Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair
I too believe that the purpose and scope of our work has been determined; it is specified in the AOC. I did my best to take that language, and with minimal change turn it into a scope suitable for inclusion in a charter or Terms of Reference. I proposed it to the group and have seen no discussion on the proposal. Perhaps this is because everyone agrees with it. If not, it would be good to see some discussion on the subject. I am confident that all of us are qualified to hold any of a variety of positions in groups such as this. I too am grateful that we have volunteers for important positions since it can be difficult to find people to step up to additional work. Their willingness to do so speaks highly of their desire to advance the agenda of this group. However, we do not have agreed to Terms of Reference and as a consequence, our “agenda” is as yet undecided. Can our work be done in a relaxed atmosphere? Absolutely. Should it be done in an ad hoc fashion without a clear understanding of what our work is and how we will perform it? Definitely not. That would be in opposition to ICANN’s stated goals with respect to transparency and accountability. It is entirely possible that we can easily determine the scope of our work. It is also possible that we will quickly and easily determine how we will work (process, procedures, etc.). However, I think it equally possible that we will find some disagreement in these areas and can learn a great deal by observing how we work together and overcome differences. In so doing, we will become better acquainted with each other, learn our strengths and weaknesses, and make better informed decisions. What is the downside in this proposal? We are led by Rod Beckstrom for a short period of time while we discuss our work and how we will accomplish it. I for one would like answers to those questions, and I know of no way to obtain them than to have the discussions. One final observation, I am certain that Rod would let us know if we were imposing on him. From: lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com [mailto:lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 12:24 PM To: Smith, Bill Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: RE: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair Believe I have a different perspective. I had thought that the relatively small size of our team would permit us to be a bit more relaxed. It also seemed to me that the purpose and scope of our work had already been determined and was included in the Call for Applicants, so we do not need to invest time and energy along those lines. Finally, we all submitted a CV and a Statement of Interest so it is clear that everyone is well qualified to participate. We had the additional opportunity of introducing ourselves in last week's call. Although I am not personally acquainted with the rest of the team, I was comfortable with the information available to support the proposed nominations. I have been in some groups where no one wants to take the Chair because of the additional work required so I am grateful that we have two team members willing to step up for Chair and Vice-Chair. It is wonderful to have Rod Beckstrom engaged and highly supportive of this effort so we should be sensitive not to unduly impose on him. -Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com<mailto:bill.smith@paypal-inc.com>> Date: Wed, October 27, 2010 1:58 pm To: "Kim G. von Arx" <kim@vonarx.ca<mailto:kim@vonarx.ca>>, Susan Kawaguchi <skawaguchi@facebook.com<mailto:skawaguchi@facebook.com>> Cc: "rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>" <rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org>> Some quick points: 1. Internal structure, process, rules, etc. can be a simple task, provided we adopt a commonly used model. However, if our intention is otherwise, we could devote a significant amount of time to that task (I have personal experience with this). I would prefer that we spend our time on the task at hand, an assessment, and it is for this reason that I proposed both Robert's Rules and a draft scope. 2. We did agree to solicit nominations. We also agreed to continue the discussion on the items in the first agenda, including Terms of Reference. We further agreed that we would continue working on these until they were resolved, whether in one, two, or more weeks. I don't recall that we agreed to a specific sequencing of these items and assumed that we would work on them in parallel, where practical. It seems quite reasonable to me to begin discussions on our Terms of Reference, as a means of expediting our work, *and* to better understand each other and how we might work together. 3. I see no issue with Rod continuing to lead us as we define our Terms of Reference. I believe he was particularly effective during last week's call and expect he would be similarly effective as we discuss terms of reference, etc. Should his stewardship become problematic, and I do *not* envision that, we could always elect a chair at that time. 4. I too support Susan's comments re qualities. However, I have limited experience with the members of this Review Team and as a consequence, would benefit from seeing the group interact more before I consider selecting a chair. 5. I took Susan's chair constituency statement as a comment on the multi-stakeholder nature of ICANN. I share her (somewhat) concern and support her suggestion that we consider "diversity" when making decisions/assignments. That seems to be in keeping with ICANN's general approach to filling positions. I did *not* take her comments in any way as a personal statement about either nominee. 6. Robert's Rules is designed for "Deliberative Assemblies" like ours. It is used by numerous societies and organizations to bring a common sense order to their proceedings and importantly, to protect the rights of the individual in such bodies. I find several references to its use within ICANN, including the Registrar Stakeholder Group, and the GNSO Council (for voting). In addition, ARIN, ISOC, IEEE, OASIS, use Robert's Rules. (While Robert's might be the standard in share capital organizations, in my experience it is also the standard at societies, associations, etc. I admit my ignorance with Wainberg's but some quick Internet searches does not reveal significant use - in my opinion.) We also have other administrative issues to consider; like proxies, alternate representation, decision making (presumably consensus), how will we define consensus, ...
-----Original Message----- From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:11 PM To: Susan Kawaguchi Cc: Smith, Bill; rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair
All:
Thanks to Bill and Susan for valuable procedural points. I just would like to add a few comments.
1. I believe that the internal structure is one of the most simple tasks for this group to undertake and we should spend as little time as possible on those aspects.
2. In line with the above, I thought that the roles and responsibilities of the Chair (and if applicable the Vice-chair) would be a discussion we would have prior to the vote and, if applicable, prior to any further nominations. Indeed, the nomination emails were just that - nominations and we had all agreed in our last call that we would nominate and/or self-nominate people we think are suitable candidates. Therefore, I was under the impression that the upcoming phone call's main objective was to figure out the administrative details with respect to the role, responsibility of the Chair and, of course, the election of the Chair. If we fail to finalize those details in our next call then, I had proposed, we would have another call the following week until we have finalized the administrative details including our terms of reference (the latter is not an internal structure issue, but a substantive matter that will need significant input and discussion).
3. I believe that it is important that we appoint a person from our group to lead the discussion and us to the appropriate terms of reference for this RT and I find it somewhat counter intuitive to have Rod Beckstrom lead that discussion considering that we are supposed to conduct some kind of review of a policy of ICANN and its ability to enforce the same.
4. I believe that Susan's comments with regards to the roles and responsibilities of the Chair are absolutely accurate and I believe that both, Kathy and Emily, have shown over and over again that they have all those qualities.
5. I don't believe that the fact that both nominees come from the registry constituency is a concern considering that, I believe, both nominees, have shown a lot of impartiality and integrity over the many years they have dealt with very sensitive Internet policy issues including the WHOIS issues under the ICANN regime and the UK (European Union) framework.
6. With respect to process issues and rules of order, I suggest that we should take ICANN's by-law as the framework considering that we are a sub-creature of ICANN. Also, I propose that we use Wainberg's rules of order instead of Robert's Rules. The former is specifically designed for societies, associations, not for profits, etc. and is the standard for those kind of organizations. Whereas the latter is the standard for organizations with share capital.
I am looking forward to a fruitful discussion and meeting this Thursday.
Best wishes,
Kim
On 26 Oct 2010, at 17:32, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
I echo Bill's sentiments. Definition of how we go about evaluating ICANN's enforcement of the WHOIS policy should be our first priority.
Kathy, I personally very much appreciate your willingness to take on the monumental job as chairperson but I personally would like to have a clear picture of the work we will be doing in this group before we set up our internal structure.
As a group what do we expect of the chairperson? This is crucial to discuss as the role of chair will be very important in guiding how this team works together. I think we should establish ground rules and guidelines on what is expected of the chairperson before we decide on an individual.
In other groups the chairperson's responsibilities have been described as follows:
"The purpose of a Chair is to call meetings, preside over working group deliberations, manage the process so that all participants have the opportunity to contribute, and report the results of the Working Group to the Chartering Organization. "
"Qualities of the Chair The main concern of the chair should be the aims and objectives of the group and the integrity of the meeting process. There follows a brief description of the personal qualities that a good chair should possess.
Authority The chair will need to maintain control to ensure that progress is made in line with the schedule - as defined in the agenda.
Flexibility Following an agenda does not always imply unquestioning devotion to it. For example, if an unplanned deviation could produce a clarification or the bonding together of meeting participants, then this might represent a very effective strategy.
