Dear All: I must say I am quite surprised at how a simple procedural question of electing a chair has developed in to such a convoluted discussion and how this discussion with respect to the most simple administrative issues mixes up and confuses all of the issues tabled at this time. I certainly agree that those other issues tabled are important, but I honestly do not see why it is requisite to have those issues resolved before electing Chair. I firmly believe that we need Chair to guide us through those issues in the first place and to remove ourselves from ANY appearance of impropriety (and I certainly do not imply any, it is simply a matter of appearance). In light of that, I urge everyone to support the motion of electing a chair, and if we decide appropriate, a vice-chair, and then we will have to spend time and efforts on the scope of this RT. The simple issue of electing an administrative leader should not be such a big issue that this entire discussion and RT gets derailed and, to be honest, I feel that dangerously close to that. Finally, I certainly believe that each and everyone on this team has the expertise, skills, and experience to chair this RT. Therefore, as mentioned above, I am at a loss to understand the opposition to have that part set up so that we can move ahead with the substantive matters such as scope, conflict of interest, etc. Therefore, I formally submit the proposal that we elect our RT chair, and if applicable, vice-chair. this next meeting and then be guided appropriately as to next steps for the discussions/establishment of our scope, internal procedures etc. Kim On 2 Nov 2010, at 12:24, Emily Taylor wrote:
Dear Kathy and Bill, and Whois RT
Kathy - thank you for your thoughtful e-mail. I agree with you that our priority should be to resolve the issue of Chair elections, and support your practical suggestions on ways of working.
Bill - I don't think that anyone is questioning our seriousness or sense of responsibility, and certainly nobody is criticising the work of the ICANN staff or President. I am immensely impressed at the efficiency of Alice and her colleagues, and I'm sure you'd all join me in expressing our appreciation.
In order to have credibility, all the Review Teams established under the Affirmation of Commitments need to considered independent, even by ICANN's critics. The Affirmation of Commitments represents an important breakthrough in ICANN's evolution, from being a child of the US Government, to venturing forth as an entity in its own right. Of course, to insiders who have worked within the ICANN environment over the years, we have an understanding that the relationship between ICANN and USG has looked closer on paper than it has been in reality. However, we have to be aware and respect that for many governments and others outside the US, ICANN is a controversial body. The work of the Review Teams under the AoC will be an important factor in helping those outside the ICANN community believe that the organisation has working mechanisms to increase its accountability to world-wide stakeholders.
It is unusual to have an independent review conducted, essentially, by insiders. Brian Cute described vividly the way the ATRT viewed this challenge, and the steps that its members undertook to build confidence in their independence and integrity. To my mind, it's a bit like a company conducting its own audit. Something which is independent, and seen to be so, is a more powerful commentary on a process or organisation, than something which is produced by the organisation itself.
So, no one is saying there's been interference from ICANN. We all value the work that the staff and Rod have done to help get this thing off the ground. However, it is now up to us to take the baton, and serve ICANN and its staff by working independently. I'm also keenly aware of the other challenges that Rod and his team have at this time, without having to lead the WHOIS RT.
As Kathy says, working out our scope is going to be challenging. It will require leadership. I believe we need to focus on resolving the issue of Chairing the group as soon as possible. As I said on the call, it would be very helpful if any other members of the team who wish to serve as Chair or Vice-Chair put their names forward - or if you think someone *else* would do a good job, please nominate them ;-)
It would be very useful, in my view, to meet with the AoC team as part of an early face to face meeting of the Whois RT. Speaking personally, as one of a number of self-employed people within this group, I would appreciate having our face to face meetings at or near hubs, either within the US or Europe, so that time spent travelling is not disproportionate to the time spent meeting.
As for Cartagena, I'm unable to make the meeting as you know. I think that meeting in San Francisco in March is a realistic goal, and I'm reasonably confident that by then we will know what we are asking the different ICANN constituencies to input, but we will have to work hard between now and then to make sure we are ready in time.
Best regards,
Emily
On 2 Nov 2010, at 13:42, Smith, Bill wrote:
Just a quick comment before I jump in my car to battle the SFO traffic:
Each of us is responsible. Each of us is serious. And each of us agreed to participate on this Review Team; whose scope is clearly defined in the AOC.
If there is disagreement on that subject, I for one would like to be made aware of it.
Regarding independence of this team, I have seen absolutely *no* interference from any ICANN representative. Rather, they have been supportive and are facilitating our work. I see no reason to drop that support in the name of independence.
More to follow.
On Nov 2, 2010, at 5:56 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
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<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.
<ATT00001..txt>
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK telephone: 01865 582 811 mobile: 07540 049 322 emily.taylor@etlaw.co.uk www.etlaw.co.uk
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois