From jbladel at godaddy.com Mon Nov 8 01:34:26 2010 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 18:34:26 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Vote on Meeting in Cartagena Message-ID: <20101107183426.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.35b59d27bf.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101107/0ef18aa2/attachment.html From jbladel at godaddy.com Mon Nov 8 01:49:53 2010 From: jbladel at godaddy.com (James M. Bladel) Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2010 18:49:53 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Support staff, adjuncts, etc. Message-ID: <20101107184953.9c1b16d3983f34082b49b9baf8cec04a.8eba22c6d9.wbe@email00.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101107/25edeb46/attachment.html From lutz at iks-jena.de Mon Nov 8 07:27:01 2010 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 07:27:01 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Rt4-whois] [renames] Meeting in Cartagena and London References: Message-ID: * Kathy Kleiman wrote: > 1. Is it acceptable to everyone to have a two-hour meeting in Cartagena > (Sunday, 12/6) with remote participation? We should find the best 2-hour > slot for maximum remote participation. Yes. > 2. Does anyone oppose a public "meet and greet" session in Cartagena? > Denise and Olof, is there a time available when Wilfried could join us? > I truly don't see much that we can do at this session other than introduce > ourselves and the Affirmation of Commitments. Susan and I were discussing > that half an hour might be more than sufficient. I love those "informal" presentations at ICANN meetings. It has the benefit to be part of the official documentation. From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Mon Nov 8 08:23:58 2010 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 08:23:58 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] [renames] Meeting in Cartagena and London In-Reply-To: <2211B7B9B95C3A4898AE8A6CBCD8B2B702604855@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> References: <2211B7B9B95C3A4898AE8A6CBCD8B2B702604855@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> Message-ID: <5339B3D2-1F46-4076-906B-6F212C2665C8@etlaw.co.uk> All fine by me too. Thanks Emily On 6 Nov 2010, at 18:41, Lemon, Sharon wrote: > Classification: [ NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED ] > > All of this is fine by me~sorry for loss of comms past few days, BB lost signal in NZ. > > > Sharon > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org > To: Susan Kawaguchi ; rt4-whois at icann.org > Sent: Sat Nov 06 16:07:38 2010 > Subject: [Rt4-whois] [renames] Meeting in Cartagena and London > > On a related note, I like Susan's movement forward on our Cartagena issues. I see it in three parts: > > 1. Is it acceptable to everyone to have a two-hour meeting in Cartagena (Sunday, 12/6) with remote participation? We should find the best 2-hour slot for maximum remote participation. > > 2. Does anyone oppose a public "meet and greet" session in Cartagena? Denise and Olof, is there a time available when Wilfried could join us? I truly don't see much that we can do at this session other than introduce ourselves and the Affirmation of Commitments. Susan and I were discussing that half an hour might be more than sufficient. > > 3. Has anyone changed their mind about a meeting in London? If not, we will start planning this as a major F2F meeting for the group. > > 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. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Susan Kawaguchi [mailto:skawaguchi at facebook.com] > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 3:18 PM > To: Kathy Kleiman; rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: RE: Vote on Meeting in Cartagena > > Hello All, > > I have broken out the Scope of Work and the proposed Drafting Team language from the original document I sent a couple hours ago at Kathy's suggestion. > > Hopefully, this will make it easier to read and we can come to agreement on the process as we move forward. > > I still think we should take advantage of the time many members are together in Cartegena and would propose we schedule a two hour meeting that includes remote participates on Sunday December 5th. If we have not come to agreement on the guidelines or Scope of Work by that time we could devote the time to an in depth discussion. > > Susan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kKleiman at pir.org] > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 9:35 AM > To: Susan Kawaguchi; rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Vote on Meeting in Cartagena > > Hi All, > I think we should take a vote on holding a one-day meeting in Cartagena -- on Sunday, 12/5. We learned on 11/1, in Olof's message, that there are facilities available for such a meeting. > > Given the lateness of the notice for those not already planning to be in Cartagena, I proposed an alternative for January in London. (I personally find remote participation for long periods of time very difficult.) > > Mostly, I feel we should not be split for our first meeting. > > So let me put out the vote: all in favor of a full-day meeting in Cartagena -- please vote YES. Opposed, please vote NO. > > 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. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 12:23 PM > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] First Face to Face Meetings - updated table > > Hello All, > > I agree with Wilfired that we should use the Sunday that ICANN has already scheduled for a constructive meeting. By waiting until January for the full team to meet we will lose time in gaining momentum with the team. ICANN has drastically improved the remote participation tools and since we have at least half of the team already committed to the meeting we could have a fruitful discussion. If it is expenses alone that is limiting participation we have a budget for travel and we should use it. > > > I have attached proposed guidelines for the team. I spent time reviewing other group's guidelines or rules on the ICANN website and have incorporated some of that into this document. I have also included Bill's Scope of Work and some of the issues brought up in the email threads. Please take a moment to review it and provide comment as I am sure I have not hit on all the details we need to think about. This is a starting point and by tracking it in a document I think we can work through the details and bring clarity to many issues quickly. > > Susan > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 7:09 AM > To: Kathy Kleiman > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] First Face to Face Meetings - updated table > > Hi Kathy, all, > > just a couple of thoughts..... > > Kathy Kleiman wrote: > >> Thanks All, >> >> I appreciate all the email, and we have a much more complete table! >> While half our team will be in Cartagena, all of us are available in >> mid-January for a meeting. To hold a solid, substantive, face-to-face >> meeting, our time is January. > > fine with me, but *please* could wew start the process of agreeing on a date (or maybe 1 or 2 alternatives) *right now*? > > There's quite a bit of competition for timeslots, for some of us, and the more things which linger around, the more difficult it becomes to schedule the competing requests :-( > >> I'll circulate some ideas and a request for a planning committee for >> the January meeting shortly (please feel free to send initial thoughts >> and ideas to me). >> >> >> >> I would also like to recommend that, for those of us who are attending >> the Cartagena meeting, we have a short social hour to introduce >> ourselves-- no agenda, no substantive discussion. > > While I agree, that we should not go for a full-blown "formal" meeting if we plan to hold that in January, I'd like to put a bit more flesh onto the bones. > > In particular, I'd like to have the relevant/involved ICANN individuals join in (assuming that most of them will be in Cartagena anyway, but not necessarily able to join us in January!?). > > As an additional idea, we could try to work with ICANN staff on discussing our communcation infrastructure and maybe even agree on the next steps. > I'd really like to have that available (stable, test-driven,...) *before* the January meeting. > >> Would anyone not >> attending the Cartagena meeting object or feel excluded by this type >> of get together? > > If(!) the team agrees on this suggested "upgrade", could we have a show of hands, (Kathy - can you collect that, too?) from those NOT going to Colombia, whether they would be able and willing to join in remotely? > >> Please find the table attached. > > I presume we should let the people in ICANN, doing the planning right know, asap what type and level of support we'd like to get in Cartagena, e.g a room and remote access,... > >> All the best, >> >> Kathy > > 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 > > 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 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101108/e7deec42/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Mon Nov 8 10:14:37 2010 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 02:14:37 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] WHOIS Conf Call - Wednesday 10 November - 14:00 UTC Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD811A8@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Dear Review Team Members, Per the Doodle poll results, the upcoming WHOIS conference call is scheduled for: **Wednesday, 10 November 2010** 14:00 UTC Password: 27318 followed by # Duration: 90 minutes Please check your local time at: http://timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?day=10&month=11&year=2010&hour=14&min=0&sec=0&p1=0 For your convenience, please find attached a tentative agenda - subject to change - for this call. Adobe room: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/ Dial-in Numbers: http://www.adigo.com/icann/ Antigua & Barbuda 1 800 207 2917 Japan L 005 31 121 467 Argentina 0 800 666 2126 Japan M 0066 33812579 Argentina T + 54 1159841231 Japan T +81 345789033 Australia 1 800 009 820 Latvia 800 2317 Australia Sydney T +61 290372962 Lithuania T +37 052596069 Australia Melbourne T +61 399996500 Luxembourg L 800 2 5407 Australia Brisbane T +61 731777546 Luxembourg M 800 2 5920 Austria L 0 800 295 858 Luxembourg T +352 20881255 Austria M 0 800 295 138 Macau 0800 206 Austria T +43 720882638 Malaysia 1 800 81 2609 Bahamas 1 800 228 1852 Mexico 001 800 349 9456 Barbados 1 800 238 1982 Mexico Mexico City T +52 5547707366 Belgium L 0800 79210 Netherlands L 0800 022 9027 Belgium M 0800 79218 Netherlands M 0800 022 3876 Bermuda 1 800 258 8138 Netherlands T +31 208908115 Bolivia 800 10 0435 Netherlands Antilles 001 800 350 3413 Brazil L 0800 891 1597 New Zealand L 0800 448705 Brazil M 0800 891 1598 New Zealand M 0800 448716 Brazil T +55 6137172040 New Zealand T +64 99518127 Canada 1 800 550 6865 Nicaragua 001 800 220 1828 Canada T +1 213 233 3193 Norway 800 10982 Cayman Islands 1 800 265 9907 Norway T +47 85226583 Chile 123 00 204 374 Panama 001 800 507 1953 China (North) 10 800 712 1212 Peru 0 800 52754 China (South) 10 800 120 1212 Peru T +51 17085661 Colombia 01 800 915 6238 Philippines 1 800 1114 0135 Costa Rica 0 800 0 121 513 Poland L 0 0 800 121 1472 Czech Republic 800 700 960 Poland M 0 0 800 121 3744 Denmark L 8088 7326 Poland T +48 223008915 Denmark M 8088 6280 Portugal L 800 812 676 Denmark T +45 89880470 Portugal M 800 855 226 Dominica 1 800 290 1276 Portugal T +351 308801082 Dominican Republic 1 888 751 2388 Russia 8 10 8002 535 3011 El Salvador 800 6276 San Marino 800 870 329 El Salvador T +503 21133514 Singapore 800 1204 162 Finland 0 800 1 16319 Slovakia 0800 001 113 France 0800 90 25 56 South Africa 0 800 99 8871 France T +33 170618347 South Korea 0030 812 3349 Germany L 0800 1016 120 Spain 900 98 19 50 Germany M 0800 1016 124 Spain T +34 901667598 Greece 00 800 127 151 St Kitts and Nevis 1 800 331 7871 Guatemala 1 800 624 0045 St. Lucia 1 800 347 1478 Guyana 1 800 290 1814 Sweden 020 796 572 Hong Kong 800 965184 Sweden T +46 10 199 25 96 Hong Kong T +852 58080242 Switzerland L 0 800 562747 Hungary 06 800 18420 Switzerland M 0 800 562734 Iceland 800 8616 Taiwan 00801 13774 9 India 000 800 001 6131 Thailand 001 800 12 0665 129 Indonesia 001 80 3011 3876 Trinidad & Tobago 1 800 649 6068 Ireland 1 800 684 009 Turks & Caicos 1 800 649 6597 Israel 1 80 921 4355 United Kingdom 0800 032 6646 Israel T +972 37631157 United Kingdom T +44 2070990867 Italy L 800 786 783 United States 1 800 550 6865 Italy M 800 786 780 United States T +1 213 233 3193 Italy T +39 0694816686 Uruguay 000 413 5983265 Jamaica 1 800 250 1668 Venezuela 0 800 100 4704 Vietnam 120 11046 L Land-line preferred number M Mobile preferred number T Local toll number 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. We are looking forward to this discussion and thank you in advance for your participation. 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/20101108/7c66b08e/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WHOIS - Draft Agenda - Wed 10 Nov.doc Type: application/msword Size: 14142 bytes Desc: WHOIS - Draft Agenda - Wed 10 Nov.doc Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101108/7c66b08e/WHOIS-DraftAgenda-Wed10Nov.doc From oiteanu at iteanu.com Mon Nov 8 11:56:10 2010 From: oiteanu at iteanu.com (Olivier ITEANU) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 12:56:10 +0100 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Vote on Meeting in Cartagena Message-ID: <4CD7F36A.27257.10D0CC5@oiteanu.iteanu.com> No to Cartagena Yes to London 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 kim at vonarx.ca Mon Nov 8 12:46:11 2010 From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 07:46:11 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] [renames] Meeting in Cartagena and London In-Reply-To: <5339B3D2-1F46-4076-906B-6F212C2665C8@etlaw.co.uk> References: <2211B7B9B95C3A4898AE8A6CBCD8B2B702604855@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> <5339B3D2-1F46-4076-906B-6F212C2665C8@etlaw.co.uk> Message-ID: Fine by me too. Kim On 8 Nov 2010, at 03:23, Emily Taylor wrote: > All fine by me too. > > Thanks > > Emily > > On 6 Nov 2010, at 18:41, Lemon, Sharon wrote: > >> Classification: [ NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED ] >> >> All of this is fine by me~sorry for loss of comms past few days, BB lost signal in NZ. >> >> >> Sharon >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org >> To: Susan Kawaguchi ; rt4-whois at icann.org >> Sent: Sat Nov 06 16:07:38 2010 >> Subject: [Rt4-whois] [renames] Meeting in Cartagena and London >> >> On a related note, I like Susan's movement forward on our Cartagena issues. I see it in three parts: >> >> 1. Is it acceptable to everyone to have a two-hour meeting in Cartagena (Sunday, 12/6) with remote participation? We should find the best 2-hour slot for maximum remote participation. >> >> 2. Does anyone oppose a public "meet and greet" session in Cartagena? Denise and Olof, is there a time available when Wilfried could join us? I truly don't see much that we can do at this session other than introduce ourselves and the Affirmation of Commitments. Susan and I were discussing that half an hour might be more than sufficient. >> >> 3. Has anyone changed their mind about a meeting in London? If not, we will start planning this as a major F2F meeting for the group. >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Susan Kawaguchi [mailto:skawaguchi at facebook.com] >> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 3:18 PM >> To: Kathy Kleiman; rt4-whois at icann.org >> Subject: RE: Vote on Meeting in Cartagena >> >> Hello All, >> >> I have broken out the Scope of Work and the proposed Drafting Team language from the original document I sent a couple hours ago at Kathy's suggestion. >> >> Hopefully, this will make it easier to read and we can come to agreement on the process as we move forward. >> >> I still think we should take advantage of the time many members are together in Cartegena and would propose we schedule a two hour meeting that includes remote participates on Sunday December 5th. If we have not come to agreement on the guidelines or Scope of Work by that time we could devote the time to an in depth discussion. >> >> Susan >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kKleiman at pir.org] >> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 9:35 AM >> To: Susan Kawaguchi; rt4-whois at icann.org >> Subject: Vote on Meeting in Cartagena >> >> Hi All, >> I think we should take a vote on holding a one-day meeting in Cartagena -- on Sunday, 12/5. We learned on 11/1, in Olof's message, that there are facilities available for such a meeting. >> >> Given the lateness of the notice for those not already planning to be in Cartagena, I proposed an alternative for January in London. (I personally find remote participation for long periods of time very difficult.) >> >> Mostly, I feel we should not be split for our first meeting. >> >> So let me put out the vote: all in favor of a full-day meeting in Cartagena -- please vote YES. Opposed, please vote NO. >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi >> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 12:23 PM >> To: rt4-whois at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] First Face to Face Meetings - updated table >> >> Hello All, >> >> I agree with Wilfired that we should use the Sunday that ICANN has already scheduled for a constructive meeting. By waiting until January for the full team to meet we will lose time in gaining momentum with the team. ICANN has drastically improved the remote participation tools and since we have at least half of the team already committed to the meeting we could have a fruitful discussion. If it is expenses alone that is limiting participation we have a budget for travel and we should use it. >> >> >> I have attached proposed guidelines for the team. I spent time reviewing other group's guidelines or rules on the ICANN website and have incorporated some of that into this document. I have also included Bill's Scope of Work and some of the issues brought up in the email threads. Please take a moment to review it and provide comment as I am sure I have not hit on all the details we need to think about. This is a starting point and by tracking it in a document I think we can work through the details and bring clarity to many issues quickly. >> >> Susan >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet >> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 7:09 AM >> To: Kathy Kleiman >> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] First Face to Face Meetings - updated table >> >> Hi Kathy, all, >> >> just a couple of thoughts..... >> >> Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> >>> Thanks All, >>> >>> I appreciate all the email, and we have a much more complete table! >>> While half our team will be in Cartagena, all of us are available in >>> mid-January for a meeting. To hold a solid, substantive, face-to-face >>> meeting, our time is January. >> >> fine with me, but *please* could wew start the process of agreeing on a date (or maybe 1 or 2 alternatives) *right now*? >> >> There's quite a bit of competition for timeslots, for some of us, and the more things which linger around, the more difficult it becomes to schedule the competing requests :-( >> >>> I'll circulate some ideas and a request for a planning committee for >>> the January meeting shortly (please feel free to send initial thoughts >>> and ideas to me). >>> >>> >>> >>> I would also like to recommend that, for those of us who are attending >>> the Cartagena meeting, we have a short social hour to introduce >>> ourselves-- no agenda, no substantive discussion. >> >> While I agree, that we should not go for a full-blown "formal" meeting if we plan to hold that in January, I'd like to put a bit more flesh onto the bones. >> >> In particular, I'd like to have the relevant/involved ICANN individuals join in (assuming that most of them will be in Cartagena anyway, but not necessarily able to join us in January!?). >> >> As an additional idea, we could try to work with ICANN staff on discussing our communcation infrastructure and maybe even agree on the next steps. >> I'd really like to have that available (stable, test-driven,...) *before* the January meeting. >> >>> Would anyone not >>> attending the Cartagena meeting object or feel excluded by this type >>> of get together? >> >> If(!) the team agrees on this suggested "upgrade", could we have a show of hands, (Kathy - can you collect that, too?) from those NOT going to Colombia, whether they would be able and willing to join in remotely? >> >>> Please find the table attached. >> >> I presume we should let the people in ICANN, doing the planning right know, asap what type and level of support we'd like to get in Cartagena, e.g a room and remote access,... >> >>> All the best, >>> >>> Kathy >> >> 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 >> >> 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 > > > 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/20101108/4962fe5f/attachment.html From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Mon Nov 8 14:24:48 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 14:24:48 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] [renames] Meeting in Cartagena and London In-Reply-To: References: <4CD40FF7.9040604@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <4CD80830.9070805@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Kathy Kleiman wrote: > On a related note, I like Susan's movement forward on our Cartagena issues. I see it in three parts: > > 1. Is it acceptable to everyone to have a two-hour meeting in Cartagena (Sunday, 12/6) with remote participation? We should find the best 2-hour slot for maximum remote participation. > > 2. Does anyone oppose a public "meet and greet" session in Cartagena? Denise and Olof, is there a time available when Wilfried could join us? I truly don't see much that we can do at this session other than introduce ourselves and the Affirmation of Commitments. Susan and I were discussing that half an hour might be more than sufficient. > > 3. Has anyone changed their mind about a meeting in London? If not, we will start planning this as a major F2F meeting for the group. > > 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. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Susan Kawaguchi [mailto:skawaguchi at facebook.com] > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 3:18 PM > To: Kathy Kleiman; rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: RE: Vote on Meeting in Cartagena > > Hello All, > > I have broken out the Scope of Work and the proposed Drafting Team language from the original document I sent a couple hours ago at Kathy's suggestion. > > Hopefully, this will make it easier to read and we can come to agreement on the process as we move forward. > > I still think we should take advantage of the time many members are together in Cartegena and would propose we schedule a two hour meeting that includes remote participates on Sunday December 5th. If we have not come to agreement on the guidelines or Scope of Work by that time we could devote the time to an in depth discussion. > > Susan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kKleiman at pir.org] > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 9:35 AM > To: Susan Kawaguchi; rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Vote on Meeting in Cartagena > > Hi All, > I think we should take a vote on holding a one-day meeting in Cartagena -- on Sunday, 12/5. We learned on 11/1, in Olof's message, that there are facilities available for such a meeting. > > Given the lateness of the notice for those not already planning to be in Cartagena, I proposed an alternative for January in London. (I personally find remote participation for long periods of time very difficult.) > > Mostly, I feel we should not be split for our first meeting. > > So let me put out the vote: all in favor of a full-day meeting in Cartagena -- please vote YES. Opposed, please vote NO. > > 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. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 12:23 PM > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] First Face to Face Meetings - updated table > > Hello All, > > I agree with Wilfired that we should use the Sunday that ICANN has already scheduled for a constructive meeting. By waiting until January for the full team to meet we will lose time in gaining momentum with the team. ICANN has drastically improved the remote participation tools and since we have at least half of the team already committed to the meeting we could have a fruitful discussion. If it is expenses alone that is limiting participation we have a budget for travel and we should use it. > > > I have attached proposed guidelines for the team. I spent time reviewing other group's guidelines or rules on the ICANN website and have incorporated some of that into this document. I have also included Bill's Scope of Work and some of the issues brought up in the email threads. Please take a moment to review it and provide comment as I am sure I have not hit on all the details we need to think about. This is a starting point and by tracking it in a document I think we can work through the details and bring clarity to many issues quickly. > > Susan > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 7:09 AM > To: Kathy Kleiman > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] First Face to Face Meetings - updated table > > Hi Kathy, all, > > just a couple of thoughts..... > > Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > >>Thanks All, >> >>I appreciate all the email, and we have a much more complete table! >>While half our team will be in Cartagena, all of us are available in >>mid-January for a meeting. To hold a solid, substantive, face-to-face >>meeting, our time is January. > > > fine with me, but *please* could wew start the process of agreeing on a date (or maybe 1 or 2 alternatives) *right now*? > > There's quite a bit of competition for timeslots, for some of us, and the more things which linger around, the more difficult it becomes to schedule the competing requests :-( > > >>I'll circulate some ideas and a request for a planning committee for >>the January meeting shortly (please feel free to send initial thoughts >>and ideas to me). >> >> >> >>I would also like to recommend that, for those of us who are attending >>the Cartagena meeting, we have a short social hour to introduce >>ourselves-- no agenda, no substantive discussion. > > > While I agree, that we should not go for a full-blown "formal" meeting if we plan to hold that in January, I'd like to put a bit more flesh onto the bones. > > In particular, I'd like to have the relevant/involved ICANN individuals join in (assuming that most of them will be in Cartagena anyway, but not necessarily able to join us in January!?). > > As an additional idea, we could try to work with ICANN staff on discussing our communcation infrastructure and maybe even agree on the next steps. > I'd really like to have that available (stable, test-driven,...) *before* the January meeting. > > >>Would anyone not >>attending the Cartagena meeting object or feel excluded by this type >>of get together? > > > If(!) the team agrees on this suggested "upgrade", could we have a show of hands, (Kathy - can you collect that, too?) from those NOT going to Colombia, whether they would be able and willing to join in remotely? > > >>Please find the table attached. > > > I presume we should let the people in ICANN, doing the planning right know, asap what type and level of support we'd like to get in Cartagena, e.g a room and remote access,... > > >>All the best, >> >>Kathy > > > 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 Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Mon Nov 8 14:29:02 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 14:29:02 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] [renames] Meeting in Cartagena and London In-Reply-To: References: <4CD40FF7.9040604@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <4CD8092E.4030507@CC.UniVie.ac.at> [my apologies for the spurious reply :-( from a minute ago] Kathy Kleiman wrote: > On a related note, I like Susan's movement forward on our Cartagena issues. I see it in three parts: > > 1. Is it acceptable to everyone to have a two-hour meeting in Cartagena (Sunday, 12/6) with remote participation? We should find the best 2-hour slot for maximum remote participation. Supported > 2. Does anyone oppose a public "meet and greet" session in Cartagena? Denise and Olof, is there a time available when Wilfried could join us? I truly don't see much that we can do at this session other than introduce ourselves and the Affirmation of Commitments. Susan and I were discussing that half an hour might be more than sufficient. In favour, and hoping that we can deal with the time-slot collision. Olof? I'd like to join in. > 3. Has anyone changed their mind about a meeting in London? If not, we will start planning this as a major F2F meeting for the group. My feeling is that there is rough consensus to go for a "full" meeting in January, probably in London. > Best, > > Kathy Kleiman > Director of Policy > .ORG The Public Interest Registry > Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846 Regards, Wilfried. From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Mon Nov 8 14:51:00 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 14:51:00 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] [renamed] Documents; Shorter mtg in Cartagena In-Reply-To: References: <4CD40FF7.9040604@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <4CD80E54.6030201@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Tx to Susan for documents which encapsulate the 3 areas we are working on: > - Guidelines (incl. procedures and outline of chair duties) > - Scope of work, and > - Proposal for a drafting working group, together with outline for the draft final report. > > These documents are very good segments for our work ahead. Tx you, Susan! > > Here's a proposal: until we have set up a Wiki where we can easily add and edit documents, let's use "track changes," and circulate our documents to the list. Happy to do that in the word doc, but before messing it up too much I'll go ahead and send a couple of questions around individually. Maybe that can make it easier for all of us to keep track of changes and to agree on what we want to see in the doc, then. > Best, > > Kathy Kleiman > Director of Policy > .ORG The Public Interest Registry > Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846 The first one will be on "quorum" and "majority". You have been warned :-) Wilfried. From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Mon Nov 8 15:13:51 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 15:13:51 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] WT Guidelines - quorum, votes and majority [was: Documents; Shorter mtg in Cartagena] In-Reply-To: References: <4CD40FF7.9040604@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <4CD813AF.4040503@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Dear Team, I'd like to collect your views on the aspects of quorum, votes and majority. The draft "WRT Guidelines" propose: - Quorum - A majority of the total number of WRT Members constitutes a quorum. Proxy votes shall not count toward the presence of a quorum. In principle this is fine for me. Looking at the framework for e.g. the Address council, this very basic requirment is paired up with the Regional Diversity aspect, i.e. majority + all regions being represented. As we do not have the formal regional diversity in RT4, and neither the requirement, I wonder if there are some other aspects we want to consider. Actually, given *this* group, I would feel more comfortable with something like two thirds, but I can live with 50%+ as well. Getting to the voting stuff: - Voting [...] Motions that receive a majority of votes cast shall be deemed approved. I read that to say: majority of votes present in the meeting. I am sort of fine with a suggestion of simple majority, but as we should rather strive to achieve rough consensus, this may be a tad too loose, in particular considering proxy votes. I could easily image a motion to being accepted with far less than 50% of the votes in the team being in favour. I may be missing something here? Thus I'd like to propose 2 thoughts: + a motion passes when it reives a majority of votes present in the team, proxy votes are counted as regular votes, or + we keep the very relaxed regime of majority of votes present in the meeting but we either do not count proxy votes for determining majority (making them rather pointless, but still), and/or we restrict the decisions involving proxy votes to motions that have already been proposed, discussed and seconded in a previous meeting; or circulated on the Team's mailing list. (lead-time?) In the absence of other qualifiers for quorum, my personal preference would be to always determine majority based on the number of votes in the team. I would be grateful for your thoughts. Wilfried. From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Mon Nov 8 15:37:41 2010 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 15:37:41 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] WT Guidelines - quorum, votes and majority [was: Documents; Shorter mtg in Cartagena] In-Reply-To: <4CD813AF.4040503@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <4CD40FF7.9040604@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <4CD813AF.4040503@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <479A15BA-1C6D-4CE2-AA0D-8A7A39D2EAF6@etlaw.co.uk> Hi all On issues like quorum and voting I am in favour of simplicity Quorum - majority of members Voting - on all the boards and committees I've been involved in formal votes have been rare. Like Wilfried I am in favour of the rough consensus approach but if deadlocked we should have a voting mechanism. I think this should be a majority of votes cast Best Emily Sent from my iPhone On 8 Nov 2010, at 15:13, "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" wrote: > Dear Team, > > I'd like to collect your views on the aspects of quorum, votes and majority. > > > The draft "WRT Guidelines" propose: > > - Quorum - A majority of the total number of WRT Members constitutes a quorum. > Proxy votes shall not count toward the presence of a quorum. > > In principle this is fine for me. Looking at the framework for e.g. the > Address council, this very basic requirment is paired up with the Regional > Diversity aspect, i.e. majority + all regions being represented. > > As we do not have the formal regional diversity in RT4, and neither the > requirement, I wonder if there are some other aspects we want to consider. > Actually, given *this* group, I would feel more comfortable with something > like two thirds, but I can live with 50%+ as well. > > > Getting to the voting stuff: > > - Voting [...] Motions that receive a majority of votes cast shall be > deemed approved. > > I read that to say: majority of votes present in the meeting. > > I am sort of fine with a suggestion of simple majority, but as we should > rather strive to achieve rough consensus, this may be a tad too loose, in > particular considering proxy votes. I could easily image a motion to being > accepted with far less than 50% of the votes in the team being in favour. > I may be missing something here? > > > Thus I'd like to propose 2 thoughts: > > + a motion passes when it reives a majority of votes present in the team, > proxy votes are counted as regular votes, or > > + we keep the very relaxed regime of majority of votes present in the meeting > but we either do not count proxy votes for determining majority (making > them rather pointless, but still), and/or we restrict the decisions involving > proxy votes to motions that have already been proposed, discussed and seconded > in a previous meeting; or circulated on the Team's mailing list. (lead-time?) > > In the absence of other qualifiers for quorum, my personal preference would be > to always determine majority based on the number of votes in the team. > > > I would be grateful for your thoughts. > Wilfried. > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Mon Nov 8 15:43:19 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 15:43:19 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Scope of WRT - target group(s) [was: Documents; Shorter mtg in Cartagena] In-Reply-To: References: <4CD40FF7.9040604@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <4CD81A97.5000700@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Thanks for the draft describing the Scope of Work! Looking at the AoC this is pretty much on the mark and should be, or rather has to be, our primary goal. At the same time I feel some "artificial restriction" in explicitely mentioning law enforcement and consumer trust, but ignoring all other parties that (may) have a legitimate interest in the working, and the accessibility of whois data. The most prominent example that springs to my mind is the community of operational security and incident teams. I'd like to suggest that we discuss the merits of including such aspects in the Scope of Work, as an aditional activity. On a more genral note, I think we should also "reserve the right" to come up with findings or recommendations that, if implemented, could be beneficial for all the stakeholders. Thanks for your input, Wilfried. From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Mon Nov 8 15:55:57 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 15:55:57 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] WRT Guidelines - Chair Function [was: Documents; Shorter mtg in Cartagena] In-Reply-To: References: <4CD40FF7.9040604@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <4CD81D8D.6090106@CC.UniVie.ac.at> The draft "WRT Guidelines" propose: - The Chair ? and any Vice-Chair(s) ? must play a neutral role by refraining from pushing a specific agenda, ensuring fair treatment for all legitimate views and guaranteeing objectivity in identifying areas of agreement. I roughly agree, with the comment that this definition might disable the Chair as full member of the team. I think it takes a very well-managed person to remain fully neutral while at the same time participating in the discussion of a topic and expressing the personal point of view. We may want to consider a hand-over from the Chair to a Co-Chair / Vice-Chair for the duration of a discussion in which the acting Chair has a strong point of view to contribute. Regarding notes, reports, documentation and clerical ascpects, do we expect to make use of a Secretariat Role, either provided by ICANN or from within the team members? Regards, Wilfried. From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Mon Nov 8 18:46:14 2010 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2010 11:46:14 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] [renames] Meeting in Cartagena and London Message-ID: <20101108114614.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.3bb73302f0.