[Rt4-whois] Next steps - some ideas

[Emily Taylor]

Dear Sarmad

Thank you for your generous comments.

Like Lynn, I agree with what you say about defining our WHOIS terminology, and I believe that this should be relatively straightforward to do.  

I would be happy to join your sub-team discussions on this issue.  

Kind regards

Emily

On 22 Mar 2011, at 18:41, Dr.Sarmad Hussain wrote:

> Dear Emily and all,
> 
> I would want to echo the thanks to the ICANN staff for the excellent support being provided.  
> 
> I would also want to thank Emily and Kathy for their tour-de-constituencies at ICANN SFO meeting, which required a lot of effort, and where the work we are doing was very impressively presented.  Attending a few of these sessions, there seems to be confusion around WHOIS studies, and what specifically the RT is doing.  This exercise helped clear this up with the community.  
> 
> Having  a quick look at the document, I would suggest including a section on defining the WHOIS terminology (service, data, protocol) and, if others feel appropriate, a short section (or perhaps an appendix) on the WHOIS protocol.  This would give an appropriate context to those not very familiar with WHOIS.  Short reference to IRIS and Restful WHOIS may also be considered in this section, just to cover all bases, especially as we may need to refer to them in some of the potential recommendations, e.g. internationalized data, etc.
> 
> We have Peter, Bill, Lynn, Olivier and myself on the Consumer/Consumer Trust team.  If anybody else is interested to join the sub-team discussions, please let us know.
> 
> 
> regards,
> Sarmad
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Emily Taylor <emily.taylor at etlaw.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi everyone
> 
> Thank you very much for making our time at ICANN San Francisco effective and rewarding.  I think our teamwork is improving constantly, and I was impressed (and grateful) that so many team members attended so many of our outreach meetings, and contributed actively.  I know that you all had multiple other things to do at the meeting, and believe that this investment will help us to develop a shared understanding of the way that different sections of the ICANN community think about the issues.
> 
> I'm sure we'd also all like to recognise and thank the ICANN staff team for an excellent job in supporting our meetings, setting up meetings with multiple communities, and coping with ever changing powerpoint presentations. Thank you very much.
> 
> To take the work on, and try to comply with our published work programme, I've put together a straw man for a report outline.  Basically, I have  been trying to make sense of the work we have done to date, and provide a context for all the activity we have undertaken so far.  I'd like to discuss this on our next call.
> 
> You will see that I believe we need professional help (don't we all?) in developing a "consumer trust" questionnaire and undertaking the research.  We don't have the specialist skills or resources within the team to undertake this sort of research.  I would welcome views on this.  
> 
> Kathy and I spent some time with Denise during the ICANN meeting, to discuss logistics going forward.  Denise pointed out that if we plan to have external research (1) we need to get approval for a budget increase, and (2) we need to go through a tendering process of some kind - this will add time and require input/effort from us on the Review Team.  I'm sure James can attest to that given his time on the ATRT.
> 
> Another point is that, while we were in San Francisco, Bill, and I and others started to think about our work as the implementation subteam.  After a useful informal conversation with members of the ICANN compliance team, and an informal chat with James (as a registrar), Bill offered to go and spend some time work shadowing the compliance team some time in May.  I understand that James has also kindly offered to attend.  Susan - your name as a west-coaster was also mentioned as someone who might be prepared to join this expedition.  
> 
> Thank you Bill, James (and maybe Susan) for offering to do this.  I think it will give an invaluable insight into the work of the compliance team.
> 
> So, please can you:
> 
> 1. All - take a look at the attached 2 page report outline, and give feedback on this list
> 2. Law Enforcement subteam - please start to develop questions for law enforcement to identify the legitimate needs.  I understand that you have started some thinking along these lines.
> 3. Consumer trust subteam - continue your work on a questionnaire for discussion with the full team at our next call.
> 4. Policy subteam - if you agree with the proposed outline, you could start a write up on the policy inventory.
> 5. Bill, James (?Susan) - agree a date for work shadow with the compliance team.
> 
> 
> Look forward to our heated discussions.
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 


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/20110323/198412d1/attachment.html