Dear Kathy: Thanks for taking the initiative and compiling the list. I echo Emily's comments and wish you a successful social get-together in Cartagena. Kim On 4 Nov 2010, at 12:09, Emily Taylor wrote:

Dear Kathy

Many thanks for compiling this information on behalf of the group. I think your proposals sound sensible, particularly the idea of a social in Cartagena (sorry I'll be missing that, but I would not feel excluded at all because it's not a substantive meeting, but a get together), and am looking forward to seeing everyone in mid-January!

Kind regards

Emily

On 4 Nov 2010, at 16:02, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

...

Thanks All, I appreciate all the email, and we have a much more complete table! While half our team will be in Cartagena, all of us are available in mid-January for a meeting. To hold a solid, substantive, face-to-face meeting, our time is January.

I’ll circulate some ideas and a request for a planning committee for the January meeting shortly (please feel free to send initial thoughts and ideas to me).

I would also like to recommend that, for those of us who are attending the Cartagena meeting, we have a short social hour to introduce ourselves-- no agenda, no substantive discussion. Would anyone not attending the Cartagena meeting object or feel excluded by this type of get together?

Please find the table attached.

All the best, Kathy

From: Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 4:46 PM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: First Face to Face Meetings

Dear All, Attached please find the table of possible places/ dates for our face to face meetings. Thus far, 5 members will be in Cartagena, and Sunday (as proposed by Olof) is a possibility in all of our schedules.

All 9 members who have thus far responded have indicated an interest/ability to attend a face to face meeting in mid-January, possibly in London.

Please find the table attached – and please continue to send data. Best,

Kathy Kleiman 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 | W: www.pir.org

Visit us online! Check out events & blogs at .ORG Buzz! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube

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

<First F2F Meetings - Whois RT - v.2.xlsx>_______________________________________________ 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

Hi All, I think we should take a vote on holding a one-day meeting in Cartagena -- on Sunday, 12/5. We learned on 11/1, in Olof's message, that there are facilities available for such a meeting. Given the lateness of the notice for those not already planning to be in Cartagena, I proposed an alternative for January in London. (I personally find remote participation for long periods of time very difficult.) Mostly, I feel we should not be split for our first meeting. So let me put out the vote: all in favor of a full-day meeting in Cartagena -- please vote YES. Opposed, please vote NO. 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! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 12:23 PM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] First Face to Face Meetings - updated table Hello All, I agree with Wilfired that we should use the Sunday that ICANN has already scheduled for a constructive meeting. By waiting until January for the full team to meet we will lose time in gaining momentum with the team. ICANN has drastically improved the remote participation tools and since we have at least half of the team already committed to the meeting we could have a fruitful discussion. If it is expenses alone that is limiting participation we have a budget for travel and we should use it. I have attached proposed guidelines for the team. I spent time reviewing other group's guidelines or rules on the ICANN website and have incorporated some of that into this document. I have also included Bill's Scope of Work and some of the issues brought up in the email threads. Please take a moment to review it and provide comment as I am sure I have not hit on all the details we need to think about. This is a starting point and by tracking it in a document I think we can work through the details and bring clarity to many issues quickly. Susan -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 7:09 AM To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] First Face to Face Meetings - updated table Hi Kathy, all, just a couple of thoughts..... Kathy Kleiman wrote:

Thanks All,

I appreciate all the email, and we have a much more complete table! While half our team will be in Cartagena, all of us are available in mid-January for a meeting. To hold a solid, substantive, face-to-face meeting, our time is January.

fine with me, but *please* could wew start the process of agreeing on a date (or maybe 1 or 2 alternatives) *right now*? There's quite a bit of competition for timeslots, for some of us, and the more things which linger around, the more difficult it becomes to schedule the competing requests :-(

I'll circulate some ideas and a request for a planning committee for the January meeting shortly (please feel free to send initial thoughts and ideas to me).