Impartiality It is important that the chair supports an equal and fair consideration of all sides of the argument. This can be especially difficult where the chair is privately on one side of the debate.
Maturity The chair must be able to accept and work with a broad cross section of personalities. They should view each meeting without too much preconception as to how individuals will act and react, but be able to respond as the need arises. "
You all may be thinking, "Of course, that is what we expect" but I would feel more comfortable discussing the role and coming to consensus. The WRT has many diverse view points and experiences. Consensus building, transparency and neutrality will be key in the role of the chair and the group should make a conscious decision on what we expect of the chairperson.
I am also somewhat concerned that the first two ICANN review teams will be chaired by representatives of the Registry stakeholders group. We should consider spreading the work to other constituencies.
-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois- bounces@icann.org<mailto:bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:24 AM To: rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair
It is heartening to see both the interest in and support for the proposed candidates for Chair and Vice-Chair. I am encouraged by the activity on the list and hope that we continue to use email as an important means of progressing our work. In my experience, collaborative/collegial use of email can significantly enhance the work of groups between telephonic or face-to-face meetings; especially when those groups are "geographically challenged". It facilitates discussion of important topics between meetings frequently enabling both more informed and faster decision making.
With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that we may have the cart before the horse in our discussions/decisions with respect to a Chair and Vice-Chair. I believe that it is imperative that we all understand, and agree to, both what we are working on and how we will perform the work, before we formally select a Chair, and if necessary a Vice-Chair. Establishing a charter prior to formally selecting a chair is common practice at many organizations that have well-established processes, e.g. OASIS, W3C, and IETF. I believe we would be well-served to follow their model.
Let me be clear that this is a *process* issue, not a personality issue. I believe the proposed candidates are well-qualified and further believe it is likely that they will be selected. However, before we take that action, it is important that we understand the scope of our work, and the rules that we will adhere to.
Fortunately, the AOC establishes a clear basis for our work. Using the language from the AOC, minimally adapted for the purpose of defining a scope, I suggest that our scope is:
________________________________ To assess the extent to which existing WHOIS policy and its implementation:
* is effective, * meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, and * promotes consumer trust.
This assessment will include an analysis and determination of ICANN's performance against the AOC requirement that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information.
________________________________
For process, we have the A&T Review Team's Terms of Reference Methodology that can serve as a basis for us and I suggest we use that as appropriate for our needs. I would also suggest that for anything beyond the specifics we might lay out in out ToR, we use Roberts Rules as our process document. It has proven effective in any number of situations and allows us to have well-established processes without the need to define, debate, and agree on them.
Finally, I think we should take Rod Beckstrom up on his kind offer to serve as chair and facilitator, and to do so until we can agree on what our charter is and how we will go about our work.
(A simple example of the types of process decisions we might need to make is related to Wilfried's note - do we allow proxies? Or absentee voting? If we do, how do we determine if quorum is established?)
-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:rt4-whois- bounces@icann.org<mailto:bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:52 AM To: Olivier ITEANU Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org<mailto:rt4-whois@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair
Dear Team!
Olivier ITEANU wrote:
Dear All, Considering that I am very new in the Icann process (I was part of
it
in 2001), I do not know personally Kathy and Emily
Nor do I, actually I don't think that I have "conciously" met anyone in the team before. Thus I do not feel in a position to suggest any individual for this position.
but it seems that many of you know each others and know them: if there is a consensus on them, that's fine for me, Kathy and Emily seem very competent for the job.
Nevertheless I am fine with the 2 ladies being nominated already.
However, if there is another candidate, I think that we need an urgent coming out ! Olivier
As there's only a slim chance that I can call in (and if at all, from my mobile phone in listening mode because I will be on a train), I'd like to submit my support for Kathy and Emily to serve as chairs of the team.
Olivier ITEANU - mailto:oiteanu@iteanu.com
Best regards, Wilfried. _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear All, This is a fascinating discussion, and I wanted to share my sense of the steps ahead. It seems to me the most important thing we can establish now is a rapport – an ability to talk and work with each. We have many complex issues to cover in the months ahead, and I believe the atmosphere we establish now is key and should include: the opportunity for all to participate, for all to consider issues, for all to be heard. Together we can establish an atmosphere of trust, and respect. I talked with Brian Cute, Chairman of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT), and he shared with me three interesting pieces of information: his sense of the role of Chair, the Conflict of Interest Policy the ATRT agreed to, and the Principles the ATRT adopted to guide its work. These documents are not binding on us, but I share them as examples, as ideas: 1. A Chairman Brian had a nice way of phrasing the role of Chairman: - Keeps the trains running on time; - Helps work be properly structured; - Allows and enables a full and fair hearing for all members to comment; - Makes sure work is done; and - Works to identify agreement and disagreement so that it can be documented and become part of the record – to allow all to weigh in and comment. 2. Conflict of Interest Policy Establishing a Conflicts of Interest Policy was a key early of the ATRT (and theirs is attached). They wanted “to ensure that the deliberations, decisions, and work product of the RT” were “objective, fair, and made in the interests of the global Internet community as a whole.” 3. Principles Early on the ATRT created principles for their work, and these are also attached. I know Brian would be happy to take questions. I look forward to our important discussions ahead. All the 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: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:24 PM To: Smith,Bill Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair Believe I have a different perspective. I had thought that the relatively small size of our team would permit us to be a bit more relaxed. It also seemed to me that the purpose and scope of our work had already been determined and was included in the Call for Applicants, so we do not need to invest time and energy along those lines. Finally, we all submitted a CV and a Statement of Interest so it is clear that everyone is well qualified to participate. We had the additional opportunity of introducing ourselves in last week's call. Although I am not personally acquainted with the rest of the team, I was comfortable with the information available to support the proposed nominations. I have been in some groups where no one wants to take the Chair because of the additional work required so I am grateful that we have two team members willing to step up for Chair and Vice-Chair. It is wonderful to have Rod Beckstrom engaged and highly supportive of this effort so we should be sensitive not to unduly impose on him. -Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> Date: Wed, October 27, 2010 1:58 pm To: "Kim G. von Arx" <kim@vonarx.ca>, Susan Kawaguchi <skawaguchi@facebook.com> Cc: "rt4-whois@icann.org" <rt4-whois@icann.org> Some quick points: 1. Internal structure, process, rules, etc. can be a simple task, provided we adopt a commonly used model. However, if our intention is otherwise, we could devote a significant amount of time to that task (I have personal experience with this). I would prefer that we spend our time on the task at hand, an assessment, and it is for this reason that I proposed both Robert's Rules and a draft scope. 2. We did agree to solicit nominations. We also agreed to continue the discussion on the items in the first agenda, including Terms of Reference. We further agreed that we would continue working on these until they were resolved, whether in one, two, or more weeks. I don't recall that we agreed to a specific sequencing of these items and assumed that we would work on them in parallel, where practical. It seems quite reasonable to me to begin discussions on our Terms of Reference, as a means of expediting our work, *and* to better understand each other and how we might work together. 3. I see no issue with Rod continuing to lead us as we define our Terms of Reference. I believe he was particularly effective during last week's call and expect he would be similarly effective as we discuss terms of reference, etc. Should his stewardship become problematic, and I do *not* envision that, we could always elect a chair at that time. 4. I too support Susan's comments re qualities. However, I have limited experience with the members of this Review Team and as a consequence, would benefit from seeing the group interact more before I consider selecting a chair. 5. I took Susan's chair constituency statement as a comment on the multi-stakeholder nature of ICANN. I share her (somewhat) concern and support her suggestion that we consider "diversity" when making decisions/assignments. That seems to be in keeping with ICANN's general approach to filling positions. I did *not* take her comments in any way as a personal statement about either nominee. 