<div dir="ltr">
Hi, all-<div><br></div><div>Thank you for sharing this document, Chuck. Having reflected on its contents, I have two suggested revisions. Firstly, I would like to table the idea of having five initial reports, and secondly I would like to re-state my opposition to the inclusion of use cases.</div><div><br></div><div>Five initial reports would allow us to more thoroughly and fairly consider each of the fundamental questions set out in the working group charter. I appreciate that on the surface this suggestion may sound radical, but I believe a more incremental approach would be the most prudent means through which we could fairly and justly address each of these important, initial charter questions. As Sana noted a few weeks ago, different parts of our work plan are inevitably going to weigh differently on the various stakeholders involved in this working group, so proceeding in a slightly slower fashion will allow us all to be fed new information, ideas, and perspectives. I worry that if we move too quickly, possibly as a result of misunderstandings, we may unintentionally upset the RDS landscape and impose significant costs on some stakeholders.</div><div><br></div><div>My suggestion is to consider one charter question per initial report, followed by a public consultation exercise. This way, we can better communicate to the wider ICANN community our progress – and it will be much easier for others to comment when we ask them to consider a small bite-sized chunk of our work, rather than having to familiarise themselves with every piece of the puzzle. I remember in Helsinki we spoke of wanting to have the GAC involved sooner and more frequently – this might be a helpful means of doing just that.</div><div><br></div><div>My suggested order for the five reports would be: privacy -> purpose -> data elements -> accuracy -> gated access. I would like to suggest we consider privacy first, because until such time as we have a privacy framework to work within it will be difficult (if not impossible?) to define how limited the RDS’ purpose can or must be. And only once we know the purpose of the RDS can we determine the data elements which need to be collected. </div><div><br></div><div>Finally, in regards to point 3) c) iii) of version 13 of the work plan, I would just like to have it on the record that I remain opposed - like I was at our face-to-face meeting in Helsinki - to the consideration of use cases in our deliberations. I am concerned that use cases may legitimise illegitimate uses of the RDS because the burden of proof required to strike one out is surely going to be high. If we go down this route of considering use cases, however, I would like to respectfully suggest that we also consider misuse cases – they may help us identify negative scenarios that could arise as a result of the RDS.</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you for considering these two proposals.</div><div><br></div><div>Best wishes,</div><div><br></div><div>Ayden</div><div><br></div><div>P.S. This is my first ICANN working group, so I am still learning about how we initiate PDPs, develop work plans, consider issues, and ultimately reach rough consensus. I say this because it is very possible I have misunderstood something or do not appreciate the repercussions that could arise from my suggested changes to the work plan. If that is the case, I am happy to be corrected :-). However, I do think that there are capacity constraints. There are only so many issues we can work on at once. The perception I have at the moment, of the many emails I receive from this list, are that we are frequently being reminded that we are ahead of ourselves. I have been guilty of this too. Considering each charter question, one at a time, would give us focus and direction.
</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 8 July 2016 at 18:04, Gomes, Chuck <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com" target="_blank">cgomes@verisign.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><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">Based on the results of our work in Helsinki, the Possible Approach to Determining Consensus was revised. Changes made since the last version are redlined to make them easy to find.<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">If possible, please try to review the edits made before our WG call next Tuesday. It will be a main item on our agenda.<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><u></u><u></u></font></span></p><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Chuck<u></u><u></u></p>
</font></span></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><br></div>