[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from RDS PDP WG Meeting on 6 December 2016
Farell Folly
farellfolly at gmail.com
Thu Dec 8 10:33:51 UTC 2016
Dear All,
The approach sounds good to me too and some of my concerns have been taken
into account by precedents' e-mail.
Thanks.
Le mer. 7 déc. 2016 à 20:20, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> a écrit :
> Thanks for the excellent feedback and questions Steve.
>
>
>
> You have accurately understood the proposed rotating approach and have
> also identified a possible gap if we follow that approach rigidly. The
> leadership team will definitely give this some serious thought and consider
> whether an adjustment might make sense.
>
>
>
> As you know, the rotating approach was a compromise to deal with the fact
> that the WG could not agree on an order of the three first questions. We
> are trying to not favor any one question over the others but we also want
> to make sure that that doesn’t hinder our effectiveness.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met at msk.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 07, 2016 11:53 AM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>; marika.konings at icann.org;
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from
> RDS PDP WG Meeting on 6 December 2016
>
>
>
> Chuck,
>
>
>
> Thank you for this reminder. I have reviewed the proposed approach to
> deliberation and support it for the most part, but I have one question.
>
>
>
> The fourth bullet point under this section of the meeting notes states:
>
> · Follow random rotation and alternate between subjects - will
> commence with users/purposes, then data elements, followed by privacy, and
> repeat
>
>
>
> I take it this means that the proposal is to start with the first
> highlighted question under “users and purposes” on page 1 of the “proposed
> approach” document:
>
> Should gTLD registration data be accessible for any purpose or only for
> specific purposes?
>
>
>
> So far so good. If, after we complete (or come to a stopping point) on
> discussion of that question, is it proposed that we then move immediately
> to the first question under the “data elements” section of the document?
> That question is on page 6 and reads as follows:
>
>
>
> Do existing gTLD registration data elements sufficiently meet the needs of
> purposes identified as permissible?
>
>
>
> I see a disconnect here, because our deliberation on the first question
> will not have brought us anywhere close to identifying what purposes are
> permissible. At most it will have resolved (at least provisionally)
> whether we need to engage in a process of identifying “specific purposes”
> that are “permissible.”
>
>
>
> Once we have completed (or come to a stopping point) on this second
> question, would we then move to the first question listed under privacy,
> which is found on page 11:
>
>
>
> Do existing gTLD registration directory services policies sufficiently
> address compliance with applicable data protection, privacy, and free
> speech laws within each jurisdiction?
>
>
>
> This presents a different disconnect since its focus is on “existing
> policies,” rather than on the attributes we should be seeking in RDS going
> forward.
>
>
>
> Or am I focusing too much on the questions that are highlighted, and
> instead the proposal (at least as to this point) is to deliberate on the
> answers/principles proposed by the EWG (see the quote from pp. 11-12 of EWG
> report immediately below the question)?
>
>
>
> Have I misunderstood what is being proposed with respect to this “random
> rotation” approach? If so, perhaps this could be clarified , by spelling
> out which question specifically it is proposed we start deliberations on
> next Tuesday, which will be the question considered after that, etc.
>
>
>
> If in fact I have grasped the proposal correctly (a big if), then I
> question whether it is the best way to proceed. Don't we need to get at
> least somewhat farther (beyond the first question) on discussion of
> “users/purposes” before we can usefully turn to questions on “data
> elements”?
>
>
>
> Looking forward to being set straight on this.
>
>
>
> Steve Metalitz
>
>
>
> PS, I sense in the notes some frustration that only 18 people responded to
> the latest poll. Let’s not be too hard on ourselves, 18 represents a
> sizable proportion of the average attendance on our recent calls (40 and
> 34, as I count them). A return rate of roughly 50% is really not too bad.
> I think leadership has correctly concluded from the poll results that there
> was sufficient dissatisfaction with the previous approach to require a
> change in direction. And, in general, I think the change in direction
> proposed makes sense, my only major reservation is about the “random
> rotation” point spelled out above.
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 06, 2016 4:31 PM
> *To:* marika.konings at icann.org; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from RDS PDP WG
> Meeting on 6 December 2016
> *Importance:* High
>
>
>
> Note the action item for all WG members to complete no later than end of
> day on Friday, 9 December:
>
>
>
> *Action item #1*: WG to provide their input on the proposed next steps to
> progress deliberations by Friday 9 December at the latest
>
>
>
> Please review the proposed approach to deliberation:
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63149980/KeyConceptsApproach-MindMap-with-EWGExcerpts-6Dec.pdf
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Marika Konings
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 06, 2016 1:09 PM
> *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from RDS
> PDP WG Meeting on 6 December 2016
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> Please find below the notes and action items from today’s RDS PDP WG
> meeting.
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
> Marika
>
>
>
> *Notes RDS PDP WG Meeting – 6 December 2016: *
>
>
>
> *These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate
> through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the
> transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided
> separately and are posted on the wiki at: *
> *https://community.icann.org/x/C4xlAw*
> <https://community.icann.org/x/C4xlAw>*.*
>
>
>
> *1. Roll Call / SOI Update*
>
>
>
> · Attendance will be taken from Adobe Connect room
>
> · Please state name for transcription purposes and remember to put
> your phone/mic on mute when not speaking
>
>
>
> *2) Proposed next steps to progress deliberations*
>
> - Review next steps poll results
>
> · 18 responses received to date (see
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63149980/RDS-PDP-NextStepsPoll-Results-6Dec.pdf)
> - disappointing result. Could be a result of no strong feelings on the
> question? It will be critical for WG members to participate in a timely
> manner in the polls that are conducted. These polls are to facilitate work
> in between meetings and allow for progress to be made. Polls are designed
> to be short and easy to respond to.
>
> · Small sample, not enough to make firm decisions but nevertheless
> strong support to make some adjustments to the methodology.
>
> · Leadership team has been trying to get as much input as possible
> from the WG, but has been having difficulty getting input from WG members.
> Leadership team has now come to the conclusion it may work better if it is
> more directive instead of spending weeks discussing process which hasn't
> proven to be productive. However, WG is always able and welcome to provide
> feedback and input on process.
>
> · Leadership team to present proposed adjustments to process
> during today's meeting as a path forward.
>
> · One question poll
>
>
>
> - Introduce proposed key concepts approach
>
> · See
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63149980/KeyConceptsApproach-MindMap-with-EWGExcerpts-6Dec.pdf
>
> · Questions from mind map are included in this document, mapped to
> EWG Report Excerpts
>
> · EWG Report Excerpts are intended to be a starting point
> deliberation, open for WG review and modification.
>
> · Follow random rotation and alternate between subjects - will
> commence with users/purposes, then data elements, followed by privacy, and
> repeat.
>
> · Deliberation will take time and will require collaboration.
>
> · Covering these questions will hopefully address the key concepts
> which will then allow the WG to address the specific requirements.
>
> · Approach will be iterative and flexible as there are obvious
> links and dependencies between questions.
>
> · Legitimate need to collect may not be the same as legitimate
> need to display. Note that second question under users/purposes is: For
> what specific purpose should gTLD registration data be collected,
> maintained, and made accessible?
>
> · Once questions have been addressed, then move to gated access
> and accuracy questions, followed by the fundamental question.
>
> · Many issues that will need to be deliberated such as whether are
> registry operators allowed to publish more information than required?
>
> · Important to stay focused as it is not possible to deliberate on
> everything at once. Limit getting ahead of the game.
>
> · All WG members should feel free to contribute to the
> deliberations and asky any questions they may have.
>
> · Once WG agrees on key principles, it will become easier to get
> into the details.
>
> · Commence with this approach during WG meeting next week (13
> December)
>
> · Leadership team will review comments received by Friday COB and
> communicate whether any further changes are to be made based on the iput
> received. Flexible and iterative will be key to this approach.
>
> · Questions from mind map are taken as key concepts - if there any
> others, WG members are encouraged to bring those forward.
>
>
>
> - Q&A during this WG call and throughout week on email
>
> - Resume deliberation using this approach on 13 & 21 December WG calls
>
>
>
> *Action item #1*: WG to provide their input on the proposed next steps to
> progress deliberations by Friday 9 December at the latest
>
>
>
> *3) Confirm next meeting date: Tuesday, 13 December 2016 at 17:00 UTC*
>
> - Note: No WG calls on 27 December 2016 or 3 January 2017
>
>
>
> *Marika Konings*
>
> *Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation
> for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *
>
> *Email: marika.konings at icann.org <marika.konings at icann.org> *
>
>
>
> *Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO*
>
> *Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses
> <http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages
> <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>. *
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
--
Salutations - Regards
@__f_f__
[image: --]
FARELL FOLLY
about.me/farell
<https://about.me/farell?promo=email_sig&utm_source=email_sig&utm_medium=email_sig&utm_campaign=external_links>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20161208/93cddc52/attachment.html>
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg
mailing list