<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Chuck,<br>
Tx you for the reminder for the last call of comments. I would like
to raise concerns about some of the items in the work plan. My
objections have to do with the focus of the<i> </i>"Outline of
Approach for Phase 1" extensively on input from the EWG Final
Report. The work plan, as circulated (particularly under its
"Assumptions") implies an understanding and acceptance of the EWG
Final Report that never existed. Let me explain<b> </b>(and invite
my EWG friends and all present at that time) to supplement this
record: <b><br>
<br>
Background: </b>the EWG Final Report was greatly changed from
the interim to the final draft. Not a little bit, but significantly,
substantively, clearly changed. Dozens of new pages were added;
entirely new analysis and recommendations. The final Report was
difficult, even impossible, to understand. Long public sessions were
held at the ICANN meeting in London where speaker after speaker
raised issues, concerns and questions, questions, questions. There
were so much ambiguity in the text, so many sections that were
unclear, so many cross-references that were not complete that even
those of us who have been in this field for many years found it
impossible to understand specifically what was being recommended and
why. Further, there were major questions raised about the large
amount of data being collected and retained, indications of nearly
unlimited access for certain types of users, and many more
concerns. <i>There were so many questions that commenters at the
microphone agreed we/they could not even start a full and
substantive critique of the Final Report because it is unclear
even what was being recommended on certain key and substantive
points. The essence of drafting rules and technical policy is, of
course, clarity and we agreed in these public session in London
that it was lacking in this Final Report.** Answers were promised;
answers never came. The EWG Final Report remains an ambiguous,
unclear document. <br>
<br>
</i><b>No Final Public Comment: </b>Unfortunately, despite major
and extensive changes between the interim and final drafts, and
ICANN precedent itself, the EWG Final Report never went to public
written comment. (In all my time in ICANN, which is a lot, I have
never seen a final report which did not go to public comment -
particularly a final report as complex, difficult, convoluted and
significantly-changed as this one.) There was no final comment
period for this report -- just a promise that no group would ever
accept the Final Report as an absolute starting point; and that all
future groups working with the EWG Final Report would know that it
never received a final review, never received consensus, and was
never even understood by those critiquing it in the public sessions.<b>
</b><b><br>
<br>
</b><b>Dissent: </b>Further, the EWG Final Report received a strong
dissent from the only member of the EWG with a data protection
background - the person who was a key drafter of the Canadian Data
Protection Report. Her issues and concerns have, of course, never
been addressed because the EWG Final Report never went out for that
final round of public comment and final round of revisions. <br>
<b><br>
</b><b>Accordingly: </b>calls for acceptance and reliance on the
EWG Final Report should be much more carefully worded and limited in
the Work Plan than they are now. I know the Board wants us to refer
it as a reference point and touch point, but not the only or
exclusive starting point<b>. </b>The work plan has references to
other sources other than the EWG Final Report, but what are they,
where are they and who will find and summarize them? Given the
speed we want to work, it is incumbent on the WG, at this early
point in development, in this Work Plan, to determine what these
other sources might be and how we can access them quickly,
efficiently and effectively. I would like to request that the Work
Plan include provisions for subteams to form and Staff to help find,
use and summarize these other sources so that they will be available
as quickly as the EWG Report (and noting that it may be difficult
for members of the community to drop other work and write short
White Papers.) But it is clear that we need to fairly and fully pull
in the widest range of information and input at this critical point
of Phase 1 -- the RDS Working Group richly deserves it! <br>
<br>
Best, <br>
Kathy (Kleiman)<br>
p.s. In summary, I would like to ask Assumptions be modified to
reflect the huge questions and concerns raised about the EWG Final
Report in London, and the complete lack of any final comment period
on a hugely and substantively-changed final report. I would also
like to request that Outline of Approach to Phase 1 be modified to
reflect a concerted effort of the WG, Leadership Team subteam(s) and
Staff to identify, define and summarize the "sources other than the
