[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Work Plan for Approval - updated per RDS PDP WG 10 May meeting

[Farell Folly]

+1 to David Cake.
Le 12 mai 2016 09:38, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com> a écrit :

> Here is a little more detail to add to my initial response to this
> message.  I am on a second flight for the day and do not have access to the
> charter at the moment so will possibly refer to the terms of the charter
> later.
>
>
>
> Note that step 12(e) tasks us with doing what you suggest: “Deliberate on
> Fundamental Question: Is a new next-gen RDS needed or can the existing
> WHOIS system be modified to satisfy requirements for questions 1-5?”  Am
> I correct in concluding that you think we should try to answer that
> question before deliberating on any of the 11 questions in the charter?
>
>
>
> Chuck
>
>
>
> *From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *TXVB
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 11, 2016 7:17 AM
> *To:* lisa at corecom.com; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Work Plan for Approval - updated per RDS
> PDP WG 10 May meeting
>
>
>
>
> I strongly object to this work plan. Per the charter we c are first to
> determine *if* a new RDS is needed. Everyone in this group seems to have
> accepted the idea of a new RDS as fait accompli, and hastely rushing ahead.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> On May 10, 2016, 9:32 PM, Lisa Phifer wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> Attached please find an updated draft of the RDS PDP WG Phase 1 Work Plan
> for WG approval.
>
> Change marks in this update reflect edits to address feedback (below) from
> today's WG call.
>
> During today's WG call, WG members on the call approved publishing this
> work plan, with the understanding that work plan details are dynamic and
> will continue to evolve.
>
>
>
> *As indicated in Action Item #3 below, WG members not on today's call are
> now asked to review this work plan and raise any serious objections to this
> email list by COB Friday 13 May. *If no serious objections are raised,
> this work plan will be published on the WG's wiki. The WG will then
> continue on to the next tasks identified in this work plan.
>
> Best regards,
> Lisa
>
>
> At 11:50 AM 5/10/2016, Marika Konings wrote:
>
> *3. Discuss updated Phase 1 Work Plan - RDS PDP WG *
>
>    - See latest draft distributed on the mailing list (dated 5 May)
>    - Adjust date for 7e based on actual circulation date of SO/AC/SG/C
>    outreach message
>    - Item 8 - any and all requirements could be identified here, does not
>    only need to relate to purpose. Possible list of requirements, no substance
>    or analysis yet - will happen as part of the deliberations.
>    - How to avoid mixing process with substances?
>    - Helsinki meeting could be used to get input from others, also should
>    additional materials and/or webinars be prepared to facilitate the
>    preparation of SO/AC/SG/Cs
>    - Are the timeframes realistic for item 8c - what is expected from the
>    WG? At this stage, the WG is not asked to express their opinion on the
>    requirements on the list, but only to add any that are missing which will
>    be added without discussion. Following that, the document will be reviewed
>    for possible duplication and re-grouping.
>    - Need to differentiate between what Registrars collect as part of
>    their business practices and what ICANN requires Registrars to collect them
>    as part of accreditation and contractual requirements. This makes ICANN a
>    data controller according to some. Others note that the people or bodies
>    that collect and manage personal data are called 'data controllers'.
>    - The list is POSSIBLE requirements - whether they will become
>    requirements will be determined by the WG after deliberation.
>    - Step 9 to be refined after step 8 - will need to determine whether
>    further outreach will be needed and in what form. Need to update dates as
>    the current ones are not realistic.
>    - Leadership team will aim to keep the WG moving forward, but cannot
>    overrush it either.
>    - Update in step 13 reference to 12e, not 12d
>    - Is there anything in this work plan that anyone seriously objects
>    to? Is this work plan, understanding that it is dynamic and it will change,
>    sufficiently good enough for the WG to consider it final and for the
>    community to see? Note, dates will be updated as concerns have been
>    expressed in relation to some of the dates that do not reflect the current
>    timeline. No objecctions expressed by those on the call - draft work plan
>    considered good enough to move forward.
>
> *Action item #2* - make sure that dates in work plan are realistic (see
> for example item 9, item 10)
> *Action item #3* - Those that were not able to attend the meeting are
> requested to provide their input on is there anything in this work plan
> that anyone seriously objects to? Is this work plan, understanding that it
> is dynamic and it will change, sufficiently good enough for the WG to
> consider it final and for the community to see? Deadline: by the end of
> this week (Friday COB wherever you are).
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160512/d9d2ad55/attachment.html>