6. Robert's Rules is designed for "Deliberative Assemblies" like ours. It is used by numerous societies and organizations to bring a common sense order to their proceedings and importantly, to protect the rights of the individual in such bodies. I find several references to its use within ICANN, including the Registrar Stakeholder Group, and the GNSO Council (for voting). In addition, ARIN, ISOC, IEEE, OASIS, use Robert's Rules. (While Robert's might be the standard in share capital organizations, in my experience it is also the standard at societies, associations, etc. I admit my ignorance with Wainberg's but some quick Internet searches does not reveal significant use - in my opinion.) We also have other administrative issues to consider; like proxies, alternate representation, decision making (presumably consensus), how will we define consensus, ... > -----Original Message----- > From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:11 PM > To: Susan Kawaguchi > Cc: Smith, Bill; rt4-whois@icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review > Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > All: > > Thanks to Bill and Susan for valuable procedural points. I just would > like to add a few comments. > > 1. I believe that the internal structure is one of the most simple > tasks for this group to undertake and we should spend as little time as > possible on those aspects. > > 2. In line with the above, I thought that the roles and > responsibilities of the Chair (and if applicable the Vice-chair) would > be a discussion we would have prior to the vote and, if applicable, > prior to any further nominations. Indeed, the nomination emails were > just that - nominations and we had all agreed in our last call that we > would nominate and/or self-nominate people we think are suitable > candidates. Therefore, I was under the impression that the upcoming > phone call's main objective was to figure out the administrative > details with respect to the role, responsibility of the Chair and, of > course, the election of the Chair. If we fail to finalize those > details in our next call then, I had proposed, we would have another > call the following week until we have finalized the administrative > details including our terms of reference (the latter is not an internal > structure issue, but a substantive matter that will need significant > input and discussion). > > 3. I believe that it is important that we appoint a person from our > group to lead the discussion and us to the appropriate terms of > reference for this RT and I find it somewhat counter intuitive to have > Rod Beckstrom lead that discussion considering that we are supposed to > conduct some kind of review of a policy of ICANN and its ability to > enforce the same. > > 4. I believe that Susan's comments with regards to the roles and > responsibilities of the Chair are absolutely accurate and I believe > that both, Kathy and Emily, have shown over and over again that they > have all those qualities. > > 5. I don't believe that the fact that both nominees come from the > registry constituency is a concern considering that, I believe, both > nominees, have shown a lot of impartiality and integrity over the many > years they have dealt with very sensitive Internet policy issues > including the WHOIS issues under the ICANN regime and the UK (European > Union) framework. > > 6. With respect to process issues and rules of order, I suggest that we > should take ICANN's by-law as the framework considering that we are a > sub-creature of ICANN. Also, I propose that we use Wainberg's rules of > order instead of Robert's Rules. The former is specifically designed > for societies, associations, not for profits, etc. and is the standard > for those kind of organizations. Whereas the latter is the standard > for organizations with share capital. > > I am looking forward to a fruitful discussion and meeting this > Thursday. > > Best wishes, > > Kim > > > > > > On 26 Oct 2010, at 17:32, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: > > > I echo Bill's sentiments. Definition of how we go about evaluating > ICANN's enforcement of the WHOIS policy should be our first priority. > > > > Kathy, I personally very much appreciate your willingness to take on > the monumental job as chairperson but I personally would like to have a > clear picture of the work we will be doing in this group before we set > up our internal structure. > > > > As a group what do we expect of the chairperson? This is crucial to > discuss as the role of chair will be very important in guiding how this > team works together. I think we should establish ground rules and > guidelines on what is expected of the chairperson before we decide on > an individual. > > > > In other groups the chairperson's responsibilities have been > described as follows: > > > > "The purpose of a Chair is to call meetings, preside over working > group deliberations, manage the process so that all participants have > the opportunity to contribute, and report the results of the Working > Group to the Chartering Organization. " > > > > "Qualities of the Chair > > The main concern of the chair should be the aims and objectives of > the group and the integrity of the meeting process. There follows a > brief description of the personal qualities that a good chair should > possess. > > > > Authority > > The chair will need to maintain control to ensure that progress is > made in line with the schedule - as defined in the agenda. > > > > Flexibility > > Following an agenda does not always imply unquestioning devotion to > it. For example, if an unplanned deviation could produce a > clarification or the bonding together of meeting participants, then > this might represent a very effective strategy. > > > > Impartiality > > It is important that the chair supports an equal and fair > consideration of all sides of the argument. This can be especially > difficult where the chair is privately on one side of the debate. > > > > Maturity > > The chair must be able to accept and work with a broad cross section > of personalities. They should view each meeting without too much > preconception as to how individuals will act and react, but be able to > respond as the need arises. " > > > > You all may be thinking, "Of course, that is what we expect" but I > would feel more comfortable discussing the role and coming to > consensus. The WRT has many diverse view points and experiences. > Consensus building, transparency and neutrality will be key in the role > of the chair and the group should make a conscious decision on what we > expect of the chairperson. > > > > I am also somewhat concerned that the first two ICANN review teams > will be chaired by representatives of the Registry stakeholders group. > We should consider spreading the work to other constituencies. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill > > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:24 AM > > To: rt4-whois@icann.org > > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS > Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > > > It is heartening to see both the interest in and support for the > proposed candidates for Chair and Vice-Chair. I am encouraged by the > activity on the list and hope that we continue to use email as an > important means of progressing our work. In my experience, > collaborative/collegial use of email can significantly enhance the work > of groups between telephonic or face-to-face meetings; especially when > those groups are "geographically challenged". It facilitates discussion > of important topics between meetings frequently enabling both more > informed and faster decision making. > > > > With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that we may have the cart > before the horse in our discussions/decisions with respect to a Chair > and Vice-Chair. I believe that it is imperative that we all understand, > and agree to, both what we are working on and how we will perform the > work, before we formally select a Chair, and if necessary a Vice-Chair. > Establishing a charter prior to formally selecting a chair is common > practice at many organizations that have well-established processes, > e.g. OASIS, W3C, and IETF. I believe we would be well-served to follow > their model. > > > > Let me be clear that this is a *process* issue, not a personality > issue. I believe the proposed candidates are well-qualified and further > believe it is likely that they will be selected. However, before we > take that action, it is important that we understand the scope of our > work, and the rules that we will adhere to. > > > > Fortunately, the AOC establishes a clear basis for our work. Using > the language from the AOC, minimally adapted for the purpose of > defining a scope, I suggest that our scope is: > > > > ________________________________ > > To assess the extent to which existing WHOIS policy and its > implementation: > > > > * is effective, > > * meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, and > > * promotes consumer trust. > > > > This assessment will include an analysis and determination of ICANN's > performance against the AOC requirement that ICANN implement measures > to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and > complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, > and administrative contact information. > > > > ________________________________ > > > > For process, we have the A&T Review Team's Terms of Reference > Methodology that can serve as a basis for us and I suggest we use that > as appropriate for our needs. I would also suggest that for anything > beyond the specifics we might lay out in out ToR, we use Roberts Rules > as our process document. It has proven effective in any number of > situations and allows us to have well-established processes without the > need to define, debate, and agree on them. > > > > Finally, I think we should take Rod Beckstrom up on his kind offer to > serve as chair and facilitator, and to do so until we can agree on what > our charter is and how we will go about our work. > > > > (A simple example of the types of process decisions we might need to > make is related to Wilfried's note - do we allow proxies? Or absentee > voting? If we do, how do we determine if quorum is established?) > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > bounces@icann.org] > >> On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:52 AM > >> To: Olivier ITEANU > >> Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org > >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS > Review > >> Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > >> > >> Dear Team! > >> > >> Olivier ITEANU wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear All, > >>> Considering that I am very new in the Icann process (I was part of > it > >>> in 2001), I do not know personally Kathy and Emily > >> > >> Nor do I, actually I don't think that I have "conciously" met anyone > >> in the team before. Thus I do not feel in a position to suggest any > >> individual for this position. > >> > >>> but it seems that > >>> many of you know each others and know them: if there is a consensus > >>> on them, that's fine for me, Kathy and Emily seem very competent > for > >>> the job. > >> > >> Nevertheless I am fine with the 2 ladies being nominated already. > >> > >>> However, if there is another candidate, I think that we need an > >>> urgent coming out ! > >>> Olivier > >> > >> As there's only a slim chance that I can call in (and if at all, > from > >> my mobile phone in listening mode because I will be on a train), I'd > >> like to submit my support for Kathy and Emily to serve as chairs of > the > >> team. > >> > >>> Olivier ITEANU - mailto:oiteanu@iteanu.com > >> > >> Best 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
