[Rt4-whois] [renamed] procedural and substantive issues

[Kathy Kleiman]

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! <http://www.pir.org/orgbuzz> 

Find us on Facebook | dotorg
<http://www.facebook.com/pages/dotorg/203294399456?v=wall> 

See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr <http://flickr.com/orgbuzz> 

See our video library on YouTube <http://youtube.com/orgbuzz> 

 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:

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

 

 

 

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