[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Possible approach to consensus in deliberation of possible requirements for RDS PDP WG

[Farell Folly]

I have no problem about dealing with the big 3 first, and continue
iteratively. We just need to finish them all.

I can make a new suggestion if is not too late : forward a sub-list of
possible requirements to appropriate sub groups (we created earlier in this
WG and which work on docs summaries), so that they can group them. I was in
data protection and data privacy sub group led by David Cake, I think we
can help in grouping all possible requirement of this type [PR--] into sub
categories (registries, registrars, users, data etc.)

Best Regards
--ff--

Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.
Le 15 juin 2016 20:25, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> a écrit :

> Per Action Item #3 from yesterday’s WG call, attached is a slighted
> revised 'possible approach for consensus in deliberation of possible
> requirements for RDS PDP WG'.  This version was revised from the one
> presented in the WG call; edits were made and comments inserted in an
> effort to reflect the WG discussion that occurred in the meeting. Given
> on-going list discussion, all WG members are encouraged to review and
> comment with an aim to 'finalise' the approach during next week's meeting.
> To aid in discussion, below is a recap of two proposals made during
> yesterday’s WG call with some pros & cons.
>
>
>
> *Proposal 1: When indicating level of support for possible requirements
> within initial report(s), identify whether there is support or lack of
> support by each SG/C. *Pros: Communicate any formal statement(s) of
> support in context with draft recommendations.
> Cons: SG/C positions likely to be formalized after initial report, during
> public comment.
>
> Personal comment from Chuck:  The attached approach does not specifically
> address this so I believe that we could deal with this once we get to that
> point; if I am correct, we do not need to resolve this now.
>
>
>
> *Proposal 2: Limit initial report to three fundamental questions (privacy,
> data, users/purposes), adding a new second initial report on remaining
> fundamental questions (accuracy and gated access) prior to the required
> initial report at conclusion of Phase 1 to address (at minimum) all 11
> charter questions. *Pros:
>
> ·         Allows WG to make incremental progress by focusing on fewer
> questions and possible requirements
>
> ·         There are only so many issues we can work on at once, and to
> stick with the big 3 provides a focus and direction.
>
> ·         Allows additional/earlier opportunity for public comment
>
> ·         It may be premature to consider accuracy and gated access when
> we have not yet established if there is a basis for collecting registration
> data in the first place.
>
> Cons:
>
> ·         Delays deliberation on inter-dependent questions
>
> ·         May impede attempts to balance privacy, access, and accuracy
> issues as requested by board and charter
>
> ·         Adds overhead for WG and community (additional workload
> associated with running two vs. three public comment periods (both from a
> staff as well as WG perspective as well as impact on the overall timeline)
>
> ·         There is a risk of public comment fatigue so the WG will need
> to give consideration to whether there are any downsides to having three
> public comment periods on the same topic vs. two.
>
> ·         There’s a reason the charter was written as is and to change it
> unwinds the charter without the benefit of the thoughtful work and
> deliberations that went into it.
>
> Personal note from Chuck:  I tried to include the pros and cons from
> various people both in yesterday’s meeting and *on the* list since then.
> If I missed some, please communicate them.  Also, I encourage others to
> suggest additional pros and cons on the list.
>
> Thanks to those who have begun to share their views on these proposals and
> expand upon possible pros/cons. You are all encouraged to continue
> exchanging views to reach agreement on a possible approach for deliberation
> that can lead this WG to consensus agreement on all of the questions we
> must answer during Phase 1.
>
> 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/20160615/4c03bc68/attachment.html>