EWG Final Report" that will be used and what resources will be
devoted by Staff to collecting and summarizing them for ease of use
by the WG. <br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Kathy<br>
<br>
On 2/24/2016 1:34 AM, Marika Konings wrote: <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:D2F2AB07.62A30%25marika.konings@icann.org"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>
<div>Dear All,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Please find below the notes and action items of today’s
meeting. I would like to draw special attention to the
following action items and deadlines associated with these:</div>
<ul>
<li><b>Action item #1</b>: All to review categories identified
by small team and provide feedback within 24 hours (see
attached)</li>
<li><b>Action item #4</b>: All to review work plan approach as
has been circulated with the agenda and provide any comments
/ questions on the mailing list within 48 hours. (see
attached)</li>
</ul>
<div>Please share any input or questions you may have with the
mailing list.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best regards,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Marika</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Notes/Action items 24 February 2016 - Next–Generation
RDS PDP WG Meeting</b></div>
<div> </div>
<div><i>1. Roll call/ SOI</i></div>
<ul>
<li>Note, observers have read-only access to the mailing list
and do not receive the call details. If you want to change
your status, you can inform the GNSO Secretariat
accordingly.</li>
<li>Members are required to provide a Statement of Interest in
order to participate in the Working Group.</li>
<li>Updates to SOIs are requested at the start of every
meeting.</li>
</ul>
<div>A<b>ction item #1</b>: Please complete / update your
Statement of Interest if you have not done so yet. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><i>2. Review of WG membership & expertise update</i></div>
<ul>
<li>Small team has been discussing how to identify current
level of expertise</li>
<li>Identified a number of rough categories of expertise that
is expected to be needed for this effort: Legal (IP,
criminal, civil), Technical (Protocol development, Security,
Audit), Data Protection, Operational (Registrar,
Registries), Commercial/e-business, Non commercial/not for
profit, government advisory, law enforcement (police,
investigators, courts), individual internet user.</li>
<li>Proposal to put these categories into a zoomerang poll to
allow for WG members to self-identify their expertise</li>
<li>Small team would like to receive input on the categories
identified and possible sub-categories</li>
<li>Consider removing investigators as it can be considered
part of 'police'. There are also other agencies that are
involved in investigations, maybe that is why it has been
identified as a separate category. Should investigators
(non-government) be a separate category? This would include
organisations like consumer organisations.</li>
<li>Security may not only be technical expertise, there may
also be non-technical aspects to it. Consider having a
security category that is not under the technical heading.</li>
<li>DNS technical specialists should also be considered as a
category</li>
<li>Categories are intended to get a general sense of
expertise available</li>
<li>Consider updating law enforcement to public safety to
capture a broader category of investigators?</li>
<li>Should public defenders be added to the legal category?
Might already be covered by legal/criminal?</li>
<li>Consider a category for cybersecurity. </li>
<li>Experts can be invited to just join when a particular
topic is discussed - not only looking at filling gaps in
membership, but also identify specific support that may be
needed in an expert capacity. </li>
<li>Consider adding a category for WHOIS software / service
developer</li>
</ul>
<div><b>Action item #1</b>: All to review categories identified
and provide feedback within 24 hours</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Action item #2</b>: staff to develop survey on the basis
of the categories identified and request WG members to
participate</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Action item #3</b>: small team to review feedback
received to the survey and identify whether additional
outreach is needed based on the survey results. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><i>3. Review and discuss draft work plan approach</i></div>
<ul>
<li>Bulk of work in phase 1 relates to recommending
requirements for Registration Directory Services</li>
<li>Use EWG Final Report as starting point, as instructed by
the ICANN Board. Substantial public input was provided and
incorporated by this effort. Not restricted to the EWG Final
Report, but an important starting point. </li>
<li>Develop a comprehensive list of possible requirement
(without a debate) as a first step. Deliberations on each
possible requirement will be the next step after developing
this comprehensive list, including reaching consensus on
whether requirements should be included or not.</li>
<li>Outreach to SO/ACs is expected during various stages of
the PDP, periodically as needed. This outreach may take
various forms, formal, informal. There is a requirement for
formal input at the early phase of the process. </li>
<li>Interdependency of all eleven questions in the charter
will main that the WG may need to go back and forth between
questions. </li>
<li>First five questions are critical as they are essential to
responding to the foundational question of whether a new RDS
is needed. </li>
<li>No comment period held on the Final EWG Report. EWG Report
expected to be starting point - not stopping there, just a
first list of possible requirements that the WG is expected
to add to.</li>
<li>Should purpose be defined before discussion uses? Purposes
and uses are part of the charter which are expected to
result in possible requirements (see question 1).</li>
<li>Leadership team has started developing a first list of
possible requirements - draft as a starting point for the
full WG to review and add to. SO/AC/SG/Cs can also be asked
to add to the list of possible requirements. Objective to
have comprehensive list of requirements. </li>
<li>Once this comprehensive list is 'complete' (WG is of the
view that all possible requirements have been added),
systematic review of the requirements by the WG. </li>
<li>Deliberation of some requirements could be deferred to
later phases, if deemed appropriate. </li>
<li>Following this work, the WG is expected to deliberate on
foundational question: is a new RDS needed or can the
existing WHOIS system be modified to satisfy the recommended
requirements for questions 1-5. Answer to this question will
determine subsequent steps. </li>
<li>Who will come up with costing based on the requirements
identified? Is it possible to estimate costs until you get
to phase 2 and 3? Might be possible to get a high level idea
in phase 1, but you cannot do it thorougly until you get to
phase 2 when the policies are identified. Phase 1 could
identify what costs need to be measured while phase 2 may
ballpark those. Cost impact expected across the whole
eco-system. Impact assessment will be important question.</li>
<li>Outreach to SO/ACs may involve those groups to consult
with their respective constituencies that may take more than
35 days. Smaller requests more frequently may facilitate
feedback. All should be communicating regularly with their
respective groups - bring feedback to the WG on an ongoing
basis. If any request for input would be associated with a
minimum 35 day timeline it would have a significant impact
on the overall timeline.</li>
<li>Leadership team will work on the detail of the work plan
based on the approach outlined and comments received.</li>
<li>Those on the call were supportive of the approach
outlined. Provide opportunity for those not on the call to
provide feedback on the approach. </li>
<li>Leadership team would like to be able to send out a first
cut of a work plan by the end of this week so it can be
further discussed and reviewed during next week's meeting.</li>
</ul>
<div><b>Action item #4</b>: All to review work plan approach as
has been circulated with the agenda and provide any comments /
questions on the mailing list within 48 hours. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Action item #5</b>: Leadership team to send out first
draft of work plan by the end of this week.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><i>4. Discuss proposed outreach to SO/AC/SG/Cs to solicit
early input</i></div>
<ul>
<li>Required to formally request input at early stage, minimum
of 35 days response time. Considering asking for general
input.</li>
<li>Request formal input shortly after ICANN meeting in
Marrakech. </li>
</ul>
<div><b>Action item #6:</b> Leadership team to develop draft
outreach message for WG review.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><i>5. ICANN meeting in Marrakech F2F meeting</i></div>
<ul>
<li>See <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://doodle.com/poll/7f9h9spwwmys26c5">http://doodle.com/poll/7f9h9spwwmys26c5</a>. To date 46
expected to participate in person, 20 are planning to
participate remotely and 5 are not able to attend.</li>
<li>See
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/wed-rds">https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/wed-rds</a>
for further details.</li>
</ul>
<div><i>6. Confirm next steps and next meeting</i></div>
<ul>
<li>Next meeting will be scheduled for Tuesday 1 March at
16.00 UTC </li>
<li>Chuck will not be available for the next meeting - Susan
Kawaguchi has volunteered to chair the meeting on 1 March.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>