[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation

[Sara Bockey]

Just wondering if a meeting invite has been sent out for tomorrow’s meeting?
Thanks,
Sara

From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Lisa Phifer <lisa at corecom.com>
Reply-To: "lisa at corecom.com" <lisa at corecom.com>
Date: Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 3:24 PM
To: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation

Dear all,

On behalf of the leadership team, I am forwarding the following proposal to progress deliberation, including an invitation for all WG members to participate in this poll:

RDS PDP WG Possible Requirement Poll #1 - 17 Nov 2016
https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W

Best Regards,
Lisa



Proposed steps to progress Possible Requirements through deliberation – 17 November, 2016

As detailed in our Approach to reach consensus during Phase 1<As%20detailed%20in%20our%20published%20Approach%20to%20reach%20consensus%20during%20Phase%201,>, the RDS PDP WG kicked off initial deliberation on possible requirements for Users/Purposes, Data Elements, and Privacy at ICANN57. During that F2F meeting, we spent roughly three hours discussing 7 possible requirements and 7 similar or duplicate requirements to get a preliminary sense of WG member thoughts on them. Output from this initial deliberation can be found in published meeting notes<https://community.icann.org/x/NAe4Aw>.

Based on this experience, the leadership team believes that it will not be effective to draft and edit in detail WG recommendations on hundreds of possible requirements in real-time during WG meetings because doing so would require an inordinate amount of time.  To progress possible requirements through deliberation effectively while making best use of meeting time, the leadership team has proposed the following approach to be tested over the next 2-3 weeks.

Steps to progress possible requirements through deliberation


Each weekly WG meeting will include both
(a)  some initial deliberation on a set of possible requirements, and
(b)  further deliberation on previously-discussed possible requirements.

Deliberation on each possible requirement will be time-bounded during each meeting to promote effective use of meeting time and progress through the following steps:



1)       Initial deliberation will focus on raising and recording preliminary thoughts about a set of possible requirements, including very similar or duplicate possible requirements.



2)       Staff will create a poll to assess the WG’s preliminary level of support for draft recommendations derived from initial deliberation. WG members will have 5 days to respond to the poll.



3)       After each poll closes, poll results and draft recommendations will be posted on a wiki page created for each possible requirement within that set.



4)       Those poll results and draft recommendations will be briefly discussed during a subsequent WG meeting, allowing for further deliberation at a conceptual level (that is, not word smithing).



5)       WG members will then have 5 days to suggest specific edits to draft recommendations using the wiki page comment function (or if necessary, on the WG email list).



6)       The leadership team will use suggested edits to refine draft recommendations, attempting to develop proposed final text which reflects rough consensus, to be confirmed by the WG.

These steps are illustrated below, showing deliberation on several sets of possible requirements as they progress. For each set of possible requirements, Steps 1-4 may be completed in two WG meetings over a period of three weeks. Steps 5-6 rely upon the WG wiki and email to refine recommendations and reach rough consensus without requiring extensive WG meeting time.

[cid:image001.png at 01D243CB.01F940A0]

The leadership team hopes that these steps will help us draft, determine support for, and then edit in detail WG recommendations derived from possible requirements in a time-effective manner, while keeping the “pipeline” filled with initial deliberation on additional sets of possible requirements.

We would like to test these proposed steps by using them to progress the first set of possible requirements deliberated on at Hyderabad (“Set A”). To start, we have created the following poll:
RDS PDP WG Possible Requirement Poll #1 - 17 Nov 2016
https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W

All WG members are asked to respond to this first poll, ideally by 20 November (midnight UTC). Initial results will be shared during the WG’s 22 November meeting, where we will introduce and answer questions about these proposed steps, including how poll results will be used to inform further deliberation. As this is our first poll, the poll will remain open through 25 November (midnight UTC).

During the WG’s 22 and 29 November meetings, initial deliberation will continue on two more sets of possible requirements to ramp up this proposed process.

During the WG’s 6 December meeting, the first poll results will be used to continue deliberation on that set. Over the week(s) following that meeting, WG feedback will be solicited to refine the wording of draft recommendations and reach rough consensus on those for which there is at least rough support.

We don’t know how well this test will work.  It may need to be refined. Or we may have to try a completely different approach.  In conducting this test, we welcome feedback and new ideas. For now, all WG members are strongly encouraged to visit the poll URL<https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W> above and attempt to complete this first poll, keeping in mind that all poll responses are preliminary and will only be used to inform next-step deliberation on each of these possible requirements.


The above proposal and poll will discussed during the WG’s 22 November call.
A PDF of the above proposal and the poll itself can also be found on the meeting page:
https://community.icann.org/x/v4-DAw

An updated list of possible requirements for initial deliberation will be circulated separately and also posted on the meeting page.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20161121/facfb400/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 42131 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20161121/facfb400/image001.png>