After reviewing the transcript
from the call last week, I believe we are moving in line with what was agreed
to in the call last week. We had discussion about a number of topics, agreed to
have two groups discuss topics of interest to the group (as reported in Alice’s
preliminary report message), and report back to the larger group. There was
general agreement on this, as evidenced in the transcript, and I could find no
objection to the proposed course of action.
What we need to do is discuss
principles, scope, and collaboration in one group. The other group would discuss
chair/vice-chair duties/responsibilities, how we would select a chair, and process
generally.
Kathy has thoughtfully prepared
a proposal for a different course of action, and one that may be as effective
as the one we agreed to. Rather than change course at this time, I’d like
to see us move forward with the agreed to plan. With that in mind I suggest as
draft language the following for discussion:
Group 1 (principles, scope, collaboration)
Principles
·
Independent,
·
Accountable,
·
Transparent,
·
Responsible, and
·
Adherent.
Scope
To assess the extent to which
existing WHOIS policy and its implementation:
·
is effective,
·
meets the legitimate
needs of law enforcement, and
·
promotes consumer
trust.
This assessment will include an
analysis and determination of ICANN's performance against the AOC requirement
that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public
access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant,
technical, billing, and administrative contact information.
Collaboration
This Review Team will operate in
a collegiate and collaborative fashion, making all decisions and recommendations
by consensus. This Review Team will endeavor to reach consensus on all issues,
however, where consensus cannot
be reached, minority opinions will be permitted and included in any reports
issued by this Review Team.
Group 2 (chair responsibilities,
chair selection process, process)
Chair Responsibilities
The Chair and/or Vice-Chair perform
the administrative functions of the group. For example:
·
Keeps the trains
running on time,
·
Helps work be
properly structured,
·
Allows and enables a
full and fair hearing for all members to comment,
·
Makes sure work is
done,
·
Works to identify
agreement and disagreement so as to move towards consensus, and
·
Determines
consensus.
Chair Selection
This Review Team will attempt to
select a Chair, and if desired a Vice-Chair through consensus. The ICANN
President (or designee) may facilitate this process but may not otherwise
impact the outcome.
Process
Unless specifically provided for
in Process or Policies of this Review Team, Robert’s Rules of Order, as
revised, will be employed.
From:
rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf
Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 5:57 AM
To: rt4-whois@icann.org
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Establishing our own track - and independence
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@pir.org
| W: www.pir.org
Visit us online!
Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz!
Find us on Facebook |
dotorg
See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr
See our video library on YouTube
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:
Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest
Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.