RE: [nc-whois]

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Miriam, thanks for your suggested changes. 

On the first suggested edit, let  me clarify.   I was complementing you guys, as the registries and noting that I need to contact you to see how feasible it seems.  Sorry about that little confusion.  :-)  

Tony and I are also contacting the registrars who weren't on the call to ask them for feedback.

On the second edit. It doesn't fit because I  didn't discuss this level of detail on this call. You've raised the request in previous meetings and I've mentioned several times that Tony and I will work out a format for the sessions. When I do the draft I promised to do, please resubmit your suggested edits and suggestions for process changes on that document. Thanks. Marilyn

-----Original Message-----
From: Sapiro, Miriam [mailto:MSapiro@verisign.com]
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 10:03 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA; NC-WHOIS; Juliano,Marie M - LGA; Glen
Subject: RE: [nc-whois] content-class: urn:content-classes:message


marilyn - TWO FIXES, in CAPS. thanks, miriam


4/17/02
WHOIS TF Conference Call

Attendees:

Sarah Andrews
Marilyn Cade
Laurence Djolakian
Karen Elizaga
Kristy McGee
Steve Metalitz
Ram Mohan
Hakikur Rahman
Thomas Roessler
Miriam Sapiro


Regrets: Tony Harris, Troy Dow, Abel Wisman
Other members did not respond/or confirm unavailability

Glen and Marie were not available to take minutes. Marilyn's notes follow
but are very summary. 

Marilyn noted Tony's apologies due to a board meeting conflict. she noted
that the purpose of the meeting/conference call is to review whether all
members have their assignments, have downloaded their files, understand
their assignments, and are making progress. Tony Harris has completed his
assigned 150 responses, and his submission is the most complete to date.
Several members of the TF were just beginning their download, analysis, etc.
The call today was to allow questions to the Editorial/technical team.

Marilyn turned the call over to Thomas to lead discussion about the process.


Abel Wisman was not on the call, but had previously advised Marilyn, Kristy,
Thomas, and Tony that his work on Q20 is complete but needs to be made "user
friendly" and that is work in progress. He is evaluating all free form
responses to Q.20.

General Problems Discussion:

No questions from group on general problems.

Q7. MSC : only done about 50 of 150.  Kristy, Hakikur, MSC: in agreement on
Q7.

7b) no additional comment

8) some gems from reading so far

10) people seem not to understand question. Should examine this further as
others "read". 

Laurence volunteered to do the French responses which people have. 

13,14,15, Thomas will change the instruction log per the discussion.

Deadline: 4/24.  
Discussion: Steve and others have not begun to analyze. Several members not
on call. Registry reps are making a strong effort to read their initial
assignment and deal with additional requested analysis of 300 more. Hard to
do. [DO YOU MEAN REGISTRARS HERE? Registries] not even on call. Marilyn to
contact them. 

Marilyn:  Allocate certain time frame to complete specific functions.  There
are time limits which we need to meet. Not only task of TF to analyze
survey. Getting lost in that.  MUST get a report done in a reasonable time
frame to accept comments before Romania.  Steve raised questions about time
frames. Noted unclear. 

Marilyn: We talked about timeframes last call. Many not on call. Understand
is confusing. Lack resources to do a lot of outreach if people not on calls.

Important to remember that it isn't just reading, but getting into format
for analysis.  Understand that may not be feasible to analyze all narratives
IF individual groups don't/can't meet goals.

 Marilyn asked Thomas to discuss time frames for analysis and what he can
manage, given other commitments.

Steve: Hasn't begun reading his assignment. Not clear can read all
150/complete assignment. 

Marilyn: understand concern about calendar. However, the TF has some joint
responsibility for what it has agreed to do. She will poll the group,
online, for their views on completing their assignment. 