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101108/6c6ceedf/attachment.html From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Mon Nov 8 19:16:29 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 12:16:29 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] WRT Guidelines - Chair Function [was: Documents; Shorter mtg in Cartagena] In-Reply-To: <4CD81D8D.6090106@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <4CD40FF7.9040604@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <4CD81D8D.6090106@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <72E12848-E2BA-496B-922A-84B6BCC1A679@paypal.com> This and, numerous other issues, are covered in Roberts Rules. I again suggest that we use them as the basis for our process. We can override them as we choose, a priori, but adopting them would enable us to move on to more substantive matters. Regarding chair neutrality, I take it as a given in a group such as this. Should the chair wish to express and opinion, they are entitled to relinquish the chair, state their opinion, and return to the chair when finished. On Nov 8, 2010, at 7:55 AM, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > The draft "WRT Guidelines" propose: > > - The Chair ? and any Vice-Chair(s) ? must play a neutral role by refraining > from pushing a specific agenda, ensuring fair treatment for all legitimate > views and guaranteeing objectivity in identifying areas of agreement. > > I roughly agree, with the comment that this definition might disable the > Chair as full member of the team. I think it takes a very well-managed > person to remain fully neutral while at the same time participating in the > discussion of a topic and expressing the personal point of view. > > We may want to consider a hand-over from the Chair to a Co-Chair / Vice-Chair > for the duration of a discussion in which the acting Chair has a strong point > of view to contribute. > > Regarding notes, reports, documentation and clerical ascpects, do we expect > to make use of a Secretariat Role, either provided by ICANN or from within > the team members? > > Regards, > Wilfried. > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Mon Nov 8 19:28:47 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 12:28:47 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] WT Guidelines - quorum, votes and majority [was: Documents; Shorter mtg in Cartagena] In-Reply-To: <4CD813AF.4040503@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <4CD40FF7.9040604@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <4CD813AF.4040503@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: On Nov 8, 2010, at 7:13 AM, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > Dear Team, > > I'd like to collect your views on the aspects of quorum, votes and majority. > > > The draft "WRT Guidelines" propose: > > - Quorum - A majority of the total number of WRT Members constitutes a quorum. > Proxy votes shall not count toward the presence of a quorum. Presumably alternates do not count either? > > In principle this is fine for me. Looking at the framework for e.g. the > Address council, this very basic requirment is paired up with the Regional > Diversity aspect, i.e. majority + all regions being represented. > > As we do not have the formal regional diversity in RT4, and neither the > requirement, I wonder if there are some other aspects we want to consider. > Actually, given *this* group, I would feel more comfortable with something > like two thirds, but I can live with 50%+ as well. With a simple majority quorum, just over 25% of the members of this team would be able to make decisions. That seem quite a distance from consensus; ICANN's "normal" mode of operations. > > > Getting to the voting stuff: > > - Voting [...] Motions that receive a majority of votes cast shall be > deemed approved. Do abstentions count as a vote or not? Before answering consider the following example: 12 members present 6 yes 4 no 2 abstentions How we decide this will determine the outcome of this, and other similar votes. > > I read that to say: majority of votes present in the meeting. > > I am sort of fine with a suggestion of simple majority, but as we should > rather strive to achieve rough consensus, this may be a tad too loose, in > particular considering proxy votes. I could easily image a motion to being > accepted with far less than 50% of the votes in the team being in favour. > I may be missing something here? > > > Thus I'd like to propose 2 thoughts: > > + a motion passes when it reives a majority of votes present in the team, > proxy votes are counted as regular votes, or > > + we keep the very relaxed regime of majority of votes present in the meeting > but we either do not count proxy votes for determining majority (making > them rather pointless, but still), and/or we restrict the decisions involving > proxy votes to motions that have already been proposed, discussed and seconded > in a previous meeting; or circulated on the Team's mailing list. (lead-time?) If we allow proxies, and I'm not certain we should, the second proposal is one I could approve (and have used successfully before). > > In the absence of other qualifiers for quorum, my personal preference would be > to always determine majority based on the number of votes in the team. > > > I would be grateful for your thoughts. > Wilfried. In general, I would prefer that we attempt to achieve consensus on all issues. I've worked in a number of groups using this model and when all concerned give their best effort, it works wonderfully. All sides can be heard and it avoids the problem of "small majorities". > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From kKleiman at pir.org Tue Nov 9 13:07:33 2010 From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 08:07:33 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Withdrawing offer to function as Chair Message-ID: Dear All, There are some real issues around the Whois Review that need to be resolved, sooner rather than later, in order to make our process work. It requires constructive collaboration among the appointed Members, and close work with supporting ICANN staff. And it needs to be clear that this Review is to carry out its tasks led by the appointed Members, supported by the ICANN staff. In particular, two things need to be done, in my view: - I am deeply concerned about the unexpected scheduling by ICANN staff of a full day Whois meeting during the Cartagena ICANN meeting, plus a public session, without having consulted the selected Members first, not even during the two meetings we already had (on 10/13 and 10/20). I do not think this is the way the process should be run; - We do need support to set up the meeting in London, on which we did agree. As quickly as possible the following things should be arranged by ICANN Staff to ensure that as many selected Members as possible can be present during this meeting we agreed on, in principle, earlier: o A doodle of dates - combining a two-day combo of weekdays and Friday/Saturday covering most of the second and third week of January to see what dates are best for the most number of RT people. o Guidance from ICANN to Sharon Lemon regarding the minimum and maximum remote participation requirements the other review teams have used, allowing her the time and opportunity to check that the Docklands can provide the accommodations that allows this to take place, effectively; o Quickly organize a block of rooms at a hotel nearby the Docklands for the Review Team and Staff, and make reservations for dinner on arrival night and the evening between the two days of meetings; Considering all this, I also don't see how I can effectively function as a Chair. What I can bring to the table is structure to the content discussion, ensure fairness, depth and outreach. However, what is needed from the Chair right now is getting a positive and constructive process in place and ensuring the independence of the RT, and I herewith withdraw my offer to function as Chair. My commitment to participate as a member of our team and work hard on our core issues, of course, remains. In closing, just because the Whois issues are difficult and controversial does not mean that our relations have to be. If we can find a way out of this difficult issue by, then we will have done our job. Nobody said it would be easy, but if we try together in a positive, constructive way, it can be done, well. It requires commitment and willingness to listen to each other, and to talk from insights, rather than from positions. It also requires a strong commitment from ICANN to actively support, but not lead. Let's work together and make this full, fair and robust review happen - together. Best wishes, Kathy Kleiman Kathy Kleiman 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 | W: www.pir.org Visit us online! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101109/f9269a6e/attachment.html From olof.nordling at icann.org Tue Nov 9 14:47:01 2010 From: olof.nordling at icann.org (Olof Nordling) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 06:47:01 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Withdrawing offer to function as Chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD81690@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Dear Kathy and all, For the record, I find it essential to rectify a slight misunderstanding I perceive from your first bullet point. The topic of Cartagena activities was on our agenda for the second call, but meeting time ran out before it could be properly addressed and the meeting agreed that staff should provide it's working assumptions in that regard to the list. That was done by email (attached) on 1 Nov and staff proceeded to request facilities accordingly, since that had to be done before the deadline of 4 Nov. This was done in order to enable activities in Cartagena, should the Review Team so decide. This in order to keep the Review Team's options open, knowing that it is much easier to change, reduce or cancel such bookings, according to the Review Team's wishes, than to introduce them after the deadline. The purpose was certainly not to impose the arrangements. I hope (and trust) that the above clarifies any lingering misunderstanding about this practical matter. As to the London venue, I've been in contact with Sharon - it turns out that the meeting room has no wireless Internet and the possibilities for conference calls are under investigation. Hope to be able to give a further update on the call tomorrow. Very best regards Olof From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 2:08 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Withdrawing offer to function as Chair Dear All, There are some real issues around the Whois Review that need to be resolved, sooner rather than later, in order to make our process work. It requires constructive collaboration among the appointed Members, and close work with supporting ICANN staff. And it needs to be clear that this Review is to carry out its tasks led by the appointed Members, supported by the ICANN staff. In particular, two things need to be done, in my view: - I am deeply concerned about the unexpected scheduling by ICANN staff of a full day Whois meeting during the Cartagena ICANN meeting, plus a public session, without having consulted the selected Members first, not even during the two meetings we already had (on 10/13 and 10/20). I do not think this is the way the process should be run; - We do need support to set up the meeting in London, on which we did agree. As quickly as possible the following things should be arranged by ICANN Staff to ensure that as many selected Members as possible can be present during this meeting we agreed on, in principle, earlier: o A doodle of dates - combining a two-day combo of weekdays and Friday/Saturday covering most of the second and third week of January to see what dates are best for the most number of RT people. o Guidance from ICANN to Sharon Lemon regarding the minimum and maximum remote participation requirements the other review teams have used, allowing her the time and opportunity to check that the Docklands can provide the accommodations that allows this to take place, effectively; o Quickly organize a block of rooms at a hotel nearby the Docklands for the Review Team and Staff, and make reservations for dinner on arrival night and the evening between the two days of meetings; Considering all this, I also don't see how I can effectively function as a Chair. What I can bring to the table is structure to the content discussion, ensure fairness, depth and outreach. However, what is needed from the Chair right now is getting a positive and constructive process in place and ensuring the independence of the RT, and I herewith withdraw my offer to function as Chair. My commitment to participate as a member of our team and work hard on our core issues, of course, remains. In closing, just because the Whois issues are difficult and controversial does not mean that our relations have to be. If we can find a way out of this difficult issue by, then we will have done our job. Nobody said it would be easy, but if we try together in a positive, constructive way, it can be done, well. It requires commitment and willingness to listen to each other, and to talk from insights, rather than from positions. It also requires a strong commitment from ICANN to actively support, but not lead. Let's work together and make this full, fair and robust review happen - together. Best wishes, Kathy Kleiman Kathy Kleiman 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 | W: www.pir.org Visit us online! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101109/1f6f1521/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Olof Nordling Subject: [Rt4-whois] Some practicalities for your consideration Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 09:25:50 -0700 Size: 10363 Url: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101109/1f6f1521/attachment.mht From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Tue Nov 9 20:32:16 2010 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:32:16 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Role of Chair and Vice-Chair for Whois Review Team Message-ID: <20101109133216.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.79f2b9a9cc.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101109/ee2e287a/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Tue Nov 9 20:55:53 2010 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:55:53 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Voting Agreement for Whois RT Message-ID: <20101109135553.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.31d22b59d8.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101109/f03ffea3/attachment.html From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Tue Nov 9 22:01:17 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 22:01:17 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Voting Agreement for Whois RT In-Reply-To: <20101109135553.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.31d22b59d8.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> References: <20101109135553.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.31d22b59d8.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <4CD9C4AD.5000409@CC.UniVie.ac.at> lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com wrote: > Dear All, > Sending this message in advance of our conference call tomorrow. > Bill Smith, Sharon Lemon and I took the action item on our last call to > propose a voting agreement for the group. [...] > 6) Each RT member may designate an alternate to attend meetings either > remotely or in person. > However, the alternate will not have voting privileges, with the > exception of the ICANN CEO alternate. [...] I am not aware of an agreeement to allow alternate persons to attend meetings? Actually, I think this would be a pretty bad idea to begin with, because we have been mandated *personally* to participate in the RT. Our names, affiliations and SoIs have been published. We are expected to sign and abide by CoI provisions and the like. Allowing us, with the exception of the CEO of ICANN (which I consider an internal decision), to introduce other individuals imho invalidates this documented (and open) process. I may have missed stuff by not being able to keep hooked in during the duration of the previous meeting, but I am a bit worried that we may get out of sync with the lack of meeting minutes being available for the moment. My feeling is that we are trying to get things nailed down in a sort of chaotic fashion right now. Regards, Wilfried. From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Tue Nov 9 22:11:17 2010 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 22:11:17 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Withdrawing offer to function as Chair In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <59EFCC13-1FA0-47C2-9A2B-41FFAADA95E1@etlaw.co.uk> Dear Kathy Thank you for your mail. Before answering your points in detail, I'd like us to take some time as a group to reflect on how we've managed to put off our *only* candidate for Chair! Perhaps we can revisit together tomorrow when we speak. Olof - thank you for your clarification re: Cartagena. I agree with Kathy that this group is not yet ready to take public meetings, and thanks for your reassurance that you were making space if required. I would also appreciate staff support in organising the London meeting, and am pleased to hear that you are working in the background with Sharon to make this happen. Kathy - I would like to try and persuade you to reconsider your decision to withdraw your offer to chair this team, because I think that you are the right person to do it. Best regards, Emily On 9 Nov 2010, at 13:07, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Dear All, > There are some real issues around the Whois Review that need to be resolved, sooner rather than later, in order to make our process work. It requires constructive collaboration among the appointed Members, and close work with supporting ICANN staff. And it needs to be clear that this Review is to carry out its tasks led by the appointed Members, supported by the ICANN staff. > > In particular, two things need to be done, in my view: > - I am deeply concerned about the unexpected scheduling by ICANN staff of a full day Whois meeting during the Cartagena ICANN meeting, plus a public session, without having consulted the selected Members first, not even during the two meetings we already had (on 10/13 and 10/20). I do not think this is the way the process should be run; > > - We do need support to set up the meeting in London, on which we did agree. As quickly as possible the following things should be arranged by ICANN Staff to ensure that as many selected Members as possible can be present during this meeting we agreed on, in principle, earlier: > > o A doodle of dates ? combining a two-day combo of weekdays and Friday/Saturday covering most of the second and third week of January to see what dates are best for the most number of RT people. > > o Guidance from ICANN to Sharon Lemon regarding the minimum and maximum remote participation requirements the other review teams have used, allowing her the time and opportunity to check that the Docklands can provide the accommodations that allows this to take place, effectively; > > o Quickly organize a block of rooms at a hotel nearby the Docklands for the Review Team and Staff, and make reservations for dinner on arrival night and the evening between the two days of meetings; > > Considering all this, I also don?t see how I can effectively function as a Chair. What I can bring to the table is structure to the content discussion, ensure fairness, depth and outreach. However, what is needed from the Chair right now is getting a positive and constructive process in place and ensuring the independence of the RT, and I herewith withdraw my offer to function as Chair. > > My commitment to participate as a member of our team and work hard on our core issues, of course, remains. > > In closing, just because the Whois issues are difficult and controversial does not mean that our relations have to be. If we can find a way out of this difficult issue by, then we will have done our job. Nobody said it would be easy, but if we try together in a positive, constructive way, it can be done, well. It requires commitment and willingness to listen to each other, and to talk from insights, rather than from positions. It also requires a strong commitment from ICANN to actively support, but not lead. > > Let?s work together and make this full, fair and robust review happen ? together. > > Best wishes, > Kathy Kleiman > > > Kathy Kleiman > 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 | W: www.pir.org > > Visit us online! > Find us on Facebook | dotorg > See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr > See our video library on YouTube > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101109/c9139eef/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Tue Nov 9 22:15:00 2010 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:15:00 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Voting Agreement for Whois RT Message-ID: <20101109151500.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.eef7f43e17.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101109/8ab2d1ae/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Tue Nov 9 22:27:09 2010 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2010 15:27:09 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Withdrawing offer to function as Chair Message-ID: <20101109152709.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.c7cabf9fc0.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101109/ac15ae8a/attachment.html From lutz at iks-jena.de Wed Nov 10 08:03:24 2010 From: lutz at iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:03:24 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Voting Agreement for Whois RT References: <4CD9C4AD.5000409@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: * Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > I am not aware of an agreeement to allow alternate persons to attend > meetings? You are correct. There was a question about this issue but not acceptance. > Actually, I think this would be a pretty bad idea to begin with, because > we have been mandated *personally* to participate in the RT. Our names, > affiliations and SoIs have been published. We are expected to sign and > abide by CoI provisions and the like. Ack. From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Wed Nov 10 09:22:46 2010 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:22:46 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Role of Chair and Vice-Chair for Whois Review Team In-Reply-To: <20101109133216.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.79f2b9a9cc.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> References: <20101109133216.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.79f2b9a9cc.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <9DF25B43-5BDC-450B-8E1D-3E4F590F1897@etlaw.co.uk> Dear Lynn, Bill and Sharon, Thanks for your work on the role of Chair and Vice-Chair. I have a couple of queries/suggestions, which I hope we can pick up in today's call: I agree that the Chair/Vice Chair should play a neutral role, and I see the purpose to ensure that voices are heard, themes summarised and a way through is formulated which takes into account all relevant, legitimate interests. Reviewing the exchanges on this list, I think this group is going to have to work hard to listen and take account of others' views - if we can crack this, we should be OK! My query is this: given that we have all been put forward for this team on the basis of our experience, what do you think should happen when the Chair/Vice-Chair wants to put forward their own personal view. Do they step out of the role for the time being? Do they just not do that? Kind regards Emily On 9 Nov 2010, at 20:32, wrote: > Dear All, > Sharon, Bill and I agreed at the last meeting to make a recommendation back to the group on the > role of Chair and Vice-Chair. Sending this for all to review prior to our conference call tomorrow. > > Below is our proposal, with acknowledgment that we adopted Susan's recommendation and language. > > The purpose of a Chair is the following: > > 1) call meetings > > 2) preside over group deliberations > > 3) manage the process so that all participants have the opportunity to contribute > > 4) Compile reports on the results of the team > > Chair's key functions are: > To ensure an attendance list is made > to be responsible for fulfilling the terms of reference in the time specified, > to be responsible for working group discipline, focus and achievements, > to prepare and chair face-to-face and on-line sessions, > to ensure that the Group operates in an open and fair manner, > to ensure that discussions are relevant (the Chair should propose a set of topics for e-mail subject headers), > to intervene to stop off-topic communication, > to summarize outcomes of each issue and > to achieve interim and final objectives in conformance with the terms of reference. > The Chair ? and any Vice-Chair(s) ? must play a neutral role by refraining from pushing a specific agenda, ensuring fair treatment for all legitimate views and guaranteeing objectivity in identifying areas of agreement. > > The purpose of the Vice-Chair is to assist the Chair and serve as acting Chair when the Chair is unavailable. > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/6eb949ab/attachment.html From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Wed Nov 10 09:48:18 2010 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:48:18 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Vote on Meeting in Cartagena In-Reply-To: References: <4CD40FF7.9040604@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: Hi Susan Thank you for sending through your proposed Scope of Work and Drafting Team language. I have reviewed the documents, and made some suggestions and comments which are attached (using tracked changes). On the Scope, I think we need to pull out the different elements of the AoC's language here, because it's pretty rich, and there are numerous elements which we need to understand. In particular, I think that the phrase "promotes consumer trust" deserves some scrutiny - what is meant? who are the relevant "consumer" stakeholders - is this a legal definition of consumer as a sort of non-trading individual, or is it all those who "consume" domain name services, ie all internet users. What elements tend to promote consumer trust? Is it a single thing, or do different factors promote trust, depending on which stakeholder group you are part of? In other words, I see a large part of this group's task as stakeholder mapping, and identifying legitimate interests. In this way, we can inform ourselves about which are the relevant stakeholders (ie law enforcement and which ever stakeholders we think are contained in the concept "consumer trust"), and how their interests support each other or may be in conflict. If we can identify those conflicts, we can then look back at ICANN's policy and ask to what extent it is successful in meeting those needs. I'd also like to wave a little flag for benchmarking good practice. There's a lot of ccTLD good practice out there, and it might be worthwhile for this team to catalogue this for the purposes of benchmarking against ICANN's policy. Kind regards Emily On 5 Nov 2010, at 19:18, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: > Hello All, > > I have broken out the Scope of Work and the proposed Drafting Team language from the original document I sent a couple hours ago at Kathy's suggestion. > > Hopefully, this will make it easier to read and we can come to agreement on the process as we move forward. > > I still think we should take advantage of the time many members are together in Cartegena and would propose we schedule a two hour meeting that includes remote participates on Sunday December 5th. If we have not come to agreement on the guidelines or Scope of Work by that time we could devote the time to an in depth discussion. > > Susan > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kKleiman at pir.org] > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 9:35 AM > To: Susan Kawaguchi; rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Vote on Meeting in Cartagena > > Hi All, > I think we should take a vote on holding a one-day meeting in Cartagena -- on Sunday, 12/5. We learned on 11/1, in Olof's message, that there are facilities available for such a meeting. > > Given the lateness of the notice for those not already planning to be in Cartagena, I proposed an alternative for January in London. (I personally find remote participation for long periods of time very difficult.) > > Mostly, I feel we should not be split for our first meeting. > > So let me put out the vote: all in favor of a full-day meeting in Cartagena -- please vote YES. Opposed, please vote NO. > > 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. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 12:23 PM > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] First Face to Face Meetings - updated table > > Hello All, > > I agree with Wilfired that we should use the Sunday that ICANN has already scheduled for a constructive meeting. By waiting until January for the full team to meet we will lose time in gaining momentum with the team. ICANN has drastically improved the remote participation tools and since we have at least half of the team already committed to the meeting we could have a fruitful discussion. If it is expenses alone that is limiting participation we have a budget for travel and we should use it. > > > I have attached proposed guidelines for the team. I spent time reviewing other group's guidelines or rules on the ICANN website and have incorporated some of that into this document. I have also included Bill's Scope of Work and some of the issues brought up in the email threads. Please take a moment to review it and provide comment as I am sure I have not hit on all the details we need to think about. This is a starting point and by tracking it in a document I think we can work through the details and bring clarity to many issues quickly. > > Susan > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 7:09 AM > To: Kathy Kleiman > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] First Face to Face Meetings - updated table > > Hi Kathy, all, > > just a couple of thoughts..... > > Kathy Kleiman wrote: > >> Thanks All, >> >> I appreciate all the email, and we have a much more complete table! >> While half our team will be in Cartagena, all of us are available in >> mid-January for a meeting. To hold a solid, substantive, face-to-face >> meeting, our time is January. > > fine with me, but *please* could wew start the process of agreeing on a date (or maybe 1 or 2 alternatives) *right now*? > > There's quite a bit of competition for timeslots, for some of us, and the more things which linger around, the more difficult it becomes to schedule the competing requests :-( > >> I'll circulate some ideas and a request for a planning committee for >> the January meeting shortly (please feel free to send initial thoughts >> and ideas to me). >> >> >> >> I would also like to recommend that, for those of us who are attending >> the Cartagena meeting, we have a short social hour to introduce >> ourselves-- no agenda, no substantive discussion. > > While I agree, that we should not go for a full-blown "formal" meeting if we plan to hold that in January, I'd like to put a bit more flesh onto the bones. > > In particular, I'd like to have the relevant/involved ICANN individuals join in (assuming that most of them will be in Cartagena anyway, but not necessarily able to join us in January!?). > > As an additional idea, we could try to work with ICANN staff on discussing our communcation infrastructure and maybe even agree on the next steps. > I'd really like to have that available (stable, test-driven,...) *before* the January meeting. > >> Would anyone not >> attending the Cartagena meeting object or feel excluded by this type >> of get together? > > If(!) the team agrees on this suggested "upgrade", could we have a show of hands, (Kathy - can you collect that, too?) from those NOT going to Colombia, whether they would be able and willing to join in remotely? > >> Please find the table attached. > > I presume we should let the people in ICANN, doing the planning right know, asap what type and level of support we'd like to get in Cartagena, e.g a room and remote access,... > >> All the best, >> >> Kathy > > 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 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/231f19bd/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Emily Drafting working group11510.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 15049 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/231f19bd/EmilyDraftingworkinggroup11510.docx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/231f19bd/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Emily DraftScope of WRT 11510.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 11870 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/231f19bd/EmilyDraftScopeofWRT11510.docx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/231f19bd/attachment-0002.html From Yakushev at dstadvisors.ru Wed Nov 10 11:33:35 2010 From: Yakushev at dstadvisors.ru (Yakushev Mikhail) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:33:35 +0300 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Voting Agreement for Whois RT In-Reply-To: References: <4CD9C4AD.5000409@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <403E589F3A85E149ADB0D8B987A1B88C0854FB5E2F@mbx1.mazal.ru> Colleagues, In all working groups where I've ever participated the members were supposed to work/discuss/decide/vote in person. My understanding is that the RT has been formed of the selection of experts, and any of their 'alternate persons' cannot be treated as such. So if a participant of the RT is unable to participate in the meetings/conferences/calls etc., no 'alternate' can really _replace_ him/her. Since Cartagena is expected to be mostly an _informal_ gathering (considering London January year as the first _formal_ meeting), I think there is no problem to accept the presence of anyone who would somehow 'inform' the participant (who is absent) afterwards, provided that the Team is notified about this fact beforehand, and no one has objections. Apart from the above - I do support Lynn's initial proposals. Regards, Michael -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lutz Donnerhacke Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 11:03 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Voting Agreement for Whois RT * Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > I am not aware of an agreeement to allow alternate persons to attend > meetings? You are correct. There was a question about this issue but not acceptance. > Actually, I think this would be a pretty bad idea to begin with, because > we have been mandated *personally* to participate in the RT. Our names, > affiliations and SoIs have been published. We are expected to sign and > abide by CoI provisions and the like. Ack. _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Wed Nov 10 12:23:24 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 12:23:24 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Voting Agreement for Whois RT In-Reply-To: <403E589F3A85E149ADB0D8B987A1B88C0854FB5E2F@mbx1.mazal.ru> References: <4CD9C4AD.5000409@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <403E589F3A85E149ADB0D8B987A1B88C0854FB5E2F@mbx1.mazal.ru> Message-ID: <4CDA8EBC.8010903@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Yakushev Mikhail wrote: > Colleagues, > > In all working groups where I've ever participated the members were > supposed to work/discuss/decide/vote in person. My understanding is > that the RT has been formed of the selection of experts, and any of > their 'alternate persons' cannot be treated as such. So if a participant > of the RT is unable to participate in the meetings/conferences/calls etc., > no 'alternate' can really _replace_ him/her. ACK > Since Cartagena is expected to be mostly an _informal_ gathering (considering > London January year as the first _formal_ meeting), I think there is no problem > to accept the presence of anyone who would somehow 'inform' the participant > (who is absent) afterwards, provided that the Team is notified about this fact > beforehand, and no one has objections. Again, I agree. I was about to submit the following proposal to augment my objection re the 'alternate' aspect. As follows (I do have quite some positive experience with such an arrangement): The RT can invite observcers and/or technical experts to participate in the scheduled meetings, or parts thereof. Observers are expected to remain passive but are invited to contribute with background information or logistic aspects at any time. Invited experts are expected to actively particicate in the discussion of topics for which the have been invited. Both observers and experts can be invited for a single meeting, for a period of time or until the invitation is withdrawn (wording - maybe "expires" is a better word? Native speakers pls. advise!) Observers and experts are expected to leave the meeting at any time upon request by the Chair. Proposals or Requests for Invitations can be submitted by the prospective invitee as well as by any of the RT memebers. A decision can either be taken by way of a formal vote or consensus on the mailing list. It is the Chairs' responsibility to manage the potential CoI or any other confidentiality issue that may arise. Does that make sense? > Apart from the above - I do support Lynn's initial proposals. > > Regards, > Michael Best regards, Wilfried. > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lutz Donnerhacke > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 11:03 AM > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Voting Agreement for Whois RT > > * Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > >>I am not aware of an agreeement to allow alternate persons to attend >>meetings? > > > You are correct. There was a question about this issue but not acceptance. > > >>Actually, I think this would be a pretty bad idea to begin with, because >>we have been mandated *personally* to participate in the RT. Our names, >>affiliations and SoIs have been published. We are expected to sign and >>abide by CoI provisions and the like. > > > Ack. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Wed Nov 10 12:39:57 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 12:39:57 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Role of Chair and Vice-Chair for Whois Review Team In-Reply-To: <9DF25B43-5BDC-450B-8E1D-3E4F590F1897@etlaw.co.uk> References: <20101109133216.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.79f2b9a9cc.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> <9DF25B43-5BDC-450B-8E1D-3E4F590F1897@etlaw.co.uk> Message-ID: <4CDA929D.9080205@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Emily Taylor wrote: > Dear Lynn, Bill and Sharon, > > Thanks for your work on the role of Chair and Vice-Chair. I have a > couple of queries/suggestions, which I hope we can pick up in today's call: > > I agree that the Chair/Vice Chair should play a neutral role, and I see > the purpose to ensure that voices are heard, themes summarised and a way > through is formulated which takes into account all relevant, legitimate > interests. Reviewing the exchanges on this list, I think this group is > going to have to work hard to listen and take account of others' views - > if we can crack this, we should be OK! > > > My query is this: given that we have all been put forward for this team > on the basis of our experience, what do you think should happen when the > Chair/Vice-Chair wants to put forward their own personal view. Do they > step out of the role for the time being? Do they just not do that? I have submitted my take on this aspect already and Bill (iirc) replied that this is covered by Robert's Rules of Order. Beinf illiterate wrt this beast, I have to believe this until I find the time to read up on this stuff. > Kind regards > > Emily Wilfried. From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Wed Nov 10 13:23:16 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 06:23:16 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Role of Chair and Vice-Chair for Whois Review Team In-Reply-To: <9DF25B43-5BDC-450B-8E1D-3E4F590F1897@etlaw.co.uk> References: <20101109133216.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.79f2b9a9cc.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> <9DF25B43-5BDC-450B-8E1D-3E4F590F1897@etlaw.co.uk> Message-ID: <0B804C17-5719-4E3F-B68E-137218CDAE50@paypal.com> Should the chair wish to express and opinion, they are entitled to relinquish the chair, state their opinion, and return to the chair when finished... If we choose to operate in a "formal mode" or if an issue is particularly sensitive. I would suggest that we operate somewhat less formally, and simply ask that the chair make it clear when they are making comments without the "chair hat" on. I've seen this work very well in other groups. On Nov 10, 2010, at 1:22 AM, Emily Taylor wrote: Dear Lynn, Bill and Sharon, Thanks for your work on the role of Chair and Vice-Chair. I have a couple of queries/suggestions, which I hope we can pick up in today's call: I agree that the Chair/Vice Chair should play a neutral role, and I see the purpose to ensure that voices are heard, themes summarised and a way through is formulated which takes into account all relevant, legitimate interests. Reviewing the exchanges on this list, I think this group is going to have to work hard to listen and take account of others' views - if we can crack this, we should be OK! My query is this: given that we have all been put forward for this team on the basis of our experience, what do you think should happen when the Chair/Vice-Chair wants to put forward their own personal view. Do they step out of the role for the time being? Do they just not do that? Kind regards Emily On 9 Nov 2010, at 20:32, > > wrote: Dear All, Sharon, Bill and I agreed at the last meeting to make a recommendation back to the group on the role of Chair and Vice-Chair. Sending this for all to review prior to our conference call tomorrow. Below is our proposal, with acknowledgment that we adopted Susan's recommendation and language. The purpose of a Chair is the following: 1) call meetings 2) preside over group deliberations 3) manage the process so that all participants have the opportunity to contribute 4) Compile reports on the results of the team Chair's key functions are: 1. To ensure an attendance list is made 2. to be responsible for fulfilling the terms of reference in the time specified, 3. to be responsible for working group discipline, focus and achievements, 4. to prepare and chair face-to-face and on-line sessions, 5. to ensure that the Group operates in an open and fair manner, 6. to ensure that discussions are relevant (the Chair should propose a set of topics for e-mail subject headers), 7. to intervene to stop off-topic communication, 8. to summarize outcomes of each issue and 9. to achieve interim and final objectives in conformance with the terms of reference. The Chair ? and any Vice-Chair(s) ? must play a neutral role by refraining from pushing a specific agenda, ensuring fair treatment for all legitimate views and guaranteeing objectivity in identifying areas of agreement. The purpose of the Vice-Chair is to assist the Chair and serve as acting Chair when the Chair is unavailable. _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/logo310.gif] 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 From kKleiman at pir.org Wed Nov 10 13:23:43 2010 From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:23:43 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Not crazy about Robert's Rules In-Reply-To: <4CDA929D.9080205@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <20101109133216.