Hi Lisa, Many thanks for the quick and thorough review and feedback. I like the idea of divvying up the questions; let's try to tackle that on the phone call if we manage to find a time for Mon/Tues. I would still like to hear ICANN's take on those questions that aren't purely factual to see how the organisation assesses its implementation and to hear where perhaps they adjusted along the way or might think certain expectation are unreasonable. But those questions are indeed possibly not for the SME and would target more the mgmt./executive level. I understand Susan had a very helpful conversation with Jamie and his team when she was out in LA; possibly there'd be a similar opportunity to discuss the issue of strategic priority on the phone sometime soon with the relevant people, as a second step after the factual questions are answered. I have a preference for a written briefing with an oral presentation by the SME if that is feasible, like we've done in the past. Let's see what Carlton and Volker think. All best Cathrin From: Lisa Phifer [mailto:lisa@corecom.com] Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 8:02 PM To: BAUER-BULST Cathrin (HOME); rds-whois2-stratpriority@icann.org Subject: RE: [RDS-WHOIS2-StratPriority] Recommendation #1: Strategic Priority - answers to subgroup questions Hi Cathrin, Thank you very much for kicking this off. Reviewing the question list below, I suggest differentiating between questions the subgroup itself needs to answer (based on its reading and research) and specific questions that you wish ICANN Org SMEs to answer. I think many but not all of these questions are specific requests for further data not included in supplied materials. Some questions are likely addressed in implementation reports and briefings already given. We need to pinpoint the questions which are, based on your initial materials review, gaps that you would like filled via SME briefings or interviews. For example, the question: "How have the updated complaints and other compliance procedures impacted the accuracy and functionality of the WHOIS?" is a question that the subgroup must ultimately answer, based on data it gathers and evaluates. The RT is tasked with assessing the extent to which implementation of recommendations have had impacts. SMEs can answer specific questions such as number and disposition of accuracy or availability complaints received over a given period, but it might be useful to talk through the kinds of answers you think would help the subgroup assess impact of recommendation #1. A subgroup call may be useful to talk through this list of questions, divvy reading of documents and/or questions among subgroup members, and pinpoint the questions where further data or Q&A sessions could be most helpful. Once we have specific unaddressed questions, the right SMEs can be tasked with providing requested written or verbal briefings, as you think would be most effective. I hope this is helpful – Best, Lisa From: RDS-WHOIS2-StratPriority [mailto:rds-whois2-stratpriority-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Cathrin.BAUER-BULST@ec.europa.eu<mailto:Cathrin.BAUER-BULST@ec.europa.eu> Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 11:18 AM To: rds-whois2-stratpriority@icann.org<mailto:rds-whois2-stratpriority@icann.org> Subject: [RDS-WHOIS2-StratPriority] Recommendation #1: Strategic Priority - answers to subgroup questions Dear both, I am very late in answering these questions but here is a draft for your review and approval. The briefing questions are the ones we agreed in the first pass document. We will aim for a first subgroup call on Mon/Tues next week. Best regards Cathrin Subgroup Rec #1 on Strategic Priority 1. Has your subgroup identified any needed briefings/resources? Yes. We would like a briefing to answer the following questions: Has ICANN Org made WHOIS a strategic priority from a formal perspective, by putting into place the appropriate resources and procedures? · How has WHOIS been implemented in staff incentivization including for the CEO? · How has WHOIS been integrated into the organizational objectives? · What aspects of the WHOIS are serving as incentive[s] or part of the organizational objectives? · Has the Board created a committee including the CEO that is responsible for the WHOIS and for key actions? · Has ICANN Org issued public updates on progress against targets for all aspects of WHOIS? · How has the CEO complied with the instruction from the Board to oversee improvements to the contractual conditions relating to gTLD WHOIS data in the gTLD Registry and Registrar agreements? · How has the CEO complied with the instruction from the Board to create appropriate reporting of these improvements and to implement staff incentivisation? Has ICANN Org made WHOIS a strategic priority from a substantive perspective? · Has ICANN Org taken actions reflecting the strategic priority given to the WHOIS, beyond those specifically recommended by the WHOIS RT? If yes, how so? · How was this priority reflected in the transition from the AoC to the Bylaws? · What defects in WHOIS contractual obligations were identified? · How have WHOIS obligations in contracts improved including in the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) and the base new gTLD Registry Agreement? · How have the updated complaints and other compliance procedures impacted the accuracy and functionality of the WHOIS? Is there evidence to show that the definition as a strategic priority has had a positive impact on the WHOIS in view of the objectives that it serves? 2. How will your subgroup review/analyze relevant documentation? (for example, will you divide review between subgroup members) Each member will review the documents to be analysed (largely web-based) and will draft comments and findings. The Subgroup will then meet/talk to integrate findings, at which point the drafting of the subgroup report could be divided up. 3. How will you conduct investigation of identified objectives? (for example, will you need calls or conduct work via email) We will need one or more calls once answers to the briefing request and other relevant documents as identified in the first pass planning doc have been received and reviewed. 4. How will you conduct relevant interviews (as appropriate)? Not needed at this point; may be scheduled to follow up on the written briefing to be provided in response to the questions under 1. 5. How will your subgroup produce its summary of key findings? As above, we will meet (or teleconference) to put together our findings. Based on those, we will decide whether any additional recommendation(s) is/are required or whether further follow-up on Recommendation #1 should be called for. Results of analysis and possible further recommendations will be compiled by one subgroup member and reviewed by the others prior to the April meeting in Brussels.