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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Mon Jul 11 04:07:44 UTC 2016


I support Chuck's view that we should continue with the direction as
proposed.  This direction is a result of compromises and should be viewed
as such.

For the reasons stated by Chuck, the idea of five preliminary reports is
unworkable and ill-advised.  Our ability to thoroughly and fairly consider
the fundamental questions in our charter will only be hindered by
disaggregating the interrelated issues before us.  Considering each in
isolation would remove context and produce results that would tend to be
more academic than practical.

The planned approach has  a pause in Section 1.b, after deliberating only
on the purpose, privacy and data elements.  Critically, this plan allows to
consider these three elements in conjunction, as well as in isolation,
consistent with their interrelated nature.  This wouldn't happen if we
split this into five self-contained units.  However, Ayden suggests that
privacy be the first element and that this then be used as a limitation on
all further discussions.  This is suspiciously like a "privacy first"
approach we have already debated and rejected at least once.  It also
sounds like a move away from finding consensus on our approach.  As Ayden
acknowledges, his objection to "use cases" is also making a return
appearance, after being raised in Helsinki.

If we are going to keep doubling back on ourselves, it will take forever to
move forward.  This is in part because each re-visitation means that all
views need to be rehashed, for fear that a failure to re-state a view (even
one that is widely held) will be misinterpreted as lack of support for that
view.  For instance, if Ayden resurfaces his objection to "use cases," do
we all need to restate the reasons why use cases make good sense, or can we
just refer back to earlier discussions on the topic?  I'll hope that we can
refer back to earlier discussions, but if not, we'll need to roll them all
out again.  I'll hold of on doing so, optimistic that it will not be
necessary to re-enter that decision loop again.

Finally, I would suggest there is no risk of us moving too quickly, and
that we will have ample time to resolve all potential misunderstandings.
As such, I think there is little risk that we would actually cause ICANN to
implement recommendations that would "unintentionally upset the RDS
landscape and impose significant costs on some stakeholders."  We might do
so intentionally, and that is a very valid concern -- but a different
discussion for a different phase of our work.

Greg

On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com> wrote:

> Ayden,
>
>
>
> We hnave discussed your input on the leadership list and the following
> points were made that I think are worth noting:
>
>
>
> ". . . the board/GNSO group that developed the process framework
> explicitly considered whether to split this PDP into multiple PDPs to
> separately address more specific questions, and firmly decided upon a
> single PDP which required (at minimum) all of the questions to be
> considered.
>
> "When reaching this decision, the board/GNSO group acknowledged that one
> large PDP would be very complex and thus more difficult to resource and
> manage. It did look at spinning off for example a PDP on privacy. However,
> it was felt that the questions identified in the charter were so tightly
> inter-related that they could not be effectively progressed independently,
> and that reaching consensus would require striking a balance between the
> interests of diverse groups with very different priorities. This is why the
> charter's phase 1 requires all questions to be considered "simultaneously"
> by a single group before making an initial recommendation. This is also why
> the process framework enumerates a list of questions to be evaluated by the
> GNSO council at key decision points. The intent was to help ensure that
> sufficient progress is made in considering all questions and concerns, and
> that none be pushed to the side or left behind for later consideration."
>
>
>
> "In addition to (the) insights on the process framework, from a practical
> perspective – an Initial Report comes with certain requirements of what
> needs to be included and a minimum 40-day public comment period so five
> Initial Reports would create a significant amount of work in addition to a
> minimum of 200 days of public comment period, and in the end, all the
> recommendations would need to be bundled up into one overall Initial Report
> anyway which would also need to go out for public comment. From the process
> framework as well as WG discussions, it (seems) clear that all these issues
> are interlinked so it would likely be very difficult (for) the community
> (to) able to comment on these standalone Initial Reports without having
> information on how the other issues are addressed. (On a side point) it may
> be helpful to move away from the term Initial Report as it comes with a
> number of minimum requirements which may not be relevant for what the WG is
> trying to achieve."
>
>
>
> Considering these points, I really believe that we should continue with
> the direction as proposed but we will discuss this further in our WG
> meeting Tuesday.
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Ayden Férdeline [icann at ferdeline.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 09, 2016 3:44 PM
> *To:* Gomes, Chuck
> *Cc:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Latest Revision to Possible Approach to
> Determining Consensus
>
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160711/c6267854/attachment.html>


More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list