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

[Kathy Kleiman]

Hi Chuck,
Tx you for the reminder for the last call of comments. I would like to 
raise concerns about some of the items in the work plan. My objections 
have to do with the focus of the//"Outline of Approach for Phase 1" 
extensively on input from the EWG Final Report. The work plan, as 
circulated (particularly under its "Assumptions") implies an 
understanding and acceptance of the EWG Final Report that never existed. 
Let me explain**(and invite my EWG friends and all present at that time) 
to supplement this record: *

Background: *the EWG Final Report was greatly changed from the interim 
to the final draft. Not a little bit, but significantly, substantively, 
clearly changed. Dozens of new pages were added; entirely new analysis 
and recommendations. The final Report was difficult, even impossible, to 
understand. Long public sessions were held at the ICANN meeting in 
London where speaker after speaker raised issues, concerns and 
questions, questions, questions. There were so much ambiguity in the 
text, so many sections that were unclear, so many cross-references that 
were not complete that even those of us who have been in this field for 
many years found it impossible to understand specifically what was being 
recommended and why. Further, there were major questions raised about 
the large amount of data being collected and retained, indications of 
nearly unlimited access for certain types of users, and many more 
concerns. /There were so many questions that commenters at the 
microphone agreed we/they could not even start a full and substantive 
critique of the Final Report because it is unclear even what was being 
recommended on certain key and substantive points. The essence of 
drafting rules and technical policy is, of course, clarity and we agreed 
in these public session in London that it was lacking in this Final 
Report.** Answers were promised; answers never came. The EWG Final 
Report remains an ambiguous, unclear document.

/*No Final Public Comment: *Unfortunately, despite major and extensive 
changes between the interim and final drafts, and ICANN precedent 
itself, the EWG Final Report never went to public written comment. (In 
all my time in ICANN, which is a lot, I have never seen a final report 
which did not go to public comment - particularly a final report as 
complex, difficult, convoluted and significantly-changed as this one.) 
There was no final comment period for this report -- just a promise that 
no group would ever accept the Final Report as an absolute starting 
point; and that all future groups working with the EWG Final Report 
would know that it never received a final review, never received 
consensus, and was never even understood by those critiquing it in the 
public sessions.***

**Dissent: *Further, the EWG Final Report received a strong dissent from 
the only member of the EWG with a data protection background - the 
person who was a key drafter of the Canadian Data Protection Report. Her 
issues and concerns have, of course, never been addressed because the 
EWG Final Report never went out for that final round of public comment 
and final round of revisions.
*
**Accordingly: *calls for acceptance and reliance on the EWG Final 
Report should be much more carefully worded and limited in the Work Plan 
than they are now. I know the Board wants us to refer it as a reference 
point and touch point, but not the only or exclusive starting point*. 
*The work plan has references to other sources other than the EWG Final 
Report, but what are they, where are they and who will find and 
summarize them?  Given the speed we want to work, it is incumbent on the 
WG, at this early point in development, in this Work Plan, to determine 
what these other sources might be and how we can access them quickly, 
efficiently and effectively. I would like to request that the Work Plan 
include provisions for subteams to form and Staff to help find, use and 
summarize these other sources so that they will be available as quickly 
as the EWG Report (and noting that it may be difficult for members of 
the community to drop other work and write short White Papers.) But it 
is clear that we need to fairly and fully pull in the widest range of 
information and input at this critical point of Phase 1 -- the RDS 
Working Group richly deserves it!

Best,
Kathy (Kleiman)
p.s. In summary, I would like to ask Assumptions be modified to reflect 
the huge questions and concerns raised about the EWG Final Report in 
London, and the complete lack of any final comment period on a hugely 
and substantively-changed final report.  I would also like to request 
that Outline of Approach to Phase 1 be modified to reflect a concerted 
effort of the WG, Leadership Team subteam(s) and Staff to identify, 
define and summarize the "sources other than the EWG Final Report" that 
will be used and what resources will be devoted by Staff to collecting 
and summarizing them for ease of use by the WG.

Best regards,
Kathy

On 2/24/2016 1:34 AM, Marika Konings wrote:
> 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.
>
> A*ction 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160225/6015e38f/attachment.html>