Page History
...
The Review Team Members resolved to adopt the Chair/Vice Chair guidelines ; a final document is to be published on the WHOIS RT's wiki at: LINK
Nominated by Kathy Kleiman, Emily Taylor was appointed Chair of the WHOIS Policy Review Team. Kathy Kleiman accepted to take on the Vice-Chair role.
...
The RT agreed to changes to the text, and adopted the document "Scope and Roadmap" as its working document which may be found at: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Scope+and+Roadmap+of+the+WHOIS+RT
The Review Team resolved to map out its scope and to divide the Team into sub groups with clearly-defined mandates: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Subteams
The RT resolved to adopt an outreach plan https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Outreach+plan|display/whoisreview/Outreach+plan||\ as well as an action plan https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Action+plan|display/whoisreview/Action+plan|\
The RT agreed to hold conference calls every fortnight and identified Wednesday as the conference day. It furthermore decided to adopt a rotation system.
...
The RT pre-adopted a schedule for the Silicon Valley meeting: https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/Silicon+Valley+Meeting
16 February - Conference Call
The RT reiterated its intention to open a public comment period on definitional work and questions. This ought to be launched prior to the SV meeting with a view to triggering discussions during the ICANN meeting and should be closed much later so as to provide the community with sufficient time to submit feedback. In this respect, Wednesday, 23 February was pinpointed as the tentative target date for sub teams to finalize their assignments. In light of the internal debates and divergences, he RT agreed that areas of disagreement would be highlighted in their call for comments with a view to obtaining guidance from the community.
2 March - Conference Call
The WHOIS Policy RT agreed to issue the following material for public comment agreed to find some common denominators and to highlight phrases that are still in contention in order to solicit input from the community:
- action plan;
- outreach plan;
- scope and roadmap;
- law enforcement definition;
- applicable laws definition;
- consumers definition.
The group resolved not to publish a definition of Consumer trust and the questionnaire as these require additional crafting.
13 March - F2F Meeting - Silicon Valley
(ET) and (KK) agreed to draft slides for all group that would introduce the WRT, provide an overview of the membership, and an introduction to the public comment period (as well as link). WRT members agreed to draft a slide with questions and issues specific to their group – to guide and open the discussion with group members.
Definitions: The Review Team agreed to state that the English version is the document that one should refer to in case of conflict/disagreement.The Review Team resolved to determine – with the help of ICANN staff – how the Consumer Trust questionnaire project would fit into the budget currently allocated to their work, and how it would fit into the current timeframe.
Implementation Subteam and Policy Subteam: The Review Team identified a number of issues, which were of interest and would form a basis for the work going forward:
Policy Team: Private/proxy; internationalization; statement of policy; unrestricted access; private proxy; requirements or evolution of protocols.
Implementation Team: contractual compliance; users/experts awareness; applicable laws; access controls; data accuracy.
6 April - Conference Call
The report outline will be published for public comment in May in order to provide the ICANN community with an overview of the foreseen shape of the report and the grounds the Review Teams wishes to cover.
Creation of a new subteam: (LG), (SK) and (BS) were tasked to frame a preliminary RFP on focus groups (on Consumer Trust primarily).
13 April - Conference Call
Creation of a new subteam: The WRT concluded the Law Enforcement Representatives discussion by creating a new subteam composed of (SL), (PN) and (KK) to first review the questionnaire initially drafted on this subject, and work on paths forward.
The WHOIS RT thoroughly reviewed the current version of the report outline and agreed that a a third section should be added on applicable laws ; (KK) and (LG) offered to lead the drafting effort of this section. The RT furthermore requested that (KK) and (JB) add the policy content of their San Francisco presentations to the draft outline. A motion to adopt the document will be proposed during the next conference call, scheduled for 27 April.
Following the RfP briefing, the Review Team decided that the tentative date for a potential contract to enter into force would be July 2011.
Create of a new subteam: (LG), (BS), (KVA) and (SK) volunteered to work on a budget proposal; a conference call is foreseen.
27 April - Conference Call
The RT Members generally agreed that the RfP should be public and that geographical and multilingual spread was necessary.
The Review Team resolved to submit this proposal to ICANN's Board of Directors and to continue to refine the objectives of the study.
The RT should provide feedback in response to the contributions received in the public comments submitted by the community on their definitions and request for input..
...