I would also like to recommend that, for those of us who are attending the Cartagena meeting, we have a short social hour to introduce ourselves-- no agenda, no substantive discussion.

While I agree, that we should not go for a full-blown "formal" meeting if we plan to hold that in January, I'd like to put a bit more flesh onto the bones. In particular, I'd like to have the relevant/involved ICANN individuals join in (assuming that most of them will be in Cartagena anyway, but not necessarily able to join us in January!?). As an additional idea, we could try to work with ICANN staff on discussing our communcation infrastructure and maybe even agree on the next steps. I'd really like to have that available (stable, test-driven,...) *before* the January meeting.

Would anyone not attending the Cartagena meeting object or feel excluded by this type of get together?

If(!) the team agrees on this suggested "upgrade", could we have a show of hands, (Kathy - can you collect that, too?) from those NOT going to Colombia, whether they would be able and willing to join in remotely?

Please find the table attached.

I presume we should let the people in ICANN, doing the planning right know, asap what type and level of support we'd like to get in Cartagena, e.g a room and remote access,...

All the best,

Kathy

Regards, Wilfried _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

No to Cartagena Yes to London Kim On 5 Nov 2010, at 12:35, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

Hi All, I think we should take a vote on holding a one-day meeting in Cartagena -- on Sunday, 12/5. We learned on 11/1, in Olof's message, that there are facilities available for such a meeting.

Given the lateness of the notice for those not already planning to be in Cartagena, I proposed an alternative for January in London. (I personally find remote participation for long periods of time very difficult.)

Mostly, I feel we should not be split for our first meeting.

So let me put out the vote: all in favor of a full-day meeting in Cartagena -- please vote YES. Opposed, please vote NO.

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! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube

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

-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 12:23 PM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] First Face to Face Meetings - updated table

Hello All,

I agree with Wilfired that we should use the Sunday that ICANN has already scheduled for a constructive meeting. By waiting until January for the full team to meet we will lose time in gaining momentum with the team. ICANN has drastically improved the remote participation tools and since we have at least half of the team already committed to the meeting we could have a fruitful discussion. If it is expenses alone that is limiting participation we have a budget for travel and we should use it.

I have attached proposed guidelines for the team. I spent time reviewing other group's guidelines or rules on the ICANN website and have incorporated some of that into this document. I have also included Bill's Scope of Work and some of the issues brought up in the email threads. Please take a moment to review it and provide comment as I am sure I have not hit on all the details we need to think about. This is a starting point and by tracking it in a document I think we can work through the details and bring clarity to many issues quickly.

Susan -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 7:09 AM To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] First Face to Face Meetings - updated table

Hi Kathy, all,

just a couple of thoughts.....

Kathy Kleiman wrote:

...

Thanks All,

I appreciate all the email, and we have a much more complete table! While half our team will be in Cartagena, all of us are available in mid-January for a meeting. To hold a solid, substantive, face-to-face meeting, our time is January.

fine with me, but *please* could wew start the process of agreeing on a date (or maybe 1 or 2 alternatives) *right now*?

There's quite a bit of competition for timeslots, for some of us, and the more things which linger around, the more difficult it becomes to schedule the competing requests :-(

...

I'll circulate some ideas and a request for a planning committee for the January meeting shortly (please feel free to send initial thoughts and ideas to me).

I would also like to recommend that, for those of us who are attending the Cartagena meeting, we have a short social hour to introduce ourselves-- no agenda, no substantive discussion.

While I agree, that we should not go for a full-blown "formal" meeting if we plan to hold that in January, I'd like to put a bit more flesh onto the bones.

In particular, I'd like to have the relevant/involved ICANN individuals join in (assuming that most of them will be in Cartagena anyway, but not necessarily able to join us in January!?).

As an additional idea, we could try to work with ICANN staff on discussing our communcation infrastructure and maybe even agree on the next steps. I'd really like to have that available (stable, test-driven,...) *before* the January meeting.

