Hello everyone, I trust that you have all arrived home safely, and are over the jetlag. Thanks Emily for starting our discussion about next steps, and to all who have contributed since then. I've been trying to think through our next steps very broadly, with a view to how we can arrive at a draft/interim report in a way that is clear and transparent to our various stakeholders. This got me thinking about two things: the difficulty we've been having with developing a questionnaire or survey of some sort, and Bill's suggestion in San Francisco that we could consider using different approaches to engage with stakeholders (I recall that Bill mentioned the idea of focus groups). One idea which could be useful for us, and which governments and other organisations often use, is to release a 'discussion' or 'issues' paper. This would be less of a flat question and answer style survey, which I think many of us agree would be difficult to design and with results that may be difficult to use. Instead, an issues paper would: * identify key areas of interest for the review team (we already produced a list in San Francisco, so this would provide a useful starting point); * provide a brief background/history on each of these areas (a few short paragraphs on each, which could note any input already received from the community in San Francisco); and * seek broad views on those issues. This could be quite short (a few pages in total), and would have a number of potential advantages. First, it would provide the community with a clear indication of the review team's identified areas of interest. The brief overview of each area would also provide the community with an indication of our initial thinking. The paper could then invite broad community comment on each issue. As such, it would provide a tangible stepping stone towards an interim/draft report - i.e. our path to our final report and recommendations would be clear and iterative, with each step clearly building towards the next, and with input sought along the way. Depending on the views of the review team, I would be happy to circulate the list of issues we identified in San Francisco, and we could use that to then work towards a paper. Another idea that was briefly discussed in San Francisco was to invite a number of law enforcement representatives to meet with the review team in Singapore. I have discussed this with law enforcement colleagues and other stakeholders, and they are very interested in this idea. To be fully effective at this stage of our review, this could be a more targeted and focused discussion than the presentation from SOCA in London, and the review team could ask specific questions aimed at addressing our scope/terms of reference. If we as a review team design our questions well, this could provide us with very clear feedback on the 'reasonable needs of law enforcement' and whether these are being effectively met. I look forward to discussing these and any other ideas further. Cheers, Peter From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Taylor Sent: Wednesday, 23 March 2011 8:09 PM To: Dr.Sarmad Hussain Cc: RT4 WHOIS Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Next steps - some ideas Dear Sarmad Thank you for your generous comments. Like Lynn, I agree with what you say about defining our WHOIS terminology, and I believe that this should be relatively straightforward to do. I would be happy to join your sub-team discussions on this issue. Kind regards Emily On 22 Mar 2011, at 18:41, Dr.Sarmad Hussain wrote: Dear Emily and all, I would want to echo the thanks to the ICANN staff for the excellent support being provided. I would also want to thank Emily and Kathy for their tour-de-constituencies at ICANN SFO meeting, which required a lot of effort, and where the work we are doing was very impressively presented. Attending a few of these sessions, there seems to be confusion around WHOIS studies, and what specifically the RT is doing. This exercise helped clear this up with the community. Having a quick look at the document, I would suggest including a section on defining the WHOIS terminology (service, data, protocol) and, if others feel appropriate, a short section (or perhaps an appendix) on the WHOIS protocol. This would give an appropriate context to those not very familiar with WHOIS. Short reference to IRIS and Restful WHOIS may also be considered in this section, just to cover all bases, especially as we may need to refer to them in some of the potential recommendations, e.g. internationalized data, etc. We have Peter, Bill, Lynn, Olivier and myself on the Consumer/Consumer Trust team. If anybody else is interested to join the sub-team discussions, please let us know. regards, Sarmad On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Emily Taylor <emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk>> wrote: Hi everyone Thank you very much for making our time at ICANN San Francisco effective and rewarding. I think our teamwork is improving constantly, and I was impressed (and grateful) that so many team members attended so many of our outreach meetings, and contributed actively. I know that you all had multiple other things to do at the meeting, and believe that this investment will help us to develop a shared understanding of the way that different sections of the ICANN community think about the issues. I'm sure we'd also all like to recognise and thank the ICANN staff team for an excellent job in supporting our meetings, setting up meetings with multiple communities, and coping with ever changing powerpoint presentations. Thank you very much. To take the work on, and try to comply with our published work programme, I've put together a straw man for a report outline. Basically, I have been trying to make sense of the work we have done to date, and provide a context for all the activity we have undertaken so far. I'd like to discuss this on our next call. You will see that I believe we need professional help (don't we all?) in developing a "consumer trust" questionnaire and undertaking the research. We don't have the specialist skills or resources within the team to undertake this sort of research. I would welcome views on this. Kathy and I spent some time with Denise during the ICANN meeting, to discuss logistics going forward. Denise pointed out that if we plan to have external research (1) we need to get approval for a budget increase, and (2) we need to go through a tendering process of some kind - this will add time and require input/effort from us on the Review Team. I'm sure James can attest to that given his time on the ATRT. Another point is that, while we were in San Francisco, Bill, and I and others started to think about our work as the implementation subteam. After a useful informal conversation with members of the ICANN compliance team, and an informal chat with James (as a registrar), Bill offered to go and spend some time work shadowing the compliance team some time in May. I understand that James has also kindly offered to attend. Susan - your name as a west-coaster was also mentioned as someone who might be prepared to join this expedition. Thank you Bill, James (and maybe Susan) for offering to do this. I think it will give an invaluable insight into the work of the compliance team. So, please can you: 1. All - take a look at the attached 2 page report outline, and give feedback on this list 2. Law Enforcement subteam - please start to develop questions for law enforcement to identify the legitimate needs. I understand that you have started some thinking along these lines. 3. Consumer trust subteam - continue your work on a questionnaire for discussion with the full team at our next call. 4. Policy subteam - if you agree with the proposed outline, you could start a write up on the policy inventory. 5. Bill, James (?Susan) - agree a date for work shadow with the compliance team. Look forward to our heated discussions. Kind regards Emily Error! Filename not specified. 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk> www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk/> _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois [cid:image001.jpg@01CBF050.AB52EEA0] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk<mailto:emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk> www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The information transmitted is for the use of the intended recipient only and may contain confidential and/or legally privileged material. Any review, re-transmission, disclosure, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited and may result in severe penalties. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the Security Advisor of the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, 38 Sydney Ave, Forrest ACT 2603, telephone (02) 6271-1376 and delete all copies of this transmission together with any attachments. Please consider the environment before printing this email. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
