[Rt4-whois] Suggested updates for our agenda on Sunday [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

[Smith, Bill]

+1

On Mar 10, 2011, at 1:26 PM, Nettlefold, Peter wrote:

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED

Hi Emily and all,
I agree that these changes look very sensible, and I support them.
See you all soon.
Cheers
Peter

From: lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com<mailto:lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com> [mailto:lynn at goodsecurityconsulting.com]
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2011 07:10 AM
To: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>>
Cc: rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org> WHOIS <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Suggested updates for our agenda on Sunday

Thanks Emily for your time and thought to make sure we make best use of time.
Your proposed changes and rationale for them are sensible to me.
Best regards,
Lynn

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Suggested updates for our agenda on Sunday
From: Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk>>
Date: Thu, March 10, 2011 9:32 am
To: "rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org> WHOIS" <rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois at icann.org>>

Dear all

Thanks for all the work you have put in to making the public comment happen. Reviewing the definitional work done by the subteams, I think it has been a job well done. I'm looking forward to receiving comments through this process.

Thinking about Sunday's agenda - a couple of thoughts:

- We were unable to get an Art 29 speaker as originally planned
- The GAC has responded to our invitation for an outreach session, with a suggested time of 15:30-16:00
- Our discussions in our most recent call highlighted the need for us to spend some quality time as a group discussing what is meant by consumer trust, and revisiting what we are trying to do with our questionnaire.
- Given that our definitions are now out for public comment, I don't think we can really progress them until we've got some feedback from the community.

So, I'm attaching a redline of the agenda, and would appreciate any comments. It looks worse than it is, because most of the changes are in fact re-ordering. The main changes are to replace subteam definitions feedback/discussion with a session on consumer trust and the questionnaire, and to put in a session with GAC in the afternoon.

Please let me know what you think.

Kind regards


Emily


76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK
telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322
emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk> www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk/>


________________________________
_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois at icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties.


If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security Advisor of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, 38 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1376 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments.


Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<ATT00001..txt>