...

Would anyone not attending the Cartagena meeting object or feel excluded by this type of get together?

If(!) the team agrees on this suggested "upgrade", could we have a show of hands, (Kathy - can you collect that, too?) from those NOT going to Colombia, whether they would be able and willing to join in remotely?

...

Please find the table attached.

I presume we should let the people in ICANN, doing the planning right know, asap what type and level of support we'd like to get in Cartagena, e.g a room and remote access,...

...

All the best,

Kathy

Regards, Wilfried _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

Tx to Susan for documents which encapsulate the 3 areas we are working on: - Guidelines (incl. procedures and outline of chair duties) - Scope of work, and - Proposal for a drafting working group, together with outline for the draft final report. These documents are very good segments for our work ahead. Tx you, Susan! Here's a proposal: until we have set up a Wiki where we can easily add and edit documents, let's use "track changes," and circulate our documents to the list. 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! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. -----Original Message----- From: Susan Kawaguchi [mailto:skawaguchi@facebook.com] Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 3:18 PM To: Kathy Kleiman; rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: RE: Vote on Meeting in Cartagena Hello All, I have broken out the Scope of Work and the proposed Drafting Team language from the original document I sent a couple hours ago at Kathy's suggestion. Hopefully, this will make it easier to read and we can come to agreement on the process as we move forward. I still think we should take advantage of the time many members are together in Cartegena and would propose we schedule a two hour meeting that includes remote participates on Sunday December 5th. If we have not come to agreement on the guidelines or Scope of Work by that time we could devote the time to an in depth discussion. Susan -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kKleiman@pir.org] Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 9:35 AM To: Susan Kawaguchi; rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Vote on Meeting in Cartagena Hi All, I think we should take a vote on holding a one-day meeting in Cartagena -- on Sunday, 12/5. We learned on 11/1, in Olof's message, that there are facilities available for such a meeting. Given the lateness of the notice for those not already planning to be in Cartagena, I proposed an alternative for January in London. (I personally find remote participation for long periods of time very difficult.) Mostly, I feel we should not be split for our first meeting. So let me put out the vote: all in favor of a full-day meeting in Cartagena -- please vote YES. Opposed, please vote NO. 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! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 12:23 PM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] First Face to Face Meetings - updated table Hello All, I agree with Wilfired that we should use the Sunday that ICANN has already scheduled for a constructive meeting. By waiting until January for the full team to meet we will lose time in gaining momentum with the team. ICANN has drastically improved the remote participation tools and since we have at least half of the team already committed to the meeting we could have a fruitful discussion. If it is expenses alone that is limiting participation we have a budget for travel and we should use it. I have attached proposed guidelines for the team. I spent time reviewing other group's guidelines or rules on the ICANN website and have incorporated some of that into this document. I have also included Bill's Scope of Work and some of the issues brought up in the email threads. Please take a moment to review it and provide comment as I am sure I have not hit on all the details we need to think about. This is a starting point and by tracking it in a document I think we can work through the details and bring clarity to many issues quickly. Susan -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 7:09 AM To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] First Face to Face Meetings - updated table Hi Kathy, all, just a couple of thoughts..... Kathy Kleiman wrote:

Thanks All,

I appreciate all the email, and we have a much more complete table! While half our team will be in Cartagena, all of us are available in mid-January for a meeting. To hold a solid, substantive, face-to-face meeting, our time is January.

fine with me, but *please* could wew start the process of agreeing on a date (or maybe 1 or 2 alternatives) *right now*? There's quite a bit of competition for timeslots, for some of us, and the more things which linger around, the more difficult it becomes to schedule the competing requests :-(

I'll circulate some ideas and a request for a planning committee for the January meeting shortly (please feel free to send initial thoughts and ideas to me).

I would also like to recommend that, for those of us who are attending the Cartagena meeting, we have a short social hour to introduce ourselves-- no agenda, no substantive discussion.

While I agree, that we should not go for a full-blown "formal" meeting if we plan to hold that in January, I'd like to put a bit more flesh onto the bones. In particular, I'd like to have the relevant/involved ICANN individuals join in (assuming that most of them will be in Cartagena anyway, but not necessarily able to join us in January!?). As an additional idea, we could try to work with ICANN staff on discussing our communcation infrastructure and maybe even agree on the next steps. I'd really like to have that available (stable, test-driven,...) *before* the January meeting.

Would anyone not attending the Cartagena meeting object or feel excluded by this type of get together?

If(!) the team agrees on this suggested "upgrade", could we have a show of hands, (Kathy - can you collect that, too?) from those NOT going to Colombia, whether they would be able and willing to join in remotely?

Please find the table attached.

I presume we should let the people in ICANN, doing the planning right know, asap what type and level of support we'd like to get in Cartagena, e.g a room and remote access,...

All the best,

Kathy

Regards, Wilfried _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

Dear Team, I'd like to collect your views on the aspects of quorum, votes and majority. The draft "WRT Guidelines" propose: - Quorum - A majority of the total number of WRT Members constitutes a quorum. Proxy votes shall not count toward the presence of a quorum. In principle this is fine for me. Looking at the framework for e.g. the Address council, this very basic requirment is paired up with the Regional Diversity aspect, i.e. majority + all regions being represented. As we do not have the formal regional diversity in RT4, and neither the requirement, I wonder if there are some other aspects we want to consider. Actually, given *this* group, I would feel more comfortable with something like two thirds, but I can live with 50%+ as well. Getting to the voting stuff: - Voting [...] Motions that receive a majority of votes cast shall be deemed approved. I read that to say: majority of votes present in the meeting. I am sort of fine with a suggestion of simple majority, but as we should rather strive to achieve rough consensus, this may be a tad too loose, in particular considering proxy votes. I could easily image a motion to being accepted with far less than 50% of the votes in the team being in favour. I may be missing something here? Thus I'd like to propose 2 thoughts: + a motion passes when it reives a majority of votes present in the team, proxy votes are counted as regular votes, or + we keep the very relaxed regime of majority of votes present in the meeting but we either do not count proxy votes for determining majority (making them rather pointless, but still), and/or we restrict the decisions involving proxy votes to motions that have already been proposed, discussed and seconded in a previous meeting; or circulated on the Team's mailing list. (lead-time?) In the absence of other qualifiers for quorum, my personal preference would be to always determine majority based on the number of votes in the team. I would be grateful for your thoughts. Wilfried.

On Nov 8, 2010, at 7:13 AM, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:

Dear Team,

I'd like to collect your views on the aspects of quorum, votes and majority.

The draft "WRT Guidelines" propose:

- Quorum - A majority of the total number of WRT Members constitutes a quorum. Proxy votes shall not count toward the presence of a quorum.

Presumably alternates do not count either?

In principle this is fine for me. Looking at the framework for e.g. the Address council, this very basic requirment is paired up with the Regional Diversity aspect, i.e. majority + all regions being represented.

As we do not have the formal regional diversity in RT4, and neither the requirement, I wonder if there are some other aspects we want to consider. Actually, given *this* group, I would feel more comfortable with something like two thirds, but I can live with 50%+ as well.

With a simple majority quorum, just over 25% of the members of this team would be able to make decisions. That seem quite a distance from consensus; ICANN's "normal" mode of operations.

Getting to the voting stuff:

- Voting [...] Motions that receive a majority of votes cast shall be deemed approved.

Do abstentions count as a vote or not? Before answering consider the following example: 12 members present 6 yes 4 no 2 abstentions How we decide this will determine the outcome of this, and other similar votes.

I read that to say: majority of votes present in the meeting.

I am sort of fine with a suggestion of simple majority, but as we should rather strive to achieve rough consensus, this may be a tad too loose, in particular considering proxy votes. I could easily image a motion to being accepted with far less than 50% of the votes in the team being in favour. I may be missing something here?

Thus I'd like to propose 2 thoughts:

+ a motion passes when it reives a majority of votes present in the team, proxy votes are counted as regular votes, or

+ we keep the very relaxed regime of majority of votes present in the meeting but we either do not count proxy votes for determining majority (making them rather pointless, but still), and/or we restrict the decisions involving proxy votes to motions that have already been proposed, discussed and seconded in a previous meeting; or circulated on the Team's mailing list. (lead-time?)

If we allow proxies, and I'm not certain we should, the second proposal is one I could approve (and have used successfully before).

In the absence of other qualifiers for quorum, my personal preference would be to always determine majority based on the number of votes in the team.

I would be grateful for your thoughts. Wilfried.

In general, I would prefer that we attempt to achieve consensus on all issues. I've worked in a number of groups using this model and when all concerned give their best effort, it works wonderfully. All sides can be heard and it avoids the problem of "small majorities".

_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

The draft "WRT Guidelines" propose: - The Chair – and any Vice-Chair(s) – must play a neutral role by refraining from pushing a specific agenda, ensuring fair treatment for all legitimate views and guaranteeing objectivity in identifying areas of agreement. I roughly agree, with the comment that this definition might disable the Chair as full member of the team. I think it takes a very well-managed person to remain fully neutral while at the same time participating in the discussion of a topic and expressing the personal point of view. We may want to consider a hand-over from the Chair to a Co-Chair / Vice-Chair for the duration of a discussion in which the acting Chair has a strong point of view to contribute. Regarding notes, reports, documentation and clerical ascpects, do we expect to make use of a Secretariat Role, either provided by ICANN or from within the team members? Regards, Wilfried.

On a related note, I like Susan's movement forward on our Cartagena issues. I see it in three parts: 1. Is it acceptable to everyone to have a two-hour meeting in Cartagena (Sunday, 12/6) with remote participation? We should find the best 2-hour slot for maximum remote participation. 2. Does anyone oppose a public "meet and greet" session in Cartagena? Denise and Olof, is there a time available when Wilfried could join us? I truly don't see much that we can do at this session other than introduce ourselves and the Affirmation of Commitments. Susan and I were discussing that half an hour might be more than sufficient. 3. Has anyone changed their mind about a meeting in London? If not, we will start planning this as a major F2F meeting for the group. 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! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. -----Original Message----- From: Susan Kawaguchi [mailto:skawaguchi@facebook.com] Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 3:18 PM To: Kathy Kleiman; rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: RE: Vote on Meeting in Cartagena Hello All, I have broken out the Scope of Work and the proposed Drafting Team language from the original document I sent a couple hours ago at Kathy's suggestion. Hopefully, this will make it easier to read and we can come to agreement on the process as we move forward. I still think we should take advantage of the time many members are together in Cartegena and would propose we schedule a two hour meeting that includes remote participates on Sunday December 5th. If we have not come to agreement on the guidelines or Scope of Work by that time we could devote the time to an in depth discussion. Susan -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kKleiman@pir.org] Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 9:35 AM To: Susan Kawaguchi; rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Vote on Meeting in Cartagena Hi All, I think we should take a vote on holding a one-day meeting in Cartagena -- on Sunday, 12/5. We learned on 11/1, in Olof's message, that there are facilities available for such a meeting. Given the lateness of the notice for those not already planning to be in Cartagena, I proposed an alternative for January in London. (I personally find remote participation for long periods of time very difficult.) Mostly, I feel we should not be split for our first meeting. So let me put out the vote: all in favor of a full-day meeting in Cartagena -- please vote YES. Opposed, please vote NO. 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! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: Proprietary and confidential to .ORG, The Public Interest Registry.  If received in error, please inform sender and then delete. -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 12:23 PM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] First Face to Face Meetings - updated table Hello All, I agree with Wilfired that we should use the Sunday that ICANN has already scheduled for a constructive meeting. By waiting until January for the full team to meet we will lose time in gaining momentum with the team. ICANN has drastically improved the remote participation tools and since we have at least half of the team already committed to the meeting we could have a fruitful discussion. If it is expenses alone that is limiting participation we have a budget for travel and we should use it. I have attached proposed guidelines for the team. I spent time reviewing other group's guidelines or rules on the ICANN website and have incorporated some of that into this document. I have also included Bill's Scope of Work and some of the issues brought up in the email threads. Please take a moment to review it and provide comment as I am sure I have not hit on all the details we need to think about. This is a starting point and by tracking it in a document I think we can work through the details and bring clarity to many issues quickly. Susan -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 7:09 AM To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] First Face to Face Meetings - updated table Hi Kathy, all, just a couple of thoughts..... Kathy Kleiman wrote:

