<p dir="ltr">I have no problem about dealing with the big 3 first, and continue iteratively. We just need to finish them all.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I can make a new suggestion if is not too late : forward a sub-list of possible requirements to appropriate sub groups (we created earlier in this WG and which work on docs summaries), so that they can group them. I was in data protection and data privacy sub group led by David Cake, I think we can help in grouping all possible requirement of this type [PR--] into sub categories (registries, registrars, users, data etc.)</p>
<p dir="ltr">Best Regards<br>
--ff--</p>
<p dir="ltr">Mail sent from my mobile phone. Excuse for brievety.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">Le 15 juin 2016 20:25, "Gomes, Chuck" <<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a>> a écrit :<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Per Action Item #3 from yesterday’s WG call, attached is a slighted revised 'possible approach for consensus in deliberation of possible requirements for RDS PDP WG'. This version was revised from the one presented in the WG call; edits
were made and comments inserted in an effort to reflect the WG discussion that occurred in the meeting. Given on-going list discussion, all WG members are encouraged to review and comment with an aim to 'finalise' the approach during next week's meeting. To
aid in discussion, below is a recap of two proposals made during yesterday’s WG call with some pros & cons.<br>
<br>
<b>Proposal 1: When indicating level of support for possible requirements within initial report(s), identify whether there is support or lack of support by each SG/C.<br>
<br>
</b>Pros: Communicate any formal statement(s) of support in context with draft recommendations.<br>
Cons: SG/C positions likely to be formalized after initial report, during public comment.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Personal comment from Chuck: The attached approach does not specifically address this so I believe that we could deal with this once we get to that point; if I am correct, we do not need to resolve this now.<br>
<br>
<b>Proposal 2: Limit initial report to three fundamental questions (privacy, data, users/purposes), adding a new second initial report on remaining fundamental questions (accuracy and gated access) prior to the required initial report at conclusion of Phase
1 to address (at minimum) all 11 charter questions.<br>
<br>
</b>Pros:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u>Allows WG to make incremental progress by focusing on fewer questions and possible requirements<b><u></u><u></u></b></p>
<p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u>There are only so many issues we can work on at once, and to stick with the big 3 provides a focus and direction.<b><u></u><u></u></b></p>
<p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u>Allows additional/earlier opportunity for public comment<b><u></u><u></u></b></p>
<p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u>It may be premature to consider accuracy and gated access when we have not yet established if there is a basis for collecting registration data in the first place.<b><u></u><u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cons:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u>Delays deliberation on inter-dependent questions<b><u></u><u></u></b></p>
<p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u>May impede attempts to balance privacy, access, and accuracy issues as requested by board and charter<b><u></u><u></u></b></p>
<p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u>Adds overhead for WG and community (additional workload associated with running two vs. three public comment periods (both from a staff as well as WG perspective as well as impact on the overall timeline)<b><u></u><u></u></b></p>
<p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u>There is a risk of public comment fatigue so the WG will need to give consideration to whether there are any downsides to having three public comment periods on the same topic vs. two.<b><u></u><u></u></b></p>
<p><u></u><span style="font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"">There’s a reason the charter was written as is and to change it unwinds the charter without the benefit of the thoughtful work and deliberations
that went into it.</span><br>
<br>
<b><u></u><u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Personal note from Chuck: I tried to include the pros and cons from various people both in yesterday’s meeting and
<b>on the</b> list since then. If I missed some, please communicate them. Also, I encourage others to suggest additional pros and cons on the list.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks to those who have begun to share their views on these proposals and expand upon possible pros/cons. You are all encouraged to continue exchanging views to reach agreement on a possible approach for deliberation that can lead this
WG to consensus agreement on all of the questions we must answer during Phase 1.<b><u></u><u></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chuck<u></u><u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a><br></blockquote></div>