Hi Cathrin,
 
I’d like to support your proposals below.
 
Speaking on behalf of myself, the re-allocated time slot (1 hour for Rec #5-9 on Data Accuracy, 30 mins for Rec #15-16: Plan & Annual Reports) would be enough.
 
For the update on ongoing community activities, I believe it doesn’t matter to put it before or after other subgroups presentation, since I believe all review team members are more or less be exposed to the ongoing or new initiatives, they may already take them in consideration. We can wait how the relevant leaders say during the upcoming plenary call.
 
Thank you and regards,
Lili
 
From: RDS-WHOIS2-RT [ mailto:rds-whois2-rt-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Cathrin.BAUER-BULST@ec.europa.eu
Sent: Thursday, 29 March, 2018 5:26 PM
To: rds-whois2-rt@icann.org
Subject: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] F2F in Brussels: Agenda
 
Dear Review Team,
 
sorry I wasn't able to attend the plenary call last Friday.
 
I have been thinking a bit about the agenda and was wondering whether it made sense to allocate the same time to all the subgroups for presentation, in particular those that cover recommendations from the first review team which are more straightforward than others and therefore should be easier to verify. I hear this idea was also discussed on the call. So I've done a slight edit of the draft agenda, cutting the slots for some points to a half hour. Please find attached clean and TC versions for your review.
 
As of now, I've proposed giving the time saved to the "update on ongoing community initiatives" which I assume also includes a possibility for us to talk about the current interim model work. It could also be allocated to the more complicated subgroup matters.
 
I like the logic of finishing the review of Whois1 recommendations first and then turning to new assessments. So I was also wondering whether the community initiatives update should be moved after we finish our discussion on Whois1 rec implementation.
 
I would thus invite you to reflect on the following questions:
 
1.       Do you agree with this reallocation? Should it be further adjusted, for example more time given to more complex topics/even less time to the "easy" ones?
2.       Would the update on ongoing community activities be better placed after the review on the implementation of the recommendations from the first review team?
3.       Any other adjustments we should make to this agenda?
 
Grateful for any comments on this.
 
Best regards
Cathrin
***************************************************************************************************
This message, and any attachment contained, are confidential and subject of legal privilege. It may be used solely for the designated police/justice purpose and by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. The information is not to be disseminated to another agency or third party without the author’s consent, and must not be retained longer than is necessary for the fulfilment of the purpose for which the information is to be used. All practicable steps shall be taken by the recipients to ensure that information is protected against unauthorised access or processing. INTERPOL reserves the right to enquire about the use of the information provided.
If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this message in error. In such a case, you should not print it, copy it, make any use of it or disclose it, but please notify us immediately and delete the message from any computer.
*************************************************************************************************
_______________________________________________
RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list
RDS-WHOIS2-RT@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt