[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from Next-Generation RDS PDP WG Meeting

Wed Feb 24 06:34:30 UTC 2016

Dear All,

Please find below the notes and action items of today’s meeting. I would like to draw special attention to the following action items and deadlines associated with these:

  *   Action item #1: All to review categories identified by small team and provide feedback within 24 hours (see attached)
  *   Action item #4: All to review work plan approach as has been circulated with the agenda and provide any comments / questions on the mailing list within 48 hours. (see attached)

Please share any input or questions you may have with the mailing list.

Best regards,

Marika

Notes/Action items 24 February 2016 - Next–Generation RDS PDP WG Meeting

1. Roll call/ SOI

  *   Note, observers have read-only access to the mailing list and do not receive the call details. If you want to change your status, you can inform the GNSO Secretariat accordingly.
  *   Members are required to provide a Statement of Interest in order to participate in the Working Group.
  *   Updates to SOIs are requested at the start of every meeting.

Action item #1: Please complete / update your Statement of Interest if you have not done so yet.

2. Review of WG membership & expertise update

  *   Small team has been discussing how to identify current level of expertise
  *   Identified a number of rough categories of expertise that is expected to be needed for this effort: Legal (IP, criminal, civil), Technical (Protocol development, Security, Audit), Data Protection, Operational (Registrar, Registries), Commercial/e-business, Non commercial/not for profit, government advisory, law enforcement (police, investigators, courts), individual internet user.
  *   Proposal to put these categories into a zoomerang poll to allow for WG members to self-identify their expertise
  *   Small team would like to receive input on the categories identified and possible sub-categories
  *   Consider removing investigators as it can be considered part of 'police'. There are also other agencies that are involved in investigations, maybe that is why it has been identified as a separate category. Should investigators (non-government) be a separate category? This would include organisations like consumer organisations.
  *   Security may not only be technical expertise, there may also be non-technical aspects to it. Consider having a security category that is not under the technical heading.
  *   DNS technical specialists should also be considered as a category
  *   Categories are intended to get a general sense of expertise available
  *   Consider updating law enforcement to public safety to capture a broader category of investigators?
  *   Should public defenders be added to the legal category? Might already be covered by legal/criminal?
  *   Consider a category for cybersecurity.
  *   Experts can be invited to just join when a particular topic is discussed - not only looking at filling gaps in membership, but also identify specific support that may be needed in an expert capacity.
  *   Consider adding a category for WHOIS software / service developer

Action item #1: All to review categories identified and provide feedback within 24 hours

Action item #2: staff to develop survey on the basis of the categories identified and request WG members to participate

Action item #3: small team to review feedback received to the survey and identify whether additional outreach is needed based on the survey results.

3. Review and discuss draft work plan approach

  *   Bulk of work in phase 1 relates to recommending requirements for Registration Directory Services
  *   Use EWG Final Report as starting point, as instructed by the ICANN Board. Substantial public input was provided and incorporated by this effort. Not restricted to the EWG Final Report, but an important starting point.
  *   Develop a comprehensive list of possible requirement (without a debate) as a first step. Deliberations on each possible requirement will be the next step after developing this comprehensive list, including reaching consensus on whether requirements should be included or not.
  *   Outreach to SO/ACs is expected during various stages of the PDP, periodically as needed. This outreach may take various forms, formal, informal. There is a requirement for formal input at the early phase of the process.
  *   Interdependency of all eleven questions in the charter will main that the WG may need to go back and forth between questions.
  *   First five questions are critical as they are essential to responding to the foundational question of whether a new RDS is needed.
  *   No comment period held on the Final EWG Report. EWG Report expected to be starting point - not stopping there, just a first list of possible requirements that the WG is expected to add to.
  *   Should purpose be defined before discussion uses? Purposes and uses are part of the charter which are expected to result in possible requirements (see question 1).
  *   Leadership team has started developing a first list of possible requirements - draft as a starting point for the full WG to review and add to. SO/AC/SG/Cs can also be asked to add to the list of possible requirements. Objective to have comprehensive list of requirements.
  *   Once this comprehensive list is 'complete' (WG is of the view that all possible requirements have been added), systematic review of the requirements by the WG.
  *   Deliberation of some requirements could be deferred to later phases, if deemed appropriate.
  *   Following this work, the WG is expected to deliberate on foundational question: is a new RDS needed or can the existing WHOIS system be modified to satisfy the recommended requirements for questions 1-5. Answer to this question will determine subsequent steps.
  *   Who will come up with costing based on the requirements identified? Is it possible to estimate costs until you get to phase 2 and 3? Might be possible to get a high level idea in phase 1, but you cannot do it thorougly until you get to phase 2 when the policies are identified. Phase 1 could identify what costs need to be measured while phase 2 may ballpark those. Cost impact expected across the whole eco-system. Impact assessment will be important question.
  *   Outreach to SO/ACs may involve those groups to consult with their respective constituencies that may take more than 35 days. Smaller requests more frequently may facilitate feedback. All should be communicating regularly with their respective groups - bring feedback to the WG on an ongoing basis. If any request for input would be associated with a minimum 35 day timeline it would have a significant impact on the overall timeline.
  *   Leadership team will work on the detail of the work plan based on the approach outlined and comments received.
  *   Those on the call were supportive of the approach outlined. Provide opportunity for those not on the call to provide feedback on the approach.
  *   Leadership team would like to be able to send out a first cut of a work plan by the end of this week so it can be further discussed and reviewed during next week's meeting.

Action item #4: All to review work plan approach as has been circulated with the agenda and provide any comments / questions on the mailing list within 48 hours.

Action item #5: Leadership team to send out first draft of work plan by the end of this week.

4. Discuss proposed outreach to SO/AC/SG/Cs to solicit early input

  *   Required to formally request input at early stage, minimum of 35 days response time. Considering asking for general input.
  *   Request formal input shortly after ICANN meeting in Marrakech.

Action item #6: Leadership team to develop draft outreach message for WG review.

5. ICANN meeting in Marrakech F2F meeting

  *   See http://doodle.com/poll/7f9h9spwwmys26c5. To date 46 expected to participate in person, 20 are planning to participate remotely and 5 are not able to attend.
  *   See https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/wed-rds for further details.

6. Confirm next steps and next meeting

  *   Next meeting will be scheduled for Tuesday 1 March at 16.00 UTC
  *   Chuck will not be available for the next meeting - Susan Kawaguchi has volunteered to chair the meeting on 1 March.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160224/01fb1678/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Membership-Review-Email.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 320966 bytes
Desc: Membership-Review-Email.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160224/01fb1678/Membership-Review-Email.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RDS PDP WG Leadership Team Recommended Work Plan Approach 23 February 2016.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 355135 bytes
Desc: RDS PDP WG Leadership Team Recommended Work Plan Approach 23 February 2016.pdf
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160224/01fb1678/RDSPDPWGLeadershipTeamRecommendedWorkPlanApproach23February2016.pdf>