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. > Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the > subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and > without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the > Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files > transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom > they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please > contact the sender as soon as possible. > > This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from > disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject > to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, > for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for disclosure to > the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of contact, by > email on PICUEnquiries at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning 0870 268 8677. > > > > All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. > Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the > subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and > without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the > Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files > transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom > they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please > contact the sender as soon as possible. > > > The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure > Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in > partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On > leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. > Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or > recorded for legal purposes. > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > [image: Emily Taylor Consultant (Internet Law and Governance)] > > 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK > telephone: *01865 582 811* mobile: *07540 049 322* > emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101025/1495856d/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Mon Oct 25 09:30:40 2010 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 02:30:40 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Rev - Thursday 28 Oct 16:00 UTC - Conf Call details Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34D60141B@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Dear Review Team Members, Per the Doodle poll results and in consideration of our interim Chairs' availability, the second WHOIS conference call is scheduled for: **Thursday, 28 October 2010** 16:00 UTC Password: WHOIS Duration: 60 minutes Please check your local time at: http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=28&month=10&year=2010&hour=16&min=0&sec=0&p1=0 Adobe room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/ Attached, please find a draft agenda for your consideration. Dial in numbers: Country Toll Numbers Freephone/ Toll Free Number ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND Land Line: 106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FINLAND Mobile: 09-106-33-203 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Dial-outs: Please do not hesitate to contact me, should you require a dial-out for this call. Please provide two alternate numbers. An outlook invitation will be circulated for your convenience. Thank you, Very best regards Alice Alice E. Jansen -------------------------- ICANN Assistant, Organizational & Affirmation Reviews alice.jansen at icann.org Direct Dial: +32.2.234.78.64 Mobile: +32.4.73.31.76.56 Office Fax: +32.2.234.78.48 Skype: alice_jansen_icann -------------------------- 6, Rond Point Schuman B-1040 Brussels, Belgium -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101025/09e26bf7/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WHOIS - Draft Agenda - Thursday, 28 Oct - 16.00 UTC.doc Type: application/msword Size: 23040 bytes Desc: WHOIS - Draft Agenda - Thursday, 28 Oct - 16.00 UTC.doc Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101025/09e26bf7/WHOIS-DraftAgenda-Thursday28Oct-16.00UTC.doc From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Mon Oct 25 21:08:36 2010 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:08:36 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair Message-ID: <20101025140836.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.68e43ccaa9.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101025/9208bc3d/attachment.html From oiteanu at iteanu.com Tue Oct 26 09:55:55 2010 From: oiteanu at iteanu.com (Olivier ITEANU) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:55:55 +0200 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair Message-ID: <4CC6C1CB.1131.188FA719@oiteanu.iteanu.com> Dear All, Considering that I am very new in the Icann process (I was part of it in 2001), I do not know personally Kathy and Emily but it seems that many of you know each others and know them: if there is a consensus on them, that's fine for me, Kathy and Emily seem very competent for the job. However, if there is another candidate, I think that we need an urgent coming out ! Olivier Olivier ITEANU - mailto:oiteanu at iteanu.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- I T E A N U Soci?t? d'Avocats - Law Firm 164, rue du Faubourg Saint-Honore 75008 PARIS Tel. + 33 (0)1 42 56 90 00 Fax + 33 (0)1 42 56 90 02 e-mail: contact at iteanu.com - www.iteanu.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Tue Oct 26 15:51:46 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:51:46 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair In-Reply-To: <4CC6C1CB.1131.188FA719@oiteanu.iteanu.com> References: <4CC6C1CB.1131.188FA719@oiteanu.iteanu.com> Message-ID: <4CC6F912.2070205@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Dear Team! Olivier ITEANU wrote: > > > Dear All, > Considering that I am very new in the Icann process (I was part of it > in 2001), I do not know personally Kathy and Emily Nor do I, actually I don't think that I have "conciously" met anyone in the team before. Thus I do not feel in a position to suggest any individual for this position. > but it seems that > many of you know each others and know them: if there is a consensus > on them, that's fine for me, Kathy and Emily seem very competent for > the job. Nevertheless I am fine with the 2 ladies being nominated already. > However, if there is another candidate, I think that we need an > urgent coming out ! > Olivier As there's only a slim chance that I can call in (and if at all, from my mobile phone in listening mode because I will be on a train), I'd like to submit my support for Kathy and Emily to serve as chairs of the team. > Olivier ITEANU - mailto:oiteanu at iteanu.com Best regards, Wilfried. From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Tue Oct 26 18:24:11 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:24:11 -0600 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair In-Reply-To: <4CC6F912.2070205@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <4CC6C1CB.1131.188FA719@oiteanu.iteanu.com> <4CC6F912.2070205@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661A109214D@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> It is heartening to see both the interest in and support for the proposed candidates for Chair and Vice-Chair. I am encouraged by the activity on the list and hope that we continue to use email as an important means of progressing our work. In my experience, collaborative/collegial use of email can significantly enhance the work of groups between telephonic or face-to-face meetings; especially when those groups are "geographically challenged". It facilitates discussion of important topics between meetings frequently enabling both more informed and faster decision making. With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that we may have the cart before the horse in our discussions/decisions with respect to a Chair and Vice-Chair. I believe that it is imperative that we all understand, and agree to, both what we are working on and how we will perform the work, before we formally select a Chair, and if necessary a Vice-Chair. Establishing a charter prior to formally selecting a chair is common practice at many organizations that have well-established processes, e.g. OASIS, W3C, and IETF. I believe we would be well-served to follow their model. Let me be clear that this is a *process* issue, not a personality issue. I believe the proposed candidates are well-qualified and further believe it is likely that they will be selected. However, before we take that action, it is important that we understand the scope of our work, and the rules that we will adhere to. Fortunately, the AOC establishes a clear basis for our work. Using the language from the AOC, minimally adapted for the purpose of defining a scope, I suggest that our scope is: ________________________________ To assess the extent to which existing WHOIS policy and its implementation: * is effective, * meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, and * promotes consumer trust. This assessment will include an analysis and determination of ICANN's performance against the AOC requirement that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information. ________________________________ For process, we have the A&T Review Team's Terms of Reference Methodology that can serve as a basis for us and I suggest we use that as appropriate for our needs. I would also suggest that for anything beyond the specifics we might lay out in out ToR, we use Roberts Rules as our process document. It has proven effective in any number of situations and allows us to have well-established processes without the need to define, debate, and agree on them. Finally, I think we should take Rod Beckstrom up on his kind offer to serve as chair and facilitator, and to do so until we can agree on what our charter is and how we will go about our work. (A simple example of the types of process decisions we might need to make is related to Wilfried's note - do we allow proxies? Or absentee voting? If we do, how do we determine if quorum is established?) > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] > On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:52 AM > To: Olivier ITEANU > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review > Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > Dear Team! > > Olivier ITEANU wrote: > > > > > > > Dear All, > > Considering that I am very new in the Icann process (I was part of it > > in 2001), I do not know personally Kathy and Emily > > Nor do I, actually I don't think that I have "conciously" met anyone > in the team before. Thus I do not feel in a position to suggest any > individual for this position. > > > but it seems that > > many of you know each others and know them: if there is a consensus > > on them, that's fine for me, Kathy and Emily seem very competent for > > the job. > > Nevertheless I am fine with the 2 ladies being nominated already. > > > However, if there is another candidate, I think that we need an > > urgent coming out ! > > Olivier > > As there's only a slim chance that I can call in (and if at all, from > my mobile phone in listening mode because I will be on a train), I'd > like to submit my support for Kathy and Emily to serve as chairs of the > team. > > > Olivier ITEANU - mailto:oiteanu at iteanu.com > > Best regards, > Wilfried. > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From skawaguchi at facebook.com Tue Oct 26 21:32:18 2010 From: skawaguchi at facebook.com (Susan Kawaguchi) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:32:18 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair In-Reply-To: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661A109214D@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> References: <4CC6C1CB.1131.188FA719@oiteanu.iteanu.com> <4CC6F912.2070205@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661A109214D@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Message-ID: I echo Bill's sentiments. Definition of how we go about evaluating ICANN's enforcement of the WHOIS policy should be our first priority. Kathy, I personally very much appreciate your willingness to take on the monumental job as chairperson but I personally would like to have a clear picture of the work we will be doing in this group before we set up our internal structure. As a group what do we expect of the chairperson? This is crucial to discuss as the role of chair will be very important in guiding how this team works together. I think we should establish ground rules and guidelines on what is expected of the chairperson before we decide on an individual. In other groups the chairperson's responsibilities have been described as follows: "The purpose of a Chair is to call meetings, preside over working group deliberations, manage the process so that all participants have the opportunity to contribute, and report the results of the Working Group to the Chartering Organization. " "Qualities of the Chair The main concern of the chair should be the aims and objectives of the group and the integrity of the meeting process. There follows a brief description of the personal qualities that a good chair should possess. Authority The chair will need to maintain control to ensure that progress is made in line with the schedule - as defined in the agenda. Flexibility Following an agenda does not always imply unquestioning devotion to it. For example, if an unplanned deviation could produce a clarification or the bonding together of meeting participants, then this might represent a very effective strategy. Impartiality It is important that the chair supports an equal and fair consideration of all sides of the argument. This can be especially difficult where the chair is privately on one side of the debate. Maturity The chair must be able to accept and work with a broad cross section of personalities. They should view each meeting without too much preconception as to how individuals will act and react, but be able to respond as the need arises. " You all may be thinking, "Of course, that is what we expect" but I would feel more comfortable discussing the role and coming to consensus. The WRT has many diverse view points and experiences. Consensus building, transparency and neutrality will be key in the role of the chair and the group should make a conscious decision on what we expect of the chairperson. I am also somewhat concerned that the first two ICANN review teams will be chaired by representatives of the Registry stakeholders group. We should consider spreading the work to other constituencies. -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:24 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair It is heartening to see both the interest in and support for the proposed candidates for Chair and Vice-Chair. I am encouraged by the activity on the list and hope that we continue to use email as an important means of progressing our work. In my experience, collaborative/collegial use of email can significantly enhance the work of groups between telephonic or face-to-face meetings; especially when those groups are "geographically challenged". It facilitates discussion of important topics between meetings frequently enabling both more informed and faster decision making. With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that we may have the cart before the horse in our discussions/decisions with respect to a Chair and Vice-Chair. I believe that it is imperative that we all understand, and agree to, both what we are working on and how we will perform the work, before we formally select a Chair, and if necessary a Vice-Chair. Establishing a charter prior to formally selecting a chair is common practice at many organizations that have well-established processes, e.g. OASIS, W3C, and IETF. I believe we would be well-served to follow their model. Let me be clear that this is a *process* issue, not a personality issue. I believe the proposed candidates are well-qualified and further believe it is likely that they will be selected. However, before we take that action, it is important that we understand the scope of our work, and the rules that we will adhere to. Fortunately, the AOC establishes a clear basis for our work. Using the language from the AOC, minimally adapted for the purpose of defining a scope, I suggest that our scope is: ________________________________ To assess the extent to which existing WHOIS policy and its implementation: * is effective, * meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, and * promotes consumer trust. This assessment will include an analysis and determination of ICANN's performance against the AOC requirement that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information. ________________________________ For process, we have the A&T Review Team's Terms of Reference Methodology that can serve as a basis for us and I suggest we use that as appropriate for our needs. I would also suggest that for anything beyond the specifics we might lay out in out ToR, we use Roberts Rules as our process document. It has proven effective in any number of situations and allows us to have well-established processes without the need to define, debate, and agree on them. Finally, I think we should take Rod Beckstrom up on his kind offer to serve as chair and facilitator, and to do so until we can agree on what our charter is and how we will go about our work. (A simple example of the types of process decisions we might need to make is related to Wilfried's note - do we allow proxies? Or absentee voting? If we do, how do we determine if quorum is established?) > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] > On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:52 AM > To: Olivier ITEANU > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review > Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > Dear Team! > > Olivier ITEANU wrote: > > > > > > > Dear All, > > Considering that I am very new in the Icann process (I was part of it > > in 2001), I do not know personally Kathy and Emily > > Nor do I, actually I don't think that I have "conciously" met anyone > in the team before. Thus I do not feel in a position to suggest any > individual for this position. > > > but it seems that > > many of you know each others and know them: if there is a consensus > > on them, that's fine for me, Kathy and Emily seem very competent for > > the job. > > Nevertheless I am fine with the 2 ladies being nominated already. > > > However, if there is another candidate, I think that we need an > > urgent coming out ! > > Olivier > > As there's only a slim chance that I can call in (and if at all, from > my mobile phone in listening mode because I will be on a train), I'd > like to submit my support for Kathy and Emily to serve as chairs of the > team. > > > Olivier ITEANU - mailto:oiteanu at iteanu.com > > Best regards, > Wilfried. > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From omar at kaminski.adv.br Tue Oct 26 21:46:33 2010 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:46:33 -0200 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6C1CB.1131.188FA719@oiteanu.iteanu.com><4CC6F912.2070205@CC.UniVie.ac.at><39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661A109214D@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Message-ID: <26BE54CF0D6E40ACA93F2BDC3E0D33D9@BASE> Interesting and important observations, Susan. I second that. Best, Omar -----Mensagem Original----- From: Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 7:32 PM To: Smith, Bill ; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair I echo Bill's sentiments. Definition of how we go about evaluating ICANN's enforcement of the WHOIS policy should be our first priority. Kathy, I personally very much appreciate your willingness to take on the monumental job as chairperson but I personally would like to have a clear picture of the work we will be doing in this group before we set up our internal structure. As a group what do we expect of the chairperson? This is crucial to discuss as the role of chair will be very important in guiding how this team works together. I think we should establish ground rules and guidelines on what is expected of the chairperson before we decide on an individual. In other groups the chairperson's responsibilities have been described as follows: "The purpose of a Chair is to call meetings, preside over working group deliberations, manage the process so that all participants have the opportunity to contribute, and report the results of the Working Group to the Chartering Organization. " "Qualities of the Chair The main concern of the chair should be the aims and objectives of the group and the integrity of the meeting process. There follows a brief description of the personal qualities that a good chair should possess. Authority The chair will need to maintain control to ensure that progress is made in line with the schedule - as defined in the agenda. Flexibility Following an agenda does not always imply unquestioning devotion to it. For example, if an unplanned deviation could produce a clarification or the bonding together of meeting participants, then this might represent a very effective strategy. Impartiality It is important that the chair supports an equal and fair consideration of all sides of the argument. This can be especially difficult where the chair is privately on one side of the debate. Maturity The chair must be able to accept and work with a broad cross section of personalities. They should view each meeting without too much preconception as to how individuals will act and react, but be able to respond as the need arises. " You all may be thinking, "Of course, that is what we expect" but I would feel more comfortable discussing the role and coming to consensus. The WRT has many diverse view points and experiences. Consensus building, transparency and neutrality will be key in the role of the chair and the group should make a conscious decision on what we expect of the chairperson. I am also somewhat concerned that the first two ICANN review teams will be chaired by representatives of the Registry stakeholders group. We should consider spreading the work to other constituencies. From rod.beckstrom at icann.org Wed Oct 27 00:04:58 2010 From: rod.beckstrom at icann.org (Rod Beckstrom) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:04:58 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair In-Reply-To: <26BE54CF0D6E40ACA93F2BDC3E0D33D9@BASE> Message-ID: Excellent points by all parties in this string. I look forward to our call on Thursday and am willing to continue serving as facilitator for as long as the group wishes, while process and leadership issues are being addressed. Warmly, Rod On 10/26/10 2:46 PM, "Omar Kaminski" wrote: > Interesting and important observations, Susan. I second that. > > Best, > Omar > > > -----Mensagem Original----- > From: Susan Kawaguchi > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 7:32 PM > To: Smith, Bill ; rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review > Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > I echo Bill's sentiments. Definition of how we go about evaluating > ICANN's enforcement of the WHOIS policy should be our first priority. > > Kathy, I personally very much appreciate your willingness to take on the > monumental job as chairperson but I personally would like to have a clear > picture of the work we will be doing in this group before we set up our > internal structure. > > As a group what do we expect of the chairperson? This is crucial to > discuss as the role of chair will be very important in guiding how this team > works together. I think we should establish ground rules and guidelines on > what is expected of the chairperson before we decide on an individual. > > In other groups the chairperson's responsibilities have been described as > follows: > > "The purpose of a Chair is to call meetings, preside over working group > deliberations, manage the process so that all participants have the > opportunity to contribute, and report the results of the Working Group to > the Chartering Organization. " > > "Qualities of the Chair > The main concern of the chair should be the aims and objectives of the group > and the integrity of the meeting process. There follows a brief description > of the personal qualities that a good chair should possess. > > Authority > The chair will need to maintain control to ensure that progress is made in > line with the schedule - as defined in the agenda. > > Flexibility > Following an agenda does not always imply unquestioning devotion to it. For > example, if an unplanned deviation could produce a clarification or the > bonding together of meeting participants, then this might represent a very > effective strategy. > > Impartiality > It is important that the chair supports an equal and fair consideration of > all sides of the argument. This can be especially difficult where the chair > is privately on one side of the debate. > > Maturity > The chair must be able to accept and work with a broad cross section of > personalities. They should view each meeting without too much preconception > as to how individuals will act and react, but be able to respond as the need > arises. " > > You all may be thinking, "Of course, that is what we expect" but I would > feel more comfortable discussing the role and coming to consensus. The WRT > has many diverse view points and experiences. Consensus building, > transparency and neutrality will be key in the role of the chair and the > group should make a conscious decision on what we expect of the chairperson. > > I am also somewhat concerned that the first two ICANN review teams will be > chaired by representatives of the Registry stakeholders group. We should > consider spreading the work to other constituencies. > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois Warmly, Rod Rod Beckstrom President and CEO ICANN - One World. One Internet. From jbladel at godaddy.com Wed Oct 27 00:18:08 2010 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:18:08 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair Message-ID: <20101026171808.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.6b05eab003.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101026/6cc838be/attachment.html From kim at vonarx.ca Wed Oct 27 01:11:22 2010 From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:11:22 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6C1CB.1131.188FA719@oiteanu.iteanu.com> <4CC6F912.2070205@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661A109214D@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Message-ID: <320DE99D-CC53-405E-BC63-3007CA695678@vonarx.ca> All: Thanks to Bill and Susan for valuable procedural points. I just would like to add a few comments. 1. I believe that the internal structure is one of the most simple tasks for this group to undertake and we should spend as little time as possible on those aspects. 2. In line with the above, I thought that the roles and responsibilities of the Chair (and if applicable the Vice-chair) would be a discussion we would have prior to the vote and, if applicable, prior to any further nominations. Indeed, the nomination emails were just that - nominations and we had all agreed in our last call that we would nominate and/or self-nominate people we think are suitable candidates. Therefore, I was under the impression that the upcoming phone call's main objective was to figure out the administrative details with respect to the role, responsibility of the Chair and, of course, the election of the Chair. If we fail to finalize those details in our next call then, I had proposed, we would have another call the following week until we have finalized the administrative details including our terms of reference (the latter is not an internal structure issue, but a substantive matter that will need significant input and discussion). 3. I believe that it is important that we appoint a person from our group to lead the discussion and us to the appropriate terms of reference for this RT and I find it somewhat counter intuitive to have Rod Beckstrom lead that discussion considering that we are supposed to conduct some kind of review of a policy of ICANN and its ability to enforce the same. 4. I believe that Susan's comments with regards to the roles and responsibilities of the Chair are absolutely accurate and I believe that both, Kathy and Emily, have shown over and over again that they have all those qualities. 5. I don't believe that the fact that both nominees come from the registry constituency is a concern considering that, I believe, both nominees, have shown a lot of impartiality and integrity over the many years they have dealt with very sensitive Internet policy issues including the WHOIS issues under the ICANN regime and the UK (European Union) framework. 