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

[Greg Shatan]

My understanding is the same as Andrew (and consistent with the discussion
on the call, which I did attend).  To some extent, this is a "chicken and
egg" question -- deciding what should be done first.  I don't think anyone
was suggesting skipping any analysis, nor was anyone framing this as "who
wants this data?! Get your data here!"

The approach suggested by Kathy and seconded by Sam ("only adding fields
when there is a convincing reason. If this starts by casting a wide net
much time and effort will go in culling out undesirable fields") will not
save any time or effort, and it will make the discussions much more
difficult to organize.  If we get the "desiderata" on a list, we can then
move to the discussion of that list, in a single phase.  Switching to a
"fight to get on the list" approach will put us into a "stop-and-start"
mode, where we will stop each time a field is suggested and enter into a
debate over that single field's worthiness for inclusion, without the
perspective of knowing which other fields may next come up for
consideration.

I endorse the current work plan approach of getting it all on the list,
seeing the list holistically and then considering the propositions which
will all clearly be before us.  This should result in less time and effort,
not more.  This is also more forward-looking, rather than starting with
creating a list of the data currently being collected, which is inherently
backwards-looking.

Greg

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 6:11 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 05:17:49PM -0500, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>
> > Jumping straight into "Develop a comprehensive list of possible
> requirements
> > (without debate)" skips the whole analysis (above) that I understand is
> > necessary under EU nations' laws (and the many other countries with data
> > protection laws) and jumps straight into -- "who wants this data?! Get
> your
> > data here!"
>
> I missed the call, so when I read this I understood the plan to be
> basically brainstorming -- writing down all the possible things one
> might want first, and then do the analysis you were suggesting.  Maybe
> I misunderstood, though.
>
> > What other term can we use?
>
> My experience is that when people say "requirements" in this
> less-formal way (and it's indeed also not what I mean when I say
> "requirements"), it usually actually means "desiderata".  So that's
> how I've been reading it.
>
> Best regards,
>
> A
>
>
> --
> Andrew Sullivan
> ajs at anvilwalrusden.com
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160225/61398194/attachment.html>