[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Work Plan for Approval - updated per RDS PDP WG 10 May meeting
cgomes at verisign.com
Thu May 12 08:30:44 UTC 2016
Here is the second paragraph of the Mission & Scope section of the charter:
“During Phase 1,the PDP WG should, at a minimum, attempt to reach consensus recommendations
regarding the following questions:
· What are the fundamental requirements for gTLD registration data? When addressing this question, the PDP WG should consider, at a minimum, users and purposes and associated access, accuracy, data element, and privacy requirements.
· Is a new policy framework and next-generation RDS needed to address these requirements?
o If yes, what cross-cutting requirements must a next-generation RDS address, including coexistence, compliance, system model, and cost, benefit, and risk analysis requirements?
o If no, does the current WHOIS policy framework sufficiently address these requirements? If not, what revisions are recommended to the current WHOIS policy framework to do so?”
The first primary bullet above references the first five areas for which the WG is supposed to develop requirements (i.e., questions 1-5): users and purposes and associated access, accuracy, data element, and privacy requirements. The second primary bullet asks the fundamental question you highlight. That is why deliberation on the first five questions precedes a decision on the fundamental question in the work plan. So the proposed work plan simply follows the terms of the charter.
Do you suggest that we request a change to the charter from the GNSO Council?
From: Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 6:22 PM
To: 'TXVB'; 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
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?
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:lisa at corecom.com>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto: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:
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.
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).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the gnso-rds-pdp-wg