Dear All,

I wanted to circulate the “brainstorming notes” from our informal session in Cartagena. Tx to Sharon, Susan and Lynn for joining us by phone. Tx to Wilfried, Bill and James for joining us in person, as well as Olof, Alice and Liz. Liz did an excellent presentation and overview of the types of materials ICANN has on Whois – it was very helpful.

As promised, let me share with you the brainstorming notes – in draft form. These are the notes that emerged from the two working groups that worked for 45 minutes separately on scope of work issues. When we came together we found many question in common – a framework for our scope of work.

Notes below and attached. Please feel free to edit – all who attended. Please feel free to build on these ideas – all!

Brainstorming notes from the Information Whois Review Team Session in Cartagena (below and attached – same document)

I. REMOTE GROUP IDEAS (as written up on large sheets of white paper)

Communication concerns

Definitions Consumer + Law Enforcement needed

“Consumer:” private + business

“Law Enforcement” - policy powers? IP interests? courts?

More work in London

Scope work not limited

Any relevant topics to be included

II. LOCAL GROUP IDEAS (as written up on large sheets of white paper, and edited based on Kathy’s notes as secretary of the local group)

Starting point: we need to have a scope, but I should have some leniency (to cover things we may miss upfront. Our outreach efforts may also help us find bases we have not covered). Keep it open-ended, but be concise.

Terms not defined:

- Consumer (buyer, registrant, those involved with general operations of the Internet)

- law enforcement

- legitimate needs of law enforcement

- promotes consumer trust

Additional aspects to consider:

- applicable laws

- international jurisdictional issues

- different laws

- paying attention to laws around the world.

- Contract vs. law (agreements among parties for choice of law versus what national law and public policy might require).

Look at consultants

Non US centric approach

Uniform experience for consumers? Registrars under different jurisdictions

Competition issues --> consumer experience

Regarding approach to definitions: build tree structure to explore these issues starting with Affirmation of Commitments and building from there.

Define stakeholders

Well defined scope but be flexible

Avoid discussing definitions and scope too much, and thus have no time to do work.

Discussion - the 3 bullets - pretty vague

Scope should not be too explicit, potentially finishing

Provide framework vs. definition today

III. TOGETHER – When we resumed together (remote and local groups)

Considerable overlap in our work.

Agreed: “Sounds like rough agreement” -- Review of larger group

Before London/London:

Work on Definitions

Create Framework for the questions we want to ask (to ourselves and others) and a way of processing the feedback we expect.

Olof and James suggest working on a tree structure – starting with the basic broad ideas, and further defining them into the details.

What’s Next? General Agreement on need for:

1. More formal scoping document

2. Merging work today into Wiki document

3. Creating a work plan for London

4. Holding a teleconference before London

5. Opening today’s work to the whole of the Review Team for ideas, thoughts, concern, questions and additions.

Kathy Kleiman

Director of Policy

.ORG, The Public Interest Registry

Direct: +1 703-889-5756 | Mobile:+1 703-371-6846| www.pir.org |

Confidentiality Note: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.