I tend to agree with Emily on the Scope of Work issue. I think it raises a number of questions of interpretation and definition. It is the most substantive of the issues we spun off for separate work, and the one with the least work to date. So my personal thought that we move forward quickly to finalize and adopt the excellent procedural work done to date (this meeting, or next): - Voting/Consensus mechanisms - Chair/Vice Chair Re: Scope of Work, I would urge that we ALL help in the direct development of the Scope of Work - perhaps by dividing into small groups in which each member plays a part. That will be the best way, I think, to incorporate the views and perspective of gTLDs and ccTLDs, IP and IDN, and others, right from the start. I see this as the first major substantive piece work of the whole Team. Best, Kathy Kleiman Director of Policy .ORG The Public Interest Registry Direct: +1 703 889-5756 Mobile: +1 703 371-6846 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. From: Emily Taylor [mailto:emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 4:48 AM To: Susan Kawaguchi Cc: Kathy Kleiman; rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Vote on Meeting in Cartagena Hi Susan Thank you for sending through your proposed Scope of Work and Drafting Team language. I have reviewed the documents, and made some suggestions and comments which are attached (using tracked changes). On the Scope, I think we need to pull out the different elements of the AoC's language here, because it's pretty rich, and there are numerous elements which we need to understand. In particular, I think that the phrase "promotes consumer trust" deserves some scrutiny - what is meant? who are the relevant "consumer" stakeholders - is this a legal definition of consumer as a sort of non-trading individual, or is it all those who "consume" domain name services, ie all internet users. What elements tend to promote consumer trust? Is it a single thing, or do different factors promote trust, depending on which stakeholder group you are part of? In other words, I see a large part of this group's task as stakeholder mapping, and identifying legitimate interests. In this way, we can inform ourselves about which are the relevant stakeholders (ie law enforcement and which ever stakeholders we think are contained in the concept "consumer trust"), and how their interests support each other or may be in conflict. If we can identify those conflicts, we can then look back at ICANN's policy and ask to what extent it is successful in meeting those needs. I'd also like to wave a little flag for benchmarking good practice. There's a lot of ccTLD good practice out there, and it might be worthwhile for this team to catalogue this for the purposes of benchmarking against ICANN's policy. Kind regards Emily