Dear all, This is a very good résumé from Kathy. I think that we should be very simple in our processes if we want to go ahead efficiency. Because of the strikes in France, I am not sure that I could join on time the conference call in 1 hour (I am on the way of my office). If not, and if by chance there is a vote, please note that I give my vote on this specific question of Chair and vice-Chair to Kathy. Warm regards. Olivier -------------------------------------------------- On 27 Oct 2010 at 22:32, Kathy Kleiman wrote: Dear All, This is a fascinating discussion, and I wanted to share my sense of the steps ahead. It seems to me the most important thing we can establish now is a rapport - an ability to talk and work with each. We have many complex issues to cover in the months ahead, and I believe the atmosphere we establish now is key and should include: the opportunity for all to participate, for all to consider issues, for all to be heard. Together we can establish an atmosphere of trust, and respect. I talked with Brian Cute, Chairman of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT), and he shared with me three interesting pieces of information: his sense of the role of Chair, the Conflict of Interest Policy the ATRT agreed to, and the Principles the ATRT adopted to guide its work. These documents are not binding on us, but I share them as examples, as ideas: 1. A Chairman Brian had a nice way of phrasing the role of Chairman: - Keeps the trains running on time; - Helps work be properly structured; - Allows and enables a full and fair hearing for all members to comment; - Makes sure work is done; and - Works to identify agreement and disagreement so that it can be documented and become part of the record - to allow all to weigh in and comment. 2. Conflict of Interest Policy Establishing a Conflicts of Interest Policy was a key early of the ATRT (and theirs is attached). They wanted "to ensure that the deliberations, decisions, and work product of the RT"were "objective, fair, and made in the interests of the global Internet community as a whole." 3. Principles Early on the ATRT created principles for their work, and these are also attached. I know Brian would be happy to take questions. I look forward to our important discussions ahead. All the 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. From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:24 PM To: Smith,Bill Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair Believe I have a different perspective. I had thought that the relatively small size of our team would permit us to be a bit more relaxed. It also seemed to me that the purpose and scope of our work had already been determined and was included in the Call for Applicants, so we do not need to invest time and energy along those lines. Finally, we all submitted a CV and a Statement of Interest so it is clear that everyone is well qualified to participate. We had the additional opportunity of introducing ourselves in last week's call. Although I am not personally acquainted with the rest of the team, I was comfortable with the information available to support the proposed nominations. I have been in some groups where no one wants to take the Chair because of the additional work required so I am grateful that we have two team members willing to step up for Chair and Vice-Chair. It is wonderful to have Rod Beckstrom engaged and highly supportive of this effort so we should be sensitive not to unduly impose on him. -Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> Date: Wed, October 27, 2010 1:58 pm To: "Kim G. von Arx" <kim@vonarx.ca>, Susan Kawaguchi <skawaguchi@facebook.com> Cc: "rt4-whois@icann.org" <rt4-whois@icann.org> Some quick points: 1. Internal structure, process, rules, etc. can be a simple task, provided we adopt a commonly used model. However, if our intention is otherwise, we could devote a significant amount of time to that task (I have personal experience with this). I would prefer that we spend our time on the task at hand, an assessment, and it is for this reason that I proposed both Robert's Rules and a draft scope. 2. We did agree to solicit nominations. We also agreed to continue the discussion on the items in the first agenda, including Terms of Reference. We further agreed that we would continue working on these until they were resolved, whether in one, two, or more weeks. I don't recall that we agreed to a specific sequencing of these items and assumed that we would work on them in parallel, where practical. It seems quite reasonable to me to begin discussions on our Terms of Reference, as a means of expediting our work, *and* to better understand each other and how we might work together. 3. I see no issue with Rod continuing to lead us as we define our Terms of Reference. I believe he was particularly effective during last week's call and expect he would be similarly effective as we discuss terms of reference, etc. Should his stewardship become problematic, and I do *not* envision that, we could always elect a chair at that time. 4. I too support Susan's comments re qualities. However, I have limited experience with the members of this Review Team and as a consequence, would benefit from seeing the group interact more before I consider selecting a chair. 5. I took Susan's chair constituency statement as a comment on the multi-stakeholder nature of ICANN. I share her (somewhat) concern and support her suggestion that we consider "diversity" when making decisions/assignments. That seems to be in keeping with ICANN's general approach to filling positions. I did *not* take her comments in any way as a personal statement about either nominee. 6. Robert's Rules is designed for "Deliberative Assemblies" like ours. It is used by numerous societies and organizations to bring a common sense order to their proceedings and importantly, to protect the rights of the individual in such bodies. I find several references to its use within ICANN, including the Registrar Stakeholder Group, and the GNSO Council (for voting). In addition, ARIN, ISOC, IEEE, OASIS, use Robert's Rules. (While Robert's might be the standard in share capital organizations, in my experience it is also the standard at societies, associations, etc. I admit my ignorance with Wainberg's but some quick Internet searches does not reveal significant use - in my opinion.) We also have other administrative issues to consider; like proxies, alternate representation, decision making (presumably consensus), how will we define consensus, ...
-----Original Message----- From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:11 PM To: Susan Kawaguchi Cc: Smith, Bill; rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair
All:
Thanks to Bill and Susan for valuable procedural points. I just would like to add a few comments.
1. I believe that the internal structure is one of the most simple tasks for this group to undertake and we should spend as little time as possible on those aspects.
2. In line with the above, I thought that the roles and responsibilities of the Chair (and if applicable the Vice-chair) would be a discussion we would have prior to the vote and, if applicable, prior to any further nominations. Indeed, the nomination emails were just that - nominations and we had all agreed in our last call that we would nominate and/or self-nominate people we think are suitable candidates. Therefore, I was under the impression that the upcoming phone call's main objective was to figure out the administrative details with respect to the role, responsibility of the Chair and, of course, the election of the Chair. If we fail to finalize those details in our next call then, I had proposed, we would have another call the following week until we have finalized the administrative details including our terms of reference (the latter is not an internal structure issue, but a substantive matter that will need significant input and discussion).
3. I believe that it is important that we appoint a person from our group to lead the discussion and us to the appropriate terms of reference for this RT and I find it somewhat counter intuitive to have Rod Beckstrom lead that discussion considering that we are supposed to conduct some kind of review of a policy of ICANN and its ability to enforce the same.
4. I believe that Susan's comments with regards to the roles and responsibilities of the Chair are absolutely accurate and I believe that both, Kathy and Emily, have shown over and over again that they have all those qualities.
5. I don't believe that the fact that both nominees come from the registry constituency is a concern considering that, I believe, both nominees, have shown a lot of impartiality and integrity over the many years they have dealt with very sensitive Internet policy issues including the WHOIS issues under the ICANN regime and the UK (European Union) framework.
6. With respect to process issues and rules of order, I suggest that we should take ICANN's by-law as the framework considering that we are a sub-creature of ICANN. Also, I propose that we use Wainberg's rules of order instead of Robert's Rules. The former is specifically designed for societies, associations, not for profits, etc. and is the standard for those kind of organizations. Whereas the latter is the standard for organizations with share capital.
I am looking forward to a fruitful discussion and meeting this Thursday.
Best wishes,
Kim
On 26 Oct 2010, at 17:32, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
I echo Bill's sentiments. Definition of how we go about evaluating ICANN's enforcement of the WHOIS policy should be our first priority.
Kathy, I personally very much appreciate your willingness to take on the monumental job as chairperson but I personally would like to have a clear picture of the work we will be doing in this group before we set up our internal structure.
As a group what do we expect of the chairperson? This is crucial to discuss as the role of chair will be very important in guiding how this team works together. I think we should establish ground rules and guidelines on what is expected of the chairperson before we decide on an individual.
In other groups the chairperson's responsibilities have been described as follows:
"The purpose of a Chair is to call meetings, preside over working group deliberations, manage the process so that all participants have the opportunity to contribute, and report the results of the Working Group to the Chartering Organization. "
"Qualities of the Chair The main concern of the chair should be the aims and objectives of the group and the integrity of the meeting process. There follows a brief description of the personal qualities that a good chair should possess.
