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

Ayden Férdeline icann at ferdeline.com
Tue Jul 12 12:09:51 UTC 2016


Thank you for discussing my proposal with the leadership team, Chuck, and for
passing on this feedback. I would just like to add that considering the
complexity of the issues at hand, I welcome as many opportunities for public
input as possible. I do not consider the inclusion of three more brief comment
periods to be an undue burden on the working group. This would also give
different stakeholders more time to grasp each of the distinct issues we are
discussing, while giving working group members an occasional pause during which
time we can focus our energies on other projects we are involved in.
- Ayden





On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 3:38 AM, 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



Ayden Férdeline Statement of Interest
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160712/a983a0ed/attachment.html>


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