[Rt4-whois] Establishing our own track - and independence

[Smith, Bill]

Just a quick comment before I jump in my car to battle the SFO traffic:

Each of us is responsible. Each of us is serious. And each of us agreed to participate on this Review Team; whose scope is clearly defined in the AOC.

If there is disagreement on that subject, I for one would like to be made aware of it.

Regarding independence of this team, I have seen absolutely *no* interference from any ICANN representative. Rather, they have been supportive and are facilitating our work. I see no reason to drop that support in the name of independence.

More to follow.

On Nov 2, 2010, at 5:56 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

Dear Whois RT,

Following the meeting last Thursday, the process has been moving away from the path we set out leading up to Thursday, and I think it is important for us to get back on track:

We heard from Brian Cute last week that his Review Team took their duty very seriously, and it is good that we are able to learn from their experience. The first thing they did was to define their own scope of work – and they found that there is nothing simple or easy about it, yet it was seen as a necessary condition to ensure the independence and integrity of the work of the Review Team – and as I see it, that applies to all review teams. As I see it, the first requirement for all review teams is to be independent, and in particular independent of the body whose actions we are reviewing: ICANN. Therefore, the process of our review team cannot be driven by ICANN staff and/or its President, no matter what good intentions or practicalities are there.


1.      I therefore submit that our next step is elections.  If you want to run, please do!  I run because I care about the Affirmation of Commitments, I know the GNSO well, and my firm has allocated time to allow me to handle the administrative and technical issues of the chairmanship. And I know, as do you, that the substantive issues are ones we must address together.

2.      I strongly urge that the Scope of Work be stopped pending elections, so that its result will be viewed as completely neutral and independent. I further urge that all scheduling by staff be ceased until we do it ourselves. We are responsible for our own goals, agendas, work products and timeframes. We are the first of Whois Review Teams to follow, and thus the first charged with the important responsibility of translating the words of the Affirmation of Commitments into a Scope of Work. (I should share that – even with two signatories of the Affirmation of Commitments(!) – the Accountability and Transparency Team found this a difficult process – with good faith disagreements with ICANN defining its first months.) Therefore, once we have established our own, independent leadership, I view the Scope of Work as our first major task – and one in which we should ALL be actively engaged as it is the foundation of all our work to follow. A possible way forward would be:

a.      Form the whole of the Review Team into 3-4 subgroups to review (of 3-4 people each) to review and draft Scope of Work. I have talked with many of us, and listened closely during our first meetings, and hear different ideas about our scope of work and our mission here. As a better way to know each other, and to ensure that all of our ideas become part of a first draft, a first step could very well be a discussion and comparison of the ideas about the scope of work from those different subgroups.

b.      Meet with drafters and signatories of the Affirmation of Commitments, including Fiona Alexander of the US Department of Commerce and others, as an important step in the process to translate the words of the AoC into a scope of work for the Whois RT.

3.      In additional step, let’s survey who of us is going to Cartagena. If we find that many people of us do not currently have plans to be there (and please note that flights are now full and hotels booked), let’s consider planning our first formal face-to-face meeting in early January (with perhaps a very informal meeting in Cartagena for those who happen to be attending). If many of us will be in Cartagena, then we should use that opportunity, of course.

4.      Furthermore: even if it turns out that most of us will be in Cartagena, it seems to me that it is too early to meet with stakeholder groups in Cartagena (as recently suggested) as we are simply not far enough in our own development process. By the San Francisco ICANN meeting in March, we should be ready to meet – hopefully, with a well-grounded set of questions and ideas for public review and comment.

5.      Establish a way to collect, review and work with the excellent ideas being shared by our members.

Again, I strongly urge that development of the Scope of Work be stopped pending elections, so that it can be developed under a leadership viewed as completely neutral and independent. I further urge that all scheduling by staff be ceased until we do it ourselves. With thanks to ICANN Staff, it is we on the RT who are responsible for our own goals, agendas, work products and timeframes.

Respectfully submitted,

Kathy Kleiman, Esq.
Director of Policy

.ORG The Public Interest Registry
1775 Wiehle Avenue, Suite 200
Reston, Virginia 20190  USA

Main: +1 703 889-5778  | Direct: +1 703 889-5756
Mobile: +1 703 371-6846 | Fax: +1 703.889.5779
E:  kkleiman at pir.org<mailto:clee at pir.org>       |  W:  www.pir.org<http://www.pir.org/>

Visit us online!
Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz!<http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz>
Find us on Facebook | dotorg<http://www.facebook.com/pages/dotorg/203294399456?v=wall>
See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr<http://flickr.com/orgbuzz>
See our video library on YouTube<http://youtube.com/orgbuzz>

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.


<ATT00001..txt>