November 2010 - Rt4-whois - lists.icann.org

Re: [Rt4-whois] Preliminary Report - 28 Oct session + Cartagena proposal
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Nov. 4, 2010

Nov. 4, 2010

4 3

Re: [Rt4-whois] Travel to Cartagena and London
by Dr. Sarmad Hussain Nov. 4, 2010

Nov. 4, 2010

Dear All, I am not planning to be at Cartagena meeting, as I am already traveling during those dates. I may be able to participate remotely depending on the date and time. At this time, I would suggest not to fix a date and time for the next meeting, until we have made substantive progress through email and voice calls, and have clear agenda to meet and discuss. I would also suggest the we start the discussion on the scope of work and timelines for ourselves and then plan in the face to face meetings at strategic points to close our discussions. Too many meetings too soon may leave us with smaller budget for possibly more significant work later on. Regards, Sarmad

1 0

Who is planning on being in Cartagena? Alternative suggestion.
by Kathy Kleiman Nov. 3, 2010

Nov. 3, 2010

Hi All, I don't believe the question has been asked yet - so let me ask it. Who is currently planning on being in Cartagena, and what dates? As an expansion of the question, who would like to go to Cartagena if plans could be made? Alternatively, would you find it easier to attend a first substantive meeting of our RT at a midway point in early to mid-January? Possibly London ... Please feel free to share responses with me privately, or with the group. I'll create a table of the responses and circulate them for review and discussion. All the best, Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy .ORG The Public Interest Registry 1775 Wiehle Avenue, Suite 200 Reston, Virginia 20190 USA Main: +1 703 889-5778 | Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846 | Fax: +1 703.889.5779 E: kkleiman(a)pir.org <mailto:clee@pir.org> | W: www.pir.org <http://www.pir.org/> 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.

4 3

First Face to Face Meetings
by Kathy Kleiman Nov. 3, 2010

Nov. 3, 2010

Dear All, Attached please find the table of possible places/ dates for our face to face meetings. Thus far, 5 members will be in Cartagena, and Sunday (as proposed by Olof) is a possibility in all of our schedules. All 9 members who have thus far responded have indicated an interest/ability to attend a face to face meeting in mid-January, possibly in London. Please find the table attached - and please continue to send data. Best, Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy .ORG The Public Interest Registry 1775 Wiehle Avenue, Suite 200 Reston, Virginia 20190 USA Main: +1 703 889-5778 | Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846 | Fax: +1 703.889.5779 E: kkleiman(a)pir.org <mailto:clee@pir.org> | W: www.pir.org <http://www.pir.org/> 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.

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] Who is planning on being in Cartagena? Alternative suggestion.
by James M. Bladel Nov. 3, 2010

Nov. 3, 2010

6 5

Re: [Rt4-whois] FW: Columbia Meeting
by lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com Nov. 3, 2010

Nov. 3, 2010

3 3

Establishing our own track - and independence
by Kathy Kleiman Nov. 3, 2010

Nov. 3, 2010

Dear Whois RT, Following the meeting last Thursday, the process has been moving away from the path we set out leading up to Thursday, and I think it is important for us to get back on track: We heard from Brian Cute last week that his Review Team took their duty very seriously, and it is good that we are able to learn from their experience. The first thing they did was to define their own scope of work - and they found that there is nothing simple or easy about it, yet it was seen as a necessary condition to ensure the independence and integrity of the work of the Review Team - and as I see it, that applies to all review teams. As I see it, the first requirement for all review teams is to be independent, and in particular independent of the body whose actions we are reviewing: ICANN. Therefore, the process of our review team cannot be driven by ICANN staff and/or its President, no matter what good intentions or practicalities are there. 1. I therefore submit that our next step is elections. If you want to run, please do! I run because I care about the Affirmation of Commitments, I know the GNSO well, and my firm has allocated time to allow me to handle the administrative and technical issues of the chairmanship. And I know, as do you, that the substantive issues are ones we must address together. 2. I strongly urge that the Scope of Work be stopped pending elections, so that its result will be viewed as completely neutral and independent. I further urge that all scheduling by staff be ceased until we do it ourselves. We are responsible for our own goals, agendas, work products and timeframes. We are the first of Whois Review Teams to follow, and thus the first charged with the important responsibility of translating the words of the Affirmation of Commitments into a Scope of Work. (I should share that - even with two signatories of the Affirmation of Commitments(!) - the Accountability and Transparency Team found this a difficult process - with good faith disagreements with ICANN defining its first months.) Therefore, once we have established our own, independent leadership, I view the Scope of Work as our first major task - and one in which we should ALL be actively engaged as it is the foundation of all our work to follow. A possible way forward would be: a. Form the whole of the Review Team into 3-4 subgroups to review (of 3-4 people each) to review and draft Scope of Work. I have talked with many of us, and listened closely during our first meetings, and hear different ideas about our scope of work and our mission here. As a better way to know each other, and to ensure that all of our ideas become part of a first draft, a first step could very well be a discussion and comparison of the ideas about the scope of work from those different subgroups. b. Meet with drafters and signatories of the Affirmation of Commitments, including Fiona Alexander of the US Department of Commerce and others, as an important step in the process to translate the words of the AoC into a scope of work for the Whois RT. 3. In additional step, let's survey who of us is going to Cartagena. If we find that many people of us do not currently have plans to be there (and please note that flights are now full and hotels booked), let's consider planning our first formal face-to-face meeting in early January (with perhaps a very informal meeting in Cartagena for those who happen to be attending). If many of us will be in Cartagena, then we should use that opportunity, of course. 4. Furthermore: even if it turns out that most of us will be in Cartagena, it seems to me that it is too early to meet with stakeholder groups in Cartagena (as recently suggested) as we are simply not far enough in our own development process. By the San Francisco ICANN meeting in March, we should be ready to meet - hopefully, with a well-grounded set of questions and ideas for public review and comment. 5. Establish a way to collect, review and work with the excellent ideas being shared by our members. Again, I strongly urge that development of the Scope of Work be stopped pending elections, so that it can be developed under a leadership viewed as completely neutral and independent. I further urge that all scheduling by staff be ceased until we do it ourselves. With thanks to ICANN Staff, it is we on the RT who are responsible for our own goals, agendas, work products and timeframes. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Kleiman, Esq. Director of Policy .ORG The Public Interest Registry 1775 Wiehle Avenue, Suite 200 Reston, Virginia 20190 USA Main: +1 703 889-5778 | Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846 | Fax: +1 703.889.5779 E: kkleiman(a)pir.org <mailto:clee@pir.org> | W: www.pir.org <http://www.pir.org/> 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.

