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

[Ayden Férdeline]

I agree with Sana here. A ' tragedy of the commons ' is inevitable if we do not carefully consider the resources and ability to
process information that different stakeholders possess. It is my view that we
are best served if we are slowly fed new information, ideas, and perspectives.
This way we have the time to reflect on what we are learning, can have our
existing beliefs challenged by others, and won't unintentionally upset the RDS
landscape because of any misunderstandings.
- Ayden





On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 8:50 PM, Sana Ali sana.ali2030 at gmail.com wrote:
My comments on Proposal 2-
I believe we should go ahead and limit the initial report to three fundamental
questions (privacy, data, users/purposes), and add a new second initial report
on remaining fundamental questions (accuracy and gated access).
The cons for doing so seem largely speculative. Ordering our work is not going
to “impede attempts to balance privacy, access, and accuracy issues as requested
by board and charter”. It simply allows us to chew off the amount of work we can
handle at any one given time. Please keep in mind that different parts of the
process will naturally weigh differently on the different stakeholders involved
in this working group. To allow us to proceed incrementally lets us decide how
much work we are going to be able to do well, at any one given time. It also
gives us all the opportunity to play a stronger and more thorough oversight role
at each step. So, ultimately, no-one should be disadvantaged by proceeding in
this manner. 2 is not so much less than 3 public comment periods, especially if it makes our
work a little bit easier to handle, and allows us to look at the issues in a
more thorough fashion. Quality over quantity should be the obvious choice here.
And dividing the work this way, will allow us to do a better job at looking at
each of the fundamental questions set by the WG charter. We are not asking to
ignore some of the task, we are simply choosing to go about it in an intuitive
order.
I support the proposal.

Warm wishes, Sana


On Jun 15, 2016, at 3:21 PM, Gomes, Chuck < cgomes at verisign.com > wrote:
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

<Possible approach to consensus in deliberation of possible requirements 13-Jun
16 v5.docx> _______________________________________________
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/20160616/d892f933/attachment.html>