[Rt4-whois] Vote on Meeting in Cartagena

Emily Taylor emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk
Wed Nov 10 09:48:18 UTC 2010 

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
> <Draft WRT Guidelines 11510docx (3).docx><DraftScope of WRT 11510.docx><Drafting working group11510.docx>_______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Rt4-whois mailing list