4 7

Re: [Rt4-whois] Establishing our own track - and independence
by James M. Bladel Nov. 3, 2010

Nov. 3, 2010

2 1

FW: Columbia Meeting
by Alice Jansen Nov. 3, 2010

Nov. 3, 2010

Dear Review Team Members, Please find below a message from Sharon. Thank you, best regards Alice From: sharonchallis(a)aol.com [mailto:sharonchallis@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 1:06 AM To: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org Subject: Columbia Meeting Kathy, As you know, I will not be attending the Columbia meeting. I would very much support a meeting in January, for purely selfish reasons of wanting to meet everyone. If it would be useful, I am more than happy to host a meeting, if given enough warning. My offices are at Docklands - other than that, willing to travel to wherever - but like most of us have a very full diary, so plenty of warning is very helpful. Sharon

1 0

Re: [Rt4-whois] Some practicalities for your consideration
by Lemon, Sharon Nov. 2, 2010

Nov. 2, 2010

Classification: [ NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED ] All, I entirely agree that we need to adopt rules of engagement as a priority~and it is too early in our project for Bobby to represent me in Columbia. I will attend by conference call if that is possible. I am really looking forward to meeting you all personally as soon as possible, as I do think that personal contact and face to face discussion help things move along considerably. Sharon ----- Original Message ----- From: Smith, Bill <bill.smith(a)paypal-inc.com> To: Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at <Woeber(a)CC.UniVie.ac.at>; LEMON, Sharon Cc: rt4-whois(a)icann.org <rt4-whois(a)icann.org> Sent: Tue Nov 02 16:35:47 2010 Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Some practicalities for your consideration I too have no problem with Bobby Flaim and his ability to represent the legitimate views of law enforcement. His, or anyone else's substitution for one of our number is an interesting question. And it is *exactly* the type of question/issue that needs to be answered before we attempt to advance our work. It is my experience that it is also best to have answers to these questions, before they arise, lest we establish policy/process precedent "under the influence"; not of alcohol or drugs but pressure (personal, expediency, issue, etc.). Many of these questions are answered by using something like Robert's Rules. We could also look to the IETF RFCs that deal with how Working Groups progress their work, or the OASIS Technical Committee Process, or W3C's Process Document - all Internet-related activities and all with relatively long-standing, positive use. Or we could attempt to develop our own. It is my understanding that this Review Team is team of individuals; with some representing ICANN constituencies. Regardless, I believe we are serving in an personal capacity and consequently do not have the flexibility to send alternates. I urge us to consider adopting a set of well-established rules so that we can begin the work we were selected to perform. (If we do decide to allow alternates, we will then need to decide whether an alternate can be one of us. If we allow that, then we are granting an individual the right to cast two votes, if we make decisions by vote. That's most unusual, in my opinion. Proxies are also an issue to consider; and many others) In my opinion, having some formalism, can actually help us and therefore ICANN and Internet Governance generally. > -----Original Message----- > From: rt4-whois-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] > On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 8:43 AM > To: Lemon, Sharon > Cc: rt4-whois(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Some practicalities for your consideration > > Dear Team, > > Lemon, Sharon wrote: > > > Classification: [ NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED ] > > > > Olof, > > > > I am unable to attend the Columbia meeting. Bobby Flaim, FBI, will be > > there anyway~would it be appropriate for him to represent me > > interesting (formal) question! > > > at the > > Whois meeting, if I provide the relevant briefing? > > I have met Bobby F. already and would not have any issue with him being > present. > > But I presume we should answer the more fundamental question: whether > we > are members of the Team in a personal cpacity (that is my understanding > now) > or rather representing some organisation(s) or interest(s)? > > > Sharon > > Thus, Q to the less formally challenged than myself, are there any > guidelines? > > A related question may be: is the Team allowed to invite non-members to > (a) selected meeting(s) and or wrt selected topics? > > Thanks, > Wilfried. > _______________________________________________ > Rt4-whois mailing list > Rt4-whois(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. This information is supplied in confidence by SOCA, and is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It may also be subject to exemption under other UK legislation. Onward disclosure may be unlawful, for example, under the Data Protection Act 1998. Requests for disclosure to the public must be referred to the SOCA FOI single point of contact, by email on PICUEnquiries(a)soca.x.gsi.gov.uk or by telephoning 0870 268 8677. All E-Mail sent and received by SOCA is scanned and subject to assessment. Messages sent or received by SOCA staff are not private and may be the subject of lawful business monitoring. E-Mail may be passed at any time and without notice to an appropriate branch within SOCA, on authority from the Director General or his Deputy for analysis. This E-Mail and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender as soon as possible. The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Cable&Wireless Worldwide in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

2 1