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.79f2b9a9cc.wbe@email03.secureserver.net><9DF25B43-5BDC-450B-8E1D-3E4F590F1897@etlaw.co.uk> <4CDA929D.9080205@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: Hi Wilifried and All, I am not crazy about Robert's Rules. Please know that I have used them for many, many years, and like anything else, they are a tool and a weapon in the hands of people who are expert with them. You can use Robert's Rules to encourage discussion, and to shut it down. I find them a version of crowd control -- which is very necessary in a large legislative body. But we are not a large legislative body. We are a small, collegial, expert group. In that case, traditional ICANN rules would seem to be in order -- they are not documented, not formal, but very well known. They require listening carefully to the comments of the others in the group, working through the issues together, and trying to arrive at a consensus (or agreement) that everyone feels is somewhat reasonable. No one "wins," in my experience, in the ICANN committee arena. It is a give and take. And I really like the voting rules circulated yesterday by Lynn, Sharon and Bill. I think they encapsulate important rules, a limited set, and give us a basic framework. Truly, I think that is all we will need. Dear All, Sending this message in advance of our conference call tomorrow. Bill Smith, Sharon Lemon and I took the action item on our last call to propose a voting agreement for the group. Different views and discussion are welcomed. This is offered in the interest of making our call tomorrow as productive as possible. Please note that ICANN values of consensus and transparency have been considered in this proposal. Here it is: Proposed Whois RT Voting Agreement 1) A quorum of 50% of RT members is required to conduct a vote. 2) A winning vote requires 75% approval or support. 3) Each RT member has one vote; the ICANN CEO (or his alternate) has one vote; all other supporting ICANN staff will not have voting privileges. 4) Straw polls are permitted and do not prevent or restrict a final vote. 5) RT members may authorize another RT member to vote in proxy. 6) Each RT member may designate an alternate to attend meetings either remotely or in person. However, the alternate will not have voting privileges, with the exception of the ICANN CEO alternate. 7) Meetings will be recorded and available for RT members who are unable to attend. 8) Voting requests will be communicated in writing via email with a minimum of 3 business days notice to respond. 9) Vote responses may be submitted via email or by verbal response on conference call meetings. 10) Each RT member will be identified with their vote. 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. -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:40 AM To: Emily Taylor Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Role of Chair and Vice-Chair for Whois Review Team Emily Taylor wrote: > Dear Lynn, Bill and Sharon, > > Thanks for your work on the role of Chair and Vice-Chair. I have a > couple of queries/suggestions, which I hope we can pick up in today's call: > > I agree that the Chair/Vice Chair should play a neutral role, and I see > the purpose to ensure that voices are heard, themes summarised and a way > through is formulated which takes into account all relevant, legitimate > interests. Reviewing the exchanges on this list, I think this group is > going to have to work hard to listen and take account of others' views - > if we can crack this, we should be OK! > > > My query is this: given that we have all been put forward for this team > on the basis of our experience, what do you think should happen when the > Chair/Vice-Chair wants to put forward their own personal view. Do they > step out of the role for the time being? Do they just not do that? I have submitted my take on this aspect already and Bill (iirc) replied that this is covered by Robert's Rules of Order. Beinf illiterate wrt this beast, I have to believe this until I find the time to read up on this stuff. > Kind regards > > Emily Wilfried. _______________________________________________ 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 Nov 10 13:27:40 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 06:27:40 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Voting Agreement for Whois RT In-Reply-To: <4CDA8EBC.8010903@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <4CD9C4AD.5000409@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <403E589F3A85E149ADB0D8B987A1B88C0854FB5E2F@mbx1.mazal.ru> <4CDA8EBC.8010903@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <3517EE2A-135E-459B-A83C-993F97B3FC48@paypal.com> This makes sense, and I've seen it used successfully elsewhere. On Nov 10, 2010, at 4:23 AM, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > Yakushev Mikhail wrote: > >> Colleagues, >> >> In all working groups where I've ever participated the members were >> supposed to work/discuss/decide/vote in person. My understanding is >> that the RT has been formed of the selection of experts, and any of >> their 'alternate persons' cannot be treated as such. So if a participant >> of the RT is unable to participate in the meetings/conferences/calls etc., >> no 'alternate' can really _replace_ him/her. > > ACK > >> Since Cartagena is expected to be mostly an _informal_ gathering (considering >> London January year as the first _formal_ meeting), I think there is no problem >> to accept the presence of anyone who would somehow 'inform' the participant >> (who is absent) afterwards, provided that the Team is notified about this fact >> beforehand, and no one has objections. > > Again, I agree. > > I was about to submit the following proposal to augment my objection re the > 'alternate' aspect. As follows (I do have quite some positive experience with > such an arrangement): > > The RT can invite observcers and/or technical experts to participate in the > scheduled meetings, or parts thereof. > > Observers are expected to remain passive but are invited to contribute with > background information or logistic aspects at any time. > > Invited experts are expected to actively particicate in the discussion of > topics for which the have been invited. > > Both observers and experts can be invited for a single meeting, for a period > of time or until the invitation is withdrawn (wording - maybe "expires" is a > better word? Native speakers pls. advise!) Observers and experts are expected > to leave the meeting at any time upon request by the Chair. > > Proposals or Requests for Invitations can be submitted by the prospective > invitee as well as by any of the RT memebers. A decision can either be taken > by way of a formal vote or consensus on the mailing list. > > It is the Chairs' responsibility to manage the potential CoI or any other > confidentiality issue that may arise. > > Does that make sense? > >> Apart from the above - I do support Lynn's initial proposals. >> >> Regards, >> Michael > > Best regards, > Wilfried. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lutz Donnerhacke >> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 11:03 AM >> To: rt4-whois at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Proposed Voting Agreement for Whois RT >> >> * Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: >> >>> I am not aware of an agreeement to allow alternate persons to attend >>> meetings? >> >> >> You are correct. There was a question about this issue but not acceptance. >> >> >>> Actually, I think this would be a pretty bad idea to begin with, because >>> we have been mandated *personally* to participate in the RT. Our names, >>> affiliations and SoIs have been published. We are expected to sign and >>> abide by CoI provisions and the like. >> >> >> Ack. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 kKleiman at pir.org Wed Nov 10 13:31:06 2010 From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:31:06 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Dear ICANN Staff Message-ID: Hi All, This is a message directed to our ICANN Staff. Please know, I have the greatest respect for all of you, and truly know we live in busy times. When I saw your names, I was thrilled to see not one or two, but four of the most outstanding members of the staff working with us. That should be a formula for success right there. But we need your help. Where are the minutes we have been promised from our meetings? Agendas? (since no member chairs at this point). We have four documents (at least!) going, and we need our Wiki - ready for updates, and perhaps being regularly updated by you with our work. It's the basic need: central, 24*7 resources for the work we are doing. Have I missed something? If so, I apologize, but we all need these critical, typical, usual resources to organize and advance the great work ahead. Kathy Kleiman 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 | W: www.pir.org 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/a3fce136/attachment.html From olof.nordling at icann.org Wed Nov 10 13:35:31 2010 From: olof.nordling at icann.org (Olof Nordling) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 05:35:31 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Dear ICANN Staff In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD81B2A@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Hi Kathy, Yes, you must have missed something: The notes (also distributed by email from Alice), the recordings and the transcripts are all at the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/WHOIS+Policy+Review+Team This wiki address also features in the emails that Alice sends out with the notes. The agendas are in the meeting invites - and have been distributed by mail as well. Best regards Olof From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:31 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Dear ICANN Staff Hi All, This is a message directed to our ICANN Staff. Please know, I have the greatest respect for all of you, and truly know we live in busy times. When I saw your names, I was thrilled to see not one or two, but four of the most outstanding members of the staff working with us. That should be a formula for success right there. But we need your help. Where are the minutes we have been promised from our meetings? Agendas? (since no member chairs at this point). We have four documents (at least!) going, and we need our Wiki - ready for updates, and perhaps being regularly updated by you with our work. It's the basic need: central, 24*7 resources for the work we are doing. Have I missed something? If so, I apologize, but we all need these critical, typical, usual resources to organize and advance the great work ahead. Kathy Kleiman 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 | W: www.pir.org 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/c948a87b/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Nov 10 13:39:00 2010 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 05:39:00 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Conference call at 14:00 UTC Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD81B2E@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Dear Review Team Members, As you know, a conference call is scheduled for today at 14:00 UTC. Dial-in numbers are included in the outlook invitation sent last Monday (please find it re-attached for your convenience) Password required: 27318 followed by # With a view to enhancing the sound quality of the call, we would be very grateful if you could please mute your lines whenever silent by dialing *6. To unmute, please press *7 Please be kindly reminded to state your name when speaking and to join the Adobe room http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/ 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/20101110/24aa58c5/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Alice Jansen Subject: WHOIS Conference Call Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2010 02:22:28 -0800 Size: 86141 Url: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/24aa58c5/attachment.mht From kKleiman at pir.org Wed Nov 10 13:39:49 2010 From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:39:49 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Dear ICANN Staff In-Reply-To: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD81B2A@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD81B2A@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: You are absolutely right, Olof, tx you! Now how do Lynn, Sharon, Susan and Bill put the ongoing documents up on this site so that everyone can access and edit? Tx for the correction! 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: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:36 AM To: Kathy Kleiman; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: RE: Dear ICANN Staff Hi Kathy, Yes, you must have missed something: The notes (also distributed by email from Alice), the recordings and the transcripts are all at the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/WHOIS+Policy+Review+Team This wiki address also features in the emails that Alice sends out with the notes. The agendas are in the meeting invites - and have been distributed by mail as well. Best regards Olof From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:31 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Dear ICANN Staff Hi All, This is a message directed to our ICANN Staff. Please know, I have the greatest respect for all of you, and truly know we live in busy times. When I saw your names, I was thrilled to see not one or two, but four of the most outstanding members of the staff working with us. That should be a formula for success right there. But we need your help. Where are the minutes we have been promised from our meetings? Agendas? (since no member chairs at this point). We have four documents (at least!) going, and we need our Wiki - ready for updates, and perhaps being regularly updated by you with our work. It's the basic need: central, 24*7 resources for the work we are doing. Have I missed something? If so, I apologize, but we all need these critical, typical, usual resources to organize and advance the great work ahead. Kathy Kleiman 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 | W: www.pir.org 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/f2477746/attachment.html From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Wed Nov 10 13:43:58 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 13:43:58 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Dear ICANN Staff In-Reply-To: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD81B2A@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD81B2A@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <4CDAA19E.3040608@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Guilty as well :-O I, too, missed this one. Teh message is in my folder, marked "read", but not available between my ears. Sigh, getting old... Wilfried Olof Nordling wrote: > Hi Kathy, > > Yes, you must have missed something: > > The notes (also distributed by email from Alice), the recordings and the > transcripts are all at the Wiki at > > https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/WHOIS+Policy+Review+Team > > This wiki address also features in the emails that Alice sends out with > the notes. > > The agendas are in the meeting invites ? and have been distributed by > mail as well. > > Best regards > > Olof From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Wed Nov 10 13:44:00 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 06:44:00 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Not crazy about Robert's Rules In-Reply-To: References: <20101109133216.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.79f2b9a9cc.wbe@email03.secureserver.net><9DF25B43-5BDC-450B-8E1D-3E4F590F1897@etlaw.co.uk> <4CDA929D.9080205@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <644CB0B5-9028-4A77-B1F4-D21550B44877@paypal.com> I suspect I haven't been clear in my suggestion that we employ Robert's Rules. I am *not* suggesting that we adhere to them rigidly but rather use them to guide us and provide baseline answers to questions like is an abstention a vote? I am in favor of using "traditional ICANN" rules, especially as they relate to working together toward a common goal through consensus building. Traditional "voting" is, in my opinion, the antithesis of consensus. While it is possible to reach common ground through voting mechanisms, they are not designed to encourage it. If we're to reach consensus on issues, we need to define them, understand them, and seek solutions that are "agreeable" (or at least not objectionable) to all - using processes/rules that are documented and well-understood. On Nov 10, 2010, at 5:23 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Hi Wilifried and All, > I am not crazy about Robert's Rules. Please know that I have used them for many, many years, and like anything else, they are a tool and a weapon in the hands of people who are expert with them. You can use Robert's Rules to encourage discussion, and to shut it down. I find them a version of crowd control -- which is very necessary in a large legislative body. > > But we are not a large legislative body. We are a small, collegial, expert group. In that case, traditional ICANN rules would seem to be in order -- they are not documented, not formal, but very well known. They require listening carefully to the comments of the others in the group, working through the issues together, and trying to arrive at a consensus (or agreement) that everyone feels is somewhat reasonable. > > No one "wins," in my experience, in the ICANN committee arena. It is a give and take. > > And I really like the voting rules circulated yesterday by Lynn, Sharon and Bill. I think they encapsulate important rules, a limited set, and give us a basic framework. Truly, I think that is all we will need. > > Dear All, > Sending this message in advance of our conference call tomorrow. > Bill Smith, Sharon Lemon and I took the action item on our last call to propose a voting agreement for the group. > > Different views and discussion are welcomed. This is offered in the interest of making our call tomorrow as productive as possible. Please note that ICANN values of consensus and transparency have been considered in this proposal. Here it is: > > Proposed Whois RT Voting Agreement > > 1) A quorum of 50% of RT members is required to conduct a vote. > > 2) A winning vote requires 75% approval or support. > > 3) Each RT member has one vote; the ICANN CEO (or his alternate) has one vote; all other supporting ICANN staff will not have voting privileges. > > 4) Straw polls are permitted and do not prevent or restrict a final vote. > > 5) RT members may authorize another RT member to vote in proxy. > > 6) Each RT member may designate an alternate to attend meetings either remotely or in person. > However, the alternate will not have voting privileges, with the exception of the ICANN CEO alternate. > > 7) Meetings will be recorded and available for RT members who are unable to attend. > > 8) Voting requests will be communicated in writing via email with a minimum of 3 business days notice to respond. > > 9) Vote responses may be submitted via email or by verbal response on conference call meetings. > > 10) Each RT member will be identified with their vote. > > 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. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:40 AM > To: Emily Taylor > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Role of Chair and Vice-Chair for Whois Review Team > > Emily Taylor wrote: > >> Dear Lynn, Bill and Sharon, >> >> Thanks for your work on the role of Chair and Vice-Chair. I have a >> couple of queries/suggestions, which I hope we can pick up in today's call: >> >> I agree that the Chair/Vice Chair should play a neutral role, and I see >> the purpose to ensure that voices are heard, themes summarised and a way >> through is formulated which takes into account all relevant, legitimate >> interests. Reviewing the exchanges on this list, I think this group is >> going to have to work hard to listen and take account of others' views - >> if we can crack this, we should be OK! >> >> >> My query is this: given that we have all been put forward for this team >> on the basis of our experience, what do you think should happen when the >> Chair/Vice-Chair wants to put forward their own personal view. Do they >> step out of the role for the time being? Do they just not do that? > > > I have submitted my take on this aspect already and Bill (iirc) replied > that this is covered by Robert's Rules of Order. > > Beinf illiterate wrt this beast, I have to believe this until I find the > time to read up on this stuff. > >> Kind regards >> >> Emily > > 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 kim at vonarx.ca Wed Nov 10 13:46:08 2010 From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:46:08 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Not crazy about Robert's Rules In-Reply-To: References: <20101109133216.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.79f2b9a9cc.wbe@email03.secureserver.net><9DF25B43-5BDC-450B-8E1D-3E4F590F1897@etlaw.co.uk> <4CDA929D.9080205@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <98239D99-A386-4518-B112-F6DB07E1D074@vonarx.ca> Dear All: I tend to agree with Kathy. I've also used Robert's Rules and, as I had suggested a while back, Wainberg's Rules, for many years and both are complex and require some expertise by the Chair and/or moderator to properly use them. If we were to adopt formal rules, I would still suggest that Wainberg's are more appropriate than Robert's rules. Having said that, I don't' want to waste any time on discussing which of those we should use and simply propose that we use the guidelines already established by various team members and the ICANN conventions and, if we encounter an issue which has not been dealt with in either instances, we can consult Robert's or Wainberg's rules to find an appropriate path. Kim On 10 Nov 2010, at 08:23, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Hi Wilifried and All, > I am not crazy about Robert's Rules. Please know that I have used them for many, many years, and like anything else, they are a tool and a weapon in the hands of people who are expert with them. You can use Robert's Rules to encourage discussion, and to shut it down. I find them a version of crowd control -- which is very necessary in a large legislative body. > > But we are not a large legislative body. We are a small, collegial, expert group. In that case, traditional ICANN rules would seem to be in order -- they are not documented, not formal, but very well known. They require listening carefully to the comments of the others in the group, working through the issues together, and trying to arrive at a consensus (or agreement) that everyone feels is somewhat reasonable. > > No one "wins," in my experience, in the ICANN committee arena. It is a give and take. > > And I really like the voting rules circulated yesterday by Lynn, Sharon and Bill. I think they encapsulate important rules, a limited set, and give us a basic framework. Truly, I think that is all we will need. > > Dear All, > Sending this message in advance of our conference call tomorrow. > Bill Smith, Sharon Lemon and I took the action item on our last call to propose a voting agreement for the group. > > Different views and discussion are welcomed. This is offered in the interest of making our call tomorrow as productive as possible. Please note that ICANN values of consensus and transparency have been considered in this proposal. Here it is: > > Proposed Whois RT Voting Agreement > > 1) A quorum of 50% of RT members is required to conduct a vote. > > 2) A winning vote requires 75% approval or support. > > 3) Each RT member has one vote; the ICANN CEO (or his alternate) has one vote; all other supporting ICANN staff will not have voting privileges. > > 4) Straw polls are permitted and do not prevent or restrict a final vote. > > 5) RT members may authorize another RT member to vote in proxy. > > 6) Each RT member may designate an alternate to attend meetings either remotely or in person. > However, the alternate will not have voting privileges, with the exception of the ICANN CEO alternate. > > 7) Meetings will be recorded and available for RT members who are unable to attend. > > 8) Voting requests will be communicated in writing via email with a minimum of 3 business days notice to respond. > > 9) Vote responses may be submitted via email or by verbal response on conference call meetings. > > 10) Each RT member will be identified with their vote. > > 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. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:40 AM > To: Emily Taylor > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Role of Chair and Vice-Chair for Whois Review Team > > Emily Taylor wrote: > >> Dear Lynn, Bill and Sharon, >> >> Thanks for your work on the role of Chair and Vice-Chair. I have a >> couple of queries/suggestions, which I hope we can pick up in today's call: >> >> I agree that the Chair/Vice Chair should play a neutral role, and I see >> the purpose to ensure that voices are heard, themes summarised and a way >> through is formulated which takes into account all relevant, legitimate >> interests. Reviewing the exchanges on this list, I think this group is >> going to have to work hard to listen and take account of others' views - >> if we can crack this, we should be OK! >> >> >> My query is this: given that we have all been put forward for this team >> on the basis of our experience, what do you think should happen when the >> Chair/Vice-Chair wants to put forward their own personal view. Do they >> step out of the role for the time being? Do they just not do that? > > > I have submitted my take on this aspect already and Bill (iirc) replied > that this is covered by Robert's Rules of Order. > > Beinf illiterate wrt this beast, I have to believe this until I find the > time to read up on this stuff. > >> Kind regards >> >> Emily > > 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 lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Wed Nov 10 13:49:00 2010 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 06:49:00 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Not crazy about Robert's Rules Message-ID: <20101110064900.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.656bab5247.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/20a43c1a/attachment.html From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Wed Nov 10 13:49:52 2010 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 13:49:52 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Not crazy about Robert's Rules In-Reply-To: <98239D99-A386-4518-B112-F6DB07E1D074@vonarx.ca> References: <20101109133216.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.79f2b9a9cc.wbe@email03.secureserver.net><9DF25B43-5BDC-450B-8E1D-3E4F590F1897@etlaw.co.uk> <4CDA929D.9080205@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <98239D99-A386-4518-B112-F6DB07E1D074@vonarx.ca> Message-ID: Dear all Sounds like we are converging towards a pragmatic approach here, ie no-one wants to place procedure before substance (I'm sure we all bear the scars of other committees which become process obsessed!), we want to work in an informal way, towards consensus, and use existing frameworks for non-binding guidance if and when we get stuck. Best, Emily PS I also missed the link to the Wiki. Thanks for the reminder. On 10 Nov 2010, at 13:46, Kim G. von Arx wrote: > Dear All: > > I tend to agree with Kathy. I've also used Robert's Rules and, as I had suggested a while back, Wainberg's Rules, for many years and both are complex and require some expertise by the Chair and/or moderator to properly use them. If we were to adopt formal rules, I would still suggest that Wainberg's are more appropriate than Robert's rules. > > Having said that, I don't' want to waste any time on discussing which of those we should use and simply propose that we use the guidelines already established by various team members and the ICANN conventions and, if we encounter an issue which has not been dealt with in either instances, we can consult Robert's or Wainberg's rules to find an appropriate path. > > Kim > > > On 10 Nov 2010, at 08:23, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > >> Hi Wilifried and All, >> I am not crazy about Robert's Rules. Please know that I have used them for many, many years, and like anything else, they are a tool and a weapon in the hands of people who are expert with them. You can use Robert's Rules to encourage discussion, and to shut it down. I find them a version of crowd control -- which is very necessary in a large legislative body. >> >> But we are not a large legislative body. We are a small, collegial, expert group. In that case, traditional ICANN rules would seem to be in order -- they are not documented, not formal, but very well known. They require listening carefully to the comments of the others in the group, working through the issues together, and trying to arrive at a consensus (or agreement) that everyone feels is somewhat reasonable. >> >> No one "wins," in my experience, in the ICANN committee arena. It is a give and take. >> >> And I really like the voting rules circulated yesterday by Lynn, Sharon and Bill. I think they encapsulate important rules, a limited set, and give us a basic framework. Truly, I think that is all we will need. >> >> Dear All, >> Sending this message in advance of our conference call tomorrow. >> Bill Smith, Sharon Lemon and I took the action item on our last call to propose a voting agreement for the group. >> >> Different views and discussion are welcomed. This is offered in the interest of making our call tomorrow as productive as possible. Please note that ICANN values of consensus and transparency have been considered in this proposal. Here it is: >> >> Proposed Whois RT Voting Agreement >> >> 1) A quorum of 50% of RT members is required to conduct a vote. >> >> 2) A winning vote requires 75% approval or support. >> >> 3) Each RT member has one vote; the ICANN CEO (or his alternate) has one vote; all other supporting ICANN staff will not have voting privileges. >> >> 4) Straw polls are permitted and do not prevent or restrict a final vote. >> >> 5) RT members may authorize another RT member to vote in proxy. >> >> 6) Each RT member may designate an alternate to attend meetings either remotely or in person. >> However, the alternate will not have voting privileges, with the exception of the ICANN CEO alternate. >> >> 7) Meetings will be recorded and available for RT members who are unable to attend. >> >> 8) Voting requests will be communicated in writing via email with a minimum of 3 business days notice to respond. >> >> 9) Vote responses may be submitted via email or by verbal response on conference call meetings. >> >> 10) Each RT member will be identified with their vote. >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet >> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:40 AM >> To: Emily Taylor >> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Role of Chair and Vice-Chair for Whois Review Team >> >> Emily Taylor wrote: >> >>> Dear Lynn, Bill and Sharon, >>> >>> Thanks for your work on the role of Chair and Vice-Chair. I have a >>> couple of queries/suggestions, which I hope we can pick up in today's call: >>> >>> I agree that the Chair/Vice Chair should play a neutral role, and I see >>> the purpose to ensure that voices are heard, themes summarised and a way >>> through is formulated which takes into account all relevant, legitimate >>> interests. Reviewing the exchanges on this list, I think this group is >>> going to have to work hard to listen and take account of others' views - >>> if we can crack this, we should be OK! >>> >>> >>> My query is this: given that we have all been put forward for this team >>> on the basis of our experience, what do you think should happen when the >>> Chair/Vice-Chair wants to put forward their own personal view. Do they >>> step out of the role for the time being? Do they just not do that? >> >> >> I have submitted my take on this aspect already and Bill (iirc) replied >> that this is covered by Robert's Rules of Order. >> >> Beinf illiterate wrt this beast, I have to believe this until I find the >> time to read up on this stuff. >> >>> Kind regards >>> >>> Emily >> >> 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 > 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/5440ad57/attachment.html From kKleiman at pir.org Wed Nov 10 13:51:07 2010 From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:51:07 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Not crazy about Robert's Rules In-Reply-To: <644CB0B5-9028-4A77-B1F4-D21550B44877@paypal.com> References: <20101109133216.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.79f2b9a9cc.wbe@email03.secureserver.net><9DF25B43-5BDC-450B-8E1D-3E4F590F1897@etlaw.co.uk> <4CDA929D.9080205@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <644CB0B5-9028-4A77-B1F4-D21550B44877@paypal.com> Message-ID: Great, Bill. I think we have consensus :-)! 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. -----Original Message----- From: Smith, Bill [mailto:bill.smith at paypal-inc.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:44 AM To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at; Emily Taylor; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Not crazy about Robert's Rules I suspect I haven't been clear in my suggestion that we employ Robert's Rules. I am *not* suggesting that we adhere to them rigidly but rather use them to guide us and provide baseline answers to questions like is an abstention a vote? I am in favor of using "traditional ICANN" rules, especially as they relate to working together toward a common goal through consensus building. Traditional "voting" is, in my opinion, the antithesis of consensus. While it is possible to reach common ground through voting mechanisms, they are not designed to encourage it. If we're to reach consensus on issues, we need to define them, understand them, and seek solutions that are "agreeable" (or at least not objectionable) to all - using processes/rules that are documented and well-understood. On Nov 10, 2010, at 5:23 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > Hi Wilifried and All, > I am not crazy about Robert's Rules. Please know that I have used them for many, many years, and like anything else, they are a tool and a weapon in the hands of people who are expert with them. You can use Robert's Rules to encourage discussion, and to shut it down. I find them a version of crowd control -- which is very necessary in a large legislative body. > > But we are not a large legislative body. We are a small, collegial, expert group. In that case, traditional ICANN rules would seem to be in order -- they are not documented, not formal, but very well known. They require listening carefully to the comments of the others in the group, working through the issues together, and trying to arrive at a consensus (or agreement) that everyone feels is somewhat reasonable. > > No one "wins," in my experience, in the ICANN committee arena. It is a give and take. > > And I really like the voting rules circulated yesterday by Lynn, Sharon and Bill. I think they encapsulate important rules, a limited set, and give us a basic framework. Truly, I think that is all we will need. > > Dear All, > Sending this message in advance of our conference call tomorrow. > Bill Smith, Sharon Lemon and I took the action item on our last call to propose a voting agreement for the group. > > Different views and discussion are welcomed. This is offered in the interest of making our call tomorrow as productive as possible. Please note that ICANN values of consensus and transparency have been considered in this proposal. Here it is: > > Proposed Whois RT Voting Agreement > > 1) A quorum of 50% of RT members is required to conduct a vote. > > 2) A winning vote requires 75% approval or support. > > 3) Each RT member has one vote; the ICANN CEO (or his alternate) has one vote; all other supporting ICANN staff will not have voting privileges. > > 4) Straw polls are permitted and do not prevent or restrict a final vote. > > 5) RT members may authorize another RT member to vote in proxy. > > 6) Each RT member may designate an alternate to attend meetings either remotely or in person. > However, the alternate will not have voting privileges, with the exception of the ICANN CEO alternate. > > 7) Meetings will be recorded and available for RT members who are unable to attend. > > 8) Voting requests will be communicated in writing via email with a minimum of 3 business days notice to respond. > > 9) Vote responses may be submitted via email or by verbal response on conference call meetings. > > 10) Each RT member will be identified with their vote. > > 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. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:40 AM > To: Emily Taylor > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Role of Chair and Vice-Chair for Whois Review Team > > Emily Taylor wrote: > >> Dear Lynn, Bill and Sharon, >> >> Thanks for your work on the role of Chair and Vice-Chair. I have a >> couple of queries/suggestions, which I hope we can pick up in today's call: >> >> I agree that the Chair/Vice Chair should play a neutral role, and I see >> the purpose to ensure that voices are heard, themes summarised and a way >> through is formulated which takes into account all relevant, legitimate >> interests. Reviewing the exchanges on this list, I think this group is >> going to have to work hard to listen and take account of others' views - >> if we can crack this, we should be OK! >> >> >> My query is this: given that we have all been put forward for this team >> on the basis of our experience, what do you think should happen when the >> Chair/Vice-Chair wants to put forward their own personal view. Do they >> step out of the role for the time being? Do they just not do that? > > > I have submitted my take on this aspect already and Bill (iirc) replied > that this is covered by Robert's Rules of Order. > > Beinf illiterate wrt this beast, I have to believe this until I find the > time to read up on this stuff. > >> Kind regards >> >> Emily > > 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 lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Wed Nov 10 13:51:59 2010 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 06:51:59 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Not crazy about Robert's Rules Message-ID: <20101110065159.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.3674ba5a39.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/48ecb42f/attachment.html From kim at vonarx.ca Wed Nov 10 13:54:12 2010 From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:54:12 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Dear ICANN Staff In-Reply-To: References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD81B2A@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <3DEE4F2D-6314-4CA6-B682-BB410D6301C9@vonarx.ca> I also missed the link the wiki. Kim On 10 Nov 2010, at 08:39, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > You are absolutely right, Olof, tx you! Now how do Lynn, Sharon, Susan and Bill put the ongoing documents up on this site so that everyone can access and edit? > > Tx for the correction! > > 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: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling at icann.org] > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:36 AM > To: Kathy Kleiman; rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: RE: Dear ICANN Staff > > Hi Kathy, > Yes, you must have missed something: > The notes (also distributed by email from Alice), the recordings and the transcripts are all at the Wiki at > https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/WHOIS+Policy+Review+Team > This wiki address also features in the emails that Alice sends out with the notes. > The agendas are in the meeting invites ? and have been distributed by mail as well. > Best regards > Olof > > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:31 PM > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Dear ICANN Staff > > Hi All, > This is a message directed to our ICANN Staff. Please know, I have the greatest respect for all of you, and truly know we live in busy times. When I saw your names, I was thrilled to see not one or two, but four of the most outstanding members of the staff working with us. That should be a formula for success right there. > > But we need your help. Where are the minutes we have been promised from our meetings? Agendas? (since no member chairs at this point). We have four documents (at least!) going, and we need our Wiki ? ready for updates, and perhaps being regularly updated by you with our work. It?s the basic need: central, 24*7 resources for the work we are doing. > > Have I missed something? If so, I apologize, but we all need these critical, typical, usual resources to organize and advance the great work ahead. > > Kathy Kleiman > 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 | W: www.pir.org > > 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20101110/4f731af8/attachment.html From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Wed Nov 10 13:56:00 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 13:56:00 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Not crazy about Robert's Rules In-Reply-To: <20101110065159.