6. With respect to process issues and rules of order, I suggest that we should take ICANN's by-law as the framework considering that we are a sub-creature of ICANN. Also, I propose that we use Wainberg's rules of order instead of Robert's Rules. The former is specifically designed for societies, associations, not for profits, etc. and is the standard for those kind of organizations. Whereas the latter is the standard for organizations with share capital. I am looking forward to a fruitful discussion and meeting this Thursday. Best wishes, Kim On 26 Oct 2010, at 17:32, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: > I echo Bill's sentiments. Definition of how we go about evaluating ICANN's enforcement of the WHOIS policy should be our first priority. > > Kathy, I personally very much appreciate your willingness to take on the monumental job as chairperson but I personally would like to have a clear picture of the work we will be doing in this group before we set up our internal structure. > > As a group what do we expect of the chairperson? This is crucial to discuss as the role of chair will be very important in guiding how this team works together. I think we should establish ground rules and guidelines on what is expected of the chairperson before we decide on an individual. > > In other groups the chairperson's responsibilities have been described as follows: > > "The purpose of a Chair is to call meetings, preside over working group deliberations, manage the process so that all participants have the opportunity to contribute, and report the results of the Working Group to the Chartering Organization. " > > "Qualities of the Chair > The main concern of the chair should be the aims and objectives of the group and the integrity of the meeting process. There follows a brief description of the personal qualities that a good chair should possess. > > Authority > The chair will need to maintain control to ensure that progress is made in line with the schedule - as defined in the agenda. > > Flexibility > Following an agenda does not always imply unquestioning devotion to it. For example, if an unplanned deviation could produce a clarification or the bonding together of meeting participants, then this might represent a very effective strategy. > > Impartiality > It is important that the chair supports an equal and fair consideration of all sides of the argument. This can be especially difficult where the chair is privately on one side of the debate. > > Maturity > The chair must be able to accept and work with a broad cross section of personalities. They should view each meeting without too much preconception as to how individuals will act and react, but be able to respond as the need arises. " > > You all may be thinking, "Of course, that is what we expect" but I would feel more comfortable discussing the role and coming to consensus. The WRT has many diverse view points and experiences. Consensus building, transparency and neutrality will be key in the role of the chair and the group should make a conscious decision on what we expect of the chairperson. > > I am also somewhat concerned that the first two ICANN review teams will be chaired by representatives of the Registry stakeholders group. We should consider spreading the work to other constituencies. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:24 AM > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > It is heartening to see both the interest in and support for the proposed candidates for Chair and Vice-Chair. I am encouraged by the activity on the list and hope that we continue to use email as an important means of progressing our work. In my experience, collaborative/collegial use of email can significantly enhance the work of groups between telephonic or face-to-face meetings; especially when those groups are "geographically challenged". It facilitates discussion of important topics between meetings frequently enabling both more informed and faster decision making. > > With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that we may have the cart before the horse in our discussions/decisions with respect to a Chair and Vice-Chair. I believe that it is imperative that we all understand, and agree to, both what we are working on and how we will perform the work, before we formally select a Chair, and if necessary a Vice-Chair. Establishing a charter prior to formally selecting a chair is common practice at many organizations that have well-established processes, e.g. OASIS, W3C, and IETF. I believe we would be well-served to follow their model. > > Let me be clear that this is a *process* issue, not a personality issue. I believe the proposed candidates are well-qualified and further believe it is likely that they will be selected. However, before we take that action, it is important that we understand the scope of our work, and the rules that we will adhere to. > > Fortunately, the AOC establishes a clear basis for our work. Using the language from the AOC, minimally adapted for the purpose of defining a scope, I suggest that our scope is: > > ________________________________ > To assess the extent to which existing WHOIS policy and its implementation: > > * is effective, > * meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, and > * promotes consumer trust. > > This assessment will include an analysis and determination of ICANN's performance against the AOC requirement that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information. > > ________________________________ > > For process, we have the A&T Review Team's Terms of Reference Methodology that can serve as a basis for us and I suggest we use that as appropriate for our needs. I would also suggest that for anything beyond the specifics we might lay out in out ToR, we use Roberts Rules as our process document. It has proven effective in any number of situations and allows us to have well-established processes without the need to define, debate, and agree on them. > > Finally, I think we should take Rod Beckstrom up on his kind offer to serve as chair and facilitator, and to do so until we can agree on what our charter is and how we will go about our work. > > (A simple example of the types of process decisions we might need to make is related to Wilfried's note - do we allow proxies? Or absentee voting? If we do, how do we determine if quorum is established?) > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] >> On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet >> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:52 AM >> To: Olivier ITEANU >> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review >> Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair >> >> Dear Team! >> >> Olivier ITEANU wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Dear All, >>> Considering that I am very new in the Icann process (I was part of it >>> in 2001), I do not know personally Kathy and Emily >> >> Nor do I, actually I don't think that I have "conciously" met anyone >> in the team before. Thus I do not feel in a position to suggest any >> individual for this position. >> >>> but it seems that >>> many of you know each others and know them: if there is a consensus >>> on them, that's fine for me, Kathy and Emily seem very competent for >>> the job. >> >> Nevertheless I am fine with the 2 ladies being nominated already. >> >>> However, if there is another candidate, I think that we need an >>> urgent coming out ! >>> Olivier >> >> As there's only a slim chance that I can call in (and if at all, from >> my mobile phone in listening mode because I will be on a train), I'd >> like to submit my support for Kathy and Emily to serve as chairs of the >> team. >> >>> Olivier ITEANU - mailto:oiteanu at iteanu.com >> >> Best regards, >> Wilfried. >> _______________________________________________ >> Rt4-whois mailing list >> Rt4-whois at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Wed Oct 27 17:58:40 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:58:40 -0600 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair In-Reply-To: <320DE99D-CC53-405E-BC63-3007CA695678@vonarx.ca> References: <4CC6C1CB.1131.188FA719@oiteanu.iteanu.com> <4CC6F912.2070205@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661A109214D@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> <320DE99D-CC53-405E-BC63-3007CA695678@vonarx.ca> Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661A1125626@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Some quick points: 1. Internal structure, process, rules, etc. can be a simple task, provided we adopt a commonly used model. However, if our intention is otherwise, we could devote a significant amount of time to that task (I have personal experience with this). I would prefer that we spend our time on the task at hand, an assessment, and it is for this reason that I proposed both Robert's Rules and a draft scope. 2. We did agree to solicit nominations. We also agreed to continue the discussion on the items in the first agenda, including Terms of Reference. We further agreed that we would continue working on these until they were resolved, whether in one, two, or more weeks. I don't recall that we agreed to a specific sequencing of these items and assumed that we would work on them in parallel, where practical. It seems quite reasonable to me to begin discussions on our Terms of Reference, as a means of expediting our work, *and* to better understand each other and how we might work together. 3. I see no issue with Rod continuing to lead us as we define our Terms of Reference. I believe he was particularly effective during last week's call and expect he would be similarly effective as we discuss terms of reference, etc. Should his stewardship become problematic, and I do *not* envision that, we could always elect a chair at that time. 4. I too support Susan's comments re qualities. However, I have limited experience with the members of this Review Team and as a consequence, would benefit from seeing the group interact more before I consider selecting a chair. 5. I took Susan's chair constituency statement as a comment on the multi-stakeholder nature of ICANN. I share her (somewhat) concern and support her suggestion that we consider "diversity" when making decisions/assignments. That seems to be in keeping with ICANN's general approach to filling positions. I did *not* take her comments in any way as a personal statement about either nominee. 6. Robert's Rules is designed for "Deliberative Assemblies" like ours. It is used by numerous societies and organizations to bring a common sense order to their proceedings and importantly, to protect the rights of the individual in such bodies. I find several references to its use within ICANN, including the Registrar Stakeholder Group, and the GNSO Council (for voting). In addition, ARIN, ISOC, IEEE, OASIS, use Robert's Rules. (While Robert's might be the standard in share capital organizations, in my experience it is also the standard at societies, associations, etc. I admit my ignorance with Wainberg's but some quick Internet searches does not reveal significant use - in my opinion.) We also have other administrative issues to consider; like proxies, alternate representation, decision making (presumably consensus), how will we define consensus, ... > -----Original Message----- > From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:11 PM > To: Susan Kawaguchi > Cc: Smith, Bill; rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review > Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > All: > > Thanks to Bill and Susan for valuable procedural points. I just would > like to add a few comments. > > 1. I believe that the internal structure is one of the most simple > tasks for this group to undertake and we should spend as little time as > possible on those aspects. > > 2. In line with the above, I thought that the roles and > responsibilities of the Chair (and if applicable the Vice-chair) would > be a discussion we would have prior to the vote and, if applicable, > prior to any further nominations. Indeed, the nomination emails were > just that - nominations and we had all agreed in our last call that we > would nominate and/or self-nominate people we think are suitable > candidates. Therefore, I was under the impression that the upcoming > phone call's main objective was to figure out the administrative > details with respect to the role, responsibility of the Chair and, of > course, the election of the Chair. If we fail to finalize those > details in our next call then, I had proposed, we would have another > call the following week until we have finalized the administrative > details including our terms of reference (the latter is not an internal > structure issue, but a substantive matter that will need significant > input and discussion). > > 3. I believe that it is important that we appoint a person from our > group to lead the discussion and us to the appropriate terms of > reference for this RT and I find it somewhat counter intuitive to have > Rod Beckstrom lead that discussion considering that we are supposed to > conduct some kind of review of a policy of ICANN and its ability to > enforce the same. > > 4. I believe that Susan's comments with regards to the roles and > responsibilities of the Chair are absolutely accurate and I believe > that both, Kathy and Emily, have shown over and over again that they > have all those qualities. > > 5. I don't believe that the fact that both nominees come from the > registry constituency is a concern considering that, I believe, both > nominees, have shown a lot of impartiality and integrity over the many > years they have dealt with very sensitive Internet policy issues > including the WHOIS issues under the ICANN regime and the UK (European > Union) framework. > > 6. With respect to process issues and rules of order, I suggest that we > should take ICANN's by-law as the framework considering that we are a > sub-creature of ICANN. Also, I propose that we use Wainberg's rules of > order instead of Robert's Rules. The former is specifically designed > for societies, associations, not for profits, etc. and is the standard > for those kind of organizations. Whereas the latter is the standard > for organizations with share capital. > > I am looking forward to a fruitful discussion and meeting this > Thursday. > > Best wishes, > > Kim > > > > > > On 26 Oct 2010, at 17:32, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: > > > I echo Bill's sentiments. Definition of how we go about evaluating > ICANN's enforcement of the WHOIS policy should be our first priority. > > > > Kathy, I personally very much appreciate your willingness to take on > the monumental job as chairperson but I personally would like to have a > clear picture of the work we will be doing in this group before we set > up our internal structure. > > > > As a group what do we expect of the chairperson? This is crucial to > discuss as the role of chair will be very important in guiding how this > team works together. I think we should establish ground rules and > guidelines on what is expected of the chairperson before we decide on > an individual. > > > > In other groups the chairperson's responsibilities have been > described as follows: > > > > "The purpose of a Chair is to call meetings, preside over working > group deliberations, manage the process so that all participants have > the opportunity to contribute, and report the results of the Working > Group to the Chartering Organization. " > > > > "Qualities of the Chair > > The main concern of the chair should be the aims and objectives of > the group and the integrity of the meeting process. There follows a > brief description of the personal qualities that a good chair should > possess. > > > > Authority > > The chair will need to maintain control to ensure that progress is > made in line with the schedule - as defined in the agenda. > > > > Flexibility > > Following an agenda does not always imply unquestioning devotion to > it. For example, if an unplanned deviation could produce a > clarification or the bonding together of meeting participants, then > this might represent a very effective strategy. > > > > Impartiality > > It is important that the chair supports an equal and fair > consideration of all sides of the argument. This can be especially > difficult where the chair is privately on one side of the debate. > > > > Maturity > > The chair must be able to accept and work with a broad cross section > of personalities. They should view each meeting without too much > preconception as to how individuals will act and react, but be able to > respond as the need arises. " > > > > You all may be thinking, "Of course, that is what we expect" but I > would feel more comfortable discussing the role and coming to > consensus. The WRT has many diverse view points and experiences. > Consensus building, transparency and neutrality will be key in the role > of the chair and the group should make a conscious decision on what we > expect of the chairperson. > > > > I am also somewhat concerned that the first two ICANN review teams > will be chaired by representatives of the Registry stakeholders group. > We should consider spreading the work to other constituencies. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill > > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:24 AM > > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS > Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > > > It is heartening to see both the interest in and support for the > proposed candidates for Chair and Vice-Chair. I am encouraged by the > activity on the list and hope that we continue to use email as an > important means of progressing our work. In my experience, > collaborative/collegial use of email can significantly enhance the work > of groups between telephonic or face-to-face meetings; especially when > those groups are "geographically challenged". It facilitates discussion > of important topics between meetings frequently enabling both more > informed and faster decision making. > > > > With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that we may have the cart > before the horse in our discussions/decisions with respect to a Chair > and Vice-Chair. I believe that it is imperative that we all understand, > and agree to, both what we are working on and how we will perform the > work, before we formally select a Chair, and if necessary a Vice-Chair. > Establishing a charter prior to formally selecting a chair is common > practice at many organizations that have well-established processes, > e.g. OASIS, W3C, and IETF. I believe we would be well-served to follow > their model. > > > > Let me be clear that this is a *process* issue, not a personality > issue. I believe the proposed candidates are well-qualified and further > believe it is likely that they will be selected. However, before we > take that action, it is important that we understand the scope of our > work, and the rules that we will adhere to. > > > > Fortunately, the AOC establishes a clear basis for our work. Using > the language from the AOC, minimally adapted for the purpose of > defining a scope, I suggest that our scope is: > > > > ________________________________ > > To assess the extent to which existing WHOIS policy and its > implementation: > > > > * is effective, > > * meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, and > > * promotes consumer trust. > > > > This assessment will include an analysis and determination of ICANN's > performance against the AOC requirement that ICANN implement measures > to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and > complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, > and administrative contact information. > > > > ________________________________ > > > > For process, we have the A&T Review Team's Terms of Reference > Methodology that can serve as a basis for us and I suggest we use that > as appropriate for our needs. I would also suggest that for anything > beyond the specifics we might lay out in out ToR, we use Roberts Rules > as our process document. It has proven effective in any number of > situations and allows us to have well-established processes without the > need to define, debate, and agree on them. > > > > Finally, I think we should take Rod Beckstrom up on his kind offer to > serve as chair and facilitator, and to do so until we can agree on what > our charter is and how we will go about our work. > > > > (A simple example of the types of process decisions we might need to > make is related to Wilfried's note - do we allow proxies? Or absentee > voting? If we do, how do we determine if quorum is established?) > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > bounces at icann.org] > >> On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:52 AM > >> To: Olivier ITEANU > >> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS > Review > >> Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > >> > >> Dear Team! > >> > >> Olivier ITEANU wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear All, > >>> Considering that I am very new in the Icann process (I was part of > it > >>> in 2001), I do not know personally Kathy and Emily > >> > >> Nor do I, actually I don't think that I have "conciously" met anyone > >> in the team before. Thus I do not feel in a position to suggest any > >> individual for this position. > >> > >>> but it seems that > >>> many of you know each others and know them: if there is a consensus > >>> on them, that's fine for me, Kathy and Emily seem very competent > for > >>> the job. > >> > >> Nevertheless I am fine with the 2 ladies being nominated already. > >> > >>> However, if there is another candidate, I think that we need an > >>> urgent coming out ! > >>> Olivier > >> > >> As there's only a slim chance that I can call in (and if at all, > from > >> my mobile phone in listening mode because I will be on a train), I'd > >> like to submit my support for Kathy and Emily to serve as chairs of > the > >> team. > >> > >>> Olivier ITEANU - mailto:oiteanu at iteanu.com > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Wilfried. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Rt4-whois mailing list > >> Rt4-whois at icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rt4-whois mailing list > > Rt4-whois at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rt4-whois mailing list > > Rt4-whois at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Wed Oct 27 19:24:26 2010 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:24:26 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair Message-ID: <20101027122426.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.78f76b4012.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101027/d0efc96f/attachment.html From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Wed Oct 27 20:42:46 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:42:46 -0600 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair In-Reply-To: <20101027122426.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.78f76b4012.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> References: <20101027122426.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.78f76b4012.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661A11257FB@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> I too believe that the purpose and scope of our work has been determined; it is specified in the AOC. I did my best to take that language, and with minimal change turn it into a scope suitable for inclusion in a charter or Terms of Reference. I proposed it to the group and have seen no discussion on the proposal. Perhaps this is because everyone agrees with it. If not, it would be good to see some discussion on the subject. I am confident that all of us are qualified to hold any of a variety of positions in groups such as this. I too am grateful that we have volunteers for important positions since it can be difficult to find people to step up to additional work. Their willingness to do so speaks highly of their desire to advance the agenda of this group. However, we do not have agreed to Terms of Reference and as a consequence, our ?agenda? is as yet undecided. Can our work be done in a relaxed atmosphere? Absolutely. Should it be done in an ad hoc fashion without a clear understanding of what our work is and how we will perform it? Definitely not. That would be in opposition to ICANN?s stated goals with respect to transparency and accountability. It is entirely possible that we can easily determine the scope of our work. It is also possible that we will quickly and easily determine how we will work (process, procedures, etc.). However, I think it equally possible that we will find some disagreement in these areas and can learn a great deal by observing how we work together and overcome differences. In so doing, we will become better acquainted with each other, learn our strengths and weaknesses, and make better informed decisions. What is the downside in this proposal? We are led by Rod Beckstrom for a short period of time while we discuss our work and how we will accomplish it. I for one would like answers to those questions, and I know of no way to obtain them than to have the discussions. One final observation, I am certain that Rod would let us know if we were imposing on him. From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com [mailto:lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 12:24 PM To: Smith, Bill Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair Believe I have a different perspective. I had thought that the relatively small size of our team would permit us to be a bit more relaxed. It also seemed to me that the purpose and scope of our work had already been determined and was included in the Call for Applicants, so we do not need to invest time and energy along those lines. Finally, we all submitted a CV and a Statement of Interest so it is clear that everyone is well qualified to participate. We had the additional opportunity of introducing ourselves in last week's call. Although I am not personally acquainted with the rest of the team, I was comfortable with the information available to support the proposed nominations. I have been in some groups where no one wants to take the Chair because of the additional work required so I am grateful that we have two team members willing to step up for Chair and Vice-Chair. It is wonderful to have Rod Beckstrom engaged and highly supportive of this effort so we should be sensitive not to unduly impose on him. -Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair From: "Smith, Bill" > Date: Wed, October 27, 2010 1:58 pm To: "Kim G. von Arx" >, Susan Kawaguchi > Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" > Some quick points: 1. Internal structure, process, rules, etc. can be a simple task, provided we adopt a commonly used model. However, if our intention is otherwise, we could devote a significant amount of time to that task (I have personal experience with this). I would prefer that we spend our time on the task at hand, an assessment, and it is for this reason that I proposed both Robert's Rules and a draft scope. 2. We did agree to solicit nominations. We also agreed to continue the discussion on the items in the first agenda, including Terms of Reference. We further agreed that we would continue working on these until they were resolved, whether in one, two, or more weeks. I don't recall that we agreed to a specific sequencing of these items and assumed that we would work on them in parallel, where practical. It seems quite reasonable to me to begin discussions on our Terms of Reference, as a means of expediting our work, *and* to better understand each other and how we might work together. 3. I see no issue with Rod continuing to lead us as we define our Terms of Reference. I believe he was particularly effective during last week's call and expect he would be similarly effective as we discuss terms of reference, etc. Should his stewardship become problematic, and I do *not* envision that, we could always elect a chair at that time. 4. I too support Susan's comments re qualities. However, I have limited experience with the members of this Review Team and as a consequence, would benefit from seeing the group interact more before I consider selecting a chair. 5. I took Susan's chair constituency statement as a comment on the multi-stakeholder nature of ICANN. I share her (somewhat) concern and support her suggestion that we consider "diversity" when making decisions/assignments. That seems to be in keeping with ICANN's general approach to filling positions. I did *not* take her comments in any way as a personal statement about either nominee. 