Authority The chair will need to maintain control to ensure that progress is made in line with the schedule - as defined in the agenda.
Flexibility Following an agenda does not always imply unquestioning devotion to it. For example, if an unplanned deviation could produce a clarification or the bonding together of meeting participants, then this might represent a very effective strategy.
Impartiality It is important that the chair supports an equal and fair consideration of all sides of the argument. This can be especially difficult where the chair is privately on one side of the debate.
Maturity The chair must be able to accept and work with a broad cross section of personalities. They should view each meeting without too much preconception as to how individuals will act and react, but be able to respond as the need arises. "
You all may be thinking, "Of course, that is what we expect" but I would feel more comfortable discussing the role and coming to consensus. The WRT has many diverse view points and experiences. Consensus building, transparency and neutrality will be key in the role of the chair and the group should make a conscious decision on what we expect of the chairperson.
I am also somewhat concerned that the first two ICANN review teams will be chaired by representatives of the Registry stakeholders group. We should consider spreading the work to other constituencies.
-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:24 AM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair
It is heartening to see both the interest in and support for the proposed candidates for Chair and Vice-Chair. I am encouraged by the activity on the list and hope that we continue to use email as an important means of progressing our work. In my experience, collaborative/collegial use of email can significantly enhance the work of groups between telephonic or face-to-face meetings; especially when those groups are "geographically challenged". It facilitates discussion of important topics between meetings frequently enabling both more informed and faster decision making.
With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that we may have the cart before the horse in our discussions/decisions with respect to a Chair and Vice-Chair. I believe that it is imperative that we all understand, and agree to, both what we are working on and how we will perform the work, before we formally select a Chair, and if necessary a Vice-Chair. Establishing a charter prior to formally selecting a chair is common practice at many organizations that have well-established processes, e.g. OASIS, W3C, and IETF. I believe we would be well-served to follow their model.
Let me be clear that this is a *process* issue, not a personality issue. I believe the proposed candidates are well-qualified and further believe it is likely that they will be selected. However, before we take that action, it is important that we understand the scope of our work, and the rules that we will adhere to.
Fortunately, the AOC establishes a clear basis for our work. Using the language from the AOC, minimally adapted for the purpose of defining a scope, I suggest that our scope is:
________________________________ To assess the extent to which existing WHOIS policy and its implementation:
* is effective, * meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, and * promotes consumer trust.
This assessment will include an analysis and determination of ICANN's performance against the AOC requirement that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information.
________________________________
For process, we have the A&T Review Team's Terms of Reference Methodology that can serve as a basis for us and I suggest we use that as appropriate for our needs. I would also suggest that for anything beyond the specifics we might lay out in out ToR, we use Roberts Rules as our process document. It has proven effective in any number of situations and allows us to have well-established processes without the need to define, debate, and agree on them.
Finally, I think we should take Rod Beckstrom up on his kind offer to serve as chair and facilitator, and to do so until we can agree on what our charter is and how we will go about our work.
(A simple example of the types of process decisions we might need to make is related to Wilfried's note - do we allow proxies? Or absentee voting? If we do, how do we determine if quorum is established?)
-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:52 AM To: Olivier ITEANU Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair
Dear Team!
Olivier ITEANU wrote:
Dear All, Considering that I am very new in the Icann process (I was part of
it
in 2001), I do not know personally Kathy and Emily
Nor do I, actually I don't think that I have "conciously" met anyone in the team before. Thus I do not feel in a position to suggest any individual for this position.
but it seems that many of you know each others and know them: if there is a consensus on them, that's fine for me, Kathy and Emily seem very competent for the job.
Nevertheless I am fine with the 2 ladies being nominated already.
However, if there is another candidate, I think that we need an urgent coming out ! Olivier
As there's only a slim chance that I can call in (and if at all, from my mobile phone in listening mode because I will be on a train), I'd like to submit my support for Kathy and Emily to serve as chairs of the team.
Olivier ITEANU - mailto:oiteanu@iteanu.com
Best 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
_______________________________________________ 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 Olivier ITEANU - mailto:oiteanu@iteanu.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------- I T E A N U Société d'Avocats - Law Firm 164, rue du Faubourg Saint-Honore 75008 PARIS Tel. + 33 (0)1 42 56 90 00 Fax + 33 (0)1 42 56 90 02 e-mail: contact@iteanu.com - www.iteanu.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
Dear All, I just realized I sent out the Accountability and Transparency Review Team’s excellent principles as a .DOCX document which may not be universally readable – let me include the short content here below. Best, Kathy --- The ATRT developed the following principles to guide its review: - Recommendations will be fact-based, far from impressions or personal opinions. - The team will be guided by a selected number of case-studies involving review of relevant events for each case study through 17 June 2010 (the day prior to the start date of the ICANN Brussels meeting). - The case-studies are based on cases which were suggested by the community during the ATRT meetings in Brussels, namely new gTLDs, .xxx (not including the application process) and DNS-CERT - The case studies will be used to identify processes and decision-making that demonstrated ICANN’s accountability and transparency, as well as processes and decision-making that could be modified to enhance ICANN’s accountability and transparency. - Recommendations would be future looking and would hence suggest improvements to the current process; recommendations are not for the purpose of altering any past decisions or influencing any ongoing processes. - Merits/Reasons behind each recommendation would be also made public. 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: Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 10:32 PM To: 'lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com'; 'bill.smith@paypal.com' Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: [renamed] next steps Dear All, This is a fascinating discussion, and I wanted to share my sense of the steps ahead. It seems to me the most important thing we can establish now is a rapport – an ability to talk and work with each. We have many complex issues to cover in the months ahead, and I believe the atmosphere we establish now is key and should include: the opportunity for all to participate, for all to consider issues, for all to be heard. Together we can establish an atmosphere of trust, and respect. I talked with Brian Cute, Chairman of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT), and he shared with me three interesting pieces of information: his sense of the role of Chair, the Conflict of Interest Policy the ATRT agreed to, and the Principles the ATRT adopted to guide its work. These documents are not binding on us, but I share them as examples, as ideas: 1. A Chairman Brian had a nice way of phrasing the role of Chairman: - Keeps the trains running on time; - Helps work be properly structured; - Allows and enables a full and fair hearing for all members to comment; - Makes sure work is done; and - Works to identify agreement and disagreement so that it can be documented and become part of the record – to allow all to weigh in and comment. 2. Conflict of Interest Policy Establishing a Conflicts of Interest Policy was a key early of the ATRT (and theirs is attached). They wanted “to ensure that the deliberations, decisions, and work product of the RT” were “objective, fair, and made in the interests of the global Internet community as a whole.” 3. Principles Early on the ATRT created principles for their work, and these are also attached. I know Brian would be happy to take questions. I look forward to our important discussions ahead. All the 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: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:24 PM To: Smith,Bill Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair Believe I have a different perspective. I had thought that the relatively small size of our team would permit us to be a bit more relaxed. It also seemed to me that the purpose and scope of our work had already been determined and was included in the Call for Applicants, so we do not need to invest time and energy along those lines. Finally, we all submitted a CV and a Statement of Interest so it is clear that everyone is well qualified to participate. We had the additional opportunity of introducing ourselves in last week's call. Although I am not personally acquainted with the rest of the team, I was comfortable with the information available to support the proposed nominations. I have been in some groups where no one wants to take the Chair because of the additional work required so I am grateful that we have two team members willing to step up for Chair and Vice-Chair. It is wonderful to have Rod Beckstrom engaged and highly supportive of this effort so we should be sensitive not to unduly impose on him. -Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> Date: Wed, October 27, 2010 1:58 pm To: "Kim G. von Arx" <kim@vonarx.ca>, Susan Kawaguchi <skawaguchi@facebook.com> Cc: "rt4-whois@icann.org" <rt4-whois@icann.org> Some quick points: 1. Internal structure, process, rules, etc. can be a simple task, provided we adopt a commonly used model. However, if our intention is otherwise, we could devote a significant amount of time to that task (I have personal experience with this). I would prefer that we spend our time on the task at hand, an assessment, and it is for this reason that I proposed both Robert's Rules and a draft scope. 