Thanks All,

I appreciate all the email, and we have a much more complete table! While half our team will be in Cartagena, all of us are available in mid-January for a meeting. To hold a solid, substantive, face-to-face meeting, our time is January.

fine with me, but *please* could wew start the process of agreeing on a date (or maybe 1 or 2 alternatives) *right now*? There's quite a bit of competition for timeslots, for some of us, and the more things which linger around, the more difficult it becomes to schedule the competing requests :-(

I'll circulate some ideas and a request for a planning committee for the January meeting shortly (please feel free to send initial thoughts and ideas to me).

I would also like to recommend that, for those of us who are attending the Cartagena meeting, we have a short social hour to introduce ourselves-- no agenda, no substantive discussion.

While I agree, that we should not go for a full-blown "formal" meeting if we plan to hold that in January, I'd like to put a bit more flesh onto the bones. In particular, I'd like to have the relevant/involved ICANN individuals join in (assuming that most of them will be in Cartagena anyway, but not necessarily able to join us in January!?). As an additional idea, we could try to work with ICANN staff on discussing our communcation infrastructure and maybe even agree on the next steps. I'd really like to have that available (stable, test-driven,...) *before* the January meeting.

Would anyone not attending the Cartagena meeting object or feel excluded by this type of get together?

If(!) the team agrees on this suggested "upgrade", could we have a show of hands, (Kathy - can you collect that, too?) from those NOT going to Colombia, whether they would be able and willing to join in remotely?

Please find the table attached.

I presume we should let the people in ICANN, doing the planning right know, asap what type and level of support we'd like to get in Cartagena, e.g a room and remote access,...

All the best,

Kathy

Regards, Wilfried _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

Kathy Kleiman wrote:

On a related note, I like Susan's movement forward on our Cartagena issues. I see it in three parts:

1. Is it acceptable to everyone to have a two-hour meeting in Cartagena (Sunday, 12/6) with remote participation? We should find the best 2-hour slot for maximum remote participation.

2. Does anyone oppose a public "meet and greet" session in Cartagena? Denise and Olof, is there a time available when Wilfried could join us? I truly don't see much that we can do at this session other than introduce ourselves and the Affirmation of Commitments. Susan and I were discussing that half an hour might be more than sufficient.

3. Has anyone changed their mind about a meeting in London? If not, we will start planning this as a major F2F meeting for the group.

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! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube

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

-----Original Message----- From: Susan Kawaguchi [mailto:skawaguchi@facebook.com] Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 3:18 PM To: Kathy Kleiman; rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: RE: Vote on Meeting in Cartagena

Hello All,

I have broken out the Scope of Work and the proposed Drafting Team language from the original document I sent a couple hours ago at Kathy's suggestion.

Hopefully, this will make it easier to read and we can come to agreement on the process as we move forward.

I still think we should take advantage of the time many members are together in Cartegena and would propose we schedule a two hour meeting that includes remote participates on Sunday December 5th. If we have not come to agreement on the guidelines or Scope of Work by that time we could devote the time to an in depth discussion.

