<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I support Chuck's view that we should continue with the direction as proposed. This direction is a result of compromises and should be viewed as such. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">For the reasons stated by Chuck, the idea of five preliminary reports is unworkable and ill-advised. Our ability to thoroughly and fairly consider the fundamental questions in our charter will only be hindered by disaggregating the interrelated issues before us. Considering each in isolation would remove context and produce results that would tend to be more academic than practical. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">The planned approach has a pause in Section 1.b, after deliberating only on the purpose, privacy and data elements. Critically, this plan allows to consider these three elements in conjunction, as well as in isolation, consistent with their interrelated nature. This wouldn't happen if we split this into five self-contained units. However, Ayden suggests that privacy be the first element and that this then be used as a limitation on all further discussions. This is suspiciously like a "privacy first" approach we have already debated and rejected at least once. It also sounds like a move away from finding consensus on our approach. As Ayden acknowledges, his objection to "use cases" is also making a return appearance, after being raised in Helsinki. </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">If we are going to keep doubling back on ourselves, it will take forever to move forward. This is in part because each re-visitation means that all views need to be rehashed, for fear that a failure to re-state a view (even one that is widely held) will be misinterpreted as lack of support for that view. For instance, if Ayden resurfaces his objection to "use cases," do we all need to restate the reasons why use cases make good sense, or can we just refer back to earlier discussions on the topic? I'll hope that we can refer back to earlier discussions, but if not, we'll need to roll them all out again. I'll hold of on doing so, optimistic that it will not be necessary to re-enter that decision loop again.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Finally, I would suggest there is no risk of us moving too quickly, and that we will have ample time to resolve all potential misunderstandings. As such, I think there is little risk that we would actually cause ICANN to implement recommendations that would "unintentionally upset the RDS landscape and impose significant costs on some stakeholders." We might do so intentionally, and that is a very valid concern -- but a different discussion for a different phase of our work.</font></span><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></span></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Greg</font></span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 10:38 PM, 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>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Tahoma;color:#000000;font-size:10pt">
<p>Ayden,</p>
<p> </p>
<p>We hnave discussed your input on the leadership list and the following points were made that I think are worth noting:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>". . . the board/GNSO group that developed the process framework explicitly considered whether to split this PDP into multiple PDPs to separately address more specific questions, and firmly decided upon a single PDP which required (at minimum) all of the
questions to be considered.<br>
<br>
"When reaching this decision, the board/GNSO group acknowledged that one large PDP would be very complex and thus more difficult to resource and manage. It did look at spinning off for example a PDP on privacy. However, it was felt that the questions identified
in the charter were so tightly inter-related that they could not be effectively progressed independently, and that reaching consensus would require striking a balance between the interests of diverse groups with very different priorities. This is why the charter's
phase 1 requires all questions to be considered "simultaneously" by a single group before making an initial recommendation. This is also why the process framework enumerates a list of questions to be evaluated by the GNSO council at key decision points. The
intent was to help ensure that sufficient progress is made in considering all questions and concerns, and that none be pushed to the side or left behind for later consideration."</p>
<p> </p>
<p>"<span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri","sans-serif"">In addition to (the) insights on the process framework, from a practical perspective – an Initial Report comes with certain requirements of what needs to be included and a minimum 40-day
public comment period so five Initial Reports would create a significant amount of work in addition to a minimum of 200 days of public comment period, and in the end, all the recommendations would need to be bundled up into one overall Initial Report anyway
which would also need to go out for public comment. From the process framework as well as WG discussions, it (seems) clear that all these issues are interlinked so it would likely be very difficult (for) the community (to) able to comment on these standalone
Initial Reports without having information on how the other issues are addressed. (On a side point) it may be helpful to move away from the term Initial Report as it comes with a number of minimum requirements which may not be relevant for what the WG is trying
to achieve."</span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri","sans-serif""></span> </p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Considering these points, I really believe that we should continue with the direction as proposed but we will discuss this further in our WG meeting Tuesday.</span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri","sans-serif""></span> </p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri","sans-serif"">Chuck</span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE:11pt;FONT-FAMILY:"Calibri","sans-serif""></span> </p>
<div style="FONT-SIZE:16px;FONT-FAMILY:Times New Roman;COLOR:#000000">
<hr>
<div style="DIRECTION:ltr"><font color="#000000" size="2" face="Tahoma"><b>From:</b> Ayden Férdeline [<a href="mailto:icann@ferdeline.com" target="_blank">icann@ferdeline.com</a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, July 09, 2016 3:44 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Latest Revision to Possible Approach to Determining Consensus<br>
</font><br>
</div><div><div class="h5">
<div></div>
<div>
<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="PADDING-LEFT:1ex;MARGIN:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid">
<div lang="EN-US">
<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><font color="#888888"><u></u><u></u></font></span></p>
<span><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" target="_blank">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>
</div>
</div></div></div>
</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>