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.3674ba5a39.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> References: <20101110065159.00ef555ff13978e3e1b8d2179880f99e.3674ba5a39.wbe@email03.secureserver.net> Message-ID: <4CDAA470.4040509@CC.UniVie.ac.at> lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com wrote: > Yes! strongly agree with you Emily +1 from my end. Wilfried > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Not crazy about Robert's Rules > From: Emily Taylor > > Date: Wed, November 10, 2010 8:49 am > To: "Kim G. von Arx" > > Cc: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at , > rt4-whois at icann.org > > Dear all > > Sounds like we are converging towards a pragmatic approach here, ie > no-one wants to place procedure before substance (I'm sure we all > bear the scars of other committees which become process obsessed!), > we want to work in an informal way, towards consensus, and use > existing frameworks for non-binding guidance if and when we get stuck. > > Best, > > Emily > > PS I also missed the link to the Wiki. Thanks for the reminder. > > > On 10 Nov 2010, at 13:46, Kim G. von Arx wrote: > >> Dear All: >> >> I tend to agree with Kathy. I've also used Robert's Rules and, as >> I had suggested a while back, Wainberg's Rules, for many years and >> both are complex and require some expertise by the Chair and/or >> moderator to properly use them. If we were to adopt formal rules, >> I would still suggest that Wainberg's are more appropriate than >> Robert's rules. >> >> Having said that, I don't' want to waste any time on discussing >> which of those we should use and simply propose that we use the >> guidelines already established by various team members and the >> ICANN conventions and, if we encounter an issue which has not been >> dealt with in either instances, we can consult Robert's or >> Wainberg's rules to find an appropriate path. >> >> Kim >> >> >> On 10 Nov 2010, at 08:23, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> >>> Hi Wilifried and All, >> >>> I am not crazy about Robert's Rules. Please know that I have used >>> them for many, many years, and like anything else, they are a >>> tool and a weapon in the hands of people who are expert with >>> them. You can use Robert's Rules to encourage discussion, and to >>> shut it down. I find them a version of crowd control -- which is >>> very necessary in a large legislative body. >> >>> >>> But we are not a large legislative body. We are a small, >>> collegial, expert group. In that case, traditional ICANN rules >>> would seem to be in order -- they are not documented, not formal, >>> but very well known. They require listening carefully to the >>> comments of the others in the group, working through the issues >>> together, and trying to arrive at a consensus (or agreement) that >>> everyone feels is somewhat reasonable. >> >>> >>> No one "wins," in my experience, in the ICANN committee arena. It >>> is a give and take. >> >>> >>> And I really like the voting rules circulated yesterday by Lynn, >>> Sharon and Bill. I think they encapsulate important rules, a >>> limited set, and give us a basic framework. Truly, I think that >>> is all we will need. >> >>> >>> Dear All, >> >>> Sending this message in advance of our conference call tomorrow. >> >>> Bill Smith, Sharon Lemon and I took the action item on our last >>> call to propose a voting agreement for the group. >> >>> >>> Different views and discussion are welcomed. This is offered in >>> the interest of making our call tomorrow as productive as >>> possible. Please note that ICANN values of consensus and >>> transparency have been considered in this proposal. Here it is: >> >>> >>> Proposed Whois RT Voting Agreement >> >>> >>> 1) A quorum of 50% of RT members is required to conduct a vote. >> >>> >>> 2) A winning vote requires 75% approval or support. >> >>> >>> 3) Each RT member has one vote; the ICANN CEO (or his alternate) >>> has one vote; all other supporting ICANN staff will not have >>> voting privileges. >> >>> >>> 4) Straw polls are permitted and do not prevent or restrict a >>> final vote. >> >>> >>> 5) RT members may authorize another RT member to vote in proxy. >> >>> >>> 6) Each RT member may designate an alternate to attend meetings >>> either remotely or in person. >> >>> However, the alternate will not have voting privileges, with the >>> exception of the ICANN CEO alternate. >> >>> >>> 7) Meetings will be recorded and available for RT members who are >>> unable to attend. >> >>> >>> 8) Voting requests will be communicated in writing via email with >>> a minimum of 3 business days notice to respond. >> >>> >>> 9) Vote responses may be submitted via email or by verbal >>> response on conference call meetings. >> >>> >>> 10) Each RT member will be identified with their vote. >> >>> >>> 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. >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org >>> >>> [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried >>> Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet >> >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 7:40 AM >> >>> To: Emily Taylor >> >>> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org >> >>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Role of Chair and Vice-Chair for Whois >>> Review Team >> >>> >>> Emily Taylor wrote: >> >>> >>>> Dear Lynn, Bill and Sharon, >> >>>> >>>> Thanks for your work on the role of Chair and Vice-Chair. I have a >> >>>> couple of queries/suggestions, which I hope we can pick up in >>>> today's call: >> >>>> >>>> I agree that the Chair/Vice Chair should play a neutral role, >>>> and I see >> >>>> the purpose to ensure that voices are heard, themes summarised >>>> and a way >> >>>> through is formulated which takes into account all relevant, >>>> legitimate >> >>>> interests. Reviewing the exchanges on this list, I think this >>>> group is >> >>>> going to have to work hard to listen and take account of others' >>>> views - >> >>>> if we can crack this, we should be OK! >> >>>> >>>> >>>> My query is this: given that we have all been put forward for >>>> this team >> >>>> on the basis of our experience, what do you think should happen >>>> when the >> >>>> Chair/Vice-Chair wants to put forward their own personal view. >>>> Do they >> >>>> step out of the role for the time being? Do they just not do that? >> >>> >>> >>> I have submitted my take on this aspect already and Bill (iirc) >>> replied >> >>> that this is covered by Robert's Rules of Order. >> >>> >>> Beinf illiterate wrt this beast, I have to believe this until I >>> find the >> >>> time to read up on this stuff. >> >>> >>>> Kind regards >> >>>> >>>> Emily >> >>> >>> 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 >> >> > > 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 From kKleiman at pir.org Wed Nov 10 13:59:02 2010 From: kKleiman at pir.org (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:59:02 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] [renamed] procedural and substantive issues In-Reply-To: References: <4CD40FF7.9040604@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: I tend to agree with Emily on the Scope of Work issue. I think it raises a number of questions of interpretation and definition. It is the most substantive of the issues we spun off for separate work, and the one with the least work to date. So my personal thought that we move forward quickly to finalize and adopt the excellent procedural work done to date (this meeting, or next): - Voting/Consensus mechanisms - Chair/Vice Chair Re: Scope of Work, I would urge that we ALL help in the direct development of the Scope of Work - perhaps by dividing into small groups in which each member plays a part. That will be the best way, I think, to incorporate the views and perspective of gTLDs and ccTLDs, IP and IDN, and others, right from the start. I see this as the first major substantive piece work of the whole Team. 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: Emily Taylor [mailto:emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 4:48 AM To: Susan Kawaguchi Cc: Kathy Kleiman; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Vote on Meeting in Cartagena Hi Susan Thank you for sending through your proposed Scope of Work and Drafting Team language. I have reviewed the documents, and made some suggestions and comments which are attached (using tracked changes). On the Scope, I think we need to pull out the different elements of the AoC's language here, because it's pretty rich, and there are numerous elements which we need to understand. In particular, I think that the phrase "promotes consumer trust" deserves some scrutiny - what is meant? who are the relevant "consumer" stakeholders - is this a legal definition of consumer as a sort of non-trading individual, or is it all those who "consume" domain name services, ie all internet users. What elements tend to promote consumer trust? Is it a single thing, or do different factors promote trust, depending on which stakeholder group you are part of? In other words, I see a large part of this group's task as stakeholder mapping, and identifying legitimate interests. In this way, we can inform ourselves about which are the relevant stakeholders (ie law enforcement and which ever stakeholders we think are contained in the concept "consumer trust"), and how their interests support each other or may be in conflict. If we can identify those conflicts, we can then look back at ICANN's policy and ask to what extent it is successful in meeting those needs. I'd also like to wave a little flag for benchmarking good practice. There's a lot of ccTLD good practice out there, and it might be worthwhile for this team to catalogue this for the purposes of benchmarking against ICANN's policy. Kind regards Emily -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/1d2567e8/attachment.html From Yakushev at dstadvisors.ru Wed Nov 10 14:08:16 2010 From: Yakushev at dstadvisors.ru (Yakushev Mikhail) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:08:16 +0300 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Conference call at 14:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD81B2E@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <403E589F3A85E149ADB0D8B987A1B88C0854FB5E32@mbx1.mazal.ru> Hi. I was expecting that someone would call me at my mobile. Can you, please, let the operator call me at +79037216243 Thanks. From: Alice Jansen [mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 01:39 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Cc: Teresa Elias Subject: [Rt4-whois] Conference call at 14:00 UTC Dear Review Team Members, As you know, a conference call is scheduled for today at 14:00 UTC. Dial-in numbers are included in the outlook invitation sent last Monday (please find it re-attached for your convenience) Password required: 27318 followed by # With a view to enhancing the sound quality of the call, we would be very grateful if you could please mute your lines whenever silent by dialing *6. To unmute, please press *7 Please be kindly reminded to state your name when speaking and to join the Adobe room http://icann.adobeconnect.com/whois-review/ 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/20101110/93856c26/attachment.html From olof.nordling at icann.org Wed Nov 10 14:20:00 2010 From: olof.nordling at icann.org (Olof Nordling) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 06:20:00 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Dear ICANN Staff In-Reply-To: References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD81B2A@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD81B4E@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Hi Kathy, For the time being, staff can put them there, but we will provide you with access codes for editing the Wiki very shortly - just realized that this hadn't been done. All the best Olof From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kKleiman at pir.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:40 PM To: Olof Nordling; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: RE: Dear ICANN Staff You are absolutely right, Olof, tx you! Now how do Lynn, Sharon, Susan and Bill put the ongoing documents up on this site so that everyone can access and edit? Tx for the correction! 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: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling at icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:36 AM To: Kathy Kleiman; rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: RE: Dear ICANN Staff Hi Kathy, Yes, you must have missed something: The notes (also distributed by email from Alice), the recordings and the transcripts are all at the Wiki at https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/WHOIS+Policy+Review+Team This wiki address also features in the emails that Alice sends out with the notes. The agendas are in the meeting invites - and have been distributed by mail as well. Best regards Olof From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:31 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Dear ICANN Staff Hi All, This is a message directed to our ICANN Staff. Please know, I have the greatest respect for all of you, and truly know we live in busy times. When I saw your names, I was thrilled to see not one or two, but four of the most outstanding members of the staff working with us. That should be a formula for success right there. But we need your help. Where are the minutes we have been promised from our meetings? Agendas? (since no member chairs at this point). We have four documents (at least!) going, and we need our Wiki - ready for updates, and perhaps being regularly updated by you with our work. It's the basic need: central, 24*7 resources for the work we are doing. Have I missed something? If so, I apologize, but we all need these critical, typical, usual resources to organize and advance the great work ahead. Kathy Kleiman 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 | W: www.pir.org 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/cdcb9ec2/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Nov 10 15:33:11 2010 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 07:33:11 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] FW: Budget for the WHOIS Policy Review Team Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD81B7D@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Olof Nordling Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 11:54 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Budget for the WHOIS Policy Review Team Dear all, Attached please find slides regarding the budget for the WHOIS Review Team, as presented to and accepted by the ICANN Board. Best regards Olof -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/2e088ccd/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AOC Reviews - FY11 Budget slides AD102220101 WHOIS.ppt Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint Size: 548352 bytes Desc: AOC Reviews - FY11 Budget slides AD102220101 WHOIS.ppt Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/2e088ccd/AOCReviews-FY11BudgetslidesAD102220101WHOIS.ppt -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001.txt Url: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/2e088ccd/ATT00001.txt From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Nov 10 16:32:26 2010 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:32:26 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Cartagena meeting - Doodle Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD81BC4@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Dear Review Team Members, Thank you for a fruitful discussion. In line with the RT's decision, please find attached a Doodle poll for the Cartagena meeting. As agreed, we will reduce the duration of your Sunday session to 120 minutes and cancel your interaction with the community on Tuesday. In order to select the most convenient time slots on Sunday for both remote participants and those who will be the spot, please fill in the enclosed doodle poll by the end of this week - http://www.doodle.com/n9c84cpghdr9m7pg As you know, Doodle adjusts the options to your computer's date and time properties. Note that the proposals in local time for Cartagena are as follows: * 11.00-13.00 * 12.00-14.00 * 13.00-15.00 * 14.00-16.00 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/20101110/9aa4767a/attachment.html From alice.jansen at icann.org Wed Nov 10 16:41:09 2010 From: alice.jansen at icann.org (Alice Jansen) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 08:41:09 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] next Conference Call - Doodle poll Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD81BCE@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Dear Review Team Members, With a view to selecting the most convenient time for the next conference call, please complete this doodle poll by Thursday, 18 November: http://doodle.com/cuas5z36ivni5iuf 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/20101110/b890e036/attachment.html From denise.michel at icann.org Wed Nov 10 17:13:53 2010 From: denise.michel at icann.org (Denise Michel) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:13:53 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Whois Review Team Staff Support -- Save this email Message-ID: Dear Team Members, For reference, here's a reminder of who to contact on ICANN Staff, depending on your need. Please feel free to call or email Staff directly (especially for simple administrative questions -- and this will help a little with Whois email list volume). I look forward to meeting those of you who will be in Cartagena. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Advisor to the President denise.michel at icann.org +1.408.429.3072 mobile +1.310.578.8632 direct *Denise Michel ? **denise.michel at icann.org, +1-310-823-9358 (California, USA).* Denise is Advisor to the President of ICANN and will be coordinating all substantive interactions between the Review Team and ICANN staff. *Questions about ICANN's activities and work products (in any area of ICANN), and requests for substantive input from ICANN staff, documents, interviews, etc. should be directed to Denise.* Liz Gasster (Note: responses to all substantive requests from Team members will be shared with the entire Team). * Alice Jansen & **Olof Nordling ** ? **alice.jansen at icann.org, olof.nordling at icann.org, +32 2 234 7870 (Brussels, Belgium).* Alice is the Assistant, Organizational & Affirmation Reviews, and Olof is Director, Services Relation and Branch Manager ICANN Brussels office. Alice provides administrative and operational support for the Review Team. Olof is ICANN's process owner for reviews (Affirmation reviews and structural reviews) and manages Review Team support, working closely with Alice as reporting staff. *Questions about the Team's practicalities, including travel, schedules, conference calls, face-to-face meetings, email lists, web pages, and wikis, and taking minutes, posting documents, etc. should be directed to Alice (cc Olof). Questions about review team processes and requirements should be directed to Olof (cc Denise)*. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/b9ddc05f/attachment.html From olof.nordling at icann.org Wed Nov 10 17:20:39 2010 From: olof.nordling at icann.org (Olof Nordling) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 09:20:39 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Cartagena meeting - and travel support Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD81C03@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Dear all, As agreed during the call today, we will reduce the Sunday meeting for the WHOIS Review Team in Cartagena to two hours, with full remote participation capabilities, and we will cancel the community interaction session on Wednesday. For the Sunday meeting, we have put up a Doodle poll (see separate mail from Alice) to find the most convenient time for both those who attend in person and remotely, so please fill it out from either perspective, as applicable to you. Now, in light of the limited schedule for the Team in Cartagena, the Team also agreed not to use our budget for travel support for this occasion but rather keep that for future face-to-face meetings. I mentioned briefly some key aspects of the applicable travel support rules for the Team and I take the opportunity here to repeat what's covered for agreed face-to-face meetings: - Air (or train) transport to venue, return ticket, economy class (or business class, for substantiated medical reasons), booked thru ICANN's travel agency - Directly related reasonable expenses (taxi, public transport, meals etc), refunded against receipts - Lodging, either paid directly by ICANN (at ICANN meetings) or refunded against receipts This is just a very general outline - for detailed information, consult the link I sent out on 1 November at http://icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/draft-travel-support-guidelines-05apr10-en.pdf - and/or contact our constituency travel coordinator, Matt Ashtiani (cc:d). Very best regards Olof -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/8333f61f/attachment.html From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Wed Nov 10 17:30:32 2010 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:30:32 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Thank you Message-ID: Dear all Thank you for electing me to Chair the Whois Review Team. It is a great honour to have your support, and I will try my best to facilitate a positive outcome. For those of you who don't know me, I thought it might be useful to give you a little bit of background about where I'm coming from. I was nominated for the Team by the ccNSO, and my candidature was endorsed by the UK Government. I am an independent consultant, and whilst I have clients within the domain space, I am not supported financially for my work on this Committee. I want to reassure everyone that, while I'm happy to share experiences with the Team, I do not represent any particular "side" of the Whois debate. In fact, my background in working for a registry was to try to find consensus amongst apparently conflicting needs of the various stakeholders. It is this consensus-building and trying to find common ground that I hope to bring to the role. Where I want to intervene on a particular issue, I will make it clear that I am speaking in my personal capacity. On a more practical note, we will have our work cut out to achieve our objectives within the time we have set ourselves. I think we have made good progress on the Scope of Work, and remind all of us that we offered to develop the draft further through the Wiki. This should be our first priority. Thanks to those who volunteered to review the budget. It would also be helpful if prior to our next call, we individually give some thought to what our financial requirements might be in order to fulfil our Scope. Another plea from today's call was to organise diary dates for meetings well in advance. A positive start is the suggestion that we schedule a regular fortnightly slot at the same time. If we can move ahead and identify a date for London's meeting through a doodle poll, that will also be good news. Lastly, Wilfried raised some important queries relating to conflicts during today's call. It is helpful to have the resource that Rod offered of consulting with the ICANN inhouse counsel's team. I also offer to make myself available to any Team member who would like to talk over a potential conflict, or has any queries, on a confidential basis, if anyone is stuck or would like to discuss an issue. Kind regards, and thanks again, Emily 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/4329aee6/attachment.html From omar at kaminski.adv.br Wed Nov 10 17:55:26 2010 From: omar at kaminski.adv.br (Omar Kaminski) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:55:26 -0200 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Thank you In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Congrats, Emily! Sorry for missing the conference call today. I?ve been very busy ? and hurt (left shoulder and right arm broken). I?m taking 3 times more to do the usual things. But I?m reading the emails and following the discussions. Best wishes from .br, Omar From: Emily Taylor Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:30 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Thank you Dear all Thank you for electing me to Chair the Whois Review Team. It is a great honour to have your support, and I will try my best to facilitate a positive outcome. For those of you who don't know me, I thought it might be useful to give you a little bit of background about where I'm coming from. I was nominated for the Team by the ccNSO, and my candidature was endorsed by the UK Government. I am an independent consultant, and whilst I have clients within the domain space, I am not supported financially for my work on this Committee. I want to reassure everyone that, while I'm happy to share experiences with the Team, I do not represent any particular "side" of the Whois debate. In fact, my background in working for a registry was to try to find consensus amongst apparently conflicting needs of the various stakeholders. It is this consensus-building and trying to find common ground that I hope to bring to the role. Where I want to intervene on a particular issue, I will make it clear that I am speaking in my personal capacity. On a more practical note, we will have our work cut out to achieve our objectives within the time we have set ourselves. I think we have made good progress on the Scope of Work, and remind all of us that we offered to develop the draft further through the Wiki. This should be our first priority. Thanks to those who volunteered to review the budget. It would also be helpful if prior to our next call, we individually give some thought to what our financial requirements might be in order to fulfil our Scope. Another plea from today's call was to organise diary dates for meetings well in advance. A positive start is the suggestion that we schedule a regular fortnightly slot at the same time. If we can move ahead and identify a date for London's meeting through a doodle poll, that will also be good news. Lastly, Wilfried raised some important queries relating to conflicts during today's call. It is helpful to have the resource that Rod offered of consulting with the ICANN inhouse counsel's team. I also offer to make myself available to any Team member who would like to talk over a potential conflict, or has any queries, on a confidential basis, if anyone is stuck or would like to discuss an issue. Kind regards, and thanks again, Emily 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/20101110/2c9eb689/attachment.html From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Wed Nov 10 21:42:49 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 14:42:49 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Voting Agreement Wiki Page Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7673@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> All, I've taken the liberty of adding a Voting Agreement page to our wiki. It contains the text that was in the note Lynn forwarded to the group. I changed one word, in item 1) vote was changed to meeting. I did this as a test of the system and can say it is quite easy to use. Bill Smith [cid:image001.jpg at 01CB80DD.2A5655E0] The safer, easier way to pay online 2211 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95131 Direct 408 967 2380 | Cell 925 577 0606 Skype wc.smith -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/ca5310c9/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 20447 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/ca5310c9/image001.jpg From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Wed Nov 10 22:18:05 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:18:05 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Voting Agreement Wiki Page In-Reply-To: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7673@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> References: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7673@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A76E5@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> I've found the first (minor) issue with the Wiki system. It looks like page titles need to remain constant or links will break. I changed Voting Agreement to Meetings and Voting causing the link below to break. I also made changes to the page to reflect what I thought we agreed to. I added notice periods for meetings, 7 days for telephonic & 45 for f2f. These notices could be overridden by unanimous consent (all agree to waive the notice period). It's entirely possible (more than likely?) that I got our agreements wrong. Feel free to edit and use the wiki as it's intended. From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 1:43 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Voting Agreement Wiki Page All, I've taken the liberty of adding a Voting Agreement page to our wiki. It contains the text that was in the note Lynn forwarded to the group. I changed one word, in item 1) vote was changed to meeting. I did this as a test of the system and can say it is quite easy to use. Bill Smith [cid:image001.jpg at 01CB80E1.F376B0B0] The safer, easier way to pay online 2211 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95131 Direct 408 967 2380 | Cell 925 577 0606 Skype wc.smith -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/918d4e54/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 20447 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/918d4e54/image001.jpg From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Wed Nov 10 22:58:10 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2010 15:58:10 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Budget Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7760@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> I've added a Budget page that consists of the draft Olof forwarded in Excel format. It isn't necessarily useful as a wiki page, but one or more of us could edit the sheet, after discussion, and repost. If anyone else knows a better way to do this, please edit away. Bill Smith [cid:image001.jpg at 01CB80E7.B0C5B9E0] The safer, easier way to pay online 2211 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95131 Direct 408 967 2380 | Cell 925 577 0606 Skype wc.smith -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/87eadb7f/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 20447 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101110/87eadb7f/image001.jpg From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Thu Nov 11 17:24:05 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 17:24:05 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] a snapshot on the Wiki stuff Message-ID: <4CDC26B5.4000806@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Dear RT4 Team, I think the Wiki for our collaboration is in pretty good shape already, thanks to the help by ICANN staff! https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/WHOIS+Policy+Review+Team A couple of things to note: - for the moment all pages in our "space" are world-readable, so think twice before you add stuff which you do not want to become globally visisble :-) [see below]. - I have ventured to slightly re-arrange the structure and sequence of pages, for the overview on the left-hand side of the window, - there is a copy of the budget available (thanks Bill!) and also a version in Wiki format where we could add comments or other stuff. - we have been in contact with Naveed, regarding a "secluded corner" which could be used to share internal logistics information. Access to this area c|should only be accessible to the RT4 Members (and the observers and experts). Things that might go into this corner are details regarding travel arrangements, maybe phone numbers and some other more personal stuff, plus maybe hints or discussions regardig use of the Wiki. I'd like all of you to provide feedback, whether we want ICANN's Wiki-Team to create such an area, and what it should be called. My proposal would be "Internal Logistics", but you may have a much better idea. And last but not least, if you start to edit a page, please make sure to eventually save the modified information - or hit "cancel". Otherwise the page you opened remains (sort of) protected against modification by others. Best regards, Wilfried. From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Thu Nov 11 18:10:49 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:10:49 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] next Conference Call - Doodle poll In-Reply-To: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD81BCE@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD81BCE@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7C3D@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> I *really* appreciate the work that the ICANN staff is doing in support of our Review Team. I'd like to repeat a request I made earlier, that we schedule our calls at reasonable times for all. I believe that is possible given our geographic dispersion. If I've done my timezone math correctly, we have a timezone span of some 13-14 hours, using our "home" countries for this calculation. I'd like to suggest that no call commence before 06:00 for any of us and similarly end before 23:00 for all of us. If we adopt this as a "policy", I believe we have a 3-4 hour window in which to have calls. The "range" of calls would be early morning on the US West Coast, early afternoon in London, and evening in Pakistan. Why do I bring this up? The current doodle poll is asking that US West Coast members select between 02:00, 03:00, 04:00, 05:00, and 06:00 (local time) as the starting time for our next teleconference. While the 03:00 - 0:500 (US Pacific) times may be more convenient for some, they are especially uncomfortable to others. Can we agree to the nothing earlier than 06:00 or later than 23:00 for all of us? If not, why not? From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:41 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] next Conference Call - Doodle poll Importance: High Dear Review Team Members, With a view to selecting the most convenient time for the next conference call, please complete this doodle poll by Thursday, 18 November: http://doodle.com/cuas5z36ivni5iuf 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/20101111/c40d95aa/attachment.html From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Thu Nov 11 18:14:41 2010 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:14:41 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] next Conference Call - Doodle poll In-Reply-To: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7C3D@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD81BCE@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7C3D@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Message-ID: Bill - Thanks for bringing this point up. Given that we're all volunteers, it would indeed seem cruel for us also to have to join calls in the middle of the night! Perhaps we could all fill in this doodle poll on the assumption that you make (ie nothing earlier than 6 am or later than 11pm local time), and if possible ask the staff to keep these timings in mind when scheduling future meetings. Kind regards Emily On 11 Nov 2010, at 18:10, Smith, Bill wrote: > I *really* appreciate the work that the ICANN staff is doing in support of our Review Team. > > I?d like to repeat a request I made earlier, that we schedule our calls at reasonable times for all. I believe that is possible given our geographic dispersion. If I?ve done my timezone math correctly, we have a timezone span of some 13-14 hours, using our ?home? countries for this calculation. > > I?d like to suggest that no call commence before 06:00 for any of us and similarly end before 23:00 for all of us. If we adopt this as a ?policy?, I believe we have a 3-4 hour window in which to have calls. The ?range? of calls would be early morning on the US West Coast, early afternoon in London, and evening in Pakistan. > > Why do I bring this up? The current doodle poll is asking that US West Coast members select between 02:00, 03:00, 04:00, 05:00, and 06:00 (local time) as the starting time for our next teleconference. While the 03:00 ? 0:500 (US Pacific) times may be more convenient for some, they are especially uncomfortable to others. > > Can we agree to the nothing earlier than 06:00 or later than 23:00 for all of us? If not, why not? > > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:41 AM > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: [Rt4-whois] next Conference Call - Doodle poll > Importance: High > > Dear Review Team Members, > > With a view to selecting the most convenient time for the next conference call, please complete this doodle poll by Thursday, 18 November: > http://doodle.com/cuas5z36ivni5iuf > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101111/13e65c4f/attachment.html From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Thu Nov 11 18:16:17 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:16:17 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] a snapshot on the Wiki stuff In-Reply-To: <4CDC26B5.4000806@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <4CDC26B5.4000806@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7C50@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Wilfried, Thanks for the conversion of the Excel sheet! (and rearranging things) I'm in favor of a logistics area and agree that it should be accessible only to team members. Sharing travel info, etc. with the group is a good thing but I'd rather not have that world accessible. BTW - I'm playing with Google calendar at the moment to see if we could use it for our scheduling - unless Confluence provides this service. Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] > On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 9:24 AM > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: [Rt4-whois] a snapshot on the Wiki stuff > > Dear RT4 Team, > > I think the Wiki for our collaboration is in pretty good shape already, > thanks to the help by ICANN staff! > > https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/WHOIS+Policy+Review+Tea > m > > > A couple of things to note: > > - for the moment all pages in our "space" are world-readable, so think > twice before you add stuff which you do not want to become globally > visisble :-) [see below]. > > - I have ventured to slightly re-arrange the structure and sequence of > pages, for the overview on the left-hand side of the window, > > - there is a copy of the budget available (thanks Bill!) and also a > version in Wiki format where we could add comments or other stuff. > > > - we have been in contact with Naveed, regarding a "secluded corner" > which could be used to share internal logistics information. Access > to this area c|should only be accessible to the RT4 Members (and the > observers and experts). > Things that might go into this corner are details regarding travel > arrangements, maybe phone numbers and some other more personal stuff, > plus maybe hints or discussions regardig use of the Wiki. > > > I'd like all of you to provide feedback, whether we want ICANN's Wiki- > Team > to create such an area, and what it should be called. My proposal would > be > "Internal Logistics", but you may have a much better idea. > > And last but not least, if you start to edit a page, please make sure > to > eventually save the modified information - or hit "cancel". Otherwise > the > page you opened remains (sort of) protected against modification by > others. > > Best regards, > Wilfried. > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From kim at vonarx.ca Thu Nov 11 18:18:23 2010 From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 13:18:23 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] next Conference Call - Doodle poll In-Reply-To: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7C3D@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD81BCE@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7C3D@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Message-ID: <23756F7E-600C-4B90-B084-564C370F5542@vonarx.ca> I have to agree with Bill on this. We are, after all, volunteers and do NOT get paid unlike the ICANN staff. Kim On 11 Nov 2010, at 13:10, Smith, Bill wrote: > I *really* appreciate the work that the ICANN staff is doing in support of our Review Team. > > I?d like to repeat a request I made earlier, that we schedule our calls at reasonable times for all. I believe that is possible given our geographic dispersion. If I?ve done my timezone math correctly, we have a timezone span of some 13-14 hours, using our ?home? countries for this calculation. > > I?d like to suggest that no call commence before 06:00 for any of us and similarly end before 23:00 for all of us. If we adopt this as a ?policy?, I believe we have a 3-4 hour window in which to have calls. The ?range? of calls would be early morning on the US West Coast, early afternoon in London, and evening in Pakistan. > > Why do I bring this up? The current doodle poll is asking that US West Coast members select between 02:00, 03:00, 04:00, 05:00, and 06:00 (local time) as the starting time for our next teleconference. While the 03:00 ? 0:500 (US Pacific) times may be more convenient for some, they are especially uncomfortable to others. > > Can we agree to the nothing earlier than 06:00 or later than 23:00 for all of us? If not, why not? > > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:41 AM > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: [Rt4-whois] next Conference Call - Doodle poll > Importance: High > > Dear Review Team Members, > > With a view to selecting the most convenient time for the next conference call, please complete this doodle poll by Thursday, 18 November: > http://doodle.com/cuas5z36ivni5iuf > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20101111/ce203137/attachment.html From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Thu Nov 11 18:20:22 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 11:20:22 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] next Conference Call - Doodle poll In-Reply-To: <23756F7E-600C-4B90-B084-564C370F5542@vonarx.ca> References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD81BCE@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7C3D@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> <23756F7E-600C-4B90-B084-564C370F5542@vonarx.ca> Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7C69@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> It's entirely possible this was an oversight. I know I make lots of errors when it comes to timezones. From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 10:18 AM To: Smith, Bill Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] next Conference Call - Doodle poll I have to agree with Bill on this. We are, after all, volunteers and do NOT get paid unlike the ICANN staff. Kim On 11 Nov 2010, at 13:10, Smith, Bill wrote: I *really* appreciate the work that the ICANN staff is doing in support of our Review Team. I'd like to repeat a request I made earlier, that we schedule our calls at reasonable times for all. I believe that is possible given our geographic dispersion. If I've done my timezone math correctly, we have a timezone span of some 13-14 hours, using our "home" countries for this calculation. I'd like to suggest that no call commence before 06:00 for any of us and similarly end before 23:00 for all of us. If we adopt this as a "policy", I believe we have a 3-4 hour window in which to have calls. The "range" of calls would be early morning on the US West Coast, early afternoon in London, and evening in Pakistan. Why do I bring this up? The current doodle poll is asking that US West Coast members select between 02:00, 03:00, 04:00, 05:00, and 06:00 (local time) as the starting time for our next teleconference. While the 03:00 - 0:500 (US Pacific) times may be more convenient for some, they are especially uncomfortable to others. Can we agree to the nothing earlier than 06:00 or later than 23:00 for all of us? If not, why not? From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:41 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] next Conference Call - Doodle poll Importance: High Dear Review Team Members, With a view to selecting the most convenient time for the next conference call, please complete this doodle poll by Thursday, 18 November: http://doodle.com/cuas5z36ivni5iuf 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 _______________________________________________ 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/20101111/d4dd3391/attachment.html From skawaguchi at facebook.com Thu Nov 11 18:32:03 2010 From: skawaguchi at facebook.com (Susan Kawaguchi) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 18:32:03 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] next Conference Call - Doodle poll In-Reply-To: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7C3D@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD81BCE@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7C3D@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Message-ID: I completely agree with Bill, I would be a more productive member of the team if the calls were scheduled a bit more reasonable hour. From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 10:11 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] next Conference Call - Doodle poll I *really* appreciate the work that the ICANN staff is doing in support of our Review Team. I'd like to repeat a request I made earlier, that we schedule our calls at reasonable times for all. I believe that is possible given our geographic dispersion. If I've done my timezone math correctly, we have a timezone span of some 13-14 hours, using our "home" countries for this calculation. I'd like to suggest that no call commence before 06:00 for any of us and similarly end before 23:00 for all of us. If we adopt this as a "policy", I believe we have a 3-4 hour window in which to have calls. The "range" of calls would be early morning on the US West Coast, early afternoon in London, and evening in Pakistan. Why do I bring this up? The current doodle poll is asking that US West Coast members select between 02:00, 03:00, 04:00, 05:00, and 06:00 (local time) as the starting time for our next teleconference. While the 03:00 - 0:500 (US Pacific) times may be more convenient for some, they are especially uncomfortable to others. Can we agree to the nothing earlier than 06:00 or later than 23:00 for all of us? If not, why not? From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Alice Jansen Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 8:41 AM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] next Conference Call - Doodle poll Importance: High Dear Review Team Members, With a view to selecting the most convenient time for the next conference call, please complete this doodle poll by Thursday, 18 November: http://doodle.com/cuas5z36ivni5iuf 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/20101111/de2518b2/attachment.html From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Thu Nov 11 19:46:32 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 12:46:32 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Calendar on wiki Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7DDF@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> I have added a calendar to the wiki. It contains holidays for our various countries, with the exception of Pakistan. I'm waiting to hear back from Sarmad regarding which calendar I should use for him. Items that I placed in the calendar (all are open to change): * ICANN meetings for the next year or so * Our Cartagena informal face-to-face * Placeholders for fortnightly teleconferences on Wednesdays at 14:00 UTC * A Placeholder for our London meeting 18-20 January I won't be offended if we decide to eliminate the calendar but did think it might be helpful for us. (I have set the calendar up so that all RT members can make changes; but to do so requires that everyone has a Google account. That may not be something we individually or collectively want.) Bill Smith [cid:image001.jpg at 01CB8195.BF3C2050] The safer, easier way to pay online 2211 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95131 Direct 408 967 2380 | Cell 925 577 0606 Skype wc.smith -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101111/dc984e10/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 20447 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101111/dc984e10/image001.jpg From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Thu Nov 11 19:48:50 2010 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 19:48:50 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Calendar on wiki In-Reply-To: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7DDF@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> References: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7DDF@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Message-ID: <94AB34D9-9AD0-4BDC-B1F4-4443402ABDA9@etlaw.co.uk> Great stuff, Bill! Thanks Emily On 11 Nov 2010, at 19:46, Smith, Bill wrote: > I have added a calendar to the wiki. It contains holidays for our various countries, with the exception of Pakistan. I?m waiting to hear back from Sarmad regarding which calendar I should use for him. > > Items that I placed in the calendar (all are open to change): > ? ICANN meetings for the next year or so > ? Our Cartagena informal face-to-face > ? Placeholders for fortnightly teleconferences on Wednesdays at 14:00 UTC > ? A Placeholder for our London meeting 18-20 January > > I won?t be offended if we decide to eliminate the calendar but did think it might be helpful for us. (I have set the calendar up so that all RT members can make changes; but to do so requires that everyone has a Google account. That may not be something we individually or collectively want.) > > Bill Smith > > > The safer, easier way to pay online > > 2211 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95131 > Direct 408 967 2380 | Cell 925 577 0606 > Skype wc.smith > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101111/41be4bc8/attachment.html From kim at vonarx.ca Thu Nov 11 19:52:18 2010 From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:52:18 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Calendar on wiki In-Reply-To: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7DDF@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> References: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7DDF@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Message-ID: <694BA337-52E8-42E4-B356-0F1A0BDB7486@vonarx.ca> Nice work. Thanks Bill. Kim On 11 Nov 2010, at 14:46, Smith, Bill wrote: > I have added a calendar to the wiki. It contains holidays for our various countries, with the exception of Pakistan. I?m waiting to hear back from Sarmad regarding which calendar I should use for him. > > Items that I placed in the calendar (all are open to change): > ? ICANN meetings for the next year or so > ? Our Cartagena informal face-to-face > ? Placeholders for fortnightly teleconferences on Wednesdays at 14:00 UTC > ? A Placeholder for our London meeting 18-20 January > > I won?t be offended if we decide to eliminate the calendar but did think it might be helpful for us. (I have set the calendar up so that all RT members can make changes; but to do so requires that everyone has a Google account. That may not be something we individually or collectively want.) > > Bill Smith > > > The safer, easier way to pay online > > 2211 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95131 > Direct 408 967 2380 | Cell 925 577 0606 > Skype wc.smith > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20101111/f02333ee/attachment.html From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Thu Nov 11 21:33:30 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:33:30 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] next Conference Call - Doodle poll In-Reply-To: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7C3D@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> References: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DD81BCE@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7C3D@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Message-ID: <4CDC612A.4070704@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Smith, Bill wrote: [...] > Can we agree to the nothing earlier than 06:00 or later than 23:00 for > all of us? If not, why not? I *do* know that we have some members from across Europe, so please read with a grain of salt applied. :-) Personally, *I* am fine with calls extending into midnight or even till 01:00 or 02:00 local time, rather than commencing at 06:00 in the morning, local time. Some of us may understand the word "Morgen Grauen". I do know, I am a late evening / late night person ;-) You may want do press "delete" right now.... Wilfried. From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Thu Nov 11 21:42:31 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 21:42:31 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Calendar on wiki In-Reply-To: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7DDF@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> References: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7DDF@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Message-ID: <4CDC6347.2070402@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Smith, Bill wrote: [...] > I won't be offended if we decide to eliminate the calendar but did think > it might be helpful for us. (I have set the calendar up so that all RT > members can make changes; but to do so requires that everyone has a Google > account. That may not be something we individually or collectively want.) Well, as long as I can use a pseudonymous identity - fine with me :-) Does anyone have any experience with signing up with Google, without disclosing his/her real identity and still being able to access the services, eg the calendar on the ICANN Wiki? On a more general note, I am (reasonably) fine with Google stuff, but I won't sign up with things like FB, LinkedIn, Xing or similar.... > Bill Smith > > [cid:image001.jpg at 01CB8195.BF3C2050] > The safer, easier way to pay online > > 2211 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95131 > Direct 408 967 2380 | Cell 925 577 0606 > Skype wc.smith Wilfried From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Thu Nov 11 21:54:17 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 14:54:17 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Calendar on wiki In-Reply-To: <4CDC6347.2070402@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B67A7DDF@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> <4CDC6347.2070402@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B682888E@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> You need to supply an email address. I used my PayPal address but others might prefer to use something other than work address. I'm not that concerned about my work address but others may be. > -----Original Message----- > From: Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet [mailto:Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at] > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 1:43 PM > To: Smith, Bill > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Calendar on wiki > > Smith, Bill wrote: > > [...] > > I won't be offended if we decide to eliminate the calendar but did > think > > it might be helpful for us. (I have set the calendar up so that all > RT > > members can make changes; but to do so requires that everyone has a > Google > > account. That may not be something we individually or collectively > want.) > > Well, as long as I can use a pseudonymous identity - fine with me :-) > > Does anyone have any experience with signing up with Google, without > disclosing his/her real identity and still being able to access the > services, eg the calendar on the ICANN Wiki? > > On a more general note, I am (reasonably) fine with Google stuff, but I > won't sign up with things like FB, LinkedIn, Xing or similar.... > > > Bill Smith > > > > [cid:image001.jpg at 01CB8195.BF3C2050] > > The safer, easier way to pay online > > > > 2211 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95131 > > Direct 408 967 2380 | Cell 925 577 0606 > > Skype wc.smith > > Wilfried From sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk Fri Nov 12 06:07:47 2010 From: sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk (sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 06:07:47 -0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Calendar on wiki Message-ID: <87E2F4F00724B74781794CD88DBC997D072158CE@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Hi Everyone, Thanks for all your work here Bill, very helpful. Is our meeting going to be on 18th-20th January in London? I note you have book marked it. Also, do we intend travelling to San Fran for the ICANN meeting? Sorry to push, but I need to arrange my diary quite well in advance. 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 Smith, Bill Sent: 11 November 2010 19:47 To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Calendar on wiki I have added a calendar to the wiki. It contains holidays for our various countries, with the exception of Pakistan. I'm waiting to hear back from Sarmad regarding which calendar I should use for him. Items that I placed in the calendar (all are open to change): * ICANN meetings for the next year or so * Our Cartagena informal face-to-face * Placeholders for fortnightly teleconferences on Wednesdays at 14:00 UTC * A Placeholder for our London meeting 18-20 January I won't be offended if we decide to eliminate the calendar but did think it might be helpful for us. (I have set the calendar up so that all RT members can make changes; but to do so requires that everyone has a Google account. That may not be something we individually or collectively want.) Bill Smith The safer, easier way to pay online 2211 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95131 Direct 408 967 2380 | Cell 925 577 0606 Skype wc.smith 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/20101112/994de54a/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 20447 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101112/994de54a/attachment.jpe From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Fri Nov 12 09:44:02 2010 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:44:02 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps Message-ID: Dear All Thanks for all your contributions to the list over the past day or so. Scope and Draft Report outline I have uploaded the draft Scope and Report outline documents which our small group presented to the Team in our last call. During our discussions we agreed that it is more appropriate for all Team members to input into these drafts. Kathy suggested that we break into small groups and review the documents. However, I'm not sure that we agreed the composition of the small groups (I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on this!!), so in the meantime, please can everyone comment individually. If we're unable to sign them off at our next call, then we'll go for the small groups approach. Using the Wiki Personally, I've never used a Wiki in this way before, and I like it! This is going to make our life much easier as we work on shared documents. Meetings Sharon has raised the issue of planning ahead, and her point is well made. Many of the team have huge demands on their diary, and I would like to make some straw man proposals as follows: Cartagena We have agreed to a 120 minute meeting, with remote participation, and encourage those present in Cartagena to spend time getting to know each other. As I will not be present in Cartagena, I would like Kathy as Vice Chair to run that session please. London Please would the staff run a doodle on London meeting dates. Bill has proposed 18-20th as a starting point. I propose that we have a day and a half for our substantive session. We should aim to arrive the night before for an informal dinner, and social session. I would also like to include a couple of speaking slots plus Q&A from external stakeholders. I suggest the following items to be covered at our first full meeting, in London - Review stakeholder identification work (or start it if it hasn't been done) - this can include the questions raised on our last call, like "what is meant by law enforcement, or consumer trust" from a global perspective. - Run a brainstorming session on the legitimate interests of each stakeholder group. - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from the staff to cover this point? - Reviewing our Scope, what don't we know, and what information do we need? How do we get it, and do we need independent assistance? - Planning our outreach: who do we need to speak to within the ICANN Community? Can we also think about who *outside* the community needs to give input? How do we structure our outreach. I'd like to get as many of the Team involved in reaching back to their sponsoring communities throughout our work. I'd also like to try and agree a work schedule and allocate some roles/small groups on particular issues. I think it would work best if we identify someone within the team who would be willing to draw up a straw man GANTT or similar rather than "blue sky". While we are in Europe, and (I hope) at Sharon's premises, perhaps we could invite a representative of European law enforcement, and a data protection authority (eg Art 29 group) as we discussed on our last call, to give us their views on what their Whois needs are. So, we could aim for 2 presentations plus Q&A sessions, to help inform ourselves. Please can I have your thoughts on this, and any suggestions for speakers. Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees - the Board - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions? Budget In preparation for our next call, please can we all give some thought to the London agenda, and particularly whether or not this group will need to commission outside research, as the ATRT has done. If so, then we need to give the Board a heads up as soon as possible, and prepare a revised budget. Bill has kindly posted the budget up on the Wiki, so take a look in preparation for our next call. Chair and staff I see part of the Chair's role to liaise with staff on behalf of this Team, if any of you have special requests or issues. This is not to block your direct contact with staff, but to offer myself as a resource to you if you feel that would be helpful. Getting to know you I would really appreciate having a call with each of you over the coming weeks, so get to know you a bit, understand your background beyond what's up there on the site, your views on what this Team should be covering, and understand which areas you feel you can particularly contribute to our achieving our objectives. Please can I ask the staff to set up half hour calls with me and each of you. Alice - I'll let you have my availability separately. Our next call I propose that in our next call we focus on: - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. Please let me have your thoughts on these proposals, and I look forward to our next call. Best, Emily 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101112/6b03ca4b/attachment.html From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Fri Nov 12 10:19:05 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:19:05 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps - outreach In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CDD1499.4060600@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Deasr Emily, thanks for the various proposals, good stuff and food for thought! I'd come back to the outreach aspect first, due to imminent meetings... Emily Taylor wrote: [...] > - Planning our outreach: who do we need to speak to within the ICANN > Community? Can we also think about who *outside* the community needs > to give input? How do we structure our outreach. I'd like to get as many > of the Team involved in reaching back to their sponsoring communities > throughout our work. Frst of all, I think all of us who have been endorsed by a sponsoring group should regularly take summaries and relevant piecces of discussion back to their dens. I certainly plan to do that for the Address Council on a regular basis. Any objections? Secondly, I plan to do 2 things, again - unless the Teasm objects, please let me know! - I have included an item on the draft agenda for the meeting of RIPE's DataBase Working Group (next week in Rome, IT) to point people in our direction. While the RIPE DB is (almost exclusively - with the exception of revDNS delegation entries) an IP Resource DB, usually people from the European TLD arena are present, too, and there are important interactions between names and addresses for many entities; - I plan to offer a presentation/summary on the RT4 status for the joint FIRST/TF-CSIRT meeting at the very beginning of February 2011, Barcelona, ES. For those of you not having heard these acronyms yet, . FIRST is the Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (a global group, formally HQ'ed in the US http://www.first.org/ ) . TF-CSIRT is a (very mature) Task-Force of TERENA that helps aggregate and focus the activities of Seurity Teams in Europe and the med-rim area. see http://www.terena.org/activities/tf-csirt/ and http://www.trusted-introducer.nl/ Please advise by electronically "nodding" or voicing objections. We can also put that onto the proposed agenda for the next meeting if you so prefer! [...] > Please let me have your thoughts on these proposals, and I look forward to our next call. > > Best, > > Emily > > 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 Best regards, Wilfried From sarmad at cantab.net Fri Nov 12 10:28:00 2010 From: sarmad at cantab.net (Dr. Sarmad Hussain) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:28:00 +0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006601cb8254$4b21c840$e16558c0$@net> Dear Emily and All, Thanks. It would be great if we can collate and post links to all the relevant documents for WHOIS on the wiki as well, as a reference point on various issues for our discussions. Regards, Sarmad From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 2:44 PM To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps Dear All Thanks for all your contributions to the list over the past day or so. Scope and Draft Report outline I have uploaded the draft Scope and Report outline documents which our small group presented to the Team in our last call. During our discussions we agreed that it is more appropriate for all Team members to input into these drafts. Kathy suggested that we break into small groups and review the documents. However, I'm not sure that we agreed the composition of the small groups (I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on this!!), so in the meantime, please can everyone comment individually. If we're unable to sign them off at our next call, then we'll go for the small groups approach. Using the Wiki Personally, I've never used a Wiki in this way before, and I like it! This is going to make our life much easier as we work on shared documents. Meetings Sharon has raised the issue of planning ahead, and her point is well made. Many of the team have huge demands on their diary, and I would like to make some straw man proposals as follows: Cartagena We have agreed to a 120 minute meeting, with remote participation, and encourage those present in Cartagena to spend time getting to know each other. As I will not be present in Cartagena, I would like Kathy as Vice Chair to run that session please. London Please would the staff run a doodle on London meeting dates. Bill has proposed 18-20th as a starting point. I propose that we have a day and a half for our substantive session. We should aim to arrive the night before for an informal dinner, and social session. I would also like to include a couple of speaking slots plus Q&A from external stakeholders. I suggest the following items to be covered at our first full meeting, in London - Review stakeholder identification work (or start it if it hasn't been done) - this can include the questions raised on our last call, like "what is meant by law enforcement, or consumer trust" from a global perspective. - Run a brainstorming session on the legitimate interests of each stakeholder group. - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from the staff to cover this point? - Reviewing our Scope, what don't we know, and what information do we need? How do we get it, and do we need independent assistance? - Planning our outreach: who do we need to speak to within the ICANN Community? Can we also think about who *outside* the community needs to give input? How do we structure our outreach. I'd like to get as many of the Team involved in reaching back to their sponsoring communities throughout our work. I'd also like to try and agree a work schedule and allocate some roles/small groups on particular issues. I think it would work best if we identify someone within the team who would be willing to draw up a straw man GANTT or similar rather than "blue sky". While we are in Europe, and (I hope) at Sharon's premises, perhaps we could invite a representative of European law enforcement, and a data protection authority (eg Art 29 group) as we discussed on our last call, to give us their views on what their Whois needs are. So, we could aim for 2 presentations plus Q&A sessions, to help inform ourselves. Please can I have your thoughts on this, and any suggestions for speakers. Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees - the Board - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions? Budget In preparation for our next call, please can we all give some thought to the London agenda, and particularly whether or not this group will need to commission outside research, as the ATRT has done. If so, then we need to give the Board a heads up as soon as possible, and prepare a revised budget. Bill has kindly posted the budget up on the Wiki, so take a look in preparation for our next call. Chair and staff I see part of the Chair's role to liaise with staff on behalf of this Team, if any of you have special requests or issues. This is not to block your direct contact with staff, but to offer myself as a resource to you if you feel that would be helpful. Getting to know you I would really appreciate having a call with each of you over the coming weeks, so get to know you a bit, understand your background beyond what's up there on the site, your views on what this Team should be covering, and understand which areas you feel you can particularly contribute to our achieving our objectives. Please can I ask the staff to set up half hour calls with me and each of you. Alice - I'll let you have my availability separately. Our next call I propose that in our next call we focus on: - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. Please let me have your thoughts on these proposals, and I look forward to our next call. Best, Emily Image removed by sender. 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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.869 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3250 - Release Date: 11/11/10 12:34:00 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101112/d3baa30f/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 507 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101112/d3baa30f/attachment.jpe From olof.nordling at icann.org Fri Nov 12 10:30:39 2010 From: olof.nordling at icann.org (Olof Nordling) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 02:30:39 -0800 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Doodle poll for London meeting -WHOIS Policy Review Team Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34DF8D973@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Dear all, As suggested by our Chair, a Doodle poll has been set up for the London meeting, see: http://doodle.com/7br6htxzvmtdgrva Foreseeing a 1.5 days meeting, please note that you only should consider the start date - if you tick Wednesday as green, that means you're OK with a meeting starting Wednesday morning and closing Thursday lunch etc. We have used Bill's suggested dates 18-20 Jan for a start and expanded to all of that week. I hope that this will provide enough options, but please get back to me if we need to expand the Doodle to other weeks. Best regards Olof -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101112/57e9c933/attachment.html From sarmad at cantab.net Fri Nov 12 10:36:56 2010 From: sarmad at cantab.net (Dr. Sarmad Hussain) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:36:56 +0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps - outreach In-Reply-To: <4CDD1499.4060600@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <4CDD1499.4060600@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <006c01cb8255$8c68a390$a539eab0$@net> > > Emily Taylor wrote: > [...] > > - Planning our outreach: who do we need to speak to within the ICANN > > Community? Can we also think about who *outside* the community needs > > to give input? How do we structure our outreach. I'd like to get as > many > > of the Team involved in reaching back to their sponsoring communities > > throughout our work. > > Frst of all, I think all of us who have been endorsed by a sponsoring > group > should regularly take summaries and relevant piecces of discussion back > to > their dens. I certainly plan to do that for the Address Council on a > regular > basis. Any objections? > It is a good idea to report back to sponsoring groups and to the community as well. However, deriving individual summaries from discussions and sharing them with others outside the group, who are less aware of the context of such discussions, may send different messages through different channels and may not be effective. Thus, I would suggest that we should formally release summary documents for that purpose at appropriate times as we progress. Regards, Sarmad From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Fri Nov 12 10:38:55 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:38:55 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps In-Reply-To: <006601cb8254$4b21c840$e16558c0$@net> References: <006601cb8254$4b21c840$e16558c0$@net> Message-ID: <4CDD193F.3080409@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Sarmad, all, I am about to put such a page together, thanks for having the same idea! Wilfried Dr. Sarmad Hussain wrote: > Dear Emily and All, > > > Thanks. It would be great if we can collate and post links to all the > relevant documents for WHOIS on the wiki as well, as a reference point on > various issues for our discussions. > > > > Regards, > Sarmad > > > > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On > Behalf Of Emily Taylor > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 2:44 PM > To: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps > > > > Dear All > > > > Thanks for all your contributions to the list over the past day or so. > > > > > > Scope and Draft Report outline > > I have uploaded the draft Scope and Report outline documents which our small > group presented to the Team in our last call. > > During our discussions we agreed that it is more appropriate for all Team > members to input into these drafts. Kathy suggested that we break into > small groups and review the documents. However, I'm not sure that we agreed > the composition of the small groups (I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong > on this!!), so in the meantime, please can everyone comment individually. > If we're unable to sign them off at our next call, then we'll go for the > small groups approach. > > > > Using the Wiki > > Personally, I've never used a Wiki in this way before, and I like it! This > is going to make our life much easier as we work on shared documents. > > > > > > Meetings > > Sharon has raised the issue of planning ahead, and her point is well made. > Many of the team have huge demands on their diary, and I would like to make > some straw man proposals as follows: > > > > Cartagena > > We have agreed to a 120 minute meeting, with remote participation, and > encourage those present in Cartagena to spend time getting to know each > other. > > As I will not be present in Cartagena, I would like Kathy as Vice Chair to > run that session please. > > > > London > > Please would the staff run a doodle on London meeting dates. Bill has > proposed 18-20th as a starting point. > > > > I propose that we have a day and a half for our substantive session. We > should aim to arrive the night before for an informal dinner, and social > session. I would also like to include a couple of speaking slots plus Q&A > from external stakeholders. > > > > I suggest the following items to be covered at our first full meeting, in > London > > > > - Review stakeholder identification work (or start it if it hasn't been > done) - this can include the questions raised on our last call, like "what > is meant by law enforcement, or consumer trust" from a global perspective. > > > > - Run a brainstorming session on the legitimate interests of each > stakeholder group. > > > > - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in > a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from > the staff to cover this point? > > > > - Reviewing our Scope, what don't we know, and what information do we need? > How do we get it, and do we need independent assistance? > > > > - Planning our outreach: who do we need to speak to within the ICANN > Community? Can we also think about who *outside* the community needs to > give input? How do we structure our outreach. I'd like to get as many of > the Team involved in reaching back to their sponsoring communities > throughout our work. > > > > I'd also like to try and agree a work schedule and allocate some roles/small > groups on particular issues. I think it would work best if we identify > someone within the team who would be willing to draw up a straw man GANTT or > similar rather than "blue sky". > > > > While we are in Europe, and (I hope) at Sharon's premises, perhaps we could > invite a representative of European law enforcement, and a data protection > authority (eg Art 29 group) as we discussed on our last call, to give us > their views on what their Whois needs are. So, we could aim for 2 > presentations plus Q&A sessions, to help inform ourselves. Please can I > have your thoughts on this, and any suggestions for speakers. > > > > > > Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings > > > > I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the > following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate > > > > - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting > > - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: > > - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees > > - the Board > > - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task > > > > I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant > SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think > we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be > possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to > accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the > discussions? > > > > > > Budget > > In preparation for our next call, please can we all give some thought to the > London agenda, and particularly whether or not this group will need to > commission outside research, as the ATRT has done. If so, then we need to > give the Board a heads up as soon as possible, and prepare a revised budget. > Bill has kindly posted the budget up on the Wiki, so take a look in > preparation for our next call. > > > > Chair and staff > > I see part of the Chair's role to liaise with staff on behalf of this Team, > if any of you have special requests or issues. This is not to block your > direct contact with staff, but to offer myself as a resource to you if you > feel that would be helpful. > > > > Getting to know you > > I would really appreciate having a call with each of you over the coming > weeks, so get to know you a bit, understand your background beyond what's up > there on the site, your views on what this Team should be covering, and > understand which areas you feel you can particularly contribute to our > achieving our objectives. Please can I ask the staff to set up half hour > calls with me and each of you. Alice - I'll let you have my availability > separately. > > > > Our next call > > I propose that in our next call we focus on: > > > > - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective > > - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. > > > > Please let me have your thoughts on these proposals, and I look forward to > our next call. > > > > Best, > > > > Emily > > Image removed by sender. 