2. We did agree to solicit nominations. We also agreed to continue the discussion on the items in the first agenda, including Terms of Reference. We further agreed that we would continue working on these until they were resolved, whether in one, two, or more weeks. I don't recall that we agreed to a specific sequencing of these items and assumed that we would work on them in parallel, where practical. It seems quite reasonable to me to begin discussions on our Terms of Reference, as a means of expediting our work, *and* to better understand each other and how we might work together. 3. I see no issue with Rod continuing to lead us as we define our Terms of Reference. I believe he was particularly effective during last week's call and expect he would be similarly effective as we discuss terms of reference, etc. Should his stewardship become problematic, and I do *not* envision that, we could always elect a chair at that time. 4. I too support Susan's comments re qualities. However, I have limited experience with the members of this Review Team and as a consequence, would benefit from seeing the group interact more before I consider selecting a chair. 5. I took Susan's chair constituency statement as a comment on the multi-stakeholder nature of ICANN. I share her (somewhat) concern and support her suggestion that we consider "diversity" when making decisions/assignments. That seems to be in keeping with ICANN's general approach to filling positions. I did *not* take her comments in any way as a personal statement about either nominee. 6. Robert's Rules is designed for "Deliberative Assemblies" like ours. It is used by numerous societies and organizations to bring a common sense order to their proceedings and importantly, to protect the rights of the individual in such bodies. I find several references to its use within ICANN, including the Registrar Stakeholder Group, and the GNSO Council (for voting). In addition, ARIN, ISOC, IEEE, OASIS, use Robert's Rules. (While Robert's might be the standard in share capital organizations, in my experience it is also the standard at societies, associations, etc. I admit my ignorance with Wainberg's but some quick Internet searches does not reveal significant use - in my opinion.) We also have other administrative issues to consider; like proxies, alternate representation, decision making (presumably consensus), how will we define consensus, ... > -----Original Message----- > From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:11 PM > To: Susan Kawaguchi > Cc: Smith, Bill; rt4-whois@icann.org > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review > Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > All: > > Thanks to Bill and Susan for valuable procedural points. I just would > like to add a few comments. > > 1. I believe that the internal structure is one of the most simple > tasks for this group to undertake and we should spend as little time as > possible on those aspects. > > 2. In line with the above, I thought that the roles and > responsibilities of the Chair (and if applicable the Vice-chair) would > be a discussion we would have prior to the vote and, if applicable, > prior to any further nominations. Indeed, the nomination emails were > just that - nominations and we had all agreed in our last call that we > would nominate and/or self-nominate people we think are suitable > candidates. Therefore, I was under the impression that the upcoming > phone call's main objective was to figure out the administrative > details with respect to the role, responsibility of the Chair and, of > course, the election of the Chair. If we fail to finalize those > details in our next call then, I had proposed, we would have another > call the following week until we have finalized the administrative > details including our terms of reference (the latter is not an internal > structure issue, but a substantive matter that will need significant > input and discussion). > > 3. I believe that it is important that we appoint a person from our > group to lead the discussion and us to the appropriate terms of > reference for this RT and I find it somewhat counter intuitive to have > Rod Beckstrom lead that discussion considering that we are supposed to > conduct some kind of review of a policy of ICANN and its ability to > enforce the same. > > 4. I believe that Susan's comments with regards to the roles and > responsibilities of the Chair are absolutely accurate and I believe > that both, Kathy and Emily, have shown over and over again that they > have all those qualities. > > 5. I don't believe that the fact that both nominees come from the > registry constituency is a concern considering that, I believe, both > nominees, have shown a lot of impartiality and integrity over the many > years they have dealt with very sensitive Internet policy issues > including the WHOIS issues under the ICANN regime and the UK (European > Union) framework. > > 6. With respect to process issues and rules of order, I suggest that we > should take ICANN's by-law as the framework considering that we are a > sub-creature of ICANN. Also, I propose that we use Wainberg's rules of > order instead of Robert's Rules. The former is specifically designed > for societies, associations, not for profits, etc. and is the standard > for those kind of organizations. Whereas the latter is the standard > for organizations with share capital. > > I am looking forward to a fruitful discussion and meeting this > Thursday. > > Best wishes, > > Kim > > > > > > On 26 Oct 2010, at 17:32, Susan Kawaguchi wrote: > > > I echo Bill's sentiments. Definition of how we go about evaluating > ICANN's enforcement of the WHOIS policy should be our first priority. > > > > Kathy, I personally very much appreciate your willingness to take on > the monumental job as chairperson but I personally would like to have a > clear picture of the work we will be doing in this group before we set > up our internal structure. > > > > As a group what do we expect of the chairperson? This is crucial to > discuss as the role of chair will be very important in guiding how this > team works together. I think we should establish ground rules and > guidelines on what is expected of the chairperson before we decide on > an individual. > > > > In other groups the chairperson's responsibilities have been > described as follows: > > > > "The purpose of a Chair is to call meetings, preside over working > group deliberations, manage the process so that all participants have > the opportunity to contribute, and report the results of the Working > Group to the Chartering Organization. " > > > > "Qualities of the Chair > > The main concern of the chair should be the aims and objectives of > the group and the integrity of the meeting process. There follows a > brief description of the personal qualities that a good chair should > possess. > > > > Authority > > The chair will need to maintain control to ensure that progress is > made in line with the schedule - as defined in the agenda. > > > > Flexibility > > Following an agenda does not always imply unquestioning devotion to > it. For example, if an unplanned deviation could produce a > clarification or the bonding together of meeting participants, then > this might represent a very effective strategy. > > > > Impartiality > > It is important that the chair supports an equal and fair > consideration of all sides of the argument. This can be especially > difficult where the chair is privately on one side of the debate. > > > > Maturity > > The chair must be able to accept and work with a broad cross section > of personalities. They should view each meeting without too much > preconception as to how individuals will act and react, but be able to > respond as the need arises. " > > > > You all may be thinking, "Of course, that is what we expect" but I > would feel more comfortable discussing the role and coming to > consensus. The WRT has many diverse view points and experiences. > Consensus building, transparency and neutrality will be key in the role > of the chair and the group should make a conscious decision on what we > expect of the chairperson. > > > > I am also somewhat concerned that the first two ICANN review teams > will be chaired by representatives of the Registry stakeholders group. > We should consider spreading the work to other constituencies. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill > > Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:24 AM > > To: rt4-whois@icann.org > > Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS > Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > > > > It is heartening to see both the interest in and support for the > proposed candidates for Chair and Vice-Chair. I am encouraged by the > activity on the list and hope that we continue to use email as an > important means of progressing our work. In my experience, > collaborative/collegial use of email can significantly enhance the work > of groups between telephonic or face-to-face meetings; especially when > those groups are "geographically challenged". It facilitates discussion > of important topics between meetings frequently enabling both more > informed and faster decision making. > > > > With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that we may have the cart > before the horse in our discussions/decisions with respect to a Chair > and Vice-Chair. I believe that it is imperative that we all understand, > and agree to, both what we are working on and how we will perform the > work, before we formally select a Chair, and if necessary a Vice-Chair. > Establishing a charter prior to formally selecting a chair is common > practice at many organizations that have well-established processes, > e.g. OASIS, W3C, and IETF. I believe we would be well-served to follow > their model. > > > > Let me be clear that this is a *process* issue, not a personality > issue. I believe the proposed candidates are well-qualified and further > believe it is likely that they will be selected. However, before we > take that action, it is important that we understand the scope of our > work, and the rules that we will adhere to. > > > > Fortunately, the AOC establishes a clear basis for our work. Using > the language from the AOC, minimally adapted for the purpose of > defining a scope, I suggest that our scope is: > > > > ________________________________ > > To assess the extent to which existing WHOIS policy and its > implementation: > > > > * is effective, > > * meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, and > > * promotes consumer trust. > > > > This assessment will include an analysis and determination of ICANN's > performance against the AOC requirement that ICANN implement measures > to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and > complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, > and administrative contact information. > > > > ________________________________ > > > > For process, we have the A&T Review Team's Terms of Reference > Methodology that can serve as a basis for us and I suggest we use that > as appropriate for our needs. I would also suggest that for anything > beyond the specifics we might lay out in out ToR, we use Roberts Rules > as our process document. It has proven effective in