[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Reminder - Poll from 28 June Meeting

Sat Jul 15 07:10:16 UTC 2017

Thanks, Stephanie. The leadership team recognized that this week's poll was substantially longer than previous polls and required quite a bit of preparation which was one of the main reasons why this week's call was cancelled to hopefully give people the time needed. According to my calendar next week's meeting is scheduled at the 'normal' time (16.00 UTC) but regardless the leadership team will need to assess attendance and responses to the poll to determine next steps which as you note may take more time than for previous polls.

Best regards,

Marika

On 15 Jul 2017, at 01:28, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:

I think we may perhaps be a trifle overwhelmed, Marika, by the size of the poll, the need to understand the handout if not the entire context of the EWG report, and of course evaluate the data elements against a still inchoate sense of the RDS overall purpose.  I know I am overwhelmed, and I am pretty familiar with the EWG report and its new data elements.

I certainly appreciate that we need to make progress and move along, but this is a big gulp in terms of homework this week, when many of us are catching up on work not done while we were in Joburg, or the lucky ones who are either on holidays or at the IETF are not going to be on the call.  So I have a further concern that not only are we going to have our usual slim attendance at the rotational call (i.e. middle of the night for North America) but there are other factors dropping attendance.

I am going to fill the poll out, but I have been studying it first and i am not sure I am going to be able to fully comment on each concern. I hope my comments will be taken constructively, but there is a lot of nuance in some of the contextual significance of the data elements.  As Andrew Sullivan said

I fear what is happening is that we are failing to work at the right
level of abstraction...
Therefore, we need to distinguish policy desires that are
inconsistent with existing protocols or technical deployments if we're
going to propose policies that require such changes, and we need to
analyse what utility arises from a given desired element in the event
that the element is necessarily sometimes wrong.  It is bad policy to
create elements that are likely to be the source of bad policy.

I think this true, and while I understand that we have to, for instance, provide an opportunity for individuals to offer their skype handles if that is the way they wish to be contacted....going through all the possible variants of these data elements is not the correct level of data analysis. I look forward to the call on Tuesday, but I am worried that the results of this particular poll will not be as useful as one might hope.

Stephanie Perrin

On 2017-07-14 17:25, Marika Konings wrote:
Kathy, I’m not sure why you think this is a referendum. As discussed in Johannesburg and agreed by those in attendance, the idea is to first identify the ‘universe’ of data elements to then be able to determine which of those data elements should be in RDS, which is exactly what this survey is aiming to do. As such the EWG Final Report is used as an input to this discussion as directed by the WG’s charter, but it is now for the WG to critically assess that input and add, eliminate, change as it deems appropriate. So please take this as your opportunity to raise any questions about any of the data elements as well as provide your suggestions on what should be included in the RDS that has not been listed yet or what should not be included with your rationale.

To Sara’s point, the WG and leadership team has recognized from the start that this is an iterative process and additional input or expertise that is provided throughout the process may affect preliminary WG agreements. As such, please do fill out the survey with your wish list, based on the deliberations as well as input received to date. At the end of the day, the only way to ‘test’ whether the WG’s recommendations are considered compliant is to be able to put something concrete on the table and allow others to provide input on those recommendations.

All, please make sure to review the handout before responding to the survey as it provides important background information on the different data elements that may help inform your responses.

Best regards,

Marika

From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com><mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>
Date: Friday, July 14, 2017 at 22:01
To: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Reminder - Poll from 28 June Meeting

+1 to Sara's comment.

Question: I thought the question on the table in Johannesburg was what data needed to be collected in order to provide the service of domain name registration and maintenance?  How does that lead to a referendum on the data elements of the EWG report?

By way of background, the EWG report changed considerably from its "draft" to its "final" form - adding dozens of pages to the final report never reviewed or even seen by the ICANN Community. These included many funky new registration data elements, some which were optional, some which were not, some which were clearly defined, and many which were not. Questions raised about many of these registration data elements at the ICANN Meeting in London with the EWG were never answered.  To this day, I still don't understand the definition of many of these data elements.

A referendum on these fields now seems like a very odd place to be right now.

Best, Kathy
On 7/14/2017 2:12 PM, Sara Bockey wrote:
I believe these polling questions are premature.  Given GDPR and outstanding legal reviews, I don’t see how I can answer these questions outside of a “wish list” response.

Sara

From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Lisa Phifer <lisa at corecom.com><mailto:lisa at corecom.com>
Date: Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 10:08 AM
To: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org"<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org><mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] IMPORTANT: Reminder - Poll from 28 June Meeting

Dear all,

Many thanks to the 14 WG members who have already completed this week's poll and provided thoughtful rationale for and against data elements beyond the minimum public data set (MPDS).

For those who have not yet done so, please be sure to leave yourself extra time to review the handout before taking this week's longer-than-usual poll.

Link to the poll:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/P5MBXZ2[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_P5MBXZ2&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=b5HcvG5x9AaAxlRTIasuIjl08M7Q3EuQLoGvHdo2hyI&s=jr-YlwH3-oQNVTSPRocXuyz6QRgBuTtykaR0jUrJ6yY&e=>

Link to the handout, for info about each data elements beyond the MPDS:
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/66086729/28JunePoll-DataElements-ExpandedHandout.pdf[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_66086729_28JunePoll-2DDataElements-2DExpandedHandout.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=b5HcvG5x9AaAxlRTIasuIjl08M7Q3EuQLoGvHdo2hyI&s=QsgpAvOB4tZa8QfZj16a9bbdmy67jmCTcYkaWBZ9Y2g&e=>

Link to the last meeting's recording and transcript where this approach was discussed:
https://community.icann.org/x/lATfAw[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_x_lATfAw&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=b5HcvG5x9AaAxlRTIasuIjl08M7Q3EuQLoGvHdo2hyI&s=T8T3abL0lZkD4TLIUxEah8tXj8qXfq_4CDXR2nQ3MRY&e=>

This poll will close at COB this Saturday 15 July.

Best, Lisa

At 04:05 PM 7/8/2017, Lisa Phifer wrote:

Dear all,

In follow-up to our ICANN59 F2F WG meeting, all RDS PDP WG Members are encouraged to participate in the following poll:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/P5MBXZ2[surveymonkey.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.surveymonkey.com_r_P5MBXZ2&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=b5HcvG5x9AaAxlRTIasuIjl08M7Q3EuQLoGvHdo2hyI&s=jr-YlwH3-oQNVTSPRocXuyz6QRgBuTtykaR0jUrJ6yY&e=>

Also attached is an extended version of the Data Elements handout used for deliberation in our F2F meeting. This handout provides information about each data element in this poll, extracted from the EWG Final Report. Please use time previously set aside for our cancelled 11 July meeting to review this handout and then complete this week?s longer-than-usual poll.

Responses should be submitted through the above URL. For offline reference, a PDF of poll questions can also be found at:

https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/64947348/Poll-from-28JuneCall.pdf[community.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_download_attachments_64947348_Poll-2Dfrom-2D28JuneCall.pdf&d=DwMDaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=7_PQAir-9nJQ2uB2cWiTDDDo5Hfy5HL9rSTe65iXLVM&m=b5HcvG5x9AaAxlRTIasuIjl08M7Q3EuQLoGvHdo2hyI&s=jeyLgJipro_H9xX2jbJM4dwpz5QpsN6fxuAseSG7-bg&e=>

This poll will close at COB Saturday 15 July.  Poll results and the attached handout will be discussed in our 18 July 16.00 UTC WG meeting.

Please note that you must be a WG Member to participate in polls. If you are a WG Observer wishing to participate in polls, you must first contact gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> to upgrade to WG Member.

Regards,
Lisa

_______________________________________________

gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list

gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto: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/20170715/199294e6/attachment-0001.html>