6. Robert's Rules is designed for "Deliberative Assemblies" like ours. It is used by numerous societies and organizations to bring a common sense order to their proceedings and importantly, to protect the rights of the individual in such bodies. I find several references to its use within ICANN, including the Registrar Stakeholder Group, and the GNSO Council (for voting). In addition, ARIN, ISOC, IEEE, OASIS, use Robert's Rules. (While Robert's might be the standard in share capital organizations, in my experience it is also the standard at societies, associations, etc. I admit my ignorance with Wainberg's but some quick Internet searches does not reveal significant use - in my opinion.) We also have other administrative issues to consider; like proxies, alternate representation, decision making (presumably consensus), how will we define consensus, ... > -----Original Message----- > From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:11 PM > To: Susan Kawaguchi > Cc: Smith, Bill; rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review > Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > All: > > Thanks to Bill and Susan for valuable procedural points. I just would > like to add a few comments. > > 1. I believe that the internal structure is one of the most simple > tasks for this group to undertake and we should spend as little time as > possible on those aspects. > > 2. In line with the above, I thought that the roles and > responsibilities of the Chair (and if applicable the Vice-chair) would > be a discussion we would have prior to the vote and, if applicable, > prior to any further nominations. Indeed, the nomination emails were > just that - nominations and we had all agreed in our last call that we > would nominate and/or self-nominate people we think are suitable > candidates. Therefore, I was under the impression that the upcoming > phone call's main objective was to figure out the administrative > details with respect to the role, responsibility of the Chair and, of > course, the election of the Chair. If we fail to finalize those > details in our next call then, I had proposed, we would have another > call the following week until we have finalized the administrative > details including our terms of reference (the latter is not an internal > structure issue, but a substantive matter that will need significant > input and discussion). > > 3. I believe that it is important that we appoint a person from our > group to lead the discussion and us to the appropriate terms of > reference for this RT and I find it somewhat counter intuitive to have > Rod Beckstrom lead that discussion considering that we are supposed to > conduct some kind of review of a policy of ICANN and its ability to > enforce the same. > > 4. I believe that Susan's comments with regards to the roles and > responsibilities of the Chair are absolutely accurate and I believe > that both, Kathy and Emily, have shown over and over again that they > have all those qualities. > > 5. I don't believe that the fact that both nominees come from the > registry constituency is a concern considering that, I believe, both > nominees, have shown a lot of impartiality and integrity over the many > years they have dealt with very sensitive Internet policy issues > including the WHOIS issues under the ICANN regime and the UK (European > Union) framework. > > 6. With respect to process issues and rules of order, I suggest that we > should take ICANN's by-law as the framework considering that we are a > sub-creature of ICANN. Also, I propose that we use Wainberg's rules of > order instead of Robert's Rules. The former is specifically designed > for societies, associations, not for profits, etc. and is the standard > for those kind of organizations. Whereas the latter is the standard > for organizations with share capital. > > I am looking forward to a fruitful discussion and meeting this > Thursday. > > Best wishes, > > Kim > > > > > > On 26 Oct 2010, at 17:32, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: > > > I echo Bill's sentiments. Definition of how we go about evaluating > ICANN's enforcement of the WHOIS policy should be our first priority. > > > > Kathy, I personally very much appreciate your willingness to take on > the monumental job as chairperson but I personally would like to have a > clear picture of the work we will be doing in this group before we set > up our internal structure. > > > > As a group what do we expect of the chairperson? This is crucial to > discuss as the role of chair will be very important in guiding how this > team works together. I think we should establish ground rules and > guidelines on what is expected of the chairperson before we decide on > an individual. > > > > In other groups the chairperson's responsibilities have been > described as follows: > > > > "The purpose of a Chair is to call meetings, preside over working > group deliberations, manage the process so that all participants have > the opportunity to contribute, and report the results of the Working > Group to the Chartering Organization. " > > > > "Qualities of the Chair > > The main concern of the chair should be the aims and objectives of > the group and the integrity of the meeting process. There follows a > brief description of the personal qualities that a good chair should > possess. > > > > Authority > > The chair will need to maintain control to ensure that progress is > made in line with the schedule - as defined in the agenda. > > > > Flexibility > > Following an agenda does not always imply unquestioning devotion to > it. For example, if an unplanned deviation could produce a > clarification or the bonding together of meeting participants, then > this might represent a very effective strategy. > > > > Impartiality > > It is important that the chair supports an equal and fair > consideration of all sides of the argument. This can be especially > difficult where the chair is privately on one side of the debate. > > > > Maturity > > The chair must be able to accept and work with a broad cross section > of personalities. They should view each meeting without too much > preconception as to how individuals will act and react, but be able to > respond as the need arises. " > > > > You all may be thinking, "Of course, that is what we expect" but I > would feel more comfortable discussing the role and coming to > consensus. The WRT has many diverse view points and experiences. > Consensus building, transparency and neutrality will be key in the role > of the chair and the group should make a conscious decision on what we > expect of the chairperson. > > > > I am also somewhat concerned that the first two ICANN review teams > will be chaired by representatives of the Registry stakeholders group. > We should consider spreading the work to other constituencies. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill > > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:24 AM > > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS > Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > > > It is heartening to see both the interest in and support for the > proposed candidates for Chair and Vice-Chair. I am encouraged by the > activity on the list and hope that we continue to use email as an > important means of progressing our work. In my experience, > collaborative/collegial use of email can significantly enhance the work > of groups between telephonic or face-to-face meetings; especially when > those groups are "geographically challenged". It facilitates discussion > of important topics between meetings frequently enabling both more > informed and faster decision making. > > > > With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that we may have the cart > before the horse in our discussions/decisions with respect to a Chair > and Vice-Chair. I believe that it is imperative that we all understand, > and agree to, both what we are working on and how we will perform the > work, before we formally select a Chair, and if necessary a Vice-Chair. > Establishing a charter prior to formally selecting a chair is common > practice at many organizations that have well-established processes, > e.g. OASIS, W3C, and IETF. I believe we would be well-served to follow > their model. > > > > Let me be clear that this is a *process* issue, not a personality > issue. I believe the proposed candidates are well-qualified and further > believe it is likely that they will be selected. However, before we > take that action, it is important that we understand the scope of our > work, and the rules that we will adhere to. > > > > Fortunately, the AOC establishes a clear basis for our work. Using > the language from the AOC, minimally adapted for the purpose of > defining a scope, I suggest that our scope is: > > > > ________________________________ > > To assess the extent to which existing WHOIS policy and its > implementation: > > > > * is effective, > > * meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, and > > * promotes consumer trust. > > > > This assessment will include an analysis and determination of ICANN's > performance against the AOC requirement that ICANN implement measures > to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and > complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, > and administrative contact information. > > > > ________________________________ > > > > For process, we have the A&T Review Team's Terms of Reference > Methodology that can serve as a basis for us and I suggest we use that > as appropriate for our needs. I would also suggest that for anything > beyond the specifics we might lay out in out ToR, we use Roberts Rules > as our process document. It has proven effective in any number of > situations and allows us to have well-established processes without the > need to define, debate, and agree on them. > > > > Finally, I think we should take Rod Beckstrom up on his kind offer to > serve as chair and facilitator, and to do so until we can agree on what > our charter is and how we will go about our work. > > > > (A simple example of the types of process decisions we might need to > make is related to Wilfried's note - do we allow proxies? Or absentee > voting? If we do, how do we determine if quorum is established?) > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > bounces at icann.org] > >> On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:52 AM > >> To: Olivier ITEANU > >> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS > Review > >> Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > >> > >> Dear Team! > >> > >> Olivier ITEANU wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear All, > >>> Considering that I am very new in the Icann process (I was part of > it > >>> in 2001), I do not know personally Kathy and Emily > >> > >> Nor do I, actually I don't think that I have "conciously" met anyone > >> in the team before. Thus I do not feel in a position to suggest any > >> individual for this position. > >> > >>> but it seems that > >>> many of you know each others and know them: if there is a consensus > >>> on them, that's fine for me, Kathy and Emily seem very competent > for > >>> the job. > >> > >> Nevertheless I am fine with the 2 ladies being nominated already. > >> > >>> However, if there is another candidate, I think that we need an > >>> urgent coming out ! > >>> Olivier > >> > >> As there's only a slim chance that I can call in (and if at all, > from > >> my mobile phone in listening mode because I will be on a train), I'd > >> like to submit my support for Kathy and Emily to serve as chairs of > the > >> team. > >> > >>> Olivier ITEANU - mailto:oiteanu at iteanu.com > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Wilfried. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Rt4-whois mailing list > >> Rt4-whois at icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rt4-whois mailing list > > Rt4-whois at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rt4-whois mailing list > > Rt4-whois at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101027/37411152/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Wed Oct 27 20:51:25 2010 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:51:25 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair Message-ID: <20101027135125.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.c069dc126b.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101027/38a30cdd/attachment.html From kKleiman at pir.org Thu Oct 28 02:32:07 2010 From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 22:32:07 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] [renamed] next steps In-Reply-To: <20101027122426.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.78f76b4012.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> References: <20101027122426.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.78f76b4012.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Dear All, This is a fascinating discussion, and I wanted to share my sense of the steps ahead. It seems to me the most important thing we can establish now is a rapport ? an ability to talk and work with each. We have many complex issues to cover in the months ahead, and I believe the atmosphere we establish now is key and should include: the opportunity for all to participate, for all to consider issues, for all to be heard. Together we can establish an atmosphere of trust, and respect. I talked with Brian Cute, Chairman of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT), and he shared with me three interesting pieces of information: his sense of the role of Chair, the Conflict of Interest Policy the ATRT agreed to, and the Principles the ATRT adopted to guide its work. These documents are not binding on us, but I share them as examples, as ideas: 1. A Chairman Brian had a nice way of phrasing the role of Chairman: - Keeps the trains running on time; - Helps work be properly structured; - Allows and enables a full and fair hearing for all members to comment; - Makes sure work is done; and - Works to identify agreement and disagreement so that it can be documented and become part of the record ? to allow all to weigh in and comment. 2. Conflict of Interest Policy Establishing a Conflicts of Interest Policy was a key early of the ATRT (and theirs is attached). They wanted ?to ensure that the deliberations, decisions, and work product of the RT? were ?objective, fair, and made in the interests of the global Internet community as a whole.? 3. Principles Early on the ATRT created principles for their work, and these are also attached. I know Brian would be happy to take questions. I look forward to our important discussions ahead. All the best, Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy .ORG The Public Interest Registry Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846 Visit us online! Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:24 PM To: Smith,Bill Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair Believe I have a different perspective. I had thought that the relatively small size of our team would permit us to be a bit more relaxed. It also seemed to me that the purpose and scope of our work had already been determined and was included in the Call for Applicants, so we do not need to invest time and energy along those lines. Finally, we all submitted a CV and a Statement of Interest so it is clear that everyone is well qualified to participate. We had the additional opportunity of introducing ourselves in last week's call. Although I am not personally acquainted with the rest of the team, I was comfortable with the information available to support the proposed nominations. I have been in some groups where no one wants to take the Chair because of the additional work required so I am grateful that we have two team members willing to step up for Chair and Vice-Chair. It is wonderful to have Rod Beckstrom engaged and highly supportive of this effort so we should be sensitive not to unduly impose on him. -Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair From: "Smith, Bill" Date: Wed, October 27, 2010 1:58 pm To: "Kim G. von Arx" , Susan Kawaguchi Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" Some quick points: 1. Internal structure, process, rules, etc. can be a simple task, provided we adopt a commonly used model. However, if our intention is otherwise, we could devote a significant amount of time to that task (I have personal experience with this). I would prefer that we spend our time on the task at hand, an assessment, and it is for this reason that I proposed both Robert's Rules and a draft scope. 2. We did agree to solicit nominations. We also agreed to continue the discussion on the items in the first agenda, including Terms of Reference. We further agreed that we would continue working on these until they were resolved, whether in one, two, or more weeks. I don't recall that we agreed to a specific sequencing of these items and assumed that we would work on them in parallel, where practical. It seems quite reasonable to me to begin discussions on our Terms of Reference, as a means of expediting our work, *and* to better understand each other and how we might work together. 3. I see no issue with Rod continuing to lead us as we define our Terms of Reference. I believe he was particularly effective during last week's call and expect he would be similarly effective as we discuss terms of reference, etc. Should his stewardship become problematic, and I do *not* envision that, we could always elect a chair at that time. 4. I too support Susan's comments re qualities. However, I have limited experience with the members of this Review Team and as a consequence, would benefit from seeing the group interact more before I consider selecting a chair. 5. I took Susan's chair constituency statement as a comment on the multi-stakeholder nature of ICANN. I share her (somewhat) concern and support her suggestion that we consider "diversity" when making decisions/assignments. That seems to be in keeping with ICANN's general approach to filling positions. I did *not* take her comments in any way as a personal statement about either nominee. 6. Robert's Rules is designed for "Deliberative Assemblies" like ours. It is used by numerous societies and organizations to bring a common sense order to their proceedings and importantly, to protect the rights of the individual in such bodies. I find several references to its use within ICANN, including the Registrar Stakeholder Group, and the GNSO Council (for voting). In addition, ARIN, ISOC, IEEE, OASIS, use Robert's Rules. (While Robert's might be the standard in share capital organizations, in my experience it is also the standard at societies, associations, etc. I admit my ignorance with Wainberg's but some quick Internet searches does not reveal significant use - in my opinion.) We also have other administrative issues to consider; like proxies, alternate representation, decision making (presumably consensus), how will we define consensus, ... > -----Original Message----- > From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:11 PM > To: Susan Kawaguchi > Cc: Smith, Bill; rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review > Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > All: > > Thanks to Bill and Susan for valuable procedural points. I just would > like to add a few comments. > > 1. I believe that the internal structure is one of the most simple > tasks for this group to undertake and we should spend as little time as > possible on those aspects. > > 2. In line with the above, I thought that the roles and > responsibilities of the Chair (and if applicable the Vice-chair) would > be a discussion we would have prior to the vote and, if applicable, > prior to any further nominations. Indeed, the nomination emails were > just that - nominations and we had all agreed in our last call that we > would nominate and/or self-nominate people we think are suitable > candidates. Therefore, I was under the impression that the upcoming > phone call's main objective was to figure out the administrative > details with respect to the role, responsibility of the Chair and, of > course, the election of the Chair. If we fail to finalize those > details in our next call then, I had proposed, we would have another > call the following week until we have finalized the administrative > details including our terms of reference (the latter is not an internal > structure issue, but a substantive matter that will need significant > input and discussion). > > 3. I believe that it is important that we appoint a person from our > group to lead the discussion and us to the appropriate terms of > reference for this RT and I find it somewhat counter intuitive to have > Rod Beckstrom lead that discussion considering that we are supposed to > conduct some kind of review of a policy of ICANN and its ability to > enforce the same. > > 4. I believe that Susan's comments with regards to the roles and > responsibilities of the Chair are absolutely accurate and I believe > that both, Kathy and Emily, have shown over and over again that they > have all those qualities. > > 5. I don't believe that the fact that both nominees come from the > registry constituency is a concern considering that, I believe, both > nominees, have shown a lot of impartiality and integrity over the many > years they have dealt with very sensitive Internet policy issues > including the WHOIS issues under the ICANN regime and the UK (European > Union) framework. > > 6. With respect to process issues and rules of order, I suggest that we > should take ICANN's by-law as the framework considering that we are a > sub-creature of ICANN. Also, I propose that we use Wainberg's rules of > order instead of Robert's Rules. The former is specifically designed > for societies, associations, not for profits, etc. and is the standard > for those kind of organizations. Whereas the latter is the standard > for organizations with share capital. > > I am looking forward to a fruitful discussion and meeting this > Thursday. > > Best wishes, > > Kim > > > > > > On 26 Oct 2010, at 17:32, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: > > > I echo Bill's sentiments. Definition of how we go about evaluating > ICANN's enforcement of the WHOIS policy should be our first priority. > > > > Kathy, I personally very much appreciate your willingness to take on > the monumental job as chairperson but I personally would like to have a > clear picture of the work we will be doing in this group before we set > up our internal structure. > > > > As a group what do we expect of the chairperson? This is crucial to > discuss as the role of chair will be very important in guiding how this > team works together. I think we should establish ground rules and > guidelines on what is expected of the chairperson before we decide on > an individual. > > > > In other groups the chairperson's responsibilities have been > described as follows: > > > > "The purpose of a Chair is to call meetings, preside over working > group deliberations, manage the process so that all participants have > the opportunity to contribute, and report the results of the Working > Group to the Chartering Organization. " > > > > "Qualities of the Chair > > The main concern of the chair should be the aims and objectives of > the group and the integrity of the meeting process. There follows a > brief description of the personal qualities that a good chair should > possess. > > > > Authority > > The chair will need to maintain control to ensure that progress is > made in line with the schedule - as defined in the agenda. > > > > Flexibility > > Following an agenda does not always imply unquestioning devotion to > it. For example, if an unplanned deviation could produce a > clarification or the bonding together of meeting participants, then > this might represent a very effective strategy. > > > > Impartiality > > It is important that the chair supports an equal and fair > consideration of all sides of the argument. This can be especially > difficult where the chair is privately on one side of the debate. > > > > Maturity > > The chair must be able to accept and work with a broad cross section > of personalities. They should view each meeting without too much > preconception as to how individuals will act and react, but be able to > respond as the need arises. " > > > > You all may be thinking, "Of course, that is what we expect" but I > would feel more comfortable discussing the role and coming to > consensus. The WRT has many diverse view points and experiences. > Consensus building, transparency and neutrality will be key in the role > of the chair and the group should make a conscious decision on what we > expect of the chairperson. > > > > I am also somewhat concerned that the first two ICANN review teams > will be chaired by representatives of the Registry stakeholders group. > We should consider spreading the work to other constituencies. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill > > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:24 AM > > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS > Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > > > It is heartening to see both the interest in and support for the > proposed candidates for Chair and Vice-Chair. I am encouraged by the > activity on the list and hope that we continue to use email as an > important means of progressing our work. In my experience, > collaborative/collegial use of email can significantly enhance the work > of groups between telephonic or face-to-face meetings; especially when > those groups are "geographically challenged". It facilitates discussion > of important topics between meetings frequently enabling both more > informed and faster decision making. > > > > With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that we may have the cart > before the horse in our discussions/decisions with respect to a Chair > and Vice-Chair. I believe that it is imperative that we all understand, > and agree to, both what we are working on and how we will perform the > work, before we formally select a Chair, and if necessary a Vice-Chair. > Establishing a charter prior to formally selecting a chair is common > practice at many organizations that have well-established processes, > e.g. OASIS, W3C, and IETF. I believe we would be well-served to follow > their model. > > > > Let me be clear that this is a *process* issue, not a personality > issue. I believe the proposed candidates are well-qualified and further > believe it is likely that they will be selected. However, before we > take that action, it is important that we understand the scope of our > work, and the rules that we will adhere to. > > > > Fortunately, the AOC establishes a clear basis for our work. Using > the language from the AOC, minimally adapted for the purpose of > defining a scope, I suggest that our scope is: > > > > ________________________________ > > To assess the extent to which existing WHOIS policy and its > implementation: > > > > * is effective, > > * meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, and > > * promotes consumer trust. > > > > This assessment will include an analysis and determination of ICANN's > performance against the AOC requirement that ICANN implement measures > to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and > complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, > and administrative contact information. > > > > ________________________________ > > > > For process, we have the A&T Review Team's Terms of Reference > Methodology that can serve as a basis for us and I suggest we use that > as appropriate for our needs. I would also suggest that for anything > beyond the specifics we might lay out in out ToR, we use Roberts Rules > as our process document. It has proven effective in any number of > situations and allows us to have well-established processes without the > need to define, debate, and agree on them. > > > > Finally, I think we should take Rod Beckstrom up on his kind offer to > serve as chair and facilitator, and to do so until we can agree on what > our charter is and how we will go about our work. > > > > (A simple example of the types of process decisions we might need to > make is related to Wilfried's note - do we allow proxies? Or absentee > voting? If we do, how do we determine if quorum is established?) > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > bounces at icann.org] > >> On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:52 AM > >> To: Olivier ITEANU > >> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS > Review > >> Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > >> > >> Dear Team! > >> > >> Olivier ITEANU wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear All, > >>> Considering that I am very new in the Icann process (I was part of > it > >>> in 2001), I do not know personally Kathy and Emily > >> > >> Nor do I, actually I don't think that I have "conciously" met anyone > >> in the team before. Thus I do not feel in a position to suggest any > >> individual for this position. > >> > >>> but it seems that > >>> many of you know each others and know them: if there is a consensus > >>> on them, that's fine for me, Kathy and Emily seem very competent > for > >>> the job. > >> > >> Nevertheless I am fine with the 2 ladies being nominated already. > >> > >>> However, if there is another candidate, I think that we need an > >>> urgent coming out ! > >>> Olivier > >> > >> As there's only a slim chance that I can call in (and if at all, > from > >> my mobile phone in listening mode because I will be on a train), I'd > >> like to submit my support for Kathy and Emily to serve as chairs of > the > >> team. > >> > >>> Olivier ITEANU - mailto:oiteanu at iteanu.com > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Wilfried. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Rt4-whois mailing list > >> Rt4-whois at icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rt4-whois mailing list > > Rt4-whois at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rt4-whois mailing list > > Rt4-whois at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101027/2ad753f6/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ATRT COI Policy.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 18073 bytes Desc: ATRT COI Policy.pdf Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101027/2ad753f6/ATRTCOIPolicy.pdf -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ATRT Principles.docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 11934 bytes Desc: ATRT Principles.docx Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101027/2ad753f6/ATRTPrinciples.docx From sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk Thu Oct 28 07:48:47 2010 From: sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk (sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:48:47 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair Message-ID: <87E2F4F00724B74781794CD88DBC997D0721586D@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Hello All, Although I should be able to join some of the conference call tonight, I am due to get on a plane half way through, so thought I would let you know my views on the discussions so far. Lynn's perspective below reflects exactly my thoughts. We all applied for this role, having understood what the Call for Applicants meant and all of our CVs, letters and statements are readily available for all to read. I understood that following our first conference call we were expected to self nominate or nominate a Chair - and that is exactly what happened. I felt I had enough knowledge of the nominees from available documentation, and was pleased we seemed to have achieved the position of Chair and Vice Chair in such an efficient and effective method. (Thanks Kathy and Emily for volunteering). Reading through our CVs etc., I am sure we allhave enough experience to know broadly what is expected of a Chair and Vice Chair ? We can finesse that as we go along, if Kathy and Emily need more support. Although not set in stone, we have set ourselves some challenging timescales, so our decision making around processes needs to be slick -so we can get on with the business in hand, about which I am very excited to be a part. If I don't get a chance to say tonight, I have consulted with law enforcement internationally about this Review, so I can represent all of our issues and thoughts - and they are looking forward to hearing how we are getting along and greatly appreciate our inclusion in the debate. Sharon Sharon Lemon OBE. Deputy Director e-Crime, Crime Techniques, Prevention and Alerts | Serious Organised Crime Agency | PO BOX 8000 | London | SE11 5EN | Tel: +44 (0)20 7238 8583 | Mobile: +44 (0)7768 290902 | Email: sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk Get Safe Online Week 2010 runs from 15th-19th November. Visit the website to learn more or follow us on twitter @GetSafeOnline Get Safe Online is a joint initiative between the Government, the Serious Organised Crime Agency, and public and private sector sponsors from the worlds of technology, communication, retail and finance to raise awareness of internet security, and help individuals and smaller businesses in the UK to use the internet confidently and safely. -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Sent: 27 October 2010 20:24 To: Smith,Bill Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair Believe I have a different perspective. I had thought that the relatively small size of our team would permit us to be a bit more relaxed. It also seemed to me that the purpose and scope of our work had already been determined and was included in the Call for Applicants, so we do not need to invest time and energy along those lines. Finally, we all submitted a CV and a Statement of Interest so it is clear that everyone is well qualified to participate. We had the additional opportunity of introducing ourselves in last week's call. Although I am not personally acquainted with the rest of the team, I was comfortable with the information available to support the proposed nominations. I have been in some groups where no one wants to take the Chair because of the additional work required so I am grateful that we have two team members willing to step up for Chair and Vice-Chair. It is wonderful to have Rod Beckstrom engaged and highly supportive of this effort so we should be sensitive not to unduly impose on him. -Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair From: "Smith, Bill" Date: Wed, October 27, 2010 1:58 pm To: "Kim G. von Arx" , Susan Kawaguchi Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" Some quick points: 1. Internal structure, process, rules, etc. can be a simple task, provided we adopt a commonly used model. However, if our intention is otherwise, we could devote a significant amount of time to that task (I have personal experience with this). I would prefer that we spend our time on the task at hand, an assessment, and it is for this reason that I proposed both Robert's Rules and a draft scope. 2. We did agree to solicit nominations. We also agreed to continue the discussion on the items in the first agenda, including Terms of Reference. We further agreed that we would continue working on these until they were resolved, whether in one, two, or more weeks. I don't recall that we agreed to a specific sequencing of these items and assumed that we would work on them in parallel, where practical. It seems quite reasonable to me to begin discussions on our Terms of Reference, as a means of expediting our work, *and* to better understand each other and how we might work together. 3. I see no issue with Rod continuing to lead us as we define our Terms of Reference. I believe he was particularly effective during last week's call and expect he would be similarly effective as we discuss terms of reference, etc. Should his stewardship become problematic, and I do *not* envision that, we could always elect a chair at that time. 4. I too support Susan's comments re qualities. However, I have limited experience with the members of this Review Team and as a consequence, would benefit from seeing the group interact more before I consider selecting a chair. 5. I took Susan's chair constituency statement as a comment on the multi-stakeholder nature of ICANN. I share her (somewhat) concern and support her suggestion that we consider "diversity" when making decisions/assignments. That seems to be in keeping with ICANN's general approach to filling positions. I did *not* take her comments in any way as a personal statement about either nominee. 6. Robert's Rules is designed for "Deliberative Assemblies" like ours. It is used by numerous societies and organizations to bring a common sense order to their proceedings and importantly, to protect the rights of the individual in such bodies. I find several references to its use within ICANN, including the Registrar Stakeholder Group, and the GNSO Council (for voting). In addition, ARIN, ISOC, IEEE, OASIS, use Robert's Rules. (While Robert's might be the standard in share capital organizations, in my experience it is also the standard at societies, associations, etc. I admit my ignorance with Wainberg's but some quick Internet searches does not reveal significant use - in my opinion.) We also have other administrative issues to consider; like proxies, alternate representation, decision making (presumably consensus), how will we define consensus, ... > -----Original Message----- > From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:11 PM > To: Susan Kawaguchi > Cc: Smith, Bill; rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review > Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > All: > > Thanks to Bill and Susan for valuable procedural points. I just would > like to add a few comments. > > 1. I believe that the internal structure is one of the most simple > tasks for this group to undertake and we should spend as little time as > possible on those aspects. > > 2. In line with the above, I thought that the roles and > responsibilities of the Chair (and if applicable the Vice-chair) would > be a discussion we would have prior to the vote and, if applicable, > prior to any further nominations. Indeed, the nomination emails were > just that - nominations and we had all agreed in our last call that we > would nominate and/or self-nominate people we think are suitable > candidates. Therefore, I was under the impression that the upcoming > phone call's main objective was to figure out the administrative > details with respect to the role, responsibility of the Chair and, of > course, the election of the Chair. If we fail to finalize those > details in our next call then, I had proposed, we would have another > call the following week until we have finalized the administrative > details including our terms of reference (the latter is not an internal > structure issue, but a substantive matter that will need significant > input and discussion). > > 3. I believe that it is important that we appoint a person from our > group to lead the discussion and us to the appropriate terms of > reference for this RT and I find it somewhat counter intuitive to have > Rod Beckstrom lead that discussion considering that we are supposed to > conduct some kind of review of a policy of ICANN and its ability to > enforce the same. > > 4. I believe that Susan's comments with regards to the roles and > responsibilities of the Chair are absolutely accurate and I believe > that both, Kathy and Emily, have shown over and over again that they > have all those qualities. > > 5. I don't believe that the fact that both nominees come from the > registry constituency is a concern considering that, I believe, both > nominees, have shown a lot of impartiality and integrity over the many > years they have dealt with very sensitive Internet policy issues > including the WHOIS issues under the ICANN regime and the UK (European > Union) framework. > > 6. With respect to process issues and rules of order, I suggest that we > should take ICANN's by-law as the framework considering that we are a > sub-creature of ICANN. Also, I propose that we use Wainberg's rules of > order instead of Robert's Rules. The former is specifically designed > for societies, associations, not for profits, etc. and is the standard > for those kind of organizations. Whereas the latter is the standard > for organizations with share capital. > > I am looking forward to a fruitful discussion and =0Ameeting this > Thursday. > > Best wishes, > > Kim > > > > > > On 26 Oct 2010, at 17:32, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: > > > I echo Bill's sentiments. Definition of how we go about evaluating > ICANN's enforcement of the WHOIS policy should be our first priority. > > > > Kathy, I personally very much appreciate your willingness to take on > the monumental job as chairperson but I personally would like to have a > clear picture of the work we will be doing in this group before we set > up our internal structure. > > > > As a group what do we expect of the chairperson? This is crucial to > discuss as the role of chair will be very important in guiding how this > team works together. I think we should establish ground rules and > guidelines on what is expected of the chairperson before we decide on > an individual. > > > > In other groups the chairperson's responsibilities have been > described as follows: > > > > "The purpose of a Chair is to call meetings, preside over working > group deliberations, manage the process so that all participants have > the opportunity to contribute, and report the results of the Working > Group to the Chartering Organization. " > > > > "Qualities of the Chair > > The main concern of the chair should be the aims and objectives of > the group and the integrity of the meeting process. There follows a > brief description of the personal qualities that a good chair should > possess. > > > > Authority > > The chair will need to maintain control to ensure that progress is > made in line with the schedule - as defined in the agenda. > > > > Flexibility > > Following an agenda does not always imply unquestioning devotion to > it. For example, if an unplanned deviation could produce a > clarification or the bonding together of meeting participants, then > this might represent a very effective strategy. > > > > Impartiality > > It is important that the chair supports an equal and fair > consideration of all sides of the argument. This can be especially > difficult where the chair is privately on one side of the debate. > > > > Maturity > > The chair must be able to accept and work with a broad cross section > of personalities. They should view each meeting without too much > preconception as to how individuals will act and react, but be able to > respond as the need arises. " > > > > You all may be thinking, "Of course, that is what we expect" but I > would feel more comfortable discussing the role and coming to > consensus. The WRT has many diverse view points and experiences. > Consensus building, transparency and neutrality will be key in the role > of the chair and the group should make a conscious decision on what we > expect of the chairperson. > > > > I am also somewhat concerned that the first two ICANN review teams > will be chaired by representatives of the Registry stakeholders group. > We should consider spreading the work to other constituencies. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill > > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:24 AM > > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS > Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > > > It is heartening to see both the interest in and support for the > proposed candidates for Chair and Vice-Chair. I am encouraged by the > activity on the list and hope that we continue to use email as an > important means of progressing our work. In my experience, > collaborative/collegial use of email can significantly enhance the work > of groups between telephonic or face-to-face meetings; especially when > those groups are "geographically challenged". It facilitates discussion > of important topics between meetings frequently enabling both more > informed and faster decision making. > > > > With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that we may have the cart > before the horse in our discussions/decisions with respect to a Chair > and Vice-Chair. I believe that it is imperative that we all understand, > and agree to, both what we are working on and how we will perform the > work, before we formally select a Chair, and if necessary a Vice-Chair. > Establishing a charter prior to formally selecting a chair is common > practice at many organizations that have well-established processes, > e.g. OASIS, W3C, and IETF. I believe we would be well-served to follow > their model. > > > > Let me be clear that this is a *process* issue, not a personality > issue. I believe the proposed candidates are well-qualified and further > believe it is likely that they will be selected. However, before we > take that action, it is important that we understand the scope of our > work, and the rules that we will adhere to. > > > > Fortunately, the AOC establishes a clear basis for our work. Using > the language from the AOC, minimally adapted for the purpose of > defining a scope, I suggest that our scope is: > > > > ________________________________ > > To assess the extent to which existing WHOIS policy and its > implementation: > > > > * is effective, > > * meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, and > > * promotes consumer trust. > > > > This assessment will include an analysis and determination of ICANN's > performance against the AOC requirement that ICANN implement measures > to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and > complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, > and administrative contact information. > > > > ________________________________ > > > > For process, we have the A&T Review Team's Terms of Reference > Methodology that can serve as a basis for us and I suggest we use that > as appropriate for our needs. I would also suggest that for anything > beyond the specifics we might lay out in out ToR, we use Roberts Rules > as our process document. It has proven effective in any number of > situations and allows us to have well-established processes without the > need to define, debate, and agree on them. > > > > Finally, I think we should take Rod Beckstrom up on his kind offer to > serve as chair and facilitator, and to do so until we can agree on what > our charter is and how we will go about our work. > > > > (A simple example of the types of process decisions we might need to > make is related to Wilfried's note - do we allow proxies? Or absentee > voting? If we do, how do we determine if quorum is established?) > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > bounces at icann.org] > >> On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:52 AM > >> To: Olivier ITEANU > >> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS > Review > >> Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > >> > >> Dear Team! > >> > >> Olivier ITEANU wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear All, > >>> Considering that I am very new in the Icann process (I was part of > it > >>> in 2001), I do not know personally Kathy and Emily > >> > >> Nor do I, actually I don't think that I have "conciously" met anyone > >> in the team before. Thus I do not feel in a position to suggest any > >> individual for this position. > >> > >>> but it seems that > >>> many of you know each others and know them: if there is a consensus > >>> on them, that's fine for me, Kathy and Emily seem very competent > for > >>> the job. > >> > >> Nevertheless I am fine with the 2 ladies being nominated already. > >> > >>> However, if there is another candidate, I think that we need an > >>> urgent coming out ! > >>> Olivier > >> > >> As there's only a slim chance that I can call in (and if at all, > from > >> my mobile phone in listening mode because I will be on a train), I'd > >> like to submit my support for Kathy and Emily to serve as chairs of > the > >> team. > >> > >>> Olivier ITEANU - mailto:oiteanu at iteanu.com > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Wilfried. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Rt4-whois mailing list > >> Rt4-whois at icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rt4-whois mailing list > > Rt4-whois at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rt4-whois mailing list > > Rt4-whois at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation's IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning 0870 268 8677. All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101028/d454944b/attachment.html From oiteanu at iteanu.com Thu Oct 28 13:00:58 2010 From: oiteanu at iteanu.com (Olivier ITEANU) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:00:58 +0200 Subject: [Rt4-whois] [renamed] next steps In-Reply-To: References: <20101027122426.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.78f76b4012.wbe@email03.secureserver.net>, Message-ID: <4CC9902A.16162.2385CB1B@oiteanu.iteanu.com> Dear all, This is a very good r?sum? from Kathy. I think that we should be very simple in our processes if we want to go ahead efficiency. Because of the strikes in France, I am not sure that I could join on time the conference call in 1 hour (I am on the way of my office). If not, and if by chance there is a vote, please note that I give my vote on this specific question of Chair and vice-Chair to Kathy. Warm regards. Olivier -------------------------------------------------- On 27 Oct 2010 at 22:32, Kathy Kleiman wrote: Dear All, This is a fascinating discussion, and I wanted to share my sense of the steps ahead. It seems to me the most important thing we can establish now is a rapport - an ability to talk and work with each. We have many complex issues to cover in the months ahead, and I believe the atmosphere we establish now is key and should include: the opportunity for all to participate, for all to consider issues, for all to be heard. Together we can establish an atmosphere of trust, and respect. I talked with Brian Cute, Chairman of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT), and he shared with me three interesting pieces of information: his sense of the role of Chair, the Conflict of Interest Policy the ATRT agreed to, and the Principles the ATRT adopted to guide its work. These documents are not binding on us, but I share them as examples, as ideas: 1. A Chairman Brian had a nice way of phrasing the role of Chairman: - Keeps the trains running on time; - Helps work be properly structured; - Allows and enables a full and fair hearing for all members to comment; - Makes sure work is done; and - Works to identify agreement and disagreement so that it can be documented and become part of the record - to allow all to weigh in and comment. 2. Conflict of Interest Policy Establishing a Conflicts of Interest Policy was a key early of the ATRT (and theirs is attached). They wanted "to ensure that the deliberations, decisions, and work product of the RT"were "objective, fair, and made in the interests of the global Internet community as a whole." 3. Principles Early on the ATRT created principles for their work, and these are also attached. I know Brian would be happy to take questions. I look forward to our important discussions ahead. All the best, Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy .ORG The Public Interest Registry Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846 Visit us online! Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:24 PM To: Smith,Bill Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair Believe I have a different perspective. I had thought that the relatively small size of our team would permit us to be a bit more relaxed. It also seemed to me that the purpose and scope of our work had already been determined and was included in the Call for Applicants, so we do not need to invest time and energy along those lines. Finally, we all submitted a CV and a Statement of Interest so it is clear that everyone is well qualified to participate. We had the additional opportunity of introducing ourselves in last week's call. Although I am not personally acquainted with the rest of the team, I was comfortable with the information available to support the proposed nominations. I have been in some groups where no one wants to take the Chair because of the additional work required so I am grateful that we have two team members willing to step up for Chair and Vice-Chair. It is wonderful to have Rod Beckstrom engaged and highly supportive of this effort so we should be sensitive not to unduly impose on him. -Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair From: "Smith, Bill" Date: Wed, October 27, 2010 1:58 pm To: "Kim G. von Arx" , Susan Kawaguchi Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" Some quick points: 1. Internal structure, process, rules, etc. can be a simple task, provided we adopt a commonly used model. However, if our intention is otherwise, we could devote a significant amount of time to that task (I have personal experience with this). I would prefer that we spend our time on the task at hand, an assessment, and it is for this reason that I proposed both Robert's Rules and a draft scope. 2. We did agree to solicit nominations. We also agreed to continue the discussion on the items in the first agenda, including Terms of Reference. We further agreed that we would continue working on these until they were resolved, whether in one, two, or more weeks. I don't recall that we agreed to a specific sequencing of these items and assumed that we would work on them in parallel, where practical. It seems quite reasonable to me to begin discussions on our Terms of Reference, as a means of expediting our work, *and* to better understand each other and how we might work together. 3. I see no issue with Rod continuing to lead us as we define our Terms of Reference. I believe he was particularly effective during last week's call and expect he would be similarly effective as we discuss terms of reference, etc. Should his stewardship become problematic, and I do *not* envision that, we could always elect a chair at that time. 4. I too support Susan's comments re qualities. However, I have limited experience with the members of this Review Team and as a consequence, would benefit from seeing the group interact more before I consider selecting a chair. 5. I took Susan's chair constituency statement as a comment on the multi-stakeholder nature of ICANN. I share her (somewhat) concern and support her suggestion that we consider "diversity" when making decisions/assignments. That seems to be in keeping with ICANN's general approach to filling positions. I did *not* take her comments in any way as a personal statement about either nominee. 