[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Latest Revision to Possible Approach to Determining Consensus

[Ayden Férdeline]

 Hi, all-

Thank you for sharing this document, Chuck. Having reflected on its
contents, I have two suggested revisions. Firstly, I would like to table
the idea of having five initial reports, and secondly I would like to
re-state my opposition to the inclusion of use cases.

Five initial reports would allow us to more thoroughly and fairly consider
each of the fundamental questions set out in the working group charter. I
appreciate that on the surface this suggestion may sound radical, but I
believe a more incremental approach would be the most prudent means through
which we could fairly and justly address each of these important, initial
charter questions. As Sana noted a few weeks ago, different parts of our
work plan are inevitably going to weigh differently on the various
stakeholders involved in this working group, so proceeding in a slightly
slower fashion will allow us all to be fed new information, ideas, and
perspectives. I worry that if we move too quickly, possibly as a result of
misunderstandings, we may unintentionally upset the RDS landscape and
impose significant costs on some stakeholders.

My suggestion is to consider one charter question per initial report,
followed by a public consultation exercise. This way, we can better
communicate to the wider ICANN community our progress – and it will be much
easier for others to comment when we ask them to consider a small
bite-sized chunk of our work, rather than having to familiarise themselves
with every piece of the puzzle. I remember in Helsinki we spoke of wanting
to have the GAC involved sooner and more frequently – this might be a
helpful means of doing just that.

My suggested order for the five reports would be: privacy -> purpose ->
data elements -> accuracy -> gated access. I would like to suggest we
consider privacy first, because until such time as we have a privacy
framework to work within it will be difficult (if not impossible?) to
define how limited the RDS’ purpose can or must be. And only once we know
the purpose of the RDS can we determine the data elements which need to be
collected.

Finally, in regards to point 3) c) iii) of version 13 of the work plan, I
would just like to have it on the record that I remain opposed - like I was
at our face-to-face meeting in Helsinki - to the consideration of use cases
in our deliberations. I am concerned that use cases may legitimise
illegitimate uses of the RDS because the burden of proof required to strike
one out is surely going to be high. If we go down this route of considering
use cases, however, I would like to respectfully suggest that we also
consider misuse cases – they may help us identify negative scenarios that
could arise as a result of the RDS.

Thank you for considering these two proposals.

Best wishes,

Ayden

P.S. This is my first ICANN working group, so I am still learning about how
we initiate PDPs, develop work plans, consider issues, and ultimately reach
rough consensus. I say this because it is very possible I have
misunderstood something or do not appreciate the repercussions that could
arise from my suggested changes to the work plan. If that is the case, I am
happy to be corrected :-). However, I do think that there are capacity
constraints. There are only so many issues we can work on at once. The
perception I have at the moment, of the many emails I receive from this
list, are that we are frequently being reminded that we are ahead of
ourselves. I have been guilty of this too. Considering each charter
question, one at a time, would give us focus and direction.

On 8 July 2016 at 18:04, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> Based on the results of our work in Helsinki, the Possible Approach to
> Determining Consensus was revised.  Changes made since the last version are
> redlined to make them easy to find.
>
>
>
> If possible, please try to review the edits made before our WG call next
> Tuesday.  It will be a main item on our agenda.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160709/60ed426f/attachment.html>