Susan

-----Original Message----- From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kKleiman@pir.org] Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 9:35 AM To: Susan Kawaguchi; rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Vote on Meeting in Cartagena

Hi All, I think we should take a vote on holding a one-day meeting in Cartagena -- on Sunday, 12/5. We learned on 11/1, in Olof's message, that there are facilities available for such a meeting.

Given the lateness of the notice for those not already planning to be in Cartagena, I proposed an alternative for January in London. (I personally find remote participation for long periods of time very difficult.)

Mostly, I feel we should not be split for our first meeting.

So let me put out the vote: all in favor of a full-day meeting in Cartagena -- please vote YES. Opposed, please vote NO.

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! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube

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

-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 12:23 PM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] First Face to Face Meetings - updated table

Hello All,

I agree with Wilfired that we should use the Sunday that ICANN has already scheduled for a constructive meeting. By waiting until January for the full team to meet we will lose time in gaining momentum with the team. ICANN has drastically improved the remote participation tools and since we have at least half of the team already committed to the meeting we could have a fruitful discussion. If it is expenses alone that is limiting participation we have a budget for travel and we should use it.

I have attached proposed guidelines for the team. I spent time reviewing other group's guidelines or rules on the ICANN website and have incorporated some of that into this document. I have also included Bill's Scope of Work and some of the issues brought up in the email threads. Please take a moment to review it and provide comment as I am sure I have not hit on all the details we need to think about. This is a starting point and by tracking it in a document I think we can work through the details and bring clarity to many issues quickly.

Susan -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 7:09 AM To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] First Face to Face Meetings - updated table

Hi Kathy, all,

just a couple of thoughts.....

Kathy Kleiman wrote:

...

Thanks All,

I appreciate all the email, and we have a much more complete table! While half our team will be in Cartagena, all of us are available in mid-January for a meeting. To hold a solid, substantive, face-to-face meeting, our time is January.

fine with me, but *please* could wew start the process of agreeing on a date (or maybe 1 or 2 alternatives) *right now*?

There's quite a bit of competition for timeslots, for some of us, and the more things which linger around, the more difficult it becomes to schedule the competing requests :-(

...

I'll circulate some ideas and a request for a planning committee for the January meeting shortly (please feel free to send initial thoughts and ideas to me).

I would also like to recommend that, for those of us who are attending the Cartagena meeting, we have a short social hour to introduce ourselves-- no agenda, no substantive discussion.

While I agree, that we should not go for a full-blown "formal" meeting if we plan to hold that in January, I'd like to put a bit more flesh onto the bones.

In particular, I'd like to have the relevant/involved ICANN individuals join in (assuming that most of them will be in Cartagena anyway, but not necessarily able to join us in January!?).

As an additional idea, we could try to work with ICANN staff on discussing our communcation infrastructure and maybe even agree on the next steps. I'd really like to have that available (stable, test-driven,...) *before* the January meeting.

...

Would anyone not attending the Cartagena meeting object or feel excluded by this type of get together?

If(!) the team agrees on this suggested "upgrade", could we have a show of hands, (Kathy - can you collect that, too?) from those NOT going to Colombia, whether they would be able and willing to join in remotely?

...

Please find the table attached.

I presume we should let the people in ICANN, doing the planning right know, asap what type and level of support we'd like to get in Cartagena, e.g a room and remote access,...

...

All the best,

Kathy

Regards, Wilfried _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

_______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois

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 On 5 Nov 2010, at 19:18, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:

Hello All,

I have broken out the Scope of Work and the proposed Drafting Team language from the original document I sent a couple hours ago at Kathy's suggestion.

Hopefully, this will make it easier to read and we can come to agreement on the process as we move forward.

I still think we should take advantage of the time many members are together in Cartegena and would propose we schedule a two hour meeting that includes remote participates on Sunday December 5th. If we have not come to agreement on the guidelines or Scope of Work by that time we could devote the time to an in depth discussion.