6. Robert's Rules is designed for "Deliberative Assemblies" like ours. It is used by numerous societies and organizations to bring a common sense order to their proceedings and importantly, to protect the rights of the individual in such bodies. I find several references to its use within ICANN, including the Registrar Stakeholder Group, and the GNSO Council (for voting). In addition, ARIN, ISOC, IEEE, OASIS, use Robert's Rules. (While Robert's might be the standard in share capital organizations, in my experience it is also the standard at societies, associations, etc. I admit my ignorance with Wainberg's but some quick Internet searches does not reveal significant use - in my opinion.) We also have other administrative issues to consider; like proxies, alternate representation, decision making (presumably consensus), how will we define consensus, ... > -----Original Message----- > From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:11 PM > To: Susan Kawaguchi > Cc: Smith, Bill; rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review > Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > All: > > Thanks to Bill and Susan for valuable procedural points. I just would > like to add a few comments. > > 1. I believe that the internal structure is one of the most simple > tasks for this group to undertake and we should spend as little time as > possible on those aspects. > > 2. In line with the above, I thought that the roles and > responsibilities of the Chair (and if applicable the Vice-chair) would > be a discussion we would have prior to the vote and, if applicable, > prior to any further nominations. Indeed, the nomination emails were > just that - nominations and we had all agreed in our last call that we > would nominate and/or self-nominate people we think are suitable > candidates. Therefore, I was under the impression that the upcoming > phone call's main objective was to figure out the administrative > details with respect to the role, responsibility of the Chair and, of > course, the election of the Chair. If we fail to finalize those > details in our next call then, I had proposed, we would have another > call the following week until we have finalized the administrative > details including our terms of reference (the latter is not an internal > structure issue, but a substantive matter that will need significant > input and discussion). > > 3. I believe that it is important that we appoint a person from our > group to lead the discussion and us to the appropriate terms of > reference for this RT and I find it somewhat counter intuitive to have > Rod Beckstrom lead that discussion considering that we are supposed to > conduct some kind of review of a policy of ICANN and its ability to > enforce the same. > > 4. I believe that Susan's comments with regards to the roles and > responsibilities of the Chair are absolutely accurate and I believe > that both, Kathy and Emily, have shown over and over again that they > have all those qualities. > > 5. I don't believe that the fact that both nominees come from the > registry constituency is a concern considering that, I believe, both > nominees, have shown a lot of impartiality and integrity over the many > years they have dealt with very sensitive Internet policy issues > including the WHOIS issues under the ICANN regime and the UK (European > Union) framework. > > 6. With respect to process issues and rules of order, I suggest that we > should take ICANN's by-law as the framework considering that we are a > sub-creature of ICANN. Also, I propose that we use Wainberg's rules of > order instead of Robert's Rules. The former is specifically designed > for societies, associations, not for profits, etc. and is the standard > for those kind of organizations. Whereas the latter is the standard > for organizations with share capital. > > I am looking forward to a fruitful discussion and meeting this > Thursday. > > Best wishes, > > Kim > > > > > > On 26 Oct 2010, at 17:32, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: > > > I echo Bill's sentiments. Definition of how we go about evaluating > ICANN's enforcement of the WHOIS policy should be our first priority. > > > > Kathy, I personally very much appreciate your willingness to take on > the monumental job as chairperson but I personally would like to have a > clear picture of the work we will be doing in this group before we set > up our internal structure. > > > > As a group what do we expect of the chairperson? This is crucial to > discuss as the role of chair will be very important in guiding how this > team works together. I think we should establish ground rules and > guidelines on what is expected of the chairperson before we decide on > an individual. > > > > In other groups the chairperson's responsibilities have been > described as follows: > > > > "The purpose of a Chair is to call meetings, preside over working > group deliberations, manage the process so that all participants have > the opportunity to contribute, and report the results of the Working > Group to the Chartering Organization. " > > > > "Qualities of the Chair > > The main concern of the chair should be the aims and objectives of > the group and the integrity of the meeting process. There follows a > brief description of the personal qualities that a good chair should > possess. > > > > Authority > > The chair will need to maintain control to ensure that progress is > made in line with the schedule - as defined in the agenda. > > > > Flexibility > > Following an agenda does not always imply unquestioning devotion to > it. For example, if an unplanned deviation could produce a > clarification or the bonding together of meeting participants, then > this might represent a very effective strategy. > > > > Impartiality > > It is important that the chair supports an equal and fair > consideration of all sides of the argument. This can be especially > difficult where the chair is privately on one side of the debate. > > > > Maturity > > The chair must be able to accept and work with a broad cross section > of personalities. They should view each meeting without too much > preconception as to how individuals will act and react, but be able to > respond as the need arises. " > > > > You all may be thinking, "Of course, that is what we expect" but I > would feel more comfortable discussing the role and coming to > consensus. The WRT has many diverse view points and experiences. > Consensus building, transparency and neutrality will be key in the role > of the chair and the group should make a conscious decision on what we > expect of the chairperson. > > > > I am also somewhat concerned that the first two ICANN review teams > will be chaired by representatives of the Registry stakeholders group. > We should consider spreading the work to other constituencies. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill > > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:24 AM > > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS > Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > > > It is heartening to see both the interest in and support for the > proposed candidates for Chair and Vice-Chair. I am encouraged by the > activity on the list and hope that we continue to use email as an > important means of progressing our work. In my experience, > collaborative/collegial use of email can significantly enhance the work > of groups between telephonic or face-to-face meetings; especially when > those groups are "geographically challenged". It facilitates discussion > of important topics between meetings frequently enabling both more > informed and faster decision making. > > > > With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that we may have the cart > before the horse in our discussions/decisions with respect to a Chair > and Vice-Chair. I believe that it is imperative that we all understand, > and agree to, both what we are working on and how we will perform the > work, before we formally select a Chair, and if necessary a Vice-Chair. > Establishing a charter prior to formally selecting a chair is common > practice at many organizations that have well-established processes, > e.g. OASIS, W3C, and IETF. I believe we would be well-served to follow > their model. > > > > Let me be clear that this is a *process* issue, not a personality > issue. I believe the proposed candidates are well-qualified and further > believe it is likely that they will be selected. However, before we > take that action, it is important that we understand the scope of our > work, and the rules that we will adhere to. > > > > Fortunately, the AOC establishes a clear basis for our work. Using > the language from the AOC, minimally adapted for the purpose of > defining a scope, I suggest that our scope is: > > > > ________________________________ > > To assess the extent to which existing WHOIS policy and its > implementation: > > > > * is effective, > > * meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, and > > * promotes consumer trust. > > > > This assessment will include an analysis and determination of ICANN's > performance against the AOC requirement that ICANN implement measures > to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and > complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, > and administrative contact information. > > > > ________________________________ > > > > For process, we have the A&T Review Team's Terms of Reference > Methodology that can serve as a basis for us and I suggest we use that > as appropriate for our needs. I would also suggest that for anything > beyond the specifics we might lay out in out ToR, we use Roberts Rules > as our process document. It has proven effective in any number of > situations and allows us to have well-established processes without the > need to define, debate, and agree on them. > > > > Finally, I think we should take Rod Beckstrom up on his kind offer to > serve as chair and facilitator, and to do so until we can agree on what > our charter is and how we will go about our work. > > > > (A simple example of the types of process decisions we might need to > make is related to Wilfried's note - do we allow proxies? Or absentee > voting? If we do, how do we determine if quorum is established?) > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > bounces at icann.org] > >> On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:52 AM > >> To: Olivier ITEANU > >> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS > Review > >> Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > >> > >> Dear Team! > >> > >> Olivier ITEANU wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear All, > >>> Considering that I am very new in the Icann process (I was part of > it > >>> in 2001), I do not know personally Kathy and Emily > >> > >> Nor do I, actually I don't think that I have "conciously" met anyone > >> in the team before. Thus I do not feel in a position to suggest any > >> individual for this position. > >> > >>> but it seems that > >>> many of you know each others and know them: if there is a consensus > >>> on them, that's fine for me, Kathy and Emily seem very competent > for > >>> the job. > >> > >> Nevertheless I am fine with the 2 ladies being nominated already. > >> > >>> However, if there is another candidate, I think that we need an > >>> urgent coming out ! > >>> Olivier > >> > >> As there's only a slim chance that I can call in (and if at all, > from > >> my mobile phone in listening mode because I will be on a train), I'd > >> like to submit my support for Kathy and Emily to serve as chairs of > the > >> team. > >> > >>> Olivier ITEANU - mailto:oiteanu at iteanu.com > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Wilfried. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Rt4-whois mailing list > >> Rt4-whois at icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rt4-whois mailing list > > Rt4-whois at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rt4-whois mailing list > > Rt4-whois at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois Olivier ITEANU - mailto:oiteanu at iteanu.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- I T E A N U Soci?t? d'Avocats - Law Firm 164, rue du Faubourg Saint-Honore 75008 PARIS Tel. + 33 (0)1 42 56 90 00 Fax + 33 (0)1 42 56 90 02 e-mail: contact at iteanu.com - www.iteanu.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- From kim at vonarx.ca Thu Oct 28 15:51:43 2010 From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:51:43 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] My apologies Message-ID: <4F98851C-102A-4C7E-BAAC-900FACD136E3@vonarx.ca> Dear All, I am very sorry, but I won't be able to participate in today's call. I had planned to take part and moved my meetings around but then just about 15 min ago a personal emergency arose and I have to attend to it. My sincere apologies. With respect to the Chair and Vice-Chair and if there is a vote I would like to cast my vote for Kathy for chair and Emily for Vice-Chair or, if there is a requirement for proxy I hereby appoint Rod Beckstrom (as our interim Chair) as my proxy vote holder. Again my apologies. Beat wishes, Kim Please excuse my typos! This is sent from my iPhone. From kKleiman at pir.org Thu Oct 28 15:53:39 2010 From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:53:39 -0400 Subject: [Rt4-whois] ATRT Principles. References: <20101027122426.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.78f76b4012.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> Message-ID: Dear All, I just realized I sent out the Accountability and Transparency Review Team?s excellent principles as a .DOCX document which may not be universally readable ? let me include the short content here below. Best, Kathy --- The ATRT developed the following principles to guide its review: - Recommendations will be fact-based, far from impressions or personal opinions. - The team will be guided by a selected number of case-studies involving review of relevant events for each case study through 17 June 2010 (the day prior to the start date of the ICANN Brussels meeting). - The case-studies are based on cases which were suggested by the community during the ATRT meetings in Brussels, namely new gTLDs, .xxx (not including the application process) and DNS-CERT - The case studies will be used to identify processes and decision-making that demonstrated ICANN?s accountability and transparency, as well as processes and decision-making that could be modified to enhance ICANN?s accountability and transparency. - Recommendations would be future looking and would hence suggest improvements to the current process; recommendations are not for the purpose of altering any past decisions or influencing any ongoing processes. - Merits/Reasons behind each recommendation would be also made public. Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy .ORG The Public Interest Registry Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846 Visit us online! Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. From: Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 10:32 PM To: 'lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com'; 'bill.smith at paypal.com' Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [renamed] next steps Dear All, This is a fascinating discussion, and I wanted to share my sense of the steps ahead. It seems to me the most important thing we can establish now is a rapport ? an ability to talk and work with each. We have many complex issues to cover in the months ahead, and I believe the atmosphere we establish now is key and should include: the opportunity for all to participate, for all to consider issues, for all to be heard. Together we can establish an atmosphere of trust, and respect. I talked with Brian Cute, Chairman of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT), and he shared with me three interesting pieces of information: his sense of the role of Chair, the Conflict of Interest Policy the ATRT agreed to, and the Principles the ATRT adopted to guide its work. These documents are not binding on us, but I share them as examples, as ideas: 1. A Chairman Brian had a nice way of phrasing the role of Chairman: - Keeps the trains running on time; - Helps work be properly structured; - Allows and enables a full and fair hearing for all members to comment; - Makes sure work is done; and - Works to identify agreement and disagreement so that it can be documented and become part of the record ? to allow all to weigh in and comment. 2. Conflict of Interest Policy Establishing a Conflicts of Interest Policy was a key early of the ATRT (and theirs is attached). They wanted ?to ensure that the deliberations, decisions, and work product of the RT? were ?objective, fair, and made in the interests of the global Internet community as a whole.? 3. Principles Early on the ATRT created principles for their work, and these are also attached. I know Brian would be happy to take questions. I look forward to our important discussions ahead. All the best, Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy .ORG The Public Interest Registry Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846 Visit us online! Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:24 PM To: Smith,Bill Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair Believe I have a different perspective. I had thought that the relatively small size of our team would permit us to be a bit more relaxed. It also seemed to me that the purpose and scope of our work had already been determined and was included in the Call for Applicants, so we do not need to invest time and energy along those lines. Finally, we all submitted a CV and a Statement of Interest so it is clear that everyone is well qualified to participate. We had the additional opportunity of introducing ourselves in last week's call. Although I am not personally acquainted with the rest of the team, I was comfortable with the information available to support the proposed nominations. I have been in some groups where no one wants to take the Chair because of the additional work required so I am grateful that we have two team members willing to step up for Chair and Vice-Chair. It is wonderful to have Rod Beckstrom engaged and highly supportive of this effort so we should be sensitive not to unduly impose on him. -Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair From: "Smith, Bill" Date: Wed, October 27, 2010 1:58 pm To: "Kim G. von Arx" , Susan Kawaguchi Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" Some quick points: 1. Internal structure, process, rules, etc. can be a simple task, provided we adopt a commonly used model. However, if our intention is otherwise, we could devote a significant amount of time to that task (I have personal experience with this). I would prefer that we spend our time on the task at hand, an assessment, and it is for this reason that I proposed both Robert's Rules and a draft scope. 2. We did agree to solicit nominations. We also agreed to continue the discussion on the items in the first agenda, including Terms of Reference. We further agreed that we would continue working on these until they were resolved, whether in one, two, or more weeks. I don't recall that we agreed to a specific sequencing of these items and assumed that we would work on them in parallel, where practical. It seems quite reasonable to me to begin discussions on our Terms of Reference, as a means of expediting our work, *and* to better understand each other and how we might work together. 3. I see no issue with Rod continuing to lead us as we define our Terms of Reference. I believe he was particularly effective during last week's call and expect he would be similarly effective as we discuss terms of reference, etc. Should his stewardship become problematic, and I do *not* envision that, we could always elect a chair at that time. 4. I too support Susan's comments re qualities. However, I have limited experience with the members of this Review Team and as a consequence, would benefit from seeing the group interact more before I consider selecting a chair. 5. I took Susan's chair constituency statement as a comment on the multi-stakeholder nature of ICANN. I share her (somewhat) concern and support her suggestion that we consider "diversity" when making decisions/assignments. That seems to be in keeping with ICANN's general approach to filling positions. I did *not* take her comments in any way as a personal statement about either nominee. 6. Robert's Rules is designed for "Deliberative Assemblies" like ours. It is used by numerous societies and organizations to bring a common sense order to their proceedings and importantly, to protect the rights of the individual in such bodies. I find several references to its use within ICANN, including the Registrar Stakeholder Group, and the GNSO Council (for voting). In addition, ARIN, ISOC, IEEE, OASIS, use Robert's Rules. (While Robert's might be the standard in share capital organizations, in my experience it is also the standard at societies, associations, etc. I admit my ignorance with Wainberg's but some quick Internet searches does not reveal significant use - in my opinion.) We also have other administrative issues to consider; like proxies, alternate representation, decision making (presumably consensus), how will we define consensus, ... > -----Original Message----- > From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:11 PM > To: Susan Kawaguchi > Cc: Smith, Bill; rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review > Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > All: > > Thanks to Bill and Susan for valuable procedural points. I just would > like to add a few comments. > > 1. I believe that the internal structure is one of the most simple > tasks for this group to undertake and we should spend as little time as > possible on those aspects. > > 2. In line with the above, I thought that the roles and > responsibilities of the Chair (and if applicable the Vice-chair) would > be a discussion we would have prior to the vote and, if applicable, > prior to any further nominations. Indeed, the nomination emails were > just that - nominations and we had all agreed in our last call that we > would nominate and/or self-nominate people we think are suitable > candidates. Therefore, I was under the impression that the upcoming > phone call's main objective was to figure out the administrative > details with respect to the role, responsibility of the Chair and, of > course, the election of the Chair. If we fail to finalize those > details in our next call then, I had proposed, we would have another > call the following week until we have finalized the administrative > details including our terms of reference (the latter is not an internal > structure issue, but a substantive matter that will need significant > input and discussion). > > 3. I believe that it is important that we appoint a person from our > group to lead the discussion and us to the appropriate terms of > reference for this RT and I find it somewhat counter intuitive to have > Rod Beckstrom lead that discussion considering that we are supposed to > conduct some kind of review of a policy of ICANN and its ability to > enforce the same. > > 4. I believe that Susan's comments with regards to the roles and > responsibilities of the Chair are absolutely accurate and I believe > that both, Kathy and Emily, have shown over and over again that they > have all those qualities. > > 5. I don't believe that the fact that both nominees come from the > registry constituency is a concern considering that, I believe, both > nominees, have shown a lot of impartiality and integrity over the many > years they have dealt with very sensitive Internet policy issues > including the WHOIS issues under the ICANN regime and the UK (European > Union) framework. > > 6. With respect to process issues and rules of order, I suggest that we > should take ICANN's by-law as the framework considering that we are a > sub-creature of ICANN. Also, I propose that we use Wainberg's rules of > order instead of Robert's Rules. The former is specifically designed > for societies, associations, not for profits, etc. and is the standard > for those kind of organizations. Whereas the latter is the standard > for organizations with share capital. > > I am looking forward to a fruitful discussion and meeting this > Thursday. > > Best wishes, > > Kim > > > > > > On 26 Oct 2010, at 17:32, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: > > > I echo Bill's sentiments. Definition of how we go about evaluating > ICANN's enforcement of the WHOIS policy should be our first priority. > > > > Kathy, I personally very much appreciate your willingness to take on > the monumental job as chairperson but I personally would like to have a > clear picture of the work we will be doing in this group before we set > up our internal structure. > > > > As a group what do we expect of the chairperson? This is crucial to > discuss as the role of chair will be very important in guiding how this > team works together. I think we should establish ground rules and > guidelines on what is expected of the chairperson before we decide on > an individual. > > > > In other groups the chairperson's responsibilities have been > described as follows: > > > > "The purpose of a Chair is to call meetings, preside over working > group deliberations, manage the process so that all participants have > the opportunity to contribute, and report the results of the Working > Group to the Chartering Organization. " > > > > "Qualities of the Chair > > The main concern of the chair should be the aims and objectives of > the group and the integrity of the meeting process. There follows a > brief description of the personal qualities that a good chair should > possess. > > > > Authority > > The chair will need to maintain control to ensure that progress is > made in line with the schedule - as defined in the agenda. > > > > Flexibility > > Following an agenda does not always imply unquestioning devotion to > it. For example, if an unplanned deviation could produce a > clarification or the bonding together of meeting participants, then > this might represent a very effective strategy. > > > > Impartiality > > It is important that the chair supports an equal and fair > consideration of all sides of the argument. This can be especially > difficult where the chair is privately on one side of the debate. > > > > Maturity > > The chair must be able to accept and work with a broad cross section > of personalities. They should view each meeting without too much > preconception as to how individuals will act and react, but be able to > respond as the need arises. " > > > > You all may be thinking, "Of course, that is what we expect" but I > would feel more comfortable discussing the role and coming to > consensus. The WRT has many diverse view points and experiences. > Consensus building, transparency and neutrality will be key in the role > of the chair and the group should make a conscious decision on what we > expect of the chairperson. > > > > I am also somewhat concerned that the first two ICANN review teams > will be chaired by representatives of the Registry stakeholders group. > We should consider spreading the work to other constituencies. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill > > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:24 AM > > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS > Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > > > It is heartening to see both the interest in and support for the > proposed candidates for Chair and Vice-Chair. I am encouraged by the > activity on the list and hope that we continue to use email as an > important means of progressing our work. In my experience, > collaborative/collegial use of email can significantly enhance the work > of groups between telephonic or face-to-face meetings; especially when > those groups are "geographically challenged". It facilitates discussion > of important topics between meetings frequently enabling both more > informed and faster decision making. > > > > With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that we may have the cart > before the horse in our discussions/decisions with respect to a Chair > and Vice-Chair. I believe that it is imperative that we all understand, > and agree to, both what we are working on and how we will perform the > work, before we formally select a Chair, and if necessary a Vice-Chair. > Establishing a charter prior to formally selecting a chair is common > practice at many organizations that have well-established processes, > e.g. OASIS, W3C, and IETF. I believe we would be well-served to follow > their model. > > > > Let me be clear that this is a *process* issue, not a personality > issue. I believe the proposed candidates are well-qualified and further > believe it is likely that they will be selected. However, before we > take that action, it is important that we understand the scope of our > work, and the rules that we will adhere to. > > > > Fortunately, the AOC establishes a clear basis for our work. Using > the language from the AOC, minimally adapted for the purpose of > defining a scope, I suggest that our scope is: > > > > ________________________________ > > To assess the extent to which existing WHOIS policy and its > implementation: > > > > * is effective, > > * meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, and > > * promotes consumer trust. > > > > This assessment will include an analysis and determination of ICANN's > performance against the AOC requirement that ICANN implement measures > to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and > complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, > and administrative contact information. > > > > ________________________________ > > > > For process, we have the A&T Review Team's Terms of Reference > Methodology that can serve as a basis for us and I suggest we use that > as appropriate for our needs. I would also suggest that for anything > beyond the specifics we might lay out in out ToR, we use Roberts Rules > as our process document. It has proven effective in any number of > situations and allows us to have well-established processes without the > need to define, debate, and agree on them. > > > > Finally, I think we should take Rod Beckstrom up on his kind offer to > serve as chair and facilitator, and to do so until we can agree on what > our charter is and how we will go about our work. > > > > (A simple example of the types of process decisions we might need to > make is related to Wilfried's note - do we allow proxies? Or absentee > voting? If we do, how do we determine if quorum is established?) > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > bounces at icann.org] > >> On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:52 AM > >> To: Olivier ITEANU > >> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS > Review > >> Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > >> > >> Dear Team! > >> > >> Olivier ITEANU wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear All, > >>> Considering that I am very new in the Icann process (I was part of > it > >>> in 2001), I do not know personally Kathy and Emily > >> > >> Nor do I, actually I don't think that I have "conciously" met anyone > >> in the team before. Thus I do not feel in a position to suggest any > >> individual for this position. > >> > >>> but it seems that > >>> many of you know each others and know them: if there is a consensus > >>> on them, that's fine for me, Kathy and Emily seem very competent > for > >>> the job. > >> > >> Nevertheless I am fine with the 2 ladies being nominated already. > >> > >>> However, if there is another candidate, I think that we need an > >>> urgent coming out ! > >>> Olivier > >> > >> As there's only a slim chance that I can call in (and if at all, > from > >> my mobile phone in listening mode because I will be on a train), I'd > >> like to submit my support for Kathy and Emily to serve as chairs of > the > >> team. > >> > >>> Olivier ITEANU - mailto:oiteanu at iteanu.com > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Wilfried. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Rt4-whois mailing list > >> Rt4-whois at icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rt4-whois mailing list > > Rt4-whois at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rt4-whois mailing list > > Rt4-whois at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101028/4a6ab744/attachment.html From rod.beckstrom at icann.org Thu Oct 28 16:07:22 2010 From: rod.beckstrom at icann.org (Rod Beckstrom) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:07:22 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] ATRT Principles. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Affirmation Language re. Whois for our discussion today 9.3.1 ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information. One year from the effective date of this document and then no less frequently than every three years thereafter, ICANN will organize a review of WHOIS policy and its implementation to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust. The review will be performed by volunteer community members and the review team will be constituted and published for public comment, and will include the following (or their designated nominees): the Chair of the GAC, the CEO of ICANN, representatives of the relevant Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations, as well as experts, and representatives of the global law enforcement community, and global privacy experts. Composition of the review team will be agreed jointly by the Chair of the GAC (in consultation with GAC members) and the CEO of ICANN. Resulting recommendations of the reviews will be provided to the Board and posted for public comment. The Board will take action within six months of receipt of the recommendations. On 10/28/10 8:53 AM, "Kathy Kleiman" wrote: Dear All, I just realized I sent out the Accountability and Transparency Review Team?s excellent principles as a .DOCX document which may not be universally readable ? let me include the short content here below. Best, Kathy --- The ATRT developed the following principles to guide its review: - Recommendations will be fact-based, far from impressions or personal opinions. - The team will be guided by a selected number of case-studies involving review of relevant events for each case study through 17 June 2010 (the day prior to the start date of the ICANN Brussels meeting). - The case-studies are based on cases which were suggested by the community during the ATRT meetings in Brussels, namely new gTLDs, .xxx (not including the application process) and DNS-CERT - The case studies will be used to identify processes and decision-making that demonstrated ICANN?s accountability and transparency, as well as processes and decision-making that could be modified to enhance ICANN?s accountability and transparency. - Recommendations would be future looking and would hence suggest improvements to the current process; recommendations are not for the purpose of altering any past decisions or influencing any ongoing processes. - Merits/Reasons behind each recommendation would be also made public. Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy .ORG The Public Interest Registry Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846 Visit us online! Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. From: Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 10:32 PM To: 'lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com'; 'bill.smith at paypal.com' Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [renamed] next steps Dear All, This is a fascinating discussion, and I wanted to share my sense of the steps ahead. It seems to me the most important thing we can establish now is a rapport ? an ability to talk and work with each. We have many complex issues to cover in the months ahead, and I believe the atmosphere we establish now is key and should include: the opportunity for all to participate, for all to consider issues, for all to be heard. Together we can establish an atmosphere of trust, and respect. I talked with Brian Cute, Chairman of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT), and he shared with me three interesting pieces of information: his sense of the role of Chair, the Conflict of Interest Policy the ATRT agreed to, and the Principles the ATRT adopted to guide its work. These documents are not binding on us, but I share them as examples, as ideas: 1. A Chairman Brian had a nice way of phrasing the role of Chairman: - Keeps the trains running on time; - Helps work be properly structured; - Allows and enables a full and fair hearing for all members to comment; - Makes sure work is done; and - Works to identify agreement and disagreement so that it can be documented and become part of the record ? to allow all to weigh in and comment. 2. Conflict of Interest Policy Establishing a Conflicts of Interest Policy was a key early of the ATRT (and theirs is attached). They wanted ?to ensure that the deliberations, decisions, and work product of the RT? were ?objective, fair, and made in the interests of the global Internet community as a whole.? 3. Principles Early on the ATRT created principles for their work, and these are also attached. I know Brian would be happy to take questions. I look forward to our important discussions ahead. All the best, Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy .ORG The Public Interest Registry Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846 Visit us online! Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:24 PM To: Smith,Bill Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair Believe I have a different perspective. I had thought that the relatively small size of our team would permit us to be a bit more relaxed. It also seemed to me that the purpose and scope of our work had already been determined and was included in the Call for Applicants, so we do not need to invest time and energy along those lines. Finally, we all submitted a CV and a Statement of Interest so it is clear that everyone is well qualified to participate. We had the additional opportunity of introducing ourselves in last week's call. Although I am not personally acquainted with the rest of the team, I was comfortable with the information available to support the proposed nominations. I have been in some groups where no one wants to take the Chair because of the additional work required so I am grateful that we have two team members willing to step up for Chair and Vice-Chair. It is wonderful to have Rod Beckstrom engaged and highly supportive of this effort so we should be sensitive not to unduly impose on him. -Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair From: "Smith, Bill" Date: Wed, October 27, 2010 1:58 pm To: "Kim G. von Arx" , Susan Kawaguchi Cc: "rt4-whois at icann.org" Some quick points: 1. Internal structure, process, rules, etc. can be a simple task, provided we adopt a commonly used model. However, if our intention is otherwise, we could devote a significant amount of time to that task (I have personal experience with this). I would prefer that we spend our time on the task at hand, an assessment, and it is for this reason that I proposed both Robert's Rules and a draft scope. 2. We did agree to solicit nominations. We also agreed to continue the discussion on the items in the first agenda, including Terms of Reference. We further agreed that we would continue working on these until they were resolved, whether in one, two, or more weeks. I don't recall that we agreed to a specific sequencing of these items and assumed that we would work on them in parallel, where practical. It seems quite reasonable to me to begin discussions on our Terms of Reference, as a means of expediting our work, *and* to better understand each other and how we might work together. 3. I see no issue with Rod continuing to lead us as we define our Terms of Reference. I believe he was particularly effective during last week's call and expect he would be similarly effective as we discuss terms of reference, etc. Should his stewardship become problematic, and I do *not* envision that, we could always elect a chair at that time. 4. I too support Susan's comments re qualities. However, I have limited experience with the members of this Review Team and as a consequence, would benefit from seeing the group interact more before I consider selecting a chair. 5. I took Susan's chair constituency statement as a comment on the multi-stakeholder nature of ICANN. I share her (somewhat) concern and support her suggestion that we consider "diversity" when making decisions/assignments. That seems to be in keeping with ICANN's general approach to filling positions. I did *not* take her comments in any way as a personal statement about either nominee. 6. Robert's Rules is designed for "Deliberative Assemblies" like ours. It is used by numerous societies and organizations to bring a common sense order to their proceedings and importantly, to protect the rights of the individual in such bodies. I find several references to its use within ICANN, including the Registrar Stakeholder Group, and the GNSO Council (for voting). In addition, ARIN, ISOC, IEEE, OASIS, use Robert's Rules. (While Robert's might be the standard in share capital organizations, in my experience it is also the standard at societies, associations, etc. I admit my ignorance with Wainberg's but some quick Internet searches does not reveal significant use - in my opinion.) We also have other administrative issues to consider; like proxies, alternate representation, decision making (presumably consensus), how will we define consensus, ... > -----Original Message----- > From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:11 PM > To: Susan Kawaguchi > Cc: Smith, Bill; rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review > Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > All: > > Thanks to Bill and Susan for valuable procedural points. I just would > like to add a few comments. > > 1. I believe that the internal structure is one of the most simple > tasks for this group to undertake and we should spend as little time as > possible on those aspects. > > 2. In line with the above, I thought that the roles and > responsibilities of the Chair (and if applicable the Vice-chair) would > be a discussion we would have prior to the vote and, if applicable, > prior to any further nominations. Indeed, the nomination emails were > just that - nominations and we had all agreed in our last call that we > would nominate and/or self-nominate people we think are suitable > candidates. Therefore, I was under the impression that the upcoming > phone call's main objective was to figure out the administrative > details with respect to the role, responsibility of the Chair and, of > course, the election of the Chair. If we fail to finalize those > details in our next call then, I had proposed, we would have another > call the following week until we have finalized the administrative > details including our terms of reference (the latter is not an internal > structure issue, but a substantive matter that will need significant > input and discussion). > > 3. I believe that it is important that we appoint a person from our > group to lead the discussion and us to the appropriate terms of > reference for this RT and I find it somewhat counter intuitive to have > Rod Beckstrom lead that discussion considering that we are supposed to > conduct some kind of review of a policy of ICANN and its ability to > enforce the same. > > 4. I believe that Susan's comments with regards to the roles and > responsibilities of the Chair are absolutely accurate and I believe > that both, Kathy and Emily, have shown over and over again that they > have all those qualities. > > 5. I don't believe that the fact that both nominees come from the > registry constituency is a concern considering that, I believe, both > nominees, have shown a lot of impartiality and integrity over the many > years they have dealt with very sensitive Internet policy issues > including the WHOIS issues under the ICANN regime and the UK (European > Union) framework. > > 6. With respect to process issues and rules of order, I suggest that we > should take ICANN's by-law as the framework considering that we are a > sub-creature of ICANN. Also, I propose that we use Wainberg's rules of > order instead of Robert's Rules. The former is specifically designed > for societies, associations, not for profits, etc. and is the standard > for those kind of organizations. Whereas the latter is the standard > for organizations with share capital. > > I am looking forward to a fruitful discussion and meeting this > Thursday. > > Best wishes, > > Kim > > > > > > On 26 Oct 2010, at 17:32, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: > > > I echo Bill's sentiments. Definition of how we go about evaluating > ICANN's enforcement of the WHOIS policy should be our first priority. > > > > Kathy, I personally very much appreciate your willingness to take on > the monumental job as chairperson but I personally would like to have a > clear picture of the work we will be doing in this group before we set > up our internal structure. > > > > As a group what do we expect of the chairperson? This is crucial to > discuss as the role of chair will be very important in guiding how this > team works together. I think we should establish ground rules and > guidelines on what is expected of the chairperson before we decide on > an individual. > > > > In other groups the chairperson's responsibilities have been > described as follows: > > > > "The purpose of a Chair is to call meetings, preside over working > group deliberations, manage the process so that all participants have > the opportunity to contribute, and report the results of the Working > Group to the Chartering Organization. " > > > > "Qualities of the Chair > > The main concern of the chair should be the aims and objectives of > the group and the integrity of the meeting process. There follows a > brief description of the personal qualities that a good chair should > possess. > > > > Authority > > The chair will need to maintain control to ensure that progress is > made in line with the schedule - as defined in the agenda. > > > > Flexibility > > Following an agenda does not always imply unquestioning devotion to > it. For example, if an unplanned deviation could produce a > clarification or the bonding together of meeting participants, then > this might represent a very effective strategy. > > > > Impartiality > > It is important that the chair supports an equal and fair > consideration of all sides of the argument. This can be especially > difficult where the chair is privately on one side of the debate. > > > > Maturity > > The chair must be able to accept and work with a broad cross section > of personalities. They should view each meeting without too much > preconception as to how individuals will act and react, but be able to > respond as the need arises. " > > > > You all may be thinking, "Of course, that is what we expect" but I > would feel more comfortable discussing the role and coming to > consensus. The WRT has many diverse view points and experiences. > Consensus building, transparency and neutrality will be key in the role > of the chair and the group should make a conscious decision on what we > expect of the chairperson. > > > > I am also somewhat concerned that the first two ICANN review teams > will be chaired by representatives of the Registry stakeholders group. > We should consider spreading the work to other constituencies. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill > > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:24 AM > > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS > Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > > > It is heartening to see both the interest in and support for the > proposed candidates for Chair and Vice-Chair. I am encouraged by the > activity on the list and hope that we continue to use email as an > important means of progressing our work. In my experience, > collaborative/collegial use of email can significantly enhance the work > of groups between telephonic or face-to-face meetings; especially when > those groups are "geographically challenged". It facilitates discussion > of important topics between meetings frequently enabling both more > informed and faster decision making. > > > > With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that we may have the cart > before the horse in our discussions/decisions with respect to a Chair > and Vice-Chair. I believe that it is imperative that we all understand, > and agree to, both what we are working on and how we will perform the > work, before we formally select a Chair, and if necessary a Vice-Chair. > Establishing a charter prior to formally selecting a chair is common > practice at many organizations that have well-established processes, > e.g. OASIS, W3C, and IETF. I believe we would be well-served to follow > their model. > > > > Let me be clear that this is a *process* issue, not a personality > issue. I believe the proposed candidates are well-qualified and further > believe it is likely that they will be selected. However, before we > take that action, it is important that we understand the scope of our > work, and the rules that we will adhere to. > > > > Fortunately, the AOC establishes a clear basis for our work. Using > the language from the AOC, minimally adapted for the purpose of > defining a scope, I suggest that our scope is: > > > > ________________________________ > > To assess the extent to which existing WHOIS policy and its > implementation: > > > > * is effective, > > * meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, and > > * promotes consumer trust. > > > > This assessment will include an analysis and determination of ICANN's > performance against the AOC requirement that ICANN implement measures > to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and > complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, > and administrative contact information. > > > > ________________________________ > > > > For process, we have the A&T Review Team's Terms of Reference > Methodology that can serve as a basis for us and I suggest we use that > as appropriate for our needs. I would also suggest that for anything > beyond the specifics we might lay out in out ToR, we use Roberts Rules > as our process document. It has proven effective in any number of > situations and allows us to have well-established processes without the > need to define, debate, and agree on them. > > > > Finally, I think we should take Rod Beckstrom up on his kind offer to > serve as chair and facilitator, and to do so until we can agree on what > our charter is and how we will go about our work. > > > > (A simple example of the types of process decisions we might need to > make is related to Wilfried's note - do we allow proxies? Or absentee > voting? If we do, how do we determine if quorum is established?) > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > bounces at icann.org] > >> On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:52 AM > >> To: Olivier ITEANU > >> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS > Review > >> Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > >> > >> Dear Team! > >> > >> Olivier ITEANU wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear All, > >>> Considering that I am very new in the Icann process (I was part of > it > >>> in 2001), I do not know personally Kathy and Emily > >> > >> Nor do I, actually I don't think that I have "conciously" met anyone > >> in the team before. Thus I do not feel in a position to suggest any > >> individual for this position. > >> > >>> but it seems that > >>> many of you know each others and know them: if there is a consensus > >>> on them, that's fine for me, Kathy and Emily seem very competent > for > >>> the job. > >> > >> Nevertheless I am fine with the 2 ladies being nominated already. > >> > >>> However, if there is another candidate, I think that we need an > >>> urgent coming out ! > >>> Olivier > >> > >> As there's only a slim chance that I can call in (and if at all, > from > >> my mobile phone in listening mode because I will be on a train), I'd > >> like to submit my support for Kathy and Emily to serve as chairs of > the > >> team. > >> > >>> Olivier ITEANU - mailto:oiteanu at iteanu.com > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Wilfried. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Rt4-whois mailing list > >> Rt4-whois at icann.org > >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rt4-whois mailing list > > Rt4-whois at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rt4-whois mailing list > > Rt4-whois at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois Warmly, Rod Rod Beckstrom President and CEO ICANN - One World. One Internet. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101028/4e3915c1/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Thu Oct 28 16:08:44 2010 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:08:44 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Adobe room Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34D91550D@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Dear RT Members, Please join the Adobe room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/ Thanks, Best regards Alice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101028/3eba1187/attachment.html From rod.beckstrom at icann.org Thu Oct 28 16:11:08 2010 From: rod.beckstrom at icann.org (Rod Beckstrom) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:11:08 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Can all parties on Whois call please place phones on mute? Thanks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101028/de1b3df7/attachment.html From denise.michel at icann.org Thu Oct 28 16:18:09 2010 From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:18:09 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Board Conflicts of Interest Policy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: *Conflicts of Interest Policy *[Adopted March 4, 1999, pursuant to ICANN Bylaws, Article V, Section 7, and Article VI, Section 3(b)] This policy superseded by the 30 July 2009 version. *1. Purpose* The purpose of the Conflicts of Interest policy is to ensure that the deliberations and decisions of the Corporation are made in the interests of the global Internet community as a whole, and to protect the interests of the Corporation when it is contemplating entering into a transaction, contract, or arrangement that might benefit the private interest of an Interested Director, Officer or Person (as defined below). An Interested Director, Officer or Person may not use his or her position with respect to the Corporation, or confidential corporate information obtained by him or her relating to the Corporation, in order to achieve a financial benefit for himself or herself or for a third person, including another nonprofit or charitable organization. This policy is intended to supplement but not replace any applicable laws governing conflicts of interest in nonprofit and charitable corporations. *2. Definitions* 2.1 *Compensation*. "Compensation" includes direct and indirect remuneration as well as gifts or favors that are substantial in nature. 2.2 *Family*. The "family" of any individual shall include only his or her spouse; his or her siblings and their spouses; his or her ancestors; and his or her descendants and their spouses. 2.3 *Financial Interest*. A person has a "financial interest" if the person has, directly or indirectly, through business, investment or family: (a) An existing or potential ownership or investment interest in any entity with which the Corporation has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement, or (b) A compensation arrangement with the Corporation or with any entity or individual with which the Corporation has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement, or (c) An existing or potential ownership or investment interest in, or compensation arrangement with, any entity or individual with which the Corporation is negotiating a transaction, contract, or other arrangement, or (d) An existing or potential ownership or investment interest in, or compensation arrangement with, any entity whose business or operation has been or will be directly affected by a decision or action of the Corporation. 2.4 *Interested Director*. "Interested Director" shall mean any Director of the Corporation who has a material financial interest, as defined above, or who serves as a Director or Officer of any entity with which the Corporation has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement. 2.5 *Interested Officer*. "Interested Officer" shall mean any Officer who has a material financial interest, as defined above, or who serves as a Director or Officer of any entity with which the Corporation has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement. For purposes of this policy, the President of the Corporation shall be treated as an Officer. 2.6 *Interested Person*. "Interested Person" shall mean either: (a) Any person currently being compensated by the Corporation for services rendered to it within the previous 12 months, whether as a full- or part-time employee, independent contractor, or otherwise, or (b) Any person whose family member, as defined in Section 2.2, is currently being compensated by the Corporation for services rendered to it within the previous 12 months, whether as a full- or part-time employee, independent contractor, or otherwise. *3. Committee on Conflicts of Interest* 3.1 To administer and monitor compliance with this Policy, the Board shall create a Committee of the Board on Conflicts of Interest("Conflicts Committee"), to consist of at least two Directors named by the Board. 3.2 The Conflicts Committee shall require a statement from each Director and Officer not less frequently than once a year setting forth all business and other affiliations which relate in any way to the business and other activities of the Corporation. *4. Duty to Abstain* 4.1 No Director shall vote on any matter in which he or she has a material and direct financial interest that will be affected by the outcome of the vote. 4.2 In the event of such an abstention, the abstaining Director shall state the reason for the abstention, which shall be noted in the minutes of the Board of Directors. *5. Disclosure by Directors and Officers* 5.1 When requested by the Conflicts Committee (not less frequently than once a year), each Director and Officer shall promptly submit a statement to the Committee setting forth all business and other affiliations which relate in any way to the business and other affiliations of the Corporation. 5.2 With respect to any particular matter then pending before the Corporation, each Director and Officer shall disclose to the Conflicts Committee any matter that could reasonably be considered to make the Director or Officer an "Interested Director" or "Interested Officer," as defined above. 5.3 With respect to any particular matter then pending before the Corporation, each Director and Officer shall disclose to the Conflicts Committee any relationship or other factor that could reasonably be considered to cause the Director or Officer to be considered to be an "Interested Person," as defined above. 5.4 For purposes of this section, Officers of the Corporation need not disclose compensation and other benefits paid to the Officer by the Corporation pursuant to Board resolution. *6. Disclosure by Supporting Organization* Members of or participants in Supporting Organization councils must disclose conflicts of interest or other financial interests in matters within the scope of the Supporting Organization in the manner required by the Bylaws of the Supporting Organization. *7. Procedures in Connection with Proposed Transactions and Arrangements* 7.1 Scope. This section applies to any proposed transaction, contract, or arrangement in which a Director, Officer, or Interested Person has a material financial interest. 7.2 Duty to Disclose. In connection with any actual or possible conflicts of interest, an Interested Director or Interested Officer must disclose the existence and nature of his of her material financial interest to the Conflicts Committee prior to the consideration of the proposed transaction, contract, or arrangement by the Board or any Committee of the Board. 7.3 Determining Whether a Conflict of Interest Exists. After disclosure of the financial interest, the disinterested members of the Conflicts Committee shall determine whether a conflict of interest exists. Neither the Board nor any Committee of the Board shall vote upon any proposed transaction, contract, or arrangement in connection with which an actual or possible conflict of interest has been disclosed by an Interested Director until such time as the Conflicts Committee has addressed the actual or possible conflict of interest. For matters pending before the full Board of Directors, a referral to the Conflicts Committee will not be required where the Interested Director fully discloses to the Board his or her financial interest and abstains from participation in the Board's consideration of the proposed transaction, contract, or arrangement. 7.4 Procedures for Addressing a Conflict of Interest 7.4.1 Where a matter has been referred to the Conflicts Committee and the Conflicts Committee has concluded that a conflict of interest exists, the chairman of the Board or Committee of the Board shall, if appropriate, appoint a disinterested person or committee to investigate alternatives to the proposed transaction, contract, or arrangement. 7.4.2 After exercising due diligence, the Board or Committee shall determine whether the Corporation can obtain a more advantageous transaction, contract, or arrangement with reasonable efforts from a person or entity that would not give rise to a conflict of interest. 7.4.3 If a more advantageous transaction, contract, or other arrangement is not reasonably attainable under circumstances that would not give rise to a conflict of interest, the Board or Committee shall determine by a majority vote of the disinterested Directors whether the transaction, contract, or arrangement is in the Corporation's best interest and for its own benefit and whether it is fair and reasonable to the Corporation, and shall make its decision as to whether to enter into the transaction, contract, or arrangement in conformity with such determination. *8. Violations of the Conflicts of Interest Policy* 8.1 If the Conflicts Committee has reasonable cause to believe that a Director or Officer has failed to disclose an actual or possible conflict of interest, it shall inform the Director or Officer of the basis for such belief and afford the Director or Officer an opportunity to explain the alleged failure to disclose. 8.2 If, after hearing the response of the Director or Officer and making such further investigation as may be warranted in the circumstances, the Conflicts Committee determines that the member has in fact failed to disclose an actual or possible conflict of interest, it shall recommend to the Board of Directors appropriate disciplinary and corrective action. 8.3 The violation of this conflicts of interest policy is a serious matter and may constitute "cause" for removal or termination of a Director or Officer, or the termination of any contractual relationship the Corporation may have with an Interested Person or other party. *9. Records of Proceedings* 9.1 The minutes of the Conflicts Committee shall contain: (a) The names of Directors and Officers found to have a material financial interest in connection with an actual or possible conflict of interest; the nature of the financial interest; any action taken to determine whether a conflict of interest was present; and the decision of the Conflicts Committee as to whether a conflict of interest in fact existed. (b) The names of the persons who were present for discussions and votes relating to the actual or potential conflict of interest; the content of the discussion; and a record of any votes taken in connection therewith. 9.2 In connection with a conflict of interest, the minutes of the Board or other Committee of the Board shall contain the names of the persons who were present for discussions and votes relating to the transaction or arrangement; the content of the discussion, including any alternatives to the proposed transaction or arrangement; and a record of any votes taken in connection therewith. *10. Compensation Committees* A member of any Committee of the Board the jurisdiction of which includes compensation matters and who receives compensation from the Corporation for services is precluded from voting on matters pertaining to that member's compensation. *11. Annual Statements* Each Director and Officer shall annually sign a statement which affirms that such person: (a) Has received a copy of the conflicts of interest policy; (b) Has read and understands the policy; (c) Has agreed to comply with the policy; and (d) Understands that the Corporation is a charitable organization and that in order to maintain its federal tax exemption it must engage primarily in activities which accomplish one or more of its tax-exempt purposes. *12. Periodic Reviews* The Conflicts Committee shall periodically consider whether and how this Conflicts of Interest Policy should be revised or amended to better meet its objectives. In connection with any periodic review conducted by the Corporation to ensure that it operates in a manner consistent with its charitable purposes, the Conflicts Committee shall report on the matters referred to it and their resolution. Denise Michel ICANN Advisor to the President denise.michel at icann.org +1.408.429.3072 mobile +1.310.578.8632 direct -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101028/db8eecfa/attachment.html From olof.nordling at icann.org Thu Oct 28 16:28:03 2010 From: olof.nordling at icann.org (Olof Nordling) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:28:03 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Board Conflicts of Interest Policy more recent version! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34D915536@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Conflicts of Interest Policy 30 July 2009 ARTICLE I -- PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION Section 1.1 The purpose of the Conflicts of Interest Policy (the "COI Policy") is to ensure that the deliberations and decisions of ICANN are made in the interests of the global Internet community as a whole and to protect the interests of ICANN when ICANN is contemplating entering into a transaction, contract, or arrangement that might benefit the private interest of a Covered Person. Section 1.2 A Covered Person (see Section VII below for definitions of all defined terms that can be identified throughout this Policy with initial capital letters) may not use his or her position with respect to ICANN, or confidential corporate information obtained by him or her relating to ICANN, in order to achieve a financial benefit for himself or herself or for a third person, including another nonprofit or charitable organization. Section 1.3 This COI Policy is intended to supplement but not to replace any applicable laws governing conflicts of interest in nonprofit and charitable corporations. Section 1.4 ICANN will encourage ICANN Supporting Organization and Advisory Committees and other ICANN bodies, as appropriate, to consider implementing the principles and practices of this COI Policy as relevant. Section 1.5 The Board Governance Committee shall administer and monitor compliance with the COI Policy. Section 1.6 Certain Capitalized Terms used in this COI Policy shall have the meanings set forth in Article VII of this COI Policy. ARTICLE II -- PROCEDURES REGARDING CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Section 2.1 Duty to Disclose. (a) In connection with any proposed transaction, contract, or arrangement being considered by ICANN, a Covered Person shall promptly disclose to the Board Governance Committee the existence of any Potential Conflicts that may give rise to a Conflict of Interest with respect to the proposed transaction, contract, or arrangement. (b) The disclosure to the Board Governance Committee of a Potential Conflict shall be made pursuant to such procedures as the Board Governance Committee may establish from time to time. The Covered Person making such disclosure is referred to herein as an Interested Person. Section 2.2 Determining Whether a Conflict of Interest Exists. (a) After disclosure of a Potential Conflict by an Interested Person, the Board Governance Committee shall have a discussion with the Interested Person regarding the material facts with respect to the Potential Conflict. (b) Thereafter, in the absence of the Interested Person, Disinterested members of the Board Governance Committee shall determine whether or not the circumstances disclosed by the Interested Person regarding the Potential Conflict constitute a Conflict of Interest, and, subject to a contrary finding by the Disinterested Board members, the determination by the Disinterested members in this regard is conclusive and may not be challenged by the Interested Person. If the Interested Person is a Director, such determination shall be reported to the Disinterested Board members at the next Board meeting and shall be subject to Board ratification. Section 2.3 Procedures for Addressing a Conflict of Interest. (a) If the Board Governance Committee determines that a Conflict of Interest exists, the Conflicted Person may make a presentation to the Board Governance Committee regarding the transaction, contract, or arrangement. After any such presentation, the Conflicted Person shall leave the meeting and shall not be present during any discussion of the Conflict of Interest. (b) The Chair of the Board Governance Committee shall, if appropriate, appoint a Disinterested person or committee to investigate alternatives to the proposed transaction, contract, or arrangement. If the Conflicted Person is a Board member, the findings shall be reported to the Board. (c) After exercising due diligence, the Board Governance Committee shall determine whether ICANN can obtain with reasonable efforts a more advantageous transaction, contract, or arrangement in a manner that would not give rise to a Conflict of Interest. If the Conflicted person is a Board member, such determination shall be reported to the Board. (d) If a more advantageous transaction, contract, or arrangement is not reasonably possible under circumstances not producing a Conflict of Interest, the Board Governance Committee, and where the Conflicted Person is a Board member, the Board, shall determine by a majority vote of the Disinterested members whether the transaction, contract, or arrangement is in ICANN's best interest, for its own benefit, and whether it is fair and reasonable to ICANN. In conformity with those determinations, the Board Governance Committee or the Board, as applicable, shall make its decision as to whether ICANN should enter into the transaction, contract or arrangement. Section 2.4. Duty to Abstain (a) No Director shall vote on any matter in which he or she has a material Financial Interest that will be affected by the outcome of the vote. (b) In the event of such an abstention, the abstaining Director shall state the reason for the abstention, which shall be noted in the notes of the meeting in which the abstention occurred. (c) No Director shall participate in Committee or Board deliberations on any matter in which he or she has a material Financial Interest without first disclosing the conflict and until a majority of Disinterested Committee or Board members present agree on whether and in what manner the Board member may participate. Section 2.5 Violations of the Conflicts of Interest Policy. (a) If the Board Governance Committee has reasonable cause to believe a Covered Person has failed to disclose an actual or Potential Conflict of Interest, the Board Governance Committee shall inform the Covered Person, and initiate the procedures described in Section 2.2 and 2.3. ARTICLE III-- RECORDS OF PROCEEDINGS Section 3.1 The written or electronic records of the Board and the Board Governance Committee relating to Conflicts of Interest shall contain: (a) The names of Covered Persons who disclosed or otherwise were found to have a Potential Conflict in connection with a proposed transaction, contract, or arrangement; (b) The nature of the Potential Conflict; (c) Any action taken to determine whether a Conflict of Interest was present; (d) The Board's or Board Governance Committee's, as applicable, decision as to whether a Conflict of Interest in fact existed; (e) The names of the persons who were present for discussions and votes relating to the transaction, contract, or arrangement; (f) The content of the discussion, including any alternatives to the proposed transaction, contract, or arrangement; and (g) A record of any votes taken in connection therewith. ARTICLE IV -- COMPENSATION Section 4.1 A Covered Person who receives compensation, directly or indirectly, from ICANN for services may not vote on matters pertaining to the Covered Person's compensation. Section 4.2 A Covered Person may not vote on matters pertaining to compensation received, directly or indirectly from ICANN by a member of the Covered Person's Family or by an individual with whom a Covered Person has a close personal relationship, including, but not limited to, any relationship other than kinship, spousal or spousal equivalent that establishes a significant personal bond between the Covered Person and such other individual that in the judgment of the Board Governance Committee could impair the Covered Person's ability to act fairly and independently and in a manner that furthers, or is not opposed to, the best interests of ICANN. Section 4.3 No Covered Person who receives compensation, directly or indirectly, from ICANN, either individually or collectively, is prohibited from providing information to the Board or to any Committee regarding the Covered Person's compensation. ARTICLE V -- ANNUAL STATEMENTS Section 5.1 Each Covered Person shall annually sign a statement which affirms such Covered Person: (i) has received a copy of the COI Policy; (ii) has read and understands the COI Policy; (iii) has agreed to comply with the COI Policy; and (iv) understands ICANN is a tax-exempt organization described in ? 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and that in order to maintain its federal tax exemption, ICANN must engage primarily in activities which accomplish one or more of ICANN's tax-exempt purposes. ARTICLE VI -- PERIODIC REVIEWS Section 6.1 To ensure ICANN operates in a manner consistent with its tax-exempt purposes and does not engage in activities that could jeopardize its tax-exempt status, ICANN's Office of the General Counsel and Finance Department shall conduct periodic reviews of its purposes and activities. Section 6.2 These periodic reviews shall, at a minimum, include the following subjects: (a) Whether activities carried on by ICANN are consistent with and in furtherance of one or more of ICANN's tax-exempt purposes; (b) Whether ICANN follows policies and procedures reasonably calculated to prevent private Inurement more than incidental private benefit, excess benefit transactions, substantial lobbying, and participation or intervention in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office; and (c) Whether compensation arrangements and benefits are reasonable, are based on appropriate data as to comparability, and are the result of arm's length bargaining. (d) Whether partnerships, joint ventures, and arrangements with organizations that provide management personnel or management services conform to ICANN's written policies, are properly recorded, reflect reasonable investment or payments for goods and services, further tax-exempt purposes, and do not result in private Inurement more than incidental private benefit, or in an excess benefit transaction. Section 6.3 When conducting the periodic reviews, ICANN may, but need not, use outside experts and/or advisors. If outside experts and/or advisors are used, their use shall not relieve the Board of ICANN of its responsibility for ensuring periodic reviews are conducted in the manner prescribed in this Article. ARTICLE VII -- DEFINITIONS Section 7.1 As used in this COI Policy, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below. (a) "Board Liaison" shall mean those liaisons to the ICANN Board of Directors appointed in accordance with ICANN's Bylaws. (b) "Compensation" includes direct and indirect remuneration as well as gifts or favors that are substantial in nature. (c) "COI Policy" means this Conflict of Interest Policy as adopted by the Board of ICANN on 30 July 2009. (d) A "Conflict of Interest" arises when the Board or Board Governance Committee, as applicable, following the procedures set forth in Articles II and III of this COI Policy, determines that a Covered Person has disclosed a Potential Conflict that may in the judgment of a majority of the Disinterested members of the Board or Board Governance Committee, as applicable, adversely impact the Covered Person's ability to act fairly and independently and in a manner that furthers, or is not opposed to, the best interests of ICANN. (e) "Conflicted Person" means a Person that has been determined by the Board Governance Committee to have a Conflict of Interest. (f) "Covered Person" shall mean an Officer, Director, Board Liaison, or Key Employee of ICANN. (g) A "Director" is any voting member of the Board of ICANN. (h) "Disinterested" means not having a Potential Conflict with respect to a transaction, contract, or arrangement being considered by ICANN. (i) "Domestic Partner" shall mean an individual who resides at the same residence as the Covered Person as his or her spousal equivalent. (j) A "Duality of Interest" arises when with respect to a transaction, contract, or arrangement, a Covered Person or a member of a Covered Person's Family has a fiduciary relationship with another party to a proposed transaction, contract, or arrangement which gives rise to a circumstance in which the fiduciary duties of the Covered Person to ICANN and the fiduciary duties of the Covered Person, or the fiduciary duties of the Family Member of the Covered Person, to the other party may be in conflict. A Duality of Interest does not constitute a Conflict of Interest if ICANN and all other parties to the transaction, contract, or arrangement, being in possession of all material facts, waive the conflict in writing. (k) The "Family" of any Covered Person shall include the Covered Person's spouse; Domestic Partner; siblings and their spouses or Domestic Partners; ancestors and their spouses or Domestic Partners; and descendants and their spouses or Domestic Partners. (l) A "Financial Interest" exists whenever a Covered Person has, directly or indirectly, through business, investment, or Family: (i) an ownership or investment interest in any entity with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement; (ii) a compensation arrangement with any entity or individual with which ICANN has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement; and (iii) a potential ownership or investment interest in, or compensation arrangement with, any entity or individual with which ICANN is negotiating a transaction, contract, or other arrangement. Compensation includes direct and indirect remuneration as well as gifts or favors that are not insubstantial. Transactions, contracts, and arrangements include grants or other donations as well as business arrangements. A Financial Interest is a Potential Conflict but is not necessarily a Conflict of Interest. A Financial Interest does not become a Conflict of Interest until the Board Governance Committee, following the procedures set forth in Articles II and III of this COI Policy, determines that the Financial Interest constitutes a Conflict of Interest. (m) An "Interested Person" is a Covered Person who has a Potential Conflict of Interest with respect to a particular transaction, contract, or arrangement under consideration by the Board or Board Governance Committee, as applicable. (n) "Internal Revenue Code" shall mean the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or any future revenue statute replacing the 1986 Code. (o) "Inurement," as used in this COI Policy, shall mean: (i) a transaction in which ICANN provides an economic benefit, directly or indirectly, to or for the use of any Covered Person where the value of that economic benefit exceeds the value of the consideration (including the performance of services) that ICANN receives in exchange; or (ii) any transaction or arrangement by or through which a Covered Person receives a direct or indirect distribution of ICANN's net earnings (other than payment of fair market value for property or the right to use property and reasonable compensation for services). (p) A "Key Employee" is an employee of ICANN designated as a member of the Executive Management team of ICANN, but who is not an Officer or Director. (q) An "Officer" is an individual holding a position designated as an Officer by ICANN's Bylaws or by resolution of the Board and includes, without limitation, the President of ICANN. (r) A "Person" includes an individual, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, trust, unincorporated association, or other entity. (s) A "Potential Conflict" means any one or more of the following: (i) a direct or indirect Financial Interest in a transaction, contract or arrangement being considered by ICANN by a Covered Person or a member of a Covered Person's Family; (ii) a Duality of Interest by a Covered Person or a member of a Covered Person's Family with respect to another party to a transaction, contract, or arrangement being considered by ICANN that has not been waived in writing by all parties to the transaction, contract, or arrangement; or (iii) a close personal relationship between the Covered Person, or a member of a Covered Person's Family, with an individual who is, directly or indirectly through business, investment, or Family, a party to a transaction, contract, or arrangement being considered by ICANN. Section 7.2 Where terms used in this COI Policy have a particular meaning under the Internal Revenue Code, this COI Policy shall be construed to incorporate that meaning. Section 7.3 All other terms used in this COI Policy shall be given their ordinary, everyday meaning. From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Denise Michel Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 6:18 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Board Conflicts of Interest Policy Conflicts of Interest Policy [Adopted March 4, 1999, pursuant to ICANN Bylaws, Article V, Section 7, and Article VI, Section 3(b)] This policy superseded by the 30 July 2009 version. 1. Purpose The purpose of the Conflicts of Interest policy is to ensure that the deliberations and decisions of the Corporation are made in the interests of the global Internet community as a whole, and to protect the interests of the Corporation when it is contemplating entering into a transaction, contract, or arrangement that might benefit the private interest of an Interested Director, Officer or Person (as defined below). An Interested Director, Officer or Person may not use his or her position with respect to the Corporation, or confidential corporate information obtained by him or her relating to the Corporation, in order to achieve a financial benefit for himself or herself or for a third person, including another nonprofit or charitable organization. This policy is intended to supplement but not replace any applicable laws governing conflicts of interest in nonprofit and charitable corporations. 2. Definitions 2.1 Compensation. "Compensation" includes direct and indirect remuneration as well as gifts or favors that are substantial in nature. 2.2 Family. The "family" of any individual shall include only his or her spouse; his or her siblings and their spouses; his or her ancestors; and his or her descendants and their spouses. 2.3 Financial Interest. A person has a "financial interest" if the person has, directly or indirectly, through business, investment or family: (a) An existing or potential ownership or investment interest in any entity with which the Corporation has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement, or (b) A compensation arrangement with the Corporation or with any entity or individual with which the Corporation has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement, or (c) An existing or potential ownership or investment interest in, or compensation arrangement with, any entity or individual with which the Corporation is negotiating a transaction, contract, or other arrangement, or (d) An existing or potential ownership or investment interest in, or compensation arrangement with, any entity whose business or operation has been or will be directly affected by a decision or action of the Corporation. 2.4 Interested Director. "Interested Director" shall mean any Director of the Corporation who has a material financial interest, as defined above, or who serves as a Director or Officer of any entity with which the Corporation has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement. 2.5 Interested Officer. "Interested Officer" shall mean any Officer who has a material financial interest, as defined above, or who serves as a Director or Officer of any entity with which the Corporation has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement. For purposes of this policy, the President of the Corporation shall be treated as an Officer. 2.6 Interested Person. "Interested Person" shall mean either: (a) Any person currently being compensated by the Corporation for services rendered to it within the previous 12 months, whether as a full- or part-time employee, independent contractor, or otherwise, or (b) Any person whose family member, as defined in Section 2.2, is currently being compensated by the Corporation for services rendered to it within the previous 12 months, whether as a full- or part-time employee, independent contractor, or otherwise. 3. Committee on Conflicts of Interest 3.1 To administer and monitor compliance with this Policy, the Board shall create a Committee of the Board on Conflicts of Interest ("Conflicts Committee"), to consist of at least two Directors named by the Board. 3.2 The Conflicts Committee shall require a statement from each Director and Officer not less frequently than once a year setting forth all business and other affiliations which relate in any way to the business and other activities of the Corporation. 4. Duty to Abstain 4.1 No Director shall vote on any matter in which he or she has a material and direct financial interest that will be affected by the outcome of the vote. 4.2 In the event of such an abstention, the abstaining Director shall state the reason for the abstention, which shall be noted in the minutes of the Board of Directors. 5. Disclosure by Directors and Officers 5.1 When requested by the Conflicts Committee (not less frequently than once a year), each Director and Officer shall promptly submit a statement to the Committee setting forth all business and other affiliations which relate in any way to the business and other affiliations of the Corporation. 5.2 With respect to any particular matter then pending before the Corporation, each Director and Officer shall disclose to the Conflicts Committee any matter that could reasonably be considered to make the Director or Officer an "Interested Director" or "Interested Officer," as defined above. 5.3 With respect to any particular matter then pending before the Corporation, each Director and Officer shall disclose to the Conflicts Committee any relationship or other factor that could reasonably be considered to cause the Director or Officer to be considered to be an "Interested Person," as defined above. 5.4 For purposes of this section, Officers of the Corporation need not disclose compensation and other benefits paid to the Officer by the Corporation pursuant to Board resolution. 6. Disclosure by Supporting Organization Members of or participants in Supporting Organization councils must disclose conflicts of interest or other financial interests in matters within the scope of the Supporting Organization in the manner required by the Bylaws of the Supporting Organization. 