any number of > situations and allows us to have well-established processes without the > need to define, debate, and agree on them. > > > > Finally, I think we should take Rod Beckstrom up on his kind offer to > serve as chair and facilitator, and to do so until we can agree on what > our charter is and how we will go about our work. > > > > (A simple example of the types of process decisions we might need to > make is related to Wilfried's note - do we allow proxies? Or absentee > voting? If we do, how do we determine if quorum is established?) > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- > bounces@icann.org] > >> On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:52 AM > >> To: Olivier ITEANU > >> Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org > >> Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS > Review > >> Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair > >> > >> Dear Team! > >> > >> Olivier ITEANU wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear All, > >>> Considering that I am very new in the Icann process (I was part of > it > >>> in 2001), I do not know personally Kathy and Emily > >> > >> Nor do I, actually I don't think that I have "conciously" met anyone > >> in the team before. Thus I do not feel in a position to suggest any > >> individual for this position. > >> > >>> but it seems that > >>> many of you know each others and know them: if there is a consensus > >>> on them, that's fine for me, Kathy and Emily seem very competent > for > >>> the job. > >> > >> Nevertheless I am fine with the 2 ladies being nominated already. > >> > >>> However, if there is another candidate, I think that we need an > >>> urgent coming out ! > >>> Olivier > >> > >> As there's only a slim chance that I can call in (and if at all, > from > >> my mobile phone in listening mode because I will be on a train), I'd > >> like to submit my support for Kathy and Emily to serve as chairs of > the > >> team. > >> > >>> Olivier ITEANU - mailto:oiteanu@iteanu.com > >> > >> Best 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
Affirmation Language re. Whois for our discussion today 9.3.1 ICANN additionally commits to enforcing its existing policy relating to WHOIS, subject to applicable laws. Such existing policy requires that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information. One year from the effective date of this document and then no less frequently than every three years thereafter, ICANN will organize a review of WHOIS policy and its implementation to assess the extent to which WHOIS policy is effective and its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement and promotes consumer trust. The review will be performed by volunteer community members and the review team will be constituted and published for public comment, and will include the following (or their designated nominees): the Chair of the GAC, the CEO of ICANN, representatives of the relevant Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations, as well as experts, and representatives of the global law enforcement community, and global privacy experts. Composition of the review team will be agreed jointly by the Chair of the GAC (in consultation with GAC members) and the CEO of ICANN. Resulting recommendations of the reviews will be provided to the Board and posted for public comment. The Board will take action within six months of receipt of the recommendations. On 10/28/10 8:53 AM, "Kathy Kleiman" <kKleiman@pir.org> wrote: Dear All, I just realized I sent out the Accountability and Transparency Review Team’s excellent principles as a .DOCX document which may not be universally readable – let me include the short content here below. Best, Kathy --- The ATRT developed the following principles to guide its review: - Recommendations will be fact-based, far from impressions or personal opinions. - The team will be guided by a selected number of case-studies involving review of relevant events for each case study through 17 June 2010 (the day prior to the start date of the ICANN Brussels meeting). - The case-studies are based on cases which were suggested by the community during the ATRT meetings in Brussels, namely new gTLDs, .xxx (not including the application process) and DNS-CERT - The case studies will be used to identify processes and decision-making that demonstrated ICANN’s accountability and transparency, as well as processes and decision-making that could be modified to enhance ICANN’s accountability and transparency. - Recommendations would be future looking and would hence suggest improvements to the current process; recommendations are not for the purpose of altering any past decisions or influencing any ongoing processes. - Merits/Reasons behind each recommendation would be also made public. 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: Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 10:32 PM To: 'lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com'; 'bill.smith@paypal.com' Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: [renamed] next steps Dear All, This is a fascinating discussion, and I wanted to share my sense of the steps ahead. It seems to me the most important thing we can establish now is a rapport – an ability to talk and work with each. We have many complex issues to cover in the months ahead, and I believe the atmosphere we establish now is key and should include: the opportunity for all to participate, for all to consider issues, for all to be heard. Together we can establish an atmosphere of trust, and respect. I talked with Brian Cute, Chairman of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT), and he shared with me three interesting pieces of information: his sense of the role of Chair, the Conflict of Interest Policy the ATRT agreed to, and the Principles the ATRT adopted to guide its work. These documents are not binding on us, but I share them as examples, as ideas: 1. A Chairman Brian had a nice way of phrasing the role of Chairman: - Keeps the trains running on time; - Helps work be properly structured; - Allows and enables a full and fair hearing for all members to comment; - Makes sure work is done; and - Works to identify agreement and disagreement so that it can be documented and become part of the record – to allow all to weigh in and comment. 2. Conflict of Interest Policy Establishing a Conflicts of Interest Policy was a key early of the ATRT (and theirs is attached). They wanted “to ensure that the deliberations, decisions, and work product of the RT” were “objective, fair, and made in the interests of the global Internet community as a whole.” 3. Principles Early on the ATRT created principles for their work, and these are also attached. I know Brian would be happy to take questions. I look forward to our important discussions ahead. All the 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: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lynn@goodsecurityconsulting.com Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 3:24 PM To: Smith,Bill Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair Believe I have a different perspective. I had thought that the relatively small size of our team would permit us to be a bit more relaxed. It also seemed to me that the purpose and scope of our work had already been determined and was included in the Call for Applicants, so we do not need to invest time and energy along those lines. Finally, we all submitted a CV and a Statement of Interest so it is clear that everyone is well qualified to participate. We had the additional opportunity of introducing ourselves in last week's call. Although I am not personally acquainted with the rest of the team, I was comfortable with the information available to support the proposed nominations. I have been in some groups where no one wants to take the Chair because of the additional work required so I am grateful that we have two team members willing to step up for Chair and Vice-Chair. It is wonderful to have Rod Beckstrom engaged and highly supportive of this effort so we should be sensitive not to unduly impose on him. -Lynn -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair From: "Smith, Bill" <bill.smith@paypal-inc.com> Date: Wed, October 27, 2010 1:58 pm To: "Kim G. von Arx" <kim@vonarx.ca>, Susan Kawaguchi <skawaguchi@facebook.com> Cc: "rt4-whois@icann.org" <rt4-whois@icann.org> Some quick points: 1. Internal structure, process, rules, etc. can be a simple task, provided we adopt a commonly used model. However, if our intention is otherwise, we could devote a significant amount of time to that task (I have personal experience with this). I would prefer that we spend our time on the task at hand, an assessment, and it is for this reason that I proposed both Robert's Rules and a draft scope. 2. We did agree to solicit nominations. We also agreed to continue the discussion on the items in the first agenda, including Terms of Reference. We further agreed that we would continue working on these until they were resolved, whether in one, two, or more weeks. I don't recall that we agreed to a specific sequencing of these items and assumed that we would work on them in parallel, where practical. It seems quite reasonable to me to begin discussions on our Terms of Reference, as a means of expediting our work, *and* to better understand each other and how we might work together. 3. I see no issue with Rod continuing to lead us as we define our Terms of Reference. I believe he was particularly effective during last week's call and expect he would be similarly effective as we discuss terms of reference, etc. Should his stewardship become problematic, and I do *not* envision that, we could always elect a chair at that time. 4. I too support Susan's comments re qualities. However, I have limited experience with the members of this Review Team and as a consequence, would benefit from seeing the group interact more before I consider selecting a chair. 5. I took Susan's chair constituency statement as a comment on the multi-stakeholder nature of ICANN. I share her (somewhat) concern and support her suggestion that we consider "diversity" when making decisions/assignments. That seems to be in keeping with ICANN's general approach to filling positions. I did *not* take her comments in any way as a personal statement about either nominee. 6. Robert's Rules is designed for "Deliberative Assemblies" like ours. It is used by numerous societies and organizations to bring a common sense order to their proceedings and importantly, to protect the rights of the individual in such bodies. I find several references to its use within ICANN, including the Registrar Stakeholder Group, and the GNSO Council (for voting). In addition, ARIN, ISOC, IEEE, OASIS, use Robert's Rules. (While Robert's might be the standard in share capital organizations, in my experience it is also the standard at societies, associations, etc. I admit my ignorance with Wainberg's but some quick Internet searches does not reveal significant use - in my opinion.) We also have other administrative issues to consider; like proxies, alternate representation, decision making (presumably consensus), how will we define consensus, ...