Susan

-----Original Message----- From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kKleiman@pir.org] Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 9:35 AM To: Susan Kawaguchi; rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Vote on Meeting in Cartagena

Hi All, I think we should take a vote on holding a one-day meeting in Cartagena -- on Sunday, 12/5. We learned on 11/1, in Olof's message, that there are facilities available for such a meeting.

Given the lateness of the notice for those not already planning to be in Cartagena, I proposed an alternative for January in London. (I personally find remote participation for long periods of time very difficult.)

Mostly, I feel we should not be split for our first meeting.

So let me put out the vote: all in favor of a full-day meeting in Cartagena -- please vote YES. Opposed, please vote NO.

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! Find us on Facebook | dotorg See the .ORG Buzz! Photo Gallery on Flickr See our video library on YouTube

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

-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Susan Kawaguchi Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 12:23 PM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] First Face to Face Meetings - updated table

Hello All,

I agree with Wilfired that we should use the Sunday that ICANN has already scheduled for a constructive meeting. By waiting until January for the full team to meet we will lose time in gaining momentum with the team. ICANN has drastically improved the remote participation tools and since we have at least half of the team already committed to the meeting we could have a fruitful discussion. If it is expenses alone that is limiting participation we have a budget for travel and we should use it.

I have attached proposed guidelines for the team. I spent time reviewing other group's guidelines or rules on the ICANN website and have incorporated some of that into this document. I have also included Bill's Scope of Work and some of the issues brought up in the email threads. Please take a moment to review it and provide comment as I am sure I have not hit on all the details we need to think about. This is a starting point and by tracking it in a document I think we can work through the details and bring clarity to many issues quickly.

Susan -----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Sent: Friday, November 05, 2010 7:09 AM To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] First Face to Face Meetings - updated table

Hi Kathy, all,

just a couple of thoughts.....

Kathy Kleiman wrote:

...

Thanks All,

I appreciate all the email, and we have a much more complete table! While half our team will be in Cartagena, all of us are available in mid-January for a meeting. To hold a solid, substantive, face-to-face meeting, our time is January.

fine with me, but *please* could wew start the process of agreeing on a date (or maybe 1 or 2 alternatives) *right now*?

There's quite a bit of competition for timeslots, for some of us, and the more things which linger around, the more difficult it becomes to schedule the competing requests :-(

...

I'll circulate some ideas and a request for a planning committee for the January meeting shortly (please feel free to send initial thoughts and ideas to me).

I would also like to recommend that, for those of us who are attending the Cartagena meeting, we have a short social hour to introduce ourselves-- no agenda, no substantive discussion.

While I agree, that we should not go for a full-blown "formal" meeting if we plan to hold that in January, I'd like to put a bit more flesh onto the bones.

In particular, I'd like to have the relevant/involved ICANN individuals join in (assuming that most of them will be in Cartagena anyway, but not necessarily able to join us in January!?).

As an additional idea, we could try to work with ICANN staff on discussing our communcation infrastructure and maybe even agree on the next steps. I'd really like to have that available (stable, test-driven,...) *before* the January meeting.

...

Would anyone not attending the Cartagena meeting object or feel excluded by this type of get together?

If(!) the team agrees on this suggested "upgrade", could we have a show of hands, (Kathy - can you collect that, too?) from those NOT going to Colombia, whether they would be able and willing to join in remotely?

...

Please find the table attached.

I presume we should let the people in ICANN, doing the planning right know, asap what type and level of support we'd like to get in Cartagena, e.g a room and remote access,...

...

All the best,

Kathy

Regards, Wilfried _______________________________________________ Rt4-whois mailing list Rt4-whois@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois <Draft WRT Guidelines 11510docx (3).docx><DraftScope of WRT 11510.docx><Drafting working group11510.docx>_______________________________________________ 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