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 > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.869 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3250 - Release Date: 11/11/10 > 12:34:00 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Fri Nov 12 10:41:42 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:41:42 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps - outreach In-Reply-To: <006c01cb8255$8c68a390$a539eab0$@net> References: <4CDD1499.4060600@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <006c01cb8255$8c68a390$a539eab0$@net> Message-ID: <4CDD19E6.9020202@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Very good point thanks! So, should I take this as an objection to mentioning the existence of the RT during the RIPE Meeting in Rome, next week? Wilfried Dr. Sarmad Hussain wrote: >>Emily Taylor wrote: >>[...] >> >>>- Planning our outreach: who do we need to speak to within the ICANN >>>Community? Can we also think about who *outside* the community needs >>>to give input? How do we structure our outreach. I'd like to get as >> >>many >> >>>of the Team involved in reaching back to their sponsoring communities >>>throughout our work. >> >>Frst of all, I think all of us who have been endorsed by a sponsoring >>group >>should regularly take summaries and relevant piecces of discussion back >>to >>their dens. I certainly plan to do that for the Address Council on a >>regular >>basis. Any objections? >> > > > > It is a good idea to report back to sponsoring groups and to the community > as well. However, deriving individual summaries from discussions and > sharing them with others outside the group, who are less aware of the > context of such discussions, may send different messages through different > channels and may not be effective. Thus, I would suggest that we should > formally release summary documents for that purpose at appropriate times as > we progress. > > Regards, > Sarmad > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois > From emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Fri Nov 12 10:45:22 2010 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:45:22 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps - outreach In-Reply-To: <4CDD19E6.9020202@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <4CDD1499.4060600@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <006c01cb8255$8c68a390$a539eab0$@net> <4CDD19E6.9020202@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <31D7F82D-1B99-4D4D-9855-814C2832B03B@etlaw.co.uk> Hi all Sarmad raises a good point, but Wilfried, I would encourage you to mention the RT at RIPE, in a kind of "watch this space, we'll be doing outreach to relevant communities..." Any objections to this approach? E On 12 Nov 2010, at 10:41, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > Very good point thanks! > > So, should I take this as an objection to mentioning the existence of > the RT during the RIPE Meeting in Rome, next week? > > Wilfried > > Dr. Sarmad Hussain wrote: > >>> Emily Taylor wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>>> - Planning our outreach: who do we need to speak to within the ICANN >>>> Community? Can we also think about who *outside* the community needs >>>> to give input? How do we structure our outreach. I'd like to get as >>> >>> many >>> >>>> of the Team involved in reaching back to their sponsoring communities >>>> throughout our work. >>> >>> Frst of all, I think all of us who have been endorsed by a sponsoring >>> group >>> should regularly take summaries and relevant piecces of discussion back >>> to >>> their dens. I certainly plan to do that for the Address Council on a >>> regular >>> basis. Any objections? >>> >> >> >> >> It is a good idea to report back to sponsoring groups and to the community >> as well. However, deriving individual summaries from discussions and >> sharing them with others outside the group, who are less aware of the >> context of such discussions, may send different messages through different >> channels and may not be effective. Thus, I would suggest that we should >> formally release summary documents for that purpose at appropriate times as >> we progress. >> >> Regards, >> Sarmad >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101112/cc4582ba/attachment.html From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Fri Nov 12 10:51:42 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:51:42 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps - outreach In-Reply-To: <31D7F82D-1B99-4D4D-9855-814C2832B03B@etlaw.co.uk> References: <4CDD1499.4060600@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <006c01cb8255$8c68a390$a539eab0$@net> <4CDD19E6.9020202@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <31D7F82D-1B99-4D4D-9855-814C2832B03B@etlaw.co.uk> Message-ID: <4CDD1C3E.3090605@CC.UniVie.ac.at> I didn't intend to do more than that (next week), plus distributing the info about the Wiki on the ICANN Community platform - which is public information anyway. For next year, I agree, we should try to have a regularly maintained and reasonably up-to-date presentation on stock. Wilfried. Emily Taylor wrote: > Hi all > > Sarmad raises a good point, but Wilfried, I would encourage you to mention the RT at RIPE, in a kind of "watch this space, we'll be doing outreach to relevant communities..." > > Any objections to this approach? > > E > On 12 Nov 2010, at 10:41, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > > >>Very good point thanks! >> >>So, should I take this as an objection to mentioning the existence of >>the RT during the RIPE Meeting in Rome, next week? >> >>Wilfried >> >>Dr. Sarmad Hussain wrote: >> >> >>>>Emily Taylor wrote: >>>>[...] >>>> >>>> >>>>>- Planning our outreach: who do we need to speak to within the ICANN >>>>>Community? Can we also think about who *outside* the community needs >>>>>to give input? How do we structure our outreach. I'd like to get as >>>> >>>>many >>>> >>>> >>>>>of the Team involved in reaching back to their sponsoring communities >>>>>throughout our work. >>>> >>>>Frst of all, I think all of us who have been endorsed by a sponsoring >>>>group >>>>should regularly take summaries and relevant piecces of discussion back >>>>to >>>>their dens. I certainly plan to do that for the Address Council on a >>>>regular >>>>basis. Any objections? >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>It is a good idea to report back to sponsoring groups and to the community >>>as well. However, deriving individual summaries from discussions and >>>sharing them with others outside the group, who are less aware of the >>>context of such discussions, may send different messages through different >>>channels and may not be effective. Thus, I would suggest that we should >>>formally release summary documents for that purpose at appropriate times as >>>we progress. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Sarmad >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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 > > > > 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 From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Fri Nov 12 14:13:00 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 07:13:00 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps - outreach In-Reply-To: <31D7F82D-1B99-4D4D-9855-814C2832B03B@etlaw.co.uk> References: <4CDD1499.4060600@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <006c01cb8255$8c68a390$a539eab0$@net> <4CDD19E6.9020202@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <31D7F82D-1B99-4D4D-9855-814C2832B03B@etlaw.co.uk> Message-ID: <43554ED8-3840-4EAE-A1A6-62FEDA1A0A84@paypal.com> Not from me. I like the idea of having a page that summarizes our work to date that we can refer to when doing outreach. On Nov 12, 2010, at 2:45 AM, Emily Taylor wrote: Hi all Sarmad raises a good point, but Wilfried, I would encourage you to mention the RT at RIPE, in a kind of "watch this space, we'll be doing outreach to relevant communities..." Any objections to this approach? E On 12 Nov 2010, at 10:41, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: Very good point thanks! So, should I take this as an objection to mentioning the existence of the RT during the RIPE Meeting in Rome, next week? Wilfried Dr. Sarmad Hussain wrote: Emily Taylor wrote: [...] - Planning our outreach: who do we need to speak to within the ICANN Community? Can we also think about who *outside* the community needs to give input? How do we structure our outreach. I'd like to get as many of the Team involved in reaching back to their sponsoring communities throughout our work. Frst of all, I think all of us who have been endorsed by a sponsoring group should regularly take summaries and relevant piecces of discussion back to their dens. I certainly plan to do that for the Address Council on a regular basis. Any objections? It is a good idea to report back to sponsoring groups and to the community as well. However, deriving individual summaries from discussions and sharing them with others outside the group, who are less aware of the context of such discussions, may send different messages through different channels and may not be effective. Thus, I would suggest that we should formally release summary documents for that purpose at appropriate times as we progress. Regards, Sarmad _______________________________________________ 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 [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/logo310.gif] 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 From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Fri Nov 12 14:41:07 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 07:41:07 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Calendar on wiki In-Reply-To: <87E2F4F00724B74781794CD88DBC997D072158CE@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> References: <87E2F4F00724B74781794CD88DBC997D072158CE@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> Message-ID: I agree with Sharon re establishing meeting dates as far out as possible. On Nov 11, 2010, at 10:07 PM, > > wrote: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED Hi Everyone, Thanks for all your work here Bill, very helpful. Is our meeting going to be on 18th-20th January in London? I note you have book marked it. Also, do we intend travelling to San Fran for the ICANN meeting? Sorry to push, but I need to arrange my diary quite well in advance. 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 Smith, Bill Sent: 11 November 2010 19:47 To: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: [Rt4-whois] Calendar on wiki I have added a calendar to the wiki. It contains holidays for our various countries, with the exception of Pakistan. I?m waiting to hear back from Sarmad regarding which calendar I should use for him. Items that I placed in the calendar (all are open to change): ? ICANN meetings for the next year or so ? Our Cartagena informal face-to-face ? Placeholders for fortnightly teleconferences on Wednesdays at 14:00 UTC ? A Placeholder for our London meeting 18-20 January I won?t be offended if we decide to eliminate the calendar but did think it might be helpful for us. (I have set the calendar up so that all RT members can make changes; but to do so requires that everyone has a Google account. That may not be something we individually or collectively want.) Bill Smith The safer, easier way to pay online 2211 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95131 Direct 408 967 2380 | Cell 925 577 0606 Skype wc.smith 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. From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Fri Nov 12 15:38:14 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 15:38:14 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Calendar on wiki In-Reply-To: References: <87E2F4F00724B74781794CD88DBC997D072158CE@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> Message-ID: <4CDD5F66.9060807@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Smith, Bill wrote: > I agree with Sharon re establishing meeting dates as far out as possible. > > On Nov 11, 2010, at 10:07 PM, > > wrote: > > > NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED > > Hi Everyone, > > Thanks for all your work here Bill, very helpful. > > Is our meeting going to be on 18th-20th January in London? I note you have book marked it. Also, do we intend travelling to San Fran for the ICANN meeting? Sorry to push, but I need to arrange my diary quite well in advance. I plan to be in San Francisco anyway. > Sharon Wilfried. PS: our "secluded area" would be a nice place to collect and comfortably present that kind of information :-) From kim at vonarx.ca Fri Nov 12 16:01:20 2010 From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:01:20 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Emily et al: > > - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from the staff to cover this point? I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to face meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I would like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work for the remaining 1.5 days. > Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings > > I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate > > - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize our face to face time as much as possible. > - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: > - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees > - the Board > - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task > > I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions? agreed > > > Our next call > I propose that in our next call we focus on: > > - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective > - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. agreed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101112/dba216b5/attachment.html From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Fri Nov 12 16:20:14 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:20:14 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CDD693E.8070408@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Hi Kim, Team! Kim G. von Arx wrote: > Hi Emily et al: > > >>- What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from the staff to cover this point? > > > I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation +1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic would already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for the Sunday get-together. Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or documents. > I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to face meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I would like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work for the remaining 1.5 days. "rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners? >>Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings >> >>I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate >> >>- We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting > > > I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize our face to face time as much as possible. OK for me. >>- In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: >> - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees >> - the Board >> - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task >> >>I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions? > > > agreed > >> >>Our next call >>I propose that in our next call we focus on: >> >>- broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective >>- identifying what, if any, external resources we need. > > > agreed. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wilfried From kim at vonarx.ca Fri Nov 12 16:30:39 2010 From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:30:39 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps In-Reply-To: <4CDD693E.8070408@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <4CDD693E.8070408@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <188AE8D9-8E5C-4C9D-8F17-2B4452EBAA74@vonarx.ca> Hi Wilfried: I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark owners, but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect to, e.g., copyright. Kim On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > Hi Kim, Team! > > Kim G. von Arx wrote: > >> Hi Emily et al: >> >> >>> - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from the staff to cover this point? >> >> >> I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation > > +1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic would > already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for the Sunday > get-together. > > Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or documents. > >> I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to face meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I would like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work for the remaining 1.5 days. > > "rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners? > >>> Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings >>> >>> I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate >>> >>> - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting >> >> >> I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize our face to face time as much as possible. > > OK for me. > >>> - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: >>> - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees >>> - the Board >>> - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task >>> >>> I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions? >> >> >> agreed >> >>> >>> Our next call >>> I propose that in our next call we focus on: >>> >>> - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective >>> - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. >> >> >> agreed. >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Wilfried From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Fri Nov 12 16:32:54 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:32:54 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps In-Reply-To: <188AE8D9-8E5C-4C9D-8F17-2B4452EBAA74@vonarx.ca> References: <4CDD693E.8070408@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <188AE8D9-8E5C-4C9D-8F17-2B4452EBAA74@vonarx.ca> Message-ID: <4CDD6C36.5080903@CC.UniVie.ac.at> I see, thanks! -Wilfried Kim G. von Arx wrote: > Hi Wilfried: > > I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark owners, but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect to, e.g., copyright. > > Kim > > On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > > >>Hi Kim, Team! >> >>Kim G. von Arx wrote: >> >> >>>Hi Emily et al: >>> >>> >>> >>>>- What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from the staff to cover this point? >>> >>> >>>I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation >> >>+1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic would >>already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for the Sunday >>get-together. >> >>Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or documents. >> >> >>>I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to face meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I would like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work for the remaining 1.5 days. >> >>"rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners? >> >> >>>>Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings >>>> >>>>I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate >>>> >>>>- We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting >>> >>> >>>I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize our face to face time as much as possible. >> >>OK for me. >> >> >>>>- In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: >>>> - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees >>>> - the Board >>>> - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task >>>> >>>>I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions? >>> >>> >>>agreed >>> >>> >>>>Our next call >>>>I propose that in our next call we focus on: >>>> >>>>- broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective >>>>- identifying what, if any, external resources we need. >>> >>> >>>agreed. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >>Wilfried > > > From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Fri Nov 12 16:35:43 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 09:35:43 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828D25@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Regarding current ICANN Policy, Denise Michel should be able to help us out on that. I'd prefer a 2-day format as well and could support even longer sessions, especially if we are doing outreach or are getting input from the region. I'm in favor of asking stakeholders for their opinions on a number of subjects, including what we should work on; provided that we make it clear our first order of business is to complete the review per the Affirmation of Commitments. I realize that others would prefer to combine a broader analysis and review with a narrower, perhaps stricter interpretation of the AoC. There are valid concerns and reasons to do this. I'm supportive of those and would genuinely like to address the broader issues related to WHOIS Policy. I suspect, or perhaps it's a hypothesis, that we could reach consensus quickly and maybe even easily on the narrower analysis and review. I also think we could quickly reach consensus on the broader issues that are at play in WHOIS Policy. Where we might have difficulty, is in reaching consensus on how best to deal with any issues we uncover in either the narrow or broad analysis. If my hypothesis is correct, we will have had the opportunity to work together, reach consensus, and establish working relationships and rapport that we can rely on as we delve into issues that might be more contentious. Having the prior consensus-building experience will engender trust in each other and could help us make very valuable recommendations regarding an important issue. From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:01 AM To: Emily Taylor Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps Hi Emily et al: - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we invite someone from the staff to cover this point? I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to face meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I would like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work for the remaining 1.5 days. Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our mandate - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize our face to face time as much as possible. - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees - the Board - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings and help lead the discussions? agreed Our next call I propose that in our next call we focus on: - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. agreed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101112/bfb3cd7c/attachment.html From bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Fri Nov 12 17:01:40 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:01:40 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps In-Reply-To: <188AE8D9-8E5C-4C9D-8F17-2B4452EBAA74@vonarx.ca> References: <4CDD693E.8070408@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <188AE8D9-8E5C-4C9D-8F17-2B4452EBAA74@vonarx.ca> Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828D62@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation regarding where concerns originate from? I think not. Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property. Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate need for anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to protect their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such scenarios. I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests. > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] > On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM > To: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps > > Hi Wilfried: > > I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark owners, > but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect to, > e.g., copyright. > > Kim > > On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > > > Hi Kim, Team! > > > > Kim G. von Arx wrote: > > > >> Hi Emily et al: > >> > >> > >>> - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the > Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we > invite someone from the staff to cover this point? > >> > >> > >> I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation > > > > +1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic > would > > already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for the > Sunday > > get-together. > > > > Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or > documents. > > > >> I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have > started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to face > meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke > proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as > provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I would > like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder > constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to > format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face > meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the > presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work for > the remaining 1.5 days. > > > > "rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners? > > > >>> Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings > >>> > >>> I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose > the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our > mandate > >>> > >>> - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting > >> > >> > >> I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize our > face to face time as much as possible. > > > > OK for me. > > > >>> - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: > >>> - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees > >>> - the Board > >>> - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task > >>> > >>> I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the > relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them > what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our > task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by > different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings > and help lead the discussions? > >> > >> > >> agreed > >> > >>> > >>> Our next call > >>> I propose that in our next call we focus on: > >>> > >>> - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective > >>> - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. > >> > >> > >> agreed. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > Wilfried > > > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois From kim at vonarx.ca Fri Nov 12 17:15:33 2010 From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 12:15:33 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps In-Reply-To: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828D62@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> References: <4CDD693E.8070408@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <188AE8D9-8E5C-4C9D-8F17-2B4452EBAA74@vonarx.ca> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828D62@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Message-ID: <0212479B-B912-4769-8018-5B3A6A05DDA7@vonarx.ca> Hi Bill: I am not suggesting that we give them a preferred position, nor do I think we should give anyone a preferred position, but listen to the various stakeholders. This, of course, raises the issue, as we had discussed on our last call, who are stakeholders are. I agree with you that it is a large group of varied interests, but I think we need to start somewhere and the known and strong advocates so far are law enforcement, consumer advocates, rights holders, and registrants in general. I think that, in general, those three groups will cover a large majority of the interest groups provided we keep each broad enough. In light of that, my suggestion was simply to give us the various perspective of a number of different interest groups. I suspect that we will have various other people speak at our face to face meetings to provide their respective views. Kim On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:01, Smith, Bill wrote: > With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation regarding where concerns originate from? I think not. > > Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property. Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate need for anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to protect their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such scenarios. > > I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org] >> On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx >> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM >> To: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at >> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps >> >> Hi Wilfried: >> >> I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark owners, >> but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect to, >> e.g., copyright. >> >> Kim >> >> On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: >> >>> Hi Kim, Team! >>> >>> Kim G. von Arx wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Emily et al: >>>> >>>> >>>>> - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the >> Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we >> invite someone from the staff to cover this point? >>>> >>>> >>>> I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation >>> >>> +1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic >> would >>> already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for the >> Sunday >>> get-together. >>> >>> Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or >> documents. >>> >>>> I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have >> started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to face >> meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke >> proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as >> provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I would >> like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder >> constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to >> format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face >> meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the >> presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work for >> the remaining 1.5 days. >>> >>> "rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners? >>> >>>>> Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings >>>>> >>>>> I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose >> the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during our >> mandate >>>>> >>>>> - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting >>>> >>>> >>>> I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize our >> face to face time as much as possible. >>> >>> OK for me. >>> >>>>> - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: >>>>> - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees >>>>> - the Board >>>>> - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task >>>>> >>>>> I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with the >> relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask them >> what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to our >> task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by >> different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings >> and help lead the discussions? >>>> >>>> >>>> agreed >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Our next call >>>>> I propose that in our next call we focus on: >>>>> >>>>> - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global perspective >>>>> - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. >>>> >>>> >>>> agreed. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> ---- >>> >>> 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 bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Fri Nov 12 17:57:42 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 10:57:42 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps In-Reply-To: <0212479B-B912-4769-8018-5B3A6A05DDA7@vonarx.ca> References: <4CDD693E.8070408@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <188AE8D9-8E5C-4C9D-8F17-2B4452EBAA74@vonarx.ca> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828D62@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> <0212479B-B912-4769-8018-5B3A6A05DDA7@vonarx.ca> Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828DE5@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Hi Kim, I agree that these groups have legitimate interests. The grouping you have proposed is easily understood and would provide a framework for us to invite input. However, I submit that the grouping is in some ways artificial and consequently could be problematic if we try and weigh the issues and concerns of one group against the other. As examples consider consumer advocates and registrants. Some consumer advocates might argue for strict limitation on access to WHOIS records while others would argue for a more liberal approach (privacy vs fraud prevention/detection). Similarly, some registrants will want anonymity and therefore a strict limitation on access (e.g. dissidents) while others will argue for easier access in order to enhance the security of the Internet generally (e.g. to reduce spam, phishing, malware, and the like). In my opinion, there are legitimate reasons for both "open" and restricted access. Those reasons need not neatly fall into groups, regardless of how we attempt to organize things. From my perspective, that is the larger issue; how to grant legitimate access to certain pieces of information traditionally carried by WHOIS and at the same time, restrict access to information carried in WHOIS. Finally, the grouping follows "ICANN tradition" and may tend to pit, for example, some registrants against some registrars/registries. In my opinion, that would be unfortunate if it causes groups/individuals to resort to the entrenched positions that have been held for years. I believe we need a different approach for a way forward. Regards, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:16 AM > To: Smith, Bill > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps > > Hi Bill: > > I am not suggesting that we give them a preferred position, nor do I > think we should give anyone a preferred position, but listen to the > various stakeholders. This, of course, raises the issue, as we had > discussed on our last call, who are stakeholders are. > > I agree with you that it is a large group of varied interests, but I > think we need to start somewhere and the known and strong advocates so > far are law enforcement, consumer advocates, rights holders, and > registrants in general. I think that, in general, those three groups > will cover a large majority of the interest groups provided we keep > each broad enough. > > In light of that, my suggestion was simply to give us the various > perspective of a number of different interest groups. I suspect that > we will have various other people speak at our face to face meetings to > provide their respective views. > > Kim > > > On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:01, Smith, Bill wrote: > > > With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation regarding > where concerns originate from? I think not. > > > > Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property. > Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate need for > anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to > phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to protect > their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such > scenarios. > > > > I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a > preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests. > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > bounces at icann.org] > >> On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx > >> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM > >> To: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at > >> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps > >> > >> Hi Wilfried: > >> > >> I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark > owners, > >> but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect > to, > >> e.g., copyright. > >> > >> Kim > >> > >> On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Kim, Team! > >>> > >>> Kim G. von Arx wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Emily et al: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the > >> Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we > >> invite someone from the staff to cover this point? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation > >>> > >>> +1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic > >> would > >>> already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for the > >> Sunday > >>> get-together. > >>> > >>> Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or > >> documents. > >>> > >>>> I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have > >> started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to > face > >> meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke > >> proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as > >> provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I > would > >> like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder > >> constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to > >> format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face > >> meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the > >> presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work > for > >> the remaining 1.5 days. > >>> > >>> "rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners? > >>> > >>>>> Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings > >>>>> > >>>>> I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose > >> the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during > our > >> mandate > >>>>> > >>>>> - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize > our > >> face to face time as much as possible. > >>> > >>> OK for me. > >>> > >>>>> - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: > >>>>> - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees > >>>>> - the Board > >>>>> - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task > >>>>> > >>>>> I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with > the > >> relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask > them > >> what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to > our > >> task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by > >> different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings > >> and help lead the discussions? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> agreed > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Our next call > >>>>> I propose that in our next call we focus on: > >>>>> > >>>>> - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global > perspective > >>>>> - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> agreed. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ > -- > >> ---- > >>> > >>> 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 bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Fri Nov 12 18:06:09 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:06:09 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Calendar Access Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828DFF@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> All, If you'd like to have read/write access to our calendar, please send me a note, I suggest private, with the email address for a Google account you already have or one you will create to access the calendar. Unless and until you do that, you will not be able to make changes to the calendar. I didn't presume that everyone would want to use the email address used for this RT as a Google login (trying to protect PII and personal choice). Bill Smith [cid:image001.jpg at 01CB8251.3A2D4BC0] The safer, easier way to pay online 2211 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95131 Direct 408 967 2380 | Cell 925 577 0606 Skype wc.smith -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101112/dc4879e5/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 20447 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101112/dc4879e5/image001.jpg From kim at vonarx.ca Fri Nov 12 18:20:17 2010 From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 13:20:17 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps In-Reply-To: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828DE5@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> References: <4CDD693E.8070408@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <188AE8D9-8E5C-4C9D-8F17-2B4452EBAA74@vonarx.ca> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828D62@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> <0212479B-B912-4769-8018-5B3A6A05DDA7@vonarx.ca> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828DE5@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Message-ID: <906A3FC5-FFBB-43A3-9501-5619D90602E2@vonarx.ca> Hi Bill: I agree that grouping various interests/people etc is artificial, but I submit that that is always the case and is a general problem of any policy review and development. In light of that, we will have to eventually make those distinctions and categorization otherwise it will be impossible to review the effectiveness of the WHOIS. I truly agree with you that there are a myriad of different and legitimate interests which, in theory, would call for a broad and global public consultation to ascertain and determine as many views as possible. However, this raises three major problems: 1. Knowledge of the issues at discussion - this requires a fairly significant amount of education. When we did the CIRA WHOIS review and development we had a total of 3 public consultations with extensive background information to explain the WHOIS issues. Also, we had various public fora across the country to discuss and collect further information from our stakeholders. 