-----Original Message----- From: Kim G. von Arx [mailto:kim@vonarx.ca] Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:11 PM To: Susan Kawaguchi Cc: Smith, Bill; rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair
All:
Thanks to Bill and Susan for valuable procedural points. I just would like to add a few comments.
1. I believe that the internal structure is one of the most simple tasks for this group to undertake and we should spend as little time as possible on those aspects.
2. In line with the above, I thought that the roles and responsibilities of the Chair (and if applicable the Vice-chair) would be a discussion we would have prior to the vote and, if applicable, prior to any further nominations. Indeed, the nomination emails were just that - nominations and we had all agreed in our last call that we would nominate and/or self-nominate people we think are suitable candidates. Therefore, I was under the impression that the upcoming phone call's main objective was to figure out the administrative details with respect to the role, responsibility of the Chair and, of course, the election of the Chair. If we fail to finalize those details in our next call then, I had proposed, we would have another call the following week until we have finalized the administrative details including our terms of reference (the latter is not an internal structure issue, but a substantive matter that will need significant input and discussion).
3. I believe that it is important that we appoint a person from our group to lead the discussion and us to the appropriate terms of reference for this RT and I find it somewhat counter intuitive to have Rod Beckstrom lead that discussion considering that we are supposed to conduct some kind of review of a policy of ICANN and its ability to enforce the same.
4. I believe that Susan's comments with regards to the roles and responsibilities of the Chair are absolutely accurate and I believe that both, Kathy and Emily, have shown over and over again that they have all those qualities.
5. I don't believe that the fact that both nominees come from the registry constituency is a concern considering that, I believe, both nominees, have shown a lot of impartiality and integrity over the many years they have dealt with very sensitive Internet policy issues including the WHOIS issues under the ICANN regime and the UK (European Union) framework.
6. With respect to process issues and rules of order, I suggest that we should take ICANN's by-law as the framework considering that we are a sub-creature of ICANN. Also, I propose that we use Wainberg's rules of order instead of Robert's Rules. The former is specifically designed for societies, associations, not for profits, etc. and is the standard for those kind of organizations. Whereas the latter is the standard for organizations with share capital.
I am looking forward to a fruitful discussion and meeting this Thursday.
Best wishes,
Kim
On 26 Oct 2010, at 17:32, Susan Kawaguchi wrote:
I echo Bill's sentiments. Definition of how we go about evaluating ICANN's enforcement of the WHOIS policy should be our first priority.
Kathy, I personally very much appreciate your willingness to take on the monumental job as chairperson but I personally would like to have a clear picture of the work we will be doing in this group before we set up our internal structure.
As a group what do we expect of the chairperson? This is crucial to discuss as the role of chair will be very important in guiding how this team works together. I think we should establish ground rules and guidelines on what is expected of the chairperson before we decide on an individual.
In other groups the chairperson's responsibilities have been described as follows:
"The purpose of a Chair is to call meetings, preside over working group deliberations, manage the process so that all participants have the opportunity to contribute, and report the results of the Working Group to the Chartering Organization. "
"Qualities of the Chair The main concern of the chair should be the aims and objectives of the group and the integrity of the meeting process. There follows a brief description of the personal qualities that a good chair should possess.
Authority The chair will need to maintain control to ensure that progress is made in line with the schedule - as defined in the agenda.
Flexibility Following an agenda does not always imply unquestioning devotion to it. For example, if an unplanned deviation could produce a clarification or the bonding together of meeting participants, then this might represent a very effective strategy.
Impartiality It is important that the chair supports an equal and fair consideration of all sides of the argument. This can be especially difficult where the chair is privately on one side of the debate.
Maturity The chair must be able to accept and work with a broad cross section of personalities. They should view each meeting without too much preconception as to how individuals will act and react, but be able to respond as the need arises. "
You all may be thinking, "Of course, that is what we expect" but I would feel more comfortable discussing the role and coming to consensus. The WRT has many diverse view points and experiences. Consensus building, transparency and neutrality will be key in the role of the chair and the group should make a conscious decision on what we expect of the chairperson.
I am also somewhat concerned that the first two ICANN review teams will be chaired by representatives of the Registry stakeholders group. We should consider spreading the work to other constituencies.
-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Smith, Bill Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 11:24 AM To: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair
It is heartening to see both the interest in and support for the proposed candidates for Chair and Vice-Chair. I am encouraged by the activity on the list and hope that we continue to use email as an important means of progressing our work. In my experience, collaborative/collegial use of email can significantly enhance the work of groups between telephonic or face-to-face meetings; especially when those groups are "geographically challenged". It facilitates discussion of important topics between meetings frequently enabling both more informed and faster decision making.
With this in mind, I'd like to suggest that we may have the cart before the horse in our discussions/decisions with respect to a Chair and Vice-Chair. I believe that it is imperative that we all understand, and agree to, both what we are working on and how we will perform the work, before we formally select a Chair, and if necessary a Vice-Chair. Establishing a charter prior to formally selecting a chair is common practice at many organizations that have well-established processes, e.g. OASIS, W3C, and IETF. I believe we would be well-served to follow their model.
Let me be clear that this is a *process* issue, not a personality issue. I believe the proposed candidates are well-qualified and further believe it is likely that they will be selected. However, before we take that action, it is important that we understand the scope of our work, and the rules that we will adhere to.
Fortunately, the AOC establishes a clear basis for our work. Using the language from the AOC, minimally adapted for the purpose of defining a scope, I suggest that our scope is:
________________________________ To assess the extent to which existing WHOIS policy and its implementation:
* is effective, * meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, and * promotes consumer trust.
This assessment will include an analysis and determination of ICANN's performance against the AOC requirement that ICANN implement measures to maintain timely, unrestricted and public access to accurate and complete WHOIS information, including registrant, technical, billing, and administrative contact information.
________________________________
For process, we have the A&T Review Team's Terms of Reference Methodology that can serve as a basis for us and I suggest we use that as appropriate for our needs. I would also suggest that for anything beyond the specifics we might lay out in out ToR, we use Roberts Rules as our process document. It has proven effective in any number of situations and allows us to have well-established processes without the need to define, debate, and agree on them.
Finally, I think we should take Rod Beckstrom up on his kind offer to serve as chair and facilitator, and to do so until we can agree on what our charter is and how we will go about our work.
(A simple example of the types of process decisions we might need to make is related to Wilfried's note - do we allow proxies? Or absentee voting? If we do, how do we determine if quorum is established?)
-----Original Message----- From: rt4-whois-bounces@icann.org [mailto:rt4-whois- bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 8:52 AM To: Olivier ITEANU Cc: rt4-whois@icann.org Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Chair nominations invited for the WHOIS Review Team - Acceptance and Vice Chair
Dear Team!
Olivier ITEANU wrote:
Dear All, Considering that I am very new in the Icann process (I was part of
it
in 2001), I do not know personally Kathy and Emily
Nor do I, actually I don't think that I have "conciously" met anyone in the team before. Thus I do not feel in a position to suggest any individual for this position.
but it seems that many of you know each others and know them: if there is a consensus on them, that's fine for me, Kathy and Emily seem very competent for the job.
Nevertheless I am fine with the 2 ladies being nominated already.
However, if there is another candidate, I think that we need an urgent coming out ! Olivier
As there's only a slim chance that I can call in (and if at all, from my mobile phone in listening mode because I will be on a train), I'd like to submit my support for Kathy and Emily to serve as chairs of the team.
Olivier ITEANU - mailto:oiteanu@iteanu.com
Best 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
_______________________________________________ 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 Warmly, Rod Rod Beckstrom President and CEO ICANN - One World. One Internet.
participants (5)
-
Kathy Kleiman -
lynn＠goodsecurityconsulting.com -
Olivier ITEANU -
Rod Beckstrom -
Smith, Bill