Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Hello all Thanks to all for all the hard work preparing for these meetings. I'm just in the airport to start heading over, and look forward to seeing you all soon. Cheers Peter From: Emily Taylor [mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu] Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 06:28 AM To: Smith, Bill <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org <rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Public Forum slides Hi all Can I join Bill in saying a big thank you to Kathy and Alice for producing an excellent slide deck. Having now given versions of this presentation a few times, I think it will fit into a roughly 40 minute slot. I don't propose to read out every word of every recommendation, but merely skip through the main headings - for example there are about 4 or 5 on data accuracy, which simply expand on the principal one about improving data quality. Similarly, the privacy and proxy recommendations are quite detailed, as are the IDN ones. It's probably appropriate to have the full wording on the slide deck so it's there as a record, but I wouldn't be reading out every word. What I really like here is the way that the findings are matched to recommendations, which makes the flow much better than earlier versions, and I like the pictures. One minor point is that the bottom segment of the coloured blocks is light blue with white writing, which might be difficult to read on a screen - so Alice, please would you look at alternative colours of text or shading (personally, I like the blue and black or dark grey writing would work). Thanks again, Kathy, Emily On 8 March 2012 18:39, Smith, Bill <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>> wrote: Kathy, This looks like an excellent and complete overview of our report/recommendations. We covered a lot of ground during our work and that is reflected both in the report and this presentation. I notice that we have nearly 40 slides. Using "the standard" presentation metric of two minutes per slide would consume 80 of the 90 minutes scheduled for community interaction. If our intention is to present our findings, this will work well. If our intention is to interact, we may need to make adjustments. This isn't criticism, just and observation. I don't have a specific suggestion for how to organize our community time, but I think we might need to spend some time on Sunday discussing options. I'd be interested in hearing from the community, and other groups, what are the significant issues/disagreements they have with the recommendations. I say recommendations because that's the actionable part of our work and I hope ICANN takes action. While I expect we all take some personal pride in the report itself, I'm much less concerned about wording, justification, clarity, etc. of the bulk of the text, and far more interested to know if the community agrees with and understands the recommendations. The presentation does a fantastic job of laying out our recommendations and providing a framework for discussion. My concern is that if we spend too much time presenting, we'll have too little time to listen and engage. Regardless of our style of interaction with the community, one thing I believe is essential (thanks to James) is that we sincerely and strongly convey our ability to work together, despite our differences, for the common good. If we nothing else comes of this effort, it will have been a success in my opinion. Bill On Mar 8, 2012, at 6:04 AM, "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
Hi All, As we prepare for departure, could you kindly take a fast look at these slides for the Public Forum? They include all the detail from prior presentations, plus some of the background information that people asked us about in our informational meeting.
We are still finalizing edits (and especially formatting, bullets, etc), but I want to get them out to you as soon as possible. These slides are due 48 hours before the presentation (it's a main ballroom rule we just learned). So edits by Friday night, please! Best and safe travels! Kathy p.s. please send the edits to me, Emily and Alice --> Alice holds the pen! -- <WHOIS RT - Public Presentation DRAFT.ppt> _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:Rt4-whois@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois -- [http://www.etlaw.co.uk/images/stories/etlaw/etclogo250x60.gif] 76 Temple Road, Oxford OX4 2EZ UK t: +44 (0)1865 582 811 • m: +44 (0)7540 049 322 emily@emilytaylor.eu<mailto:emily@emilytaylor.eu> www.etlaw.co.uk<http://www.etlaw.co.uk> Emily Taylor Consultancy Limited is a company registered in England and Wales No. 7630471. VAT No. 114487713. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. This message has been content scanned by the Axway MailGate. MailGate uses policy enforcement to scan for known viruses, spam, undesirable content and malicious code. For more information on Axway products please visit www.axway.com. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------