Tony has completed his assignment.
Marilyn intends to read her 150, although is a serious challenge.
Kristy: she is doing other work on analysis; will complete her assignment.
Steve: unlikely can do all
Laurence: will do her best
Miriam: do her best
Hakikur. Same
Karen: same
Ram: had dropped by then.
Troy: Marilyn had spoken to. Not sure can complete, but intends to try to do
some at least. 

Next Steps: Design of draft final report. Marilyn described the process she
and Tony envisioned for the draft final report and associated time frames.
Steve requested a detailed tentative time line. Marilyn noted that was
important and that she and Tony would collaborate on with the Editorial
Team. Steve wanted to know the firm dates.  Laurence noted that although we
did our best in drafting in Accra on site on what we presented in view graph
form, she preferred not to have similar situation in Romania.  All agreed to
need to have final DRAFT before traveling. Marilyn noted that she starts
traveling 6/19 and asked for view of who will be in  Romania.


Short list:

Tony:  not on call/not sure
Marilyn: yes
Sarah: not sure
Glen: yes
Laurence: not sure
Karen: yes?
Kristy: working on it/not sure
Steve: yes
Ram: yes
Hakikur: not sure
Thomas: not sure to unlikely
Miriam: yes
Abel: plans to drive/per discussion with MSC/likely

Others whom Marilyn expects:

Tim: likely
Troy: not likely
Bret: not sure
Philipp: likely
Oscar: not sure
Ken: likely

Thomas will develop a draft of the skeleton for response, similar to last
time. Then Teams will be assigned drafting by Marilyn and Tony.  Question:
same teams or changes?  Marilyn: we will make some changes, due to changes
in participation. Tony and I will make a draft assessment and circulate. 

URGENT, URGENT:

Submissions of content analysis, to be considered, must be delivered by
4/24.  Please do your best to have your submissions in by then!!!!  

Submit whatever you have by then. We will look at and where we have to, will
extrapolate We can note that not all constituencies were able to deliver
their analysis by the date needed. We need to have final results by mid May.


Thomas will develop a skeleton, similar to the last skeleton, by May 1.
Marilyn and Tony will assign analysis on the various questions and ask that
you draft preliminary findings on your sections. 

Note: No results after 5/1 will be helpful. All results by 4/24 will be
included. Results between 4/24 and 5/1 may not be included.  

Proposed approach: WE deliver analysis; Thomas, Abel, Kristy "crunch" the
data. WE get Thomas' skeleton 5/1; Marilyn and Tony make assignments for
drafting. Circulate. Have a discussion call/maybe two. Post final draft
report for public comment. Allow 3 weeks for comments. Review. Assess how to
incorporate additional feedback. During three week period, listening
sessions take place. 
Make recommendations about next steps for TF and other initiatives related
to WHOIS.

POSSIBLE Listening sessions:

	*	GAC
	*	Law Enforcement
	*	ICANN staff
	*	privacy representatives
	*	various groups who use WHOIS


Marilyn to draft outline of listening sessions and post...[SHE CONFIRMED THAT
EVERYONE PARTICIPATING IN THESE SESSIONS,  INCLUDING ANY INTERESTED TF
MEMBER AND ANYONE DESIGNATED TO PARTICIPATE BY THE GROUP BEING BRIEFED -
WILL BE ABLE TO SPEAK AS WELL AS LISTEN.  

Call ended

Next call: 5/8

--please use email, or call Marilyn or Tony with questions in meantime. 

Marilyn Cade, co-chair.


Miriam Sapiro
Director of International Policy

VeriSign, Inc.
1666 K Street, NW, Suite 410
Washington DC 20006
tel:    202-973-6600
fax:   202-466-9103
cell:  703-282-7117
email: msapiro@verisign.com

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [mailto:mcade@att.com] 
> Sent:	Saturday, April 20, 2002 9:26 PM
> To:	NC-WHOIS; Juliano,Marie M - LGA; Glen
> Subject:	[nc-whois] content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> 
>  << File: WHOIS minutes 4-17.doc >>