2. Lack of interest - with the lack of knowledge of the issues, there comes a fairly large amount of disinterest. We always related it to electricity. We are all happy when we plug in a device in to the outlet and all works and expect it to work, but the majority of us have no idea and, indeed, no interest to learn more about the policies, regulatory framework, etc. that affect the provision of those services. 3. The global canvass - a public consultation would require a huge amount of time, effort, and money to reach as many people as possible. Just looking at the new TLD outreach, I submit that, despite the enormous and laudable attempts by ICANN to inform the global community only a very very small fraction of the Internet community have any understanding of the implications, issues, problems, and benefits of this new TLD initiative. Therefore, in short, we will have to make the hard decisions of who our stakeholders are and how we define/categorize each. Kim On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:57, Smith, Bill wrote: > Hi Kim, > > I agree that these groups have legitimate interests. The grouping you have proposed is easily understood and would provide a framework for us to invite input. > > However, I submit that the grouping is in some ways artificial and consequently could be problematic if we try and weigh the issues and concerns of one group against the other. > > As examples consider consumer advocates and registrants. Some consumer advocates might argue for strict limitation on access to WHOIS records while others would argue for a more liberal approach (privacy vs fraud prevention/detection). Similarly, some registrants will want anonymity and therefore a strict limitation on access (e.g. dissidents) while others will argue for easier access in order to enhance the security of the Internet generally (e.g. to reduce spam, phishing, malware, and the like). > > In my opinion, there are legitimate reasons for both "open" and restricted access. Those reasons need not neatly fall into groups, regardless of how we attempt to organize things. From my perspective, that is the larger issue; how to grant legitimate access to certain pieces of information traditionally carried by WHOIS and at the same time, restrict access to information carried in WHOIS. > > Finally, the grouping follows "ICANN tradition" and may tend to pit, for example, some registrants against some registrars/registries. In my opinion, that would be unfortunate if it causes groups/individuals to resort to the entrenched positions that have been held for years. I believe we need a different approach for a way forward. > > Regards, > > Bill > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] >> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:16 AM >> To: Smith, Bill >> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps >> >> Hi Bill: >> >> I am not suggesting that we give them a preferred position, nor do I >> think we should give anyone a preferred position, but listen to the >> various stakeholders. This, of course, raises the issue, as we had >> discussed on our last call, who are stakeholders are. >> >> I agree with you that it is a large group of varied interests, but I >> think we need to start somewhere and the known and strong advocates so >> far are law enforcement, consumer advocates, rights holders, and >> registrants in general. I think that, in general, those three groups >> will cover a large majority of the interest groups provided we keep >> each broad enough. >> >> In light of that, my suggestion was simply to give us the various >> perspective of a number of different interest groups. I suspect that >> we will have various other people speak at our face to face meetings to >> provide their respective views. >> >> Kim >> >> >> On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:01, Smith, Bill wrote: >> >>> With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation regarding >> where concerns originate from? I think not. >>> >>> Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property. >> Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate need for >> anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to >> phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to protect >> their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such >> scenarios. >>> >>> I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a >> preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests. >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- >> bounces at icann.org] >>>> On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx >>>> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM >>>> To: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at >>>> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps >>>> >>>> Hi Wilfried: >>>> >>>> I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark >> owners, >>>> but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect >> to, >>>> e.g., copyright. >>>> >>>> Kim >>>> >>>> On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Kim, Team! >>>>> >>>>> Kim G. von Arx wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Emily et al: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of the >>>> Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we >>>> invite someone from the staff to cover this point? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation >>>>> >>>>> +1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic >>>> would >>>>> already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for the >>>> Sunday >>>>> get-together. >>>>> >>>>> Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or >>>> documents. >>>>> >>>>>> I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have >>>> started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to >> face >>>> meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke >>>> proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as >>>> provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I >> would >>>> like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder >>>> constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect to >>>> format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to face >>>> meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the >>>> presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive work >> for >>>> the remaining 1.5 days. >>>>> >>>>> "rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners? >>>>> >>>>>>> Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to propose >>>> the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during >> our >>>> mandate >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize >> our >>>> face to face time as much as possible. >>>>> >>>>> OK for me. >>>>> >>>>>>> - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: >>>>>>> - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees >>>>>>> - the Board >>>>>>> - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with >> the >>>> relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask >> them >>>> what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to >> our >>>> task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward by >>>> different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those meetings >>>> and help lead the discussions? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> agreed >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Our next call >>>>>>> I propose that in our next call we focus on: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global >> perspective >>>>>>> - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> agreed. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> -- >>>> ---- >>>>> >>>>> 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 bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Fri Nov 12 19:31:50 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 12:31:50 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps In-Reply-To: <906A3FC5-FFBB-43A3-9501-5619D90602E2@vonarx.ca> References: <4CDD693E.8070408@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <188AE8D9-8E5C-4C9D-8F17-2B4452EBAA74@vonarx.ca> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828D62@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> <0212479B-B912-4769-8018-5B3A6A05DDA7@vonarx.ca> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828DE5@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> <906A3FC5-FFBB-43A3-9501-5619D90602E2@vonarx.ca> Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828F34@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Kim, I agree we'll have to make those "hard decisions". As someone who has already done a WHOIS review, what are the limitations of a forward-looking policy that considers two broad classes of "users"; those that want to restrict access, and those that want to have "open" access. To my mind, this seems a simple and elegant framework, at least for discussion purposes. Regards, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 10:20 AM > To: Smith, Bill > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps > > Hi Bill: > > I agree that grouping various interests/people etc is artificial, but I > submit that that is always the case and is a general problem of any > policy review and development. In light of that, we will have to > eventually make those distinctions and categorization otherwise it will > be impossible to review the effectiveness of the WHOIS. I truly agree > with you that there are a myriad of different and legitimate interests > which, in theory, would call for a broad and global public consultation > to ascertain and determine as many views as possible. However, this > raises three major problems: > > 1. Knowledge of the issues at discussion - this requires a fairly > significant amount of education. When we did the CIRA WHOIS review and > development we had a total of 3 public consultations with extensive > background information to explain the WHOIS issues. Also, we had > various public fora across the country to discuss and collect further > information from our stakeholders. > > 2. Lack of interest - with the lack of knowledge of the issues, there > comes a fairly large amount of disinterest. We always related it to > electricity. We are all happy when we plug in a device in to the > outlet and all works and expect it to work, but the majority of us have > no idea and, indeed, no interest to learn more about the policies, > regulatory framework, etc. that affect the provision of those services. > > 3. The global canvass - a public consultation would require a huge > amount of time, effort, and money to reach as many people as possible. > Just looking at the new TLD outreach, I submit that, despite the > enormous and laudable attempts by ICANN to inform the global community > only a very very small fraction of the Internet community have any > understanding of the implications, issues, problems, and benefits of > this new TLD initiative. > > Therefore, in short, we will have to make the hard decisions of who our > stakeholders are and how we define/categorize each. > > Kim > > > > > On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:57, Smith, Bill wrote: > > > Hi Kim, > > > > I agree that these groups have legitimate interests. The grouping you > have proposed is easily understood and would provide a framework for us > to invite input. > > > > However, I submit that the grouping is in some ways artificial and > consequently could be problematic if we try and weigh the issues and > concerns of one group against the other. > > > > As examples consider consumer advocates and registrants. Some > consumer advocates might argue for strict limitation on access to WHOIS > records while others would argue for a more liberal approach (privacy > vs fraud prevention/detection). Similarly, some registrants will want > anonymity and therefore a strict limitation on access (e.g. dissidents) > while others will argue for easier access in order to enhance the > security of the Internet generally (e.g. to reduce spam, phishing, > malware, and the like). > > > > In my opinion, there are legitimate reasons for both "open" and > restricted access. Those reasons need not neatly fall into groups, > regardless of how we attempt to organize things. From my perspective, > that is the larger issue; how to grant legitimate access to certain > pieces of information traditionally carried by WHOIS and at the same > time, restrict access to information carried in WHOIS. > > > > Finally, the grouping follows "ICANN tradition" and may tend to pit, > for example, some registrants against some registrars/registries. In my > opinion, that would be unfortunate if it causes groups/individuals to > resort to the entrenched positions that have been held for years. I > believe we need a different approach for a way forward. > > > > Regards, > > > > Bill > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] > >> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:16 AM > >> To: Smith, Bill > >> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps > >> > >> Hi Bill: > >> > >> I am not suggesting that we give them a preferred position, nor do I > >> think we should give anyone a preferred position, but listen to the > >> various stakeholders. This, of course, raises the issue, as we had > >> discussed on our last call, who are stakeholders are. > >> > >> I agree with you that it is a large group of varied interests, but I > >> think we need to start somewhere and the known and strong advocates > so > >> far are law enforcement, consumer advocates, rights holders, and > >> registrants in general. I think that, in general, those three > groups > >> will cover a large majority of the interest groups provided we keep > >> each broad enough. > >> > >> In light of that, my suggestion was simply to give us the various > >> perspective of a number of different interest groups. I suspect > that > >> we will have various other people speak at our face to face meetings > to > >> provide their respective views. > >> > >> Kim > >> > >> > >> On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:01, Smith, Bill wrote: > >> > >>> With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation > regarding > >> where concerns originate from? I think not. > >>> > >>> Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property. > >> Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate need > for > >> anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to > >> phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to > protect > >> their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such > >> scenarios. > >>> > >>> I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a > >> preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests. > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > >> bounces at icann.org] > >>>> On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx > >>>> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM > >>>> To: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at > >>>> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > >>>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps > >>>> > >>>> Hi Wilfried: > >>>> > >>>> I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark > >> owners, > >>>> but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect > >> to, > >>>> e.g., copyright. > >>>> > >>>> Kim > >>>> > >>>> On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Kim, Team! > >>>>> > >>>>> Kim G. von Arx wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Emily et al: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of > the > >>>> Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we > >>>> invite someone from the staff to cover this point? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation > >>>>> > >>>>> +1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic > >>>> would > >>>>> already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for > the > >>>> Sunday > >>>>> get-together. > >>>>> > >>>>> Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or > >>>> documents. > >>>>> > >>>>>> I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have > >>>> started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to > >> face > >>>> meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke > >>>> proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as > >>>> provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I > >> would > >>>> like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder > >>>> constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect > to > >>>> format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to > face > >>>> meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the > >>>> presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive > work > >> for > >>>> the remaining 1.5 days. > >>>>> > >>>>> "rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners? > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to > propose > >>>> the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during > >> our > >>>> mandate > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize > >> our > >>>> face to face time as much as possible. > >>>>> > >>>>> OK for me. > >>>>> > >>>>>>> - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: > >>>>>>> - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees > >>>>>>> - the Board > >>>>>>> - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with > >> the > >>>> relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask > >> them > >>>> what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to > >> our > >>>> task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward > by > >>>> different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those > meetings > >>>> and help lead the discussions? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> agreed > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Our next call > >>>>>>> I propose that in our next call we focus on: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global > >> perspective > >>>>>>> - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> agreed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > >> -- > >>>> ---- > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 kim at vonarx.ca Fri Nov 12 19:47:10 2010 From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 14:47:10 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps In-Reply-To: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828F34@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> References: <4CDD693E.8070408@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <188AE8D9-8E5C-4C9D-8F17-2B4452EBAA74@vonarx.ca> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828D62@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> <0212479B-B912-4769-8018-5B3A6A05DDA7@vonarx.ca> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828DE5@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> <906A3FC5-FFBB-43A3-9501-5619D90602E2@vonarx.ca> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828F34@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Message-ID: Actually that is very limiting, and as you had pointed out, there numerous reasons to have certain fields available and others not etc. Therefore, we should try to capture as many views we can within predetermined groups of interest. Having said that, however, I do want to follow your general tenant, ie, keep is a broad as possible. Kim Please excuse my typos! This is sent from my iPhone. On Nov 12, 2010, at 14:31, "Smith, Bill" wrote: > Kim, > > I agree we'll have to make those "hard decisions". > > As someone who has already done a WHOIS review, what are the limitations of a forward-looking policy that considers two broad classes of "users"; those that want to restrict access, and those that want to have "open" access. To my mind, this seems a simple and elegant framework, at least for discussion purposes. > > Regards, > > Bill > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] >> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 10:20 AM >> To: Smith, Bill >> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps >> >> Hi Bill: >> >> I agree that grouping various interests/people etc is artificial, but I >> submit that that is always the case and is a general problem of any >> policy review and development. In light of that, we will have to >> eventually make those distinctions and categorization otherwise it will >> be impossible to review the effectiveness of the WHOIS. I truly agree >> with you that there are a myriad of different and legitimate interests >> which, in theory, would call for a broad and global public consultation >> to ascertain and determine as many views as possible. However, this >> raises three major problems: >> >> 1. Knowledge of the issues at discussion - this requires a fairly >> significant amount of education. When we did the CIRA WHOIS review and >> development we had a total of 3 public consultations with extensive >> background information to explain the WHOIS issues. Also, we had >> various public fora across the country to discuss and collect further >> information from our stakeholders. >> >> 2. Lack of interest - with the lack of knowledge of the issues, there >> comes a fairly large amount of disinterest. We always related it to >> electricity. We are all happy when we plug in a device in to the >> outlet and all works and expect it to work, but the majority of us have >> no idea and, indeed, no interest to learn more about the policies, >> regulatory framework, etc. that affect the provision of those services. >> >> 3. The global canvass - a public consultation would require a huge >> amount of time, effort, and money to reach as many people as possible. >> Just looking at the new TLD outreach, I submit that, despite the >> enormous and laudable attempts by ICANN to inform the global community >> only a very very small fraction of the Internet community have any >> understanding of the implications, issues, problems, and benefits of >> this new TLD initiative. >> >> Therefore, in short, we will have to make the hard decisions of who our >> stakeholders are and how we define/categorize each. >> >> Kim >> >> >> >> >> On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:57, Smith, Bill wrote: >> >>> Hi Kim, >>> >>> I agree that these groups have legitimate interests. The grouping you >> have proposed is easily understood and would provide a framework for us >> to invite input. >>> >>> However, I submit that the grouping is in some ways artificial and >> consequently could be problematic if we try and weigh the issues and >> concerns of one group against the other. >>> >>> As examples consider consumer advocates and registrants. Some >> consumer advocates might argue for strict limitation on access to WHOIS >> records while others would argue for a more liberal approach (privacy >> vs fraud prevention/detection). Similarly, some registrants will want >> anonymity and therefore a strict limitation on access (e.g. dissidents) >> while others will argue for easier access in order to enhance the >> security of the Internet generally (e.g. to reduce spam, phishing, >> malware, and the like). >>> >>> In my opinion, there are legitimate reasons for both "open" and >> restricted access. Those reasons need not neatly fall into groups, >> regardless of how we attempt to organize things. From my perspective, >> that is the larger issue; how to grant legitimate access to certain >> pieces of information traditionally carried by WHOIS and at the same >> time, restrict access to information carried in WHOIS. >>> >>> Finally, the grouping follows "ICANN tradition" and may tend to pit, >> for example, some registrants against some registrars/registries. In my >> opinion, that would be unfortunate if it causes groups/individuals to >> resort to the entrenched positions that have been held for years. I >> believe we need a different approach for a way forward. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] >>>> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:16 AM >>>> To: Smith, Bill >>>> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps >>>> >>>> Hi Bill: >>>> >>>> I am not suggesting that we give them a preferred position, nor do I >>>> think we should give anyone a preferred position, but listen to the >>>> various stakeholders. This, of course, raises the issue, as we had >>>> discussed on our last call, who are stakeholders are. >>>> >>>> I agree with you that it is a large group of varied interests, but I >>>> think we need to start somewhere and the known and strong advocates >> so >>>> far are law enforcement, consumer advocates, rights holders, and >>>> registrants in general. I think that, in general, those three >> groups >>>> will cover a large majority of the interest groups provided we keep >>>> each broad enough. >>>> >>>> In light of that, my suggestion was simply to give us the various >>>> perspective of a number of different interest groups. I suspect >> that >>>> we will have various other people speak at our face to face meetings >> to >>>> provide their respective views. >>>> >>>> Kim >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:01, Smith, Bill wrote: >>>> >>>>> With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation >> regarding >>>> where concerns originate from? I think not. >>>>> >>>>> Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property. >>>> Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate need >> for >>>> anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to >>>> phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to >> protect >>>> their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such >>>> scenarios. >>>>> >>>>> I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a >>>> preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests. >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- >>>> bounces at icann.org] >>>>>> On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx >>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM >>>>>> To: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at >>>>>> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Wilfried: >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark >>>> owners, >>>>>> but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect >>>> to, >>>>>> e.g., copyright. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kim >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Kim, Team! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kim G. von Arx wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Emily et al: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of >> the >>>>>> Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we >>>>>> invite someone from the staff to cover this point? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic >>>>>> would >>>>>>> already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for >> the >>>>>> Sunday >>>>>>> get-together. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or >>>>>> documents. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have >>>>>> started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to >>>> face >>>>>> meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke >>>>>> proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as >>>>>> provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I >>>> would >>>>>> like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder >>>>>> constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect >> to >>>>>> format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to >> face >>>>>> meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the >>>>>> presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive >> work >>>> for >>>>>> the remaining 1.5 days. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to >> propose >>>>>> the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during >>>> our >>>>>> mandate >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize >>>> our >>>>>> face to face time as much as possible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK for me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: >>>>>>>>> - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees >>>>>>>>> - the Board >>>>>>>>> - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with >>>> the >>>>>> relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask >>>> them >>>>>> what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to >>>> our >>>>>> task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward >> by >>>>>> different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those >> meetings >>>>>> and help lead the discussions? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> agreed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Our next call >>>>>>>>> I propose that in our next call we focus on: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global >>>> perspective >>>>>>>>> - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> agreed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- >>>> -- >>>>>> ---- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 bill.smith at paypal-inc.com Fri Nov 12 19:57:42 2010 From: bill.smith at paypal-inc.com (Smith, Bill) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 12:57:42 -0700 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps In-Reply-To: References: <4CDD693E.8070408@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <188AE8D9-8E5C-4C9D-8F17-2B4452EBAA74@vonarx.ca> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828D62@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> <0212479B-B912-4769-8018-5B3A6A05DDA7@vonarx.ca> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828DE5@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> <906A3FC5-FFBB-43A3-9501-5619D90602E2@vonarx.ca> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828F34@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Message-ID: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828F9E@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Limiting in what way, if we're willing to consider a more fine-grained approach to accessing the information? > -----Original Message----- > From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 11:47 AM > To: Smith, Bill > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps > > Actually that is very limiting, and as you had pointed out, there > numerous reasons to have certain fields available and others not etc. > > Therefore, we should try to capture as many views we can within > predetermined groups of interest. > > Having said that, however, I do want to follow your general tenant, ie, > keep is a broad as possible. > > Kim > > Please excuse my typos! This is sent from my iPhone. > > On Nov 12, 2010, at 14:31, "Smith, Bill" > wrote: > > > Kim, > > > > I agree we'll have to make those "hard decisions". > > > > As someone who has already done a WHOIS review, what are the > limitations of a forward-looking policy that considers two broad > classes of "users"; those that want to restrict access, and those that > want to have "open" access. To my mind, this seems a simple and elegant > framework, at least for discussion purposes. > > > > Regards, > > > > Bill > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] > >> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 10:20 AM > >> To: Smith, Bill > >> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps > >> > >> Hi Bill: > >> > >> I agree that grouping various interests/people etc is artificial, > but I > >> submit that that is always the case and is a general problem of any > >> policy review and development. In light of that, we will have to > >> eventually make those distinctions and categorization otherwise it > will > >> be impossible to review the effectiveness of the WHOIS. I truly > agree > >> with you that there are a myriad of different and legitimate > interests > >> which, in theory, would call for a broad and global public > consultation > >> to ascertain and determine as many views as possible. However, this > >> raises three major problems: > >> > >> 1. Knowledge of the issues at discussion - this requires a fairly > >> significant amount of education. When we did the CIRA WHOIS review > and > >> development we had a total of 3 public consultations with extensive > >> background information to explain the WHOIS issues. Also, we had > >> various public fora across the country to discuss and collect > further > >> information from our stakeholders. > >> > >> 2. Lack of interest - with the lack of knowledge of the issues, > there > >> comes a fairly large amount of disinterest. We always related it to > >> electricity. We are all happy when we plug in a device in to the > >> outlet and all works and expect it to work, but the majority of us > have > >> no idea and, indeed, no interest to learn more about the policies, > >> regulatory framework, etc. that affect the provision of those > services. > >> > >> 3. The global canvass - a public consultation would require a huge > >> amount of time, effort, and money to reach as many people as > possible. > >> Just looking at the new TLD outreach, I submit that, despite the > >> enormous and laudable attempts by ICANN to inform the global > community > >> only a very very small fraction of the Internet community have any > >> understanding of the implications, issues, problems, and benefits of > >> this new TLD initiative. > >> > >> Therefore, in short, we will have to make the hard decisions of who > our > >> stakeholders are and how we define/categorize each. > >> > >> Kim > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:57, Smith, Bill wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Kim, > >>> > >>> I agree that these groups have legitimate interests. The grouping > you > >> have proposed is easily understood and would provide a framework for > us > >> to invite input. > >>> > >>> However, I submit that the grouping is in some ways artificial and > >> consequently could be problematic if we try and weigh the issues and > >> concerns of one group against the other. > >>> > >>> As examples consider consumer advocates and registrants. Some > >> consumer advocates might argue for strict limitation on access to > WHOIS > >> records while others would argue for a more liberal approach > (privacy > >> vs fraud prevention/detection). Similarly, some registrants will > want > >> anonymity and therefore a strict limitation on access (e.g. > dissidents) > >> while others will argue for easier access in order to enhance the > >> security of the Internet generally (e.g. to reduce spam, phishing, > >> malware, and the like). > >>> > >>> In my opinion, there are legitimate reasons for both "open" and > >> restricted access. Those reasons need not neatly fall into groups, > >> regardless of how we attempt to organize things. From my > perspective, > >> that is the larger issue; how to grant legitimate access to certain > >> pieces of information traditionally carried by WHOIS and at the same > >> time, restrict access to information carried in WHOIS. > >>> > >>> Finally, the grouping follows "ICANN tradition" and may tend to > pit, > >> for example, some registrants against some registrars/registries. In > my > >> opinion, that would be unfortunate if it causes groups/individuals > to > >> resort to the entrenched positions that have been held for years. I > >> believe we need a different approach for a way forward. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Bill > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] > >>>> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:16 AM > >>>> To: Smith, Bill > >>>> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > >>>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps > >>>> > >>>> Hi Bill: > >>>> > >>>> I am not suggesting that we give them a preferred position, nor do > I > >>>> think we should give anyone a preferred position, but listen to > the > >>>> various stakeholders. This, of course, raises the issue, as we > had > >>>> discussed on our last call, who are stakeholders are. > >>>> > >>>> I agree with you that it is a large group of varied interests, but > I > >>>> think we need to start somewhere and the known and strong > advocates > >> so > >>>> far are law enforcement, consumer advocates, rights holders, and > >>>> registrants in general. I think that, in general, those three > >> groups > >>>> will cover a large majority of the interest groups provided we > keep > >>>> each broad enough. > >>>> > >>>> In light of that, my suggestion was simply to give us the various > >>>> perspective of a number of different interest groups. I suspect > >> that > >>>> we will have various other people speak at our face to face > meetings > >> to > >>>> provide their respective views. > >>>> > >>>> Kim > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:01, Smith, Bill wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation > >> regarding > >>>> where concerns originate from? I think not. > >>>>> > >>>>> Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property. > >>>> Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate > need > >> for > >>>> anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to > >>>> phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to > >> protect > >>>> their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such > >>>> scenarios. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a > >>>> preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests. > >>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > >>>> bounces at icann.org] > >>>>>> On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx > >>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM > >>>>>> To: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at > >>>>>> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Wilfried: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark > >>>> owners, > >>>>>> but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with > respect > >>>> to, > >>>>>> e.g., copyright. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Kim > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Kim, Team! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Kim G. von Arx wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi Emily et al: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of > >> the > >>>>>> Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should > we > >>>>>> invite someone from the staff to cover this point? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> +1, actually it would be nice if some information for this > topic > >>>>>> would > >>>>>>> already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for > >> the > >>>>>> Sunday > >>>>>>> get-together. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or > >>>>>> documents. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will > have > >>>>>> started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face > to > >>>> face > >>>>>> meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke > >>>>>> proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well > as > >>>>>> provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I > >>>> would > >>>>>> like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights- > holder > >>>>>> constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect > >> to > >>>>>> format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to > >> face > >>>>>> meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to > the > >>>>>> presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive > >> work > >>>> for > >>>>>> the remaining 1.5 days. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to > >> propose > >>>>>> the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place > during > >>>> our > >>>>>> mandate > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to > utilize > >>>> our > >>>>>> face to face time as much as possible. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> OK for me. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: > >>>>>>>>> - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees > >>>>>>>>> - the Board > >>>>>>>>> - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our > task > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison > with > >>>> the > >>>>>> relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask > >>>> them > >>>>>> what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute > to > >>>> our > >>>>>> task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward > >> by > >>>>>> different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those > >> meetings > >>>>>> and help lead the discussions? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> agreed > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Our next call > >>>>>>>>> I propose that in our next call we focus on: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global > >>>> perspective > >>>>>>>>> - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> agreed. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > >> -- > >>>> -- > >>>>>> ---- > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 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 kim at vonarx.ca Fri Nov 12 21:34:39 2010 From: kim at vonarx.ca (Kim G. von Arx) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 16:34:39 -0500 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps In-Reply-To: <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828F9E@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> References: <4CDD693E.8070408@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <188AE8D9-8E5C-4C9D-8F17-2B4452EBAA74@vonarx.ca> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828D62@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> <0212479B-B912-4769-8018-5B3A6A05DDA7@vonarx.ca> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828DE5@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> <906A3FC5-FFBB-43A3-9501-5619D90602E2@vonarx.ca> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828F34@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828F9E@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Message-ID: <467D9C23-F5AB-4EF5-A395-10417EF4FA93@vonarx.ca> Hi Bill: I was just referring to your two groupings of access and no access which may be limiting in the sense that each of those groups have various subsets with respect to what data they want/need to have access or restrict access to. The difference, of course, is the reason for those differing needs/wants. In order for us to conduct a successful and effective review, we need to understand those reasons. My point in my previous email was that we need to establish interest groups to not get bogged down with 1000s of individual views. Having said that, however, I do agree with you that we ought to ensure that we do not get tangled up in the past trench wars and as such need to be careful where and how we tread. Kim On 12 Nov 2010, at 14:57, Smith, Bill wrote: > Limiting in what way, if we're willing to consider a more fine-grained approach to accessing the information? > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] >> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 11:47 AM >> To: Smith, Bill >> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps >> >> Actually that is very limiting, and as you had pointed out, there >> numerous reasons to have certain fields available and others not etc. >> >> Therefore, we should try to capture as many views we can within >> predetermined groups of interest. >> >> Having said that, however, I do want to follow your general tenant, ie, >> keep is a broad as possible. >> >> Kim >> >> Please excuse my typos! This is sent from my iPhone. >> >> On Nov 12, 2010, at 14:31, "Smith, Bill" >> wrote: >> >>> Kim, >>> >>> I agree we'll have to make those "hard decisions". >>> >>> As someone who has already done a WHOIS review, what are the >> limitations of a forward-looking policy that considers two broad >> classes of "users"; those that want to restrict access, and those that >> want to have "open" access. To my mind, this seems a simple and elegant >> framework, at least for discussion purposes. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] >>>> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 10:20 AM >>>> To: Smith, Bill >>>> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org >>>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps >>>> >>>> Hi Bill: >>>> >>>> I agree that grouping various interests/people etc is artificial, >> but I >>>> submit that that is always the case and is a general problem of any >>>> policy review and development. In light of that, we will have to >>>> eventually make those distinctions and categorization otherwise it >> will >>>> be impossible to review the effectiveness of the WHOIS. I truly >> agree >>>> with you that there are a myriad of different and legitimate >> interests >>>> which, in theory, would call for a broad and global public >> consultation >>>> to ascertain and determine as many views as possible. However, this >>>> raises three major problems: >>>> >>>> 1. Knowledge of the issues at discussion - this requires a fairly >>>> significant amount of education. When we did the CIRA WHOIS review >> and >>>> development we had a total of 3 public consultations with extensive >>>> background information to explain the WHOIS issues. Also, we had >>>> various public fora across the country to discuss and collect >> further >>>> information from our stakeholders. >>>> >>>> 2. Lack of interest - with the lack of knowledge of the issues, >> there >>>> comes a fairly large amount of disinterest. We always related it to >>>> electricity. We are all happy when we plug in a device in to the >>>> outlet and all works and expect it to work, but the majority of us >> have >>>> no idea and, indeed, no interest to learn more about the policies, >>>> regulatory framework, etc. that affect the provision of those >> services. >>>> >>>> 3. The global canvass - a public consultation would require a huge >>>> amount of time, effort, and money to reach as many people as >> possible. >>>> Just looking at the new TLD outreach, I submit that, despite the >>>> enormous and laudable attempts by ICANN to inform the global >> community >>>> only a very very small fraction of the Internet community have any >>>> understanding of the implications, issues, problems, and benefits of >>>> this new TLD initiative. >>>> >>>> Therefore, in short, we will have to make the hard decisions of who >> our >>>> stakeholders are and how we define/categorize each. >>>> >>>> Kim >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:57, Smith, Bill wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Kim, >>>>> >>>>> I agree that these groups have legitimate interests. The grouping >> you >>>> have proposed is easily understood and would provide a framework for >> us >>>> to invite input. >>>>> >>>>> However, I submit that the grouping is in some ways artificial and >>>> consequently could be problematic if we try and weigh the issues and >>>> concerns of one group against the other. >>>>> >>>>> As examples consider consumer advocates and registrants. Some >>>> consumer advocates might argue for strict limitation on access to >> WHOIS >>>> records while others would argue for a more liberal approach >> (privacy >>>> vs fraud prevention/detection). Similarly, some registrants will >> want >>>> anonymity and therefore a strict limitation on access (e.g. >> dissidents) >>>> while others will argue for easier access in order to enhance the >>>> security of the Internet generally (e.g. to reduce spam, phishing, >>>> malware, and the like). >>>>> >>>>> In my opinion, there are legitimate reasons for both "open" and >>>> restricted access. Those reasons need not neatly fall into groups, >>>> regardless of how we attempt to organize things. From my >> perspective, >>>> that is the larger issue; how to grant legitimate access to certain >>>> pieces of information traditionally carried by WHOIS and at the same >>>> time, restrict access to information carried in WHOIS. >>>>> >>>>> Finally, the grouping follows "ICANN tradition" and may tend to >> pit, >>>> for example, some registrants against some registrars/registries. In >> my >>>> opinion, that would be unfortunate if it causes groups/individuals >> to >>>> resort to the entrenched positions that have been held for years. I >>>> believe we need a different approach for a way forward. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] >>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:16 AM >>>>>> To: Smith, Bill >>>>>> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Bill: >>>>>> >>>>>> I am not suggesting that we give them a preferred position, nor do >> I >>>>>> think we should give anyone a preferred position, but listen to >> the >>>>>> various stakeholders. This, of course, raises the issue, as we >> had >>>>>> discussed on our last call, who are stakeholders are. >>>>>> >>>>>> I agree with you that it is a large group of varied interests, but >> I >>>>>> think we need to start somewhere and the known and strong >> advocates >>>> so >>>>>> far are law enforcement, consumer advocates, rights holders, and >>>>>> registrants in general. I think that, in general, those three >>>> groups >>>>>> will cover a large majority of the interest groups provided we >> keep >>>>>> each broad enough. >>>>>> >>>>>> In light of that, my suggestion was simply to give us the various >>>>>> perspective of a number of different interest groups. I suspect >>>> that >>>>>> we will have various other people speak at our face to face >> meetings >>>> to >>>>>> provide their respective views. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kim >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:01, Smith, Bill wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation >>>> regarding >>>>>> where concerns originate from? I think not. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property. >>>>>> Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate >> need >>>> for >>>>>> anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to >>>>>> phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to >>>> protect >>>>>> their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such >>>>>> scenarios. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a >>>>>> preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- >>>>>> bounces at icann.org] >>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx >>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM >>>>>>>> To: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at >>>>>>>> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Wilfried: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark >>>>>> owners, >>>>>>>> but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with >> respect >>>>>> to, >>>>>>>> e.g., copyright. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kim >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Kim, Team! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Kim G. von Arx wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Emily et al: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of >>>> the >>>>>>>> Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should >> we >>>>>>>> invite someone from the staff to cover this point? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> +1, actually it would be nice if some information for this >> topic >>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>> already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for >>>> the >>>>>>>> Sunday >>>>>>>>> get-together. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or >>>>>>>> documents. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will >> have >>>>>>>> started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face >> to >>>>>> face >>>>>>>> meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke >>>>>>>> proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well >> as >>>>>>>> provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I >>>>>> would >>>>>>>> like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights- >> holder >>>>>>>> constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect >>>> to >>>>>>>> format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to >>>> face >>>>>>>> meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to >> the >>>>>>>> presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive >>>> work >>>>>> for >>>>>>>> the remaining 1.5 days. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to >>>> propose >>>>>>>> the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place >> during >>>>>> our >>>>>>>> mandate >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to >> utilize >>>>>> our >>>>>>>> face to face time as much as possible. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OK for me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: >>>>>>>>>>> - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees >>>>>>>>>>> - the Board >>>>>>>>>>> - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our >> task >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison >> with >>>>>> the >>>>>>>> relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask >>>>>> them >>>>>>>> what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute >> to >>>>>> our >>>>>>>> task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward >>>> by >>>>>>>> different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those >>>> meetings >>>>>>>> and help lead the discussions? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> agreed >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Our next call >>>>>>>>>>> I propose that in our next call we focus on: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global >>>>>> perspective >>>>>>>>>>> - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> agreed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- >>>> -- >>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> ---- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk Sat Nov 13 06:09:44 2010 From: sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk (sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 06:09:44 -0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps Message-ID: <87E2F4F00724B74781794CD88DBC997D07215913@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED -- Converted from text/plain format --> I would be very interested in having a presentation on previous Whois Reviews, their findings, outcomes, learning points etc., 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 Smith, Bill Sent: 12 November 2010 19:32 To: Kim G. von Arx Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps Kim, I agree we'll have to make those "hard decisions". As someone who has already done a WHOIS review, what are the limitations of a forward-looking policy that considers two broad classes of "users"; those that want to restrict access, and those that want to have "open" access. To my mind, this seems a simple and elegant framework, at least for discussion purposes. Regards, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] > Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 10:20 AM > To: Smith, Bill > Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps > > Hi Bill: > > I agree that grouping various interests/people etc is artificial, but > I submit that that is always the case and is a general problem of any > policy review and development. In light of that, we will have to > eventually make those distinctions and categorization otherwise it > will be impossible to review the effectiveness of the WHOIS. I truly > agree with you that there are a myriad of different and legitimate > interests which, in theory, would call for a broad and global public > consultation to ascertain and determine as many views as possible. > However, this raises three major problems: > > 1. Knowledge of the issues at discussion - this requires a fairly > significant amount of education. When we did the CIRA WHOIS review > and development we had a total of 3 public consultations with > extensive background information to explain the WHOIS issues. Also, > we had various public fora across the country to discuss and collect > further information from our stakeholders. > > 2. Lack of interest - with the lack of knowledge of the issues, there > comes a fairly large amount of disinterest. We always related it to > electricity. We are all happy when we plug in a device in to the > outlet and all works and expect it to work, but the majority of us > have no idea and, indeed, no interest to learn more about the > policies, regulatory framework, etc. that affect the provision of > those services. > > 3. The global canvass - a public consultation would require a huge > amount of time, effort, and money to reach as many people as possible. > Just looking at the new TLD outreach, I submit that, despite the > enormous and laudable attempts by ICANN to inform the global community > only a very very small fraction of the Internet community have any > understanding of the implications, issues, problems, and benefits of > this new TLD initiative. > > Therefore, in short, we will have to make the hard decisions of who > our stakeholders are and how we define/categorize each. > > Kim > > > > > On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:57, Smith, Bill wrote: > > > Hi Kim, > > > > I agree that these groups have legitimate interests. The grouping > > you > have proposed is easily understood and would provide a framework for > us to invite input. > > > > However, I submit that the grouping is in some ways artificial and > consequently could be problematic if we try and weigh the issues and > concerns of one group against the other. > > > > As examples consider consumer advocates and registrants. Some > consumer advocates might argue for strict limitation on access to > WHOIS records while others would argue for a more liberal approach > (privacy vs fraud prevention/detection). Similarly, some registrants > will want anonymity and therefore a strict limitation on access (e.g. > dissidents) while others will argue for easier access in order to > enhance the security of the Internet generally (e.g. to reduce spam, > phishing, malware, and the like). > > > > In my opinion, there are legitimate reasons for both "open" and > restricted access. Those reasons need not neatly fall into groups, > regardless of how we attempt to organize things. From my perspective, > that is the larger issue; how to grant legitimate access to certain > pieces of information traditionally carried by WHOIS and at the same > time, restrict access to information carried in WHOIS. > > > > Finally, the grouping follows "ICANN tradition" and may tend to pit, > for example, some registrants against some registrars/registries. In > my opinion, that would be unfortunate if it causes groups/individuals > to resort to the entrenched positions that have been held for years. I > believe we need a different approach for a way forward. > > > > Regards, > > > > Bill > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] > >> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:16 AM > >> To: Smith, Bill > >> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps > >> > >> Hi Bill: > >> > >> I am not suggesting that we give them a preferred position, nor do > >> I think we should give anyone a preferred position, but listen to > >> the various stakeholders. This, of course, raises the issue, as we > >> had discussed on our last call, who are stakeholders are. > >> > >> I agree with you that it is a large group of varied interests, but > >> I think we need to start somewhere and the known and strong > >> advocates > so > >> far are law enforcement, consumer advocates, rights holders, and > >> registrants in general. I think that, in general, those three > groups > >> will cover a large majority of the interest groups provided we keep > >> each broad enough. > >> > >> In light of that, my suggestion was simply to give us the various > >> perspective of a number of different interest groups. I suspect > that > >> we will have various other people speak at our face to face > >> meetings > to > >> provide their respective views. > >> > >> Kim > >> > >> > >> On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:01, Smith, Bill wrote: > >> > >>> With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation > regarding > >> where concerns originate from? I think not. > >>> > >>> Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property. > >> Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate need > for > >> anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to > >> phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to > protect > >> their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such > >> scenarios. > >>> > >>> I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a > >> preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests. > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > >> bounces at icann.org] > >>>> On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx > >>>> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM > >>>> To: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at > >>>> Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org > >>>> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps > >>>> > >>>> Hi Wilfried: > >>>> > >>>> I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark > >> owners, > >>>> but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect > >> to, > >>>> e.g., copyright. > >>>> > >>>> Kim > >>>> > >>>> On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Kim, Team! > >>>>> > >>>>> Kim G. von Arx wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Emily et al: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> - What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of > the > >>>> Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we > >>>> invite someone from the staff to cover this point? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation > >>>>> > >>>>> +1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic > >>>> would > >>>>> already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for > the > >>>> Sunday > >>>>> get-together. > >>>>> > >>>>> Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or > >>>> documents. > >>>>> > >>>>>> I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will > >>>>>> have > >>>> started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face > >>>> to > >> face > >>>> meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke > >>>> proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well > >>>> as provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. > >>>> I > >> would > >>>> like to also suggest that we invite someone from the > >>>> rights-holder constituency to bring their concerns to the table. > >>>> With respect > to > >>>> format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to > face > >>>> meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the > >>>> presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive > work > >> for > >>>> the remaining 1.5 days. > >>>>> > >>>>> "rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners? > >>>>> > >>>>>>> Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to > propose > >>>> the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place > >>>> during > >> our > >>>> mandate > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize > >> our > >>>> face to face time as much as possible. > >>>>> > >>>>> OK for me. > >>>>> > >>>>>>> - In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: > >>>>>>> - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees > >>>>>>> - the Board > >>>>>>> - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison > >>>>>>> with > >> the > >>>> relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask > >> them > >>>> what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute > >>>> to > >> our > >>>> task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward > by > >>>> different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those > meetings > >>>> and help lead the discussions? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> agreed > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Our next call > >>>>>>> I propose that in our next call we focus on: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> - broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global > >> perspective > >>>>>>> - identifying what, if any, external resources we need. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> agreed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>>> - > -- > >> -- > >>>> ---- > >>>>> > >>>>> 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 > > =0A_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois 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. From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Sat Nov 13 12:37:50 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 12:37:50 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps In-Reply-To: <87E2F4F00724B74781794CD88DBC997D07215913@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> References: <87E2F4F00724B74781794CD88DBC997D07215913@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> Message-ID: <4CDE869E.5010507@CC.UniVie.ac.at> sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk wrote: > > NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED > > -- Converted from text/plain format --> > > > > I would be very interested in having a presentation on previous Whois > Reviews, their findings, outcomes, learning points etc., So do I! Which members of the TEAM does have that experience already - if any? > Sharon Wilfried From Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Sat Nov 13 12:49:25 2010 From: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 12:49:25 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps In-Reply-To: References: <4CDD693E.8070408@CC.UniVie.ac.at> <188AE8D9-8E5C-4C9D-8F17-2B4452EBAA74@vonarx.ca> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828D62@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> <0212479B-B912-4769-8018-5B3A6A05DDA7@vonarx.ca> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828DE5@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> <906A3FC5-FFBB-43A3-9501-5619D90602E2@vonarx.ca> <39BF0C2785E4044E81A4D55B333D510661B6828F34@DEN-MEXMS-001.corp.ebay.com> Message-ID: <4CDE8955.3080605@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Kim G. von Arx wrote: > Actually that is very limiting, and as you had pointed out, there numerous reasons to have certain fields available and others not etc. I think that we are living in a sort of 3-dimensional universe, like: - which elements of data are collected (see AoC definition for a first cut)? - which elements c|should be publicly visible? - for any restricted elements, which parties c|should have access? . and as a sub-issue here, under which provisions and/or (legal) control & notification scheme? Of course some people prefer simplistic solutions like "no access at all" and "everything has to be public". I do have my own preference and point of view, but I guess that is for a different thread. > Therefore, we should try to capture as many views we can within predetermined groups of interest. I agree, some sort of aggregation and clustering will have to happen to prevent us from getting confused and derailed > Having said that, however, I do want to follow your general tenant, ie, keep is a broad as possible. Which may get us back to restart the thinking on mechanisms for manageable input, comment and feedback mechanisms (othe than the obvious outreach to identified bodies and in meetings? > Kim Wilfried > Please excuse my typos! This is sent from my iPhone. PS: same here, although I don't need the help of a mobile device for my creations. I profoundly apologize, it is never my intention to misuse the English language or to make my contributions hard to read > On Nov 12, 2010, at 14:31, "Smith, Bill" wrote: > > >>Kim, >> >>I agree we'll have to make those "hard decisions". >> >>As someone who has already done a WHOIS review, what are the limitations of a forward-looking policy that considers two broad classes of "users"; those that want to restrict access, and those that want to have "open" access. To my mind, this seems a simple and elegant framework, at least for discussion purposes. >> >>Regards, >> >>Bill >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] >>>Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 10:20 AM >>>To: Smith, Bill >>>Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org >>>Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps >>> >>>Hi Bill: >>> >>>I agree that grouping various interests/people etc is artificial, but I >>>submit that that is always the case and is a general problem of any >>>policy review and development. In light of that, we will have to >>>eventually make those distinctions and categorization otherwise it will >>>be impossible to review the effectiveness of the WHOIS. I truly agree >>>with you that there are a myriad of different and legitimate interests >>>which, in theory, would call for a broad and global public consultation >>>to ascertain and determine as many views as possible. However, this >>>raises three major problems: >>> >>>1. Knowledge of the issues at discussion - this requires a fairly >>>significant amount of education. When we did the CIRA WHOIS review and >>>development we had a total of 3 public consultations with extensive >>>background information to explain the WHOIS issues. Also, we had >>>various public fora across the country to discuss and collect further >>>information from our stakeholders. >>> >>>2. Lack of interest - with the lack of knowledge of the issues, there >>>comes a fairly large amount of disinterest. We always related it to >>>electricity. We are all happy when we plug in a device in to the >>>outlet and all works and expect it to work, but the majority of us have >>>no idea and, indeed, no interest to learn more about the policies, >>>regulatory framework, etc. that affect the provision of those services. >>> >>>3. The global canvass - a public consultation would require a huge >>>amount of time, effort, and money to reach as many people as possible. >>>Just looking at the new TLD outreach, I submit that, despite the >>>enormous and laudable attempts by ICANN to inform the global community >>>only a very very small fraction of the Internet community have any >>>understanding of the implications, issues, problems, and benefits of >>>this new TLD initiative. >>> >>>Therefore, in short, we will have to make the hard decisions of who our >>>stakeholders are and how we define/categorize each. >>> >>>Kim >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:57, Smith, Bill wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Hi Kim, >>>> >>>>I agree that these groups have legitimate interests. The grouping you >>> >>>have proposed is easily understood and would provide a framework for us >>>to invite input. >>> >>>>However, I submit that the grouping is in some ways artificial and >>> >>>consequently could be problematic if we try and weigh the issues and >>>concerns of one group against the other. >>> >>>>As examples consider consumer advocates and registrants. Some >>> >>>consumer advocates might argue for strict limitation on access to WHOIS >>>records while others would argue for a more liberal approach (privacy >>>vs fraud prevention/detection). Similarly, some registrants will want >>>anonymity and therefore a strict limitation on access (e.g. dissidents) >>>while others will argue for easier access in order to enhance the >>>security of the Internet generally (e.g. to reduce spam, phishing, >>>malware, and the like). >>> >>>>In my opinion, there are legitimate reasons for both "open" and >>> >>>restricted access. Those reasons need not neatly fall into groups, >>>regardless of how we attempt to organize things. From my perspective, >>>that is the larger issue; how to grant legitimate access to certain >>>pieces of information traditionally carried by WHOIS and at the same >>>time, restrict access to information carried in WHOIS. >>> >>>>Finally, the grouping follows "ICANN tradition" and may tend to pit, >>> >>>for example, some registrants against some registrars/registries. In my >>>opinion, that would be unfortunate if it causes groups/individuals to >>>resort to the entrenched positions that have been held for years. I >>>believe we need a different approach for a way forward. >>> >>>>Regards, >>>> >>>>Bill >>>> >>>> >>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim at vonarx.ca] >>>>>Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 9:16 AM >>>>>To: Smith, Bill >>>>>Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org >>>>>Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps >>>>> >>>>>Hi Bill: >>>>> >>>>>I am not suggesting that we give them a preferred position, nor do I >>>>>think we should give anyone a preferred position, but listen to the >>>>>various stakeholders. This, of course, raises the issue, as we had >>>>>discussed on our last call, who are stakeholders are. >>>>> >>>>>I agree with you that it is a large group of varied interests, but I >>>>>think we need to start somewhere and the known and strong advocates >>> >>>so >>> >>>>>far are law enforcement, consumer advocates, rights holders, and >>>>>registrants in general. I think that, in general, those three >>> >>>groups >>> >>>>>will cover a large majority of the interest groups provided we keep >>>>>each broad enough. >>>>> >>>>>In light of that, my suggestion was simply to give us the various >>>>>perspective of a number of different interest groups. I suspect >>> >>>that >>> >>>>>we will have various other people speak at our face to face meetings >>> >>>to >>> >>>>>provide their respective views. >>>>> >>>>>Kim >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>On 12 Nov 2010, at 12:01, Smith, Bill wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>With a broad interpretation, should there be any limitation >>> >>>regarding >>> >>>>>where concerns originate from? I think not. >>>>> >>>>>>Copyright and trademark owners wish to protect their property. >>>>> >>>>>Certain website/domain owners wish to protect their legitimate need >>> >>>for >>> >>>>>anonymity. Yet other entities wish to address issues related to >>>>>phishing, spam, malware, fraud, etc. via legitimate efforts to >>> >>>protect >>> >>>>>their customers and good name. And there are many, many more such >>>>>scenarios. >>>>> >>>>>>I'd hesitate to give "rights holders", or any other stakeholder a >>>>> >>>>>preferred position at our table. All have legitimate interests. >>>>> >>>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>>From: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- >>>>> >>>>>bounces at icann.org] >>>>> >>>>>>>On Behalf Of Kim G. von Arx >>>>>>>Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM >>>>>>>To: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at >>>>>>>Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org >>>>>>>Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Hi Wilfried: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I don't think we should necessarily limit it to just trademark >>>>> >>>>>owners, >>>>> >>>>>>>but IP rights holders in general as issues may arise with respect >>>>> >>>>>to, >>>>> >>>>>>>e.g., copyright. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Kim >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On 12 Nov 2010, at 11:20, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Hi Kim, Team! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Kim G. von Arx wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Hi Emily et al: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>- What is ICANN's policy at the moment? Would any member of >>> >>>the >>> >>>>>>>Team be in a position to do a presentation on this? Or should we >>>>>>>invite someone from the staff to cover this point? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I would suggest a staff member to make that presentation >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>+1, actually it would be nice if some information for this topic >>>>>>> >>>>>>>would >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>already be available (probably only in rough draft format) for >>> >>>the >>> >>>>>>>Sunday >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>get-together. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Alternatively, a set of pointers to relevant information or >>>>>>> >>>>>>>documents. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I agree with all of the items listed, but hope that we will have >>>>>>> >>>>>>>started most of the work already. My thinking is that our face to >>>>> >>>>>face >>>>> >>>>>>>meetings, however, should focus on fine tuning rough brushstroke >>>>>>>proposals and advance contentious and problematic areas as well as >>>>>>>provide expert presentations to assist us to reach consensus. I >>>>> >>>>>would >>>>> >>>>>>>like to also suggest that we invite someone from the rights-holder >>>>>>>constituency to bring their concerns to the table. With respect >>> >>>to >>> >>>>>>>format, I think it would be best if we start all of our face to >>> >>>face >>> >>>>>>>meetings with administrative issues first and then dive in to the >>>>>>>presentations for half a day and then commence the substantive >>> >>>work >>> >>>>>for >>>>> >>>>>>>the remaining 1.5 days. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"rights-holder" to be understood as trademark owners? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Attendance at San Francisco and other ICANN meetings >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I would welcome the Team's thoughts on this. I'd like to >>> >>>propose >>> >>>>>>>the following format for all ICANN meetings that time place during >>>>> >>>>>our >>>>> >>>>>>>mandate >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>- We all aim to have a 1.5 day Team meeting >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>I would suggest that we aim for a 2-day team meeting to utilize >>>>> >>>>>our >>>>> >>>>>>>face to face time as much as possible. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>OK for me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>- In addition, we should use ICANN meetings for outreach to: >>>>>>>>>> - the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees >>>>>>>>>> - the Board >>>>>>>>>> - any local stakeholder groups who are relevant to our task >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I would like to use the outreach sessions to build liaison with >>>>> >>>>>the >>>>> >>>>>>>relevant SO/ACs, inform them about how and what we're doing, ask >>>>> >>>>>them >>>>> >>>>>>>what they think we should be doing, and how they can contribute to >>>>> >>>>>our >>>>> >>>>>>>task. Would it be possible for those who have been put forward >>> >>>by >>> >>>>>>>different SO/ACs to accompany the Chair/Vice Chair to those >>> >>>meetings >>> >>>>>>>and help lead the discussions? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>agreed >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Our next call >>>>>>>>>>I propose that in our next call we focus on: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>- broad brush stakeholder identification, from a global >>>>> >>>>>perspective >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>- identifying what, if any, external resources we need. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>agreed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>>-- >>> >>>>>-- >>>>> >>>>>>>---- >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>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 emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk Sat Nov 13 14:05:17 2010 From: emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk (Emily Taylor) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:05:17 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps In-Reply-To: <4CDE869E.5010507@CC.UniVie.ac.at> References: <87E2F4F00724B74781794CD88DBC997D07215913@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk> <4CDE869E.5010507@CC.UniVie.ac.at> Message-ID: <46887299-3DDF-4B95-94F3-245584F65A23@etlaw.co.uk> Hi there On 13 Nov 2010, at 12:37, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > sharon.lemon at soca.x.gsi.gov.uk wrote: >> >> NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED >> >> -- Converted from text/plain format --> >> >> >> >> I would be very interested in having a presentation on previous Whois >> Reviews, their findings, outcomes, learning points etc., > > So do I! > > Which members of the TEAM does have that experience already - if any? Best, E Kim von Arx has, and so have I. Anyone else? > >> Sharon > > Wilfried > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/rt4-whois/attachments/20101113/2d045b07/attachment.html From lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com Sat Nov 13 16:03:38 2010 From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com (lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com) Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 16:03:38 +0000 Subject: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps In-Reply-To: <46887299-3DDF-4B95-94F3-245584F65A23@etlaw.co.uk> References: <87E2F4F00724B74781794CD88DBC997D07215913@soca.x.gsi.gov.uk><4CDE869E.5010507@CC.UniVie.ac.at><46887299-3DDF-4B95-94F3-245584F65A23@etlaw.co.uk> Message-ID: <136371793-1289664360-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1699420859-@bda283.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Yes - I was a member of a Whois working group with ICANN in 2007. And I have a file of published ICANN documents on actions taken since then. I will be happy to organize key documents and share. And there are pending studies initiated prior to our group being formed. I am expecting us to review these upcoming studies as part of our overall scope of work. Kind regards, Lynn Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Emily Taylor Sender: rt4-whois-bounces at icann.org Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 14:05:17 To: Cc: Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Planning our next steps _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois