<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I am not sure it is
helpful to describe the objections to use cases being
discussed as "tactical", Greg. Those of us who have objected
to exploring use cases prior to deciding on the purpose of the
RDS, may be objecting on various grounds. I objected to the
same strategy during the EWG, with the identical effect, and I
must say as a greenhorn at ICANN I had no concept of tactics
at that time. In response to Mark's question, which is a good
one, we are not designing software here, we are deciding
policy. Determining the overall purposes of such a policy
before starting to work on the nuts and bolts, is pretty
normal. You could characterize the discussion of use cases as
an environmental scan, (if you were drafting new legislation,
for instance) but because of the inherently heterogeneous
nature of our group, and the differences in policy formation
practices which our various countries follow, it is doubtful
that everyone would understand the limitations of that
exercise. <br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">In case you really
wanted to hear my reasons for not starting with use cases
again, here they are:</font></font></p>
<ul>
<li><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">We are supposed to
be developing a policy for the new RDS, if indeed we decide
we need a new RDS</font></font></li>
<li><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Many of the current
practices surrounding the RDS reflect certain dominant
interests that have had a normative effect on the RDS as it
has emerged over the years</font></font></li>
<li><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">The Internet has
changed considerably during that 18 year period, and it is
time to recalibrate the balance of interests, which we are
doing via this long-awaited policy</font></font></li>
<li><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">The interests and
rights of end-users (ie the registrants, not the many data
users who have been harvesting data) have been largely
ignored and need to be discussed in terms of the actual
purpose of the registry; that purpose has not been defined
but should be limited and closely associated with the ICANN
goal of ensuring the security and stability of the INternet
<br>
</font></font></li>
<li><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">The officials who
are charged with defending privacy rights and enforcing data
protection laws have been largely ignored, and their demands
for establishing respect for the basic rule of law in the
matter of data collection, use disclosure and retention should
be respected.</font></font></li>
<li><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Examining all use
cases, including ones which are excessive, have been the
result of business tradeoffs, or do not reflect ICANN's
accountability goals, risk muddying the waters for any logical
discussion of policy</font></font></li>
</ul>
<font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Someone recently remarked
that people are repeating themselves. This will be inevitable
during this process. I think we should get used to this idea.<br>
Stephanie Perrin <br>
</font></font><br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2016-07-11 22:07, Greg Shatan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+aOHUSuOLLvJzF2=g6Z3j+sB=ZSRjdpUGOAcGANXVUUNNCf6Q@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
Mark,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A cynic might also say that the objection to use cases is
tactical, not practical.<span></span><br>
<br>
On Monday, July 11, 2016, Mark Svancarek <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:marksv@microsoft.com"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:marksv@microsoft.com">marksv@microsoft.com</a></a>>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I’m
puzzled by any objection to use cases… you really
can’t design software without use cases, and at the
end of the day software is going to be built around
these policies.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I’m
sorry I missed the rationale in Helsinki… Is the
concern that there will be too many cases? The
concern that “illegitimate” use cases will be proposed
and them become sacrosanct presumes bad faith on the
part of the community and cynicism that we can’t make
appropriate compromises. What’s more likely to happen
is that false consensus will be achieved without a
full set of use cases, causing us to back track later.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">I
thought we had a draft list of use cases already
created… is that correct? Could you send me a link to
them? Sorry for the new-guy questions.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">/marksv</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="m_6227682196275527822__MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span></a></p>
<span></span>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org');"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a></a>
[mailto:<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org');"
target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Greg Shatan<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Sunday, July 10, 2016 9:08 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cgomes@verisign.com');"
target="_blank">cgomes@verisign.com</a>><br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
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. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
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. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
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. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
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.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"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.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Greg</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 10:38 PM,
Gomes, Chuck <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cgomes@verisign.com');"
target="_blank">cgomes@verisign.com</a>> wrote:</p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid
#cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">Ayden,</span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">We
hnave discussed your input on the leadership
list and the following points were made that
I think are worth noting:</span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">".
. . 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."</span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">"</span><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">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><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">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><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:black">Chuck</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"></span></p>
<p><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black"> </span></p>
<div>
<div class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:center" align="center"><span
style="color:black">
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
</span></div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma",sans-serif;color:black">
Ayden Férdeline [<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','icann@ferdeline.com');"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:icann@ferdeline.com">icann@ferdeline.com</a></a>]<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, July 09, 2016
3:44 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Gomes, Chuck<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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</span><span
style="color:black"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black">Hi, all- </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black">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.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black">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.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black">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.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black">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. </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black">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.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black">Thank you
for considering these two
proposals.</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black">Best wishes,</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black">Ayden</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black">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. </span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black"> </span></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black">On 8 July
2016 at 18:04, Gomes, Chuck <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cgomes@verisign.com');"
target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:cgomes@verisign.com">cgomes@verisign.com</a></a>>
wrote:</span></p>
<blockquote
style="border:none;border-left:solid
#cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black">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></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#888888"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:#888888">Chuck</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org');"
target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fmm.icann.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fgnso-rds-pdp-wg&data=01%7c01%7cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7c22902e72410848bbc3b708d3a9411086%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ijre%2bSTFYZNS42f9AmuLLKp0OJ%2bB89EuYBmGiZjL6Rc%3d"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></span></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="color:black"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org');"
target="_blank">gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fmm.icann.org%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fgnso-rds-pdp-wg&data=01%7c01%7cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7c22902e72410848bbc3b708d3a9411086%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ijre%2bSTFYZNS42f9AmuLLKp0OJ%2bB89EuYBmGiZjL6Rc%3d"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg</a></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</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>