7. Procedures in Connection with Proposed Transactions and Arrangements 7.1 Scope. This section applies to any proposed transaction, contract, or arrangement in which a Director, Officer, or Interested Person has a material financial interest. 7.2 Duty to Disclose. In connection with any actual or possible conflicts of interest, an Interested Director or Interested Officer must disclose the existence and nature of his of her material financial interest to the Conflicts Committee prior to the consideration of the proposed transaction, contract, or arrangement by the Board or any Committee of the Board. 7.3 Determining Whether a Conflict of Interest Exists. After disclosure of the financial interest, the disinterested members of the Conflicts Committee shall determine whether a conflict of interest exists. Neither the Board nor any Committee of the Board shall vote upon any proposed transaction, contract, or arrangement in connection with which an actual or possible conflict of interest has been disclosed by an Interested Director until such time as the Conflicts Committee has addressed the actual or possible conflict of interest. For matters pending before the full Board of Directors, a referral to the Conflicts Committee will not be required where the Interested Director fully discloses to the Board his or her financial interest and abstains from participation in the Board's consideration of the proposed transaction, contract, or arrangement. 7.4 Procedures for Addressing a Conflict of Interest 7.4.1 Where a matter has been referred to the Conflicts Committee and the Conflicts Committee has concluded that a conflict of interest exists, the chairman of the Board or Committee of the Board shall, if appropriate, appoint a disinterested person or committee to investigate alternatives to the proposed transaction, contract, or arrangement. 7.4.2 After exercising due diligence, the Board or Committee shall determine whether the Corporation can obtain a more advantageous transaction, contract, or arrangement with reasonable efforts from a person or entity that would not give rise to a conflict of interest. 7.4.3 If a more advantageous transaction, contract, or other arrangement is not reasonably attainable under circumstances that would not give rise to a conflict of interest, the Board or Committee shall determine by a majority vote of the disinterested Directors whether the transaction, contract, or arrangement is in the Corporation's best interest and for its own benefit and whether it is fair and reasonable to the Corporation, and shall make its decision as to whether to enter into the transaction, contract, or arrangement in conformity with such determination. 8. Violations of the Conflicts of Interest Policy 8.1 If the Conflicts Committee has reasonable cause to believe that a Director or Officer has failed to disclose an actual or possible conflict of interest, it shall inform the Director or Officer of the basis for such belief and afford the Director or Officer an opportunity to explain the alleged failure to disclose. 8.2 If, after hearing the response of the Director or Officer and making such further investigation as may be warranted in the circumstances, the Conflicts Committee determines that the member has in fact failed to disclose an actual or possible conflict of interest, it shall recommend to the Board of Directors appropriate disciplinary and corrective action. 8.3 The violation of this conflicts of interest policy is a serious matter and may constitute "cause" for removal or termination of a Director or Officer, or the termination of any contractual relationship the Corporation may have with an Interested Person or other party. 9. Records of Proceedings 9.1 The minutes of the Conflicts Committee shall contain: (a) The names of Directors and Officers found to have a material financial interest in connection with an actual or possible conflict of interest; the nature of the financial interest; any action taken to determine whether a conflict of interest was present; and the decision of the Conflicts Committee as to whether a conflict of interest in fact existed. (b) The names of the persons who were present for discussions and votes relating to the actual or potential conflict of interest; the content of the discussion; and a record of any votes taken in connection therewith. 9.2 In connection with a conflict of interest, the minutes of the Board or other Committee of the Board shall contain the names of the persons who were present for discussions and votes relating to the transaction or arrangement; the content of the discussion, including any alternatives to the proposed transaction or arrangement; and a record of any votes taken in connection therewith. 10. Compensation Committees A member of any Committee of the Board the jurisdiction of which includes compensation matters and who receives compensation from the Corporation for services is precluded from voting on matters pertaining to that member's compensation. 11. Annual Statements Each Director and Officer shall annually sign a statement which affirms that such person: (a) Has received a copy of the conflicts of interest policy; (b) Has read and understands the policy; (c) Has agreed to comply with the policy; and (d) Understands that the Corporation is a charitable organization and that in order to maintain its federal tax exemption it must engage primarily in activities which accomplish one or more of its tax-exempt purposes. 12. Periodic Reviews The Conflicts Committee shall periodically consider whether and how this Conflicts of Interest Policy should be revised or amended to better meet its objectives. In connection with any periodic review conducted by the Corporation to ensure that it operates in a manner consistent with its charitable purposes, the Conflicts Committee shall report on the matters referred to it and their resolution. Denise Michel ICANN Advisor to the President denise.michel at icann.org +1.408.429.3072 mobile +1.310.578.8632 direct -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101028/178a88ee/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Fri Oct 29 15:41:27 2010 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 08:41:27 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Preliminary Report - 28 Oct session + Cartagena proposal Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34D9159FE@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Dear Review Team Members, Thank you once again for your participation in the call. Please find attached a preliminary report of the fruitful discussion the Team had yesterday. Note that you are very welcome to provide editing suggestions. This report will be published on the WHOIS wiki which comprises your activities (recording, transcripts, reports) https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/WHOIS+Policy+Review+Team Also, as requested during this session, we would like to kindly remind Members interested in the Chair and Vice-Chair roles to notify us of your candidacy before the next call. If you were unable to participate in the second conference call, please know that the following working teams were established: 1. Drafting of principles, CoI and scope ? Members: Kathy Kleiman, Emily Taylor, Bill Smith and Susan Kawaguchi 2. Reflection upon the Chair and Vice Chair expectations and election models ? Members: Sharon Lemon, Bill Smith and Lynn Goodendorf Note that these Working Teams are still seeking for extra pairs of hands and that you are most welcome to volunteer at this stage. If so, please declare your interest to the list. As announced yesterday, please note that we need to prepare for the Cartagena meeting. The working assumption is to have a full day face-to-face meeting on Sunday, 5 December and a one-hour introductory session for the community on Wednesday, 8 December. Meetings with particular constituencies may also be called for depending on how far the work has advanced. Such meetings will have to be arranged closer to the Cartagena meeting. Thank you, Very best regards Alice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101029/526ec23a/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WHOIS Policy Review Team - Prel Report 20102810.doc Type: application/msword Size: 43008 bytes Desc: WHOIS Policy Review Team - Prel Report 20102810.doc Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101029/526ec23a/WHOISPolicyReviewTeam-PrelReport20102810.doc From lutz at iks-jena.de Fri Oct 29 17:01:41 2010 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 19:01:41 +0200 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Preliminary Report - 28 Oct session + Cartagena proposal In-Reply-To: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34D9159FE@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34D9159FE@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <20101029170141.GA30726@belenus.iks-jena.de> Thank you for the report. I was only partially available on this call due, so please let me ask my question again on the list. I'd like to volunteer for a survey about "whois usage" in order to find out for which purpuse whois data is collected and for which purpose the databases are queried. I fear, that both usage profiles (intended vs real) will differ significantly. Based on this survey, I'd propose a definition on basic "whois goals" and then focus on the methods to reach them. A possible outcame might be, that whois data is not used in any intended way, so we can conclude to stop providing whois services at all. If I get a positive response on this proposal, I'll prepare a draft questionary. From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Fri Oct 29 17:55:11 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:55:11 -0600 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Preliminary Report - 28 Oct session + Cartagena proposal In-Reply-To: <20101029170141.GA30726@belenus.iks-jena.de> References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34D9159FE@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <20101029170141.GA30726@belenus.iks-jena.de> Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B600BF8E@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Without an agreed upon scope and Terms of Reference, I am uncomfortable with our considering and agreeing to work items beyond those necessary to determine what our work is and how we will perform it. While discussing our scope, we can consider offers such as this and ask if it falls within our remit given the language of the Affirmation of Commitments, which is the defining document for this, and other Review Teams. Regarding this specific proposal, and without either supporting or opposing it, I note that there are possible outcomes other than the one feared. Further, even if the feared outcome proves to be the actual outcome, other remedies are possible that might meet be effective, promote consumer trust, and meet the needs of law enforcement. But again, I firmly believe that it is too early to consider moving forward with this or any other study. > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] > On Behalf Of Lutz Donnerhacke > Sent: Friday, October 29, 2010 10:02 AM > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Preliminary Report - 28 Oct session + > Cartagena proposal > > Thank you for the report. > > I was only partially available on this call due, so please let me ask > my > question again on the list. > > I'd like to volunteer for a survey about "whois usage" in order to find > out > for which purpuse whois data is collected and for which purpose the > databases are queried. I fear, that both usage profiles (intended vs > real) > will differ significantly. > > Based on this survey, I'd propose a definition on basic "whois goals" > and > then focus on the methods to reach them. > > A possible outcame might be, that whois data is not used in any > intended > way, so we can conclude to stop providing whois services at all. > > If I get a positive response on this proposal, I'll prepare a draft > questionary. > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Fri Oct 29 20:08:06 2010 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:08:06 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Preliminary Report - 28 Oct session + Cartagena proposal Message-ID: <20101029130806.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.dcd13fdb10.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101029/36696a5f/attachment.html From sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk Sat Oct 30 05:37:55 2010 From: sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk (Lemon, Sharon) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 06:37:55 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Preliminary Report - 28 Oct session + Cartagena proposal Message-ID: <2211B7B9B95C3A4898AE8A6CBCD8B2B702604817@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> Classification: [ NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED ] Hello All, Sorry I had to leave the conf call before the end, and I have some comms difficulties until 10th November, when I am back in the UK. I am in New Zealand, working on BB which doesn't allow me to open many attachments or any links! I note I am on one of the working groups~was there any timescale set for this? Lynn. Bill ~any ideas of how we can progress this? Also, when is next conference call planned? Best Wishes, Sharon ________________________________ From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org To: rt4-whois at icann.org Sent: Fri Oct 29 16:41:27 2010 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Preliminary Report - 28 Oct session + Cartagena proposal Dear Review Team Members, Thank you once again for your participation in the call. Please find attached a preliminary report of the fruitful discussion the Team had yesterday. Note that you are very welcome to provide editing suggestions. This report will be published on the WHOIS wiki which comprises your activities (recording, transcripts, reports) https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/WHOIS+Policy+Review+Team Also, as requested during this session, we would like to kindly remind Members interested in the Chair and Vice-Chair roles to notify us of your candidacy before the next call. If you were unable to participate in the second conference call, please know that the following working teams were established: 1. Drafting of principles, CoI and scope ? Members: Kathy Kleiman, Emily Taylor, Bill Smith and Susan Kawaguchi 2. Reflection upon the Chair and Vice Chair expectations and election models ? Members: Sharon Lemon, Bill Smith and Lynn Goodendorf Note that these Working Teams are still seeking for extra pairs of hands and that you are most welcome to volunteer at this stage. If so, please declare your interest to the list. As announced yesterday, please note that we need to prepare for the Cartagena meeting. The working assumption is to have a full day face-to-face meeting on Sunday, 5 December and a one-hour introductory session for the community on Wednesday, 8 December. Meetings with particular constituencies may also be called for depending on how far the work has advanced. Such meetings will have to be arranged closer to the Cartagena meeting. Thank you, Very best regards Alice This email was received from the INTERNET and scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisation?s IT Helpdesk. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning 0870 268 8677. All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101030/0ca31076/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Sat Oct 30 19:53:29 2010 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:53:29 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Preliminary Report - 28 Oct session + Cartagena proposal Message-ID: <20101030125329.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.8c3ab823d1.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101030/3118f818/attachment.html From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Sun Oct 31 18:06:52 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 18:06:52 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] My apologies In-Reply-To: <4F98851C-102A-4C7E-BAAC-900FACD136E3@vonarx.ca> References: <4F98851C-102A-4C7E-BAAC-900FACD136E3@vonarx.ca> Message-ID: <4CCDB03C.7080401@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Same here regarding apologies... I reported as being not available, before, but nevertheless tried to call in from a fast-moving train :-) It turns out that this was not too successful. Thus I only manged to listen it for some 20 minutes. Regards, Wilfried, From michel.denise at gmail.com Thu Oct 28 16:17:35 2010 From: michel.denise at gmail.com (Denise Michel) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:17:35 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Board Conflicts of Interest Policy Message-ID: *Conflicts of Interest Policy *[Adopted March 4, 1999, pursuant to ICANN Bylaws, Article V, Section 7, and Article VI, Section 3(b)] This policy superseded by the 30 July 2009 version. *1. Purpose* The purpose of the Conflicts of Interest policy is to ensure that the deliberations and decisions of the Corporation are made in the interests of the global Internet community as a whole, and to protect the interests of the Corporation when it is contemplating entering into a transaction, contract, or arrangement that might benefit the private interest of an Interested Director, Officer or Person (as defined below). An Interested Director, Officer or Person may not use his or her position with respect to the Corporation, or confidential corporate information obtained by him or her relating to the Corporation, in order to achieve a financial benefit for himself or herself or for a third person, including another nonprofit or charitable organization. This policy is intended to supplement but not replace any applicable laws governing conflicts of interest in nonprofit and charitable corporations. *2. Definitions* 2.1 *Compensation*. "Compensation" includes direct and indirect remuneration as well as gifts or favors that are substantial in nature. 2.2 *Family*. The "family" of any individual shall include only his or her spouse; his or her siblings and their spouses; his or her ancestors; and his or her descendants and their spouses. 2.3 *Financial Interest*. A person has a "financial interest" if the person has, directly or indirectly, through business, investment or family: (a) An existing or potential ownership or investment interest in any entity with which the Corporation has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement, or (b) A compensation arrangement with the Corporation or with any entity or individual with which the Corporation has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement, or (c) An existing or potential ownership or investment interest in, or compensation arrangement with, any entity or individual with which the Corporation is negotiating a transaction, contract, or other arrangement, or (d) An existing or potential ownership or investment interest in, or compensation arrangement with, any entity whose business or operation has been or will be directly affected by a decision or action of the Corporation. 2.4 *Interested Director*. "Interested Director" shall mean any Director of the Corporation who has a material financial interest, as defined above, or who serves as a Director or Officer of any entity with which the Corporation has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement. 2.5 *Interested Officer*. "Interested Officer" shall mean any Officer who has a material financial interest, as defined above, or who serves as a Director or Officer of any entity with which the Corporation has a transaction, contract, or other arrangement. For purposes of this policy, the President of the Corporation shall be treated as an Officer. 2.6 *Interested Person*. "Interested Person" shall mean either: (a) Any person currently being compensated by the Corporation for services rendered to it within the previous 12 months, whether as a full- or part-time employee, independent contractor, or otherwise, or (b) Any person whose family member, as defined in Section 2.2, is currently being compensated by the Corporation for services rendered to it within the previous 12 months, whether as a full- or part-time employee, independent contractor, or otherwise. *3. Committee on Conflicts of Interest* 3.1 To administer and monitor compliance with this Policy, the Board shall create a Committee of the Board on Conflicts of Interest("Conflicts Committee"), to consist of at least two Directors named by the Board. 3.2 The Conflicts Committee shall require a statement from each Director and Officer not less frequently than once a year setting forth all business and other affiliations which relate in any way to the business and other activities of the Corporation. *4. Duty to Abstain* 4.1 No Director shall vote on any matter in which he or she has a material and direct financial interest that will be affected by the outcome of the vote. 4.2 In the event of such an abstention, the abstaining Director shall state the reason for the abstention, which shall be noted in the minutes of the Board of Directors. *5. Disclosure by Directors and Officers* 5.1 When requested by the Conflicts Committee (not less frequently than once a year), each Director and Officer shall promptly submit a statement to the Committee setting forth all business and other affiliations which relate in any way to the business and other affiliations of the Corporation. 5.2 With respect to any particular matter then pending before the Corporation, each Director and Officer shall disclose to the Conflicts Committee any matter that could reasonably be considered to make the Director or Officer an "Interested Director" or "Interested Officer," as defined above. 5.3 With respect to any particular matter then pending before the Corporation, each Director and Officer shall disclose to the Conflicts Committee any relationship or other factor that could reasonably be considered to cause the Director or Officer to be considered to be an "Interested Person," as defined above. 5.4 For purposes of this section, Officers of the Corporation need not disclose compensation and other benefits paid to the Officer by the Corporation pursuant to Board resolution. *6. Disclosure by Supporting Organization* Members of or participants in Supporting Organization councils must disclose conflicts of interest or other financial interests in matters within the scope of the Supporting Organization in the manner required by the Bylaws of the Supporting Organization. *7. Procedures in Connection with Proposed Transactions and Arrangements* 7.1 Scope. This section applies to any proposed transaction, contract, or arrangement in which a Director, Officer, or Interested Person has a material financial interest. 7.2 Duty to Disclose. In connection with any actual or possible conflicts of interest, an Interested Director or Interested Officer must disclose the existence and nature of his of her material financial interest to the Conflicts Committee prior to the consideration of the proposed transaction, contract, or arrangement by the Board or any Committee of the Board. 7.3 Determining Whether a Conflict of Interest Exists. After disclosure of the financial interest, the disinterested members of the Conflicts Committee shall determine whether a conflict of interest exists. Neither the Board nor any Committee of the Board shall vote upon any proposed transaction, contract, or arrangement in connection with which an actual or possible conflict of interest has been disclosed by an Interested Director until such time as the Conflicts Committee has addressed the actual or possible conflict of interest. For matters pending before the full Board of Directors, a referral to the Conflicts Committee will not be required where the Interested Director fully discloses to the Board his or her financial interest and abstains from participation in the Board's consideration of the proposed transaction, contract, or arrangement. 7.4 Procedures for Addressing a Conflict of Interest 7.4.1 Where a matter has been referred to the Conflicts Committee and the Conflicts Committee has concluded that a conflict of interest exists, the chairman of the Board or Committee of the Board shall, if appropriate, appoint a disinterested person or committee to investigate alternatives to the proposed transaction, contract, or arrangement. 7.4.2 After exercising due diligence, the Board or Committee shall determine whether the Corporation can obtain a more advantageous transaction, contract, or arrangement with reasonable efforts from a person or entity that would not give rise to a conflict of interest. 7.4.3 If a more advantageous transaction, contract, or other arrangement is not reasonably attainable under circumstances that would not give rise to a conflict of interest, the Board or Committee shall determine by a majority vote of the disinterested Directors whether the transaction, contract, or arrangement is in the Corporation's best interest and for its own benefit and whether it is fair and reasonable to the Corporation, and shall make its decision as to whether to enter into the transaction, contract, or arrangement in conformity with such determination. *8. Violations of the Conflicts of Interest Policy* 8.1 If the Conflicts Committee has reasonable cause to believe that a Director or Officer has failed to disclose an actual or possible conflict of interest, it shall inform the Director or Officer of the basis for such belief and afford the Director or Officer an opportunity to explain the alleged failure to disclose. 8.2 If, after hearing the response of the Director or Officer and making such further investigation as may be warranted in the circumstances, the Conflicts Committee determines that the member has in fact failed to disclose an actual or possible conflict of interest, it shall recommend to the Board of Directors appropriate disciplinary and corrective action. 8.3 The violation of this conflicts of interest policy is a serious matter and may constitute "cause" for removal or termination of a Director or Officer, or the termination of any contractual relationship the Corporation may have with an Interested Person or other party. *9. Records of Proceedings* 9.1 The minutes of the Conflicts Committee shall contain: (a) The names of Directors and Officers found to have a material financial interest in connection with an actual or possible conflict of interest; the nature of the financial interest; any action taken to determine whether a conflict of interest was present; and the decision of the Conflicts Committee as to whether a conflict of interest in fact existed. (b) The names of the persons who were present for discussions and votes relating to the actual or potential conflict of interest; the content of the discussion; and a record of any votes taken in connection therewith. 9.2 In connection with a conflict of interest, the minutes of the Board or other Committee of the Board shall contain the names of the persons who were present for discussions and votes relating to the transaction or arrangement; the content of the discussion, including any alternatives to the proposed transaction or arrangement; and a record of any votes taken in connection therewith. *10. Compensation Committees* A member of any Committee of the Board the jurisdiction of which includes compensation matters and who receives compensation from the Corporation for services is precluded from voting on matters pertaining to that member's compensation. *11. Annual Statements* Each Director and Officer shall annually sign a statement which affirms that such person: (a) Has received a copy of the conflicts of interest policy; (b) Has read and understands the policy; (c) Has agreed to comply with the policy; and (d) Understands that the Corporation is a charitable organization and that in order to maintain its federal tax exemption it must engage primarily in activities which accomplish one or more of its tax-exempt purposes. *12. Periodic Reviews* The Conflicts Committee shall periodically consider whether and how this Conflicts of Interest Policy should be revised or amended to better meet its objectives. In connection with any periodic review conducted by the Corporation to ensure that it operates in a manner consistent with its charitable purposes, the Conflicts Committee shall report on the matters referred to it and their resolution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101028/bf4ea998/attachment.html