<html>
<body>
<font face="Calibri"><u>Message from the leadership team seeking input
from all RDS PDP WG Members:<br><br>
</u>In reviewing the comments submitted on the WG list and responses to
the poll taken for possible RDS requirements that we started deliberating
on at ICANN 57 in Hyderabad, the leadership team has concluded that it
might be useful to solicit feedback on potential adjustments in our
approach to deliberation on possible requirements.<br><br>
Before suggesting possible adjustments, recall the six-step approach that
we have just started testing:<br><br>
1) Initial deliberation to record preliminary
thoughts about a new set of possible requirements (PRs)<br>
2) Poll WG to assess preliminary level of support
for further deliberation on each PR, along with draft recommendations
derived from initial deliberation<br>
3) Post poll results and draft recommendations on
a wiki page created for each PR<br>
4) Briefly discuss poll results, allowing for
further deliberation at a conceptual level<br>
5) Use wiki comment function to suggest specific
edits to draft recommendations<br>
6) Apply edits to refine draft recommendations,
striving for rough consensus.<br><br>
As everyone hopefully saw, poll results for the first 7 possible
requirements that we started deliberating on in Hyderabad were
distributed yesterday (step 3.a). The intent had been to discuss
those results in the 29 November WG meeting. That meeting was
cancelled to give all of us more time to consider next steps, including
obtaining more WG member feedback about next steps.<br><br>
We believe that the polling process has the potential to be a
constructive tool as we wade through the hundreds of possible
requirements compiled from the dozens of resource documents many of you
helped to gather and summarize. However, questions were raised during the
22 November WG call on whether the above approach is the most effective
way for deliberating on charter questions to produce draft
recommendations. Challenges include reaching rough consensus on complex
inter-dependent recommendations, while ensuring that the bigger picture
is kept in mind, as well as making progress towards that goal in a timely
manner.<br><br>
The leadership team has brain-stormed about this and other alternative
approaches ever since the 22 November WG call. We seem to be converging
on an approach that may prove helpful, but we would like feedback from as
many WG members as possible on whether this or any other kind of
adjustment is needed to move forward in our Phase 1
deliberations.<br><br>
Specifically, it was suggested during our last WG call that deliberations
on detailed requirements may be more productive and time effective if we
first deliberate on some key concepts that will provide a common
foundation for more detailed deliberations. If most WG members believe
that this kind of adjustment is necessary, the leadership team suggests
that we try to apply our charter questions and the associated mind map
that was developed earlier in our work. We believe they provide a
useful guide for deliberation on the key concepts that need to be
discussed. <br><br>
If we pursued this suggestion, instead of continuing to deliberate on
individual possible requirements now, we would deliberate on
sub-questions relating to charter questions for Users/Purposes, Data
Elements, and Privacy, shown on the attached
<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56986784/ICANN57-Slide10-MindMap-3Questions.pdf">
mind map subset presented in Hyderabad</a>. We would use these
sub-questions – refined as necessary during deliberation – to discuss
possible answers to those sub-questions and associated key concepts. To
illustrate this approach: When discussing Data Elements sub-questions,
one example of a key concept might be “RDS policies must be precise about
which (if any) gTLD registration data elements are public.” After
deliberating on a collection of key concepts in this manner, we
would hopefully have established a foundation for completing
deliberations on our long list of individual possible requirements, as
necessary.<br><br>
<b>Before further developing this suggestion, we invite everyone to
comment on both the need for some kind of adjustment and this potential
approach by responding to this two-question poll:<br><br>
<div align="center"><a href="https://s.zoomerang.com/r/JPMXSMB">
https://s.zoomerang.com/r/JPMXSMB</a><br><br>
</b></div>
Responses are requested not later than Saturday, 3 December midnight
UTC. All comments are welcome in response to this poll, including
but not limited to: whether or not you think this or another kind
of adjustment to our current approach is needed; suggestions that might
help us evaluate and refine this possible adjustment; and alternative
kinds of adjustments to our approach to deliberations.<br><br>
With your input, we hope to confirm whether we are on the right track
before developing one or more concrete next-step approaches for WG
consideration. A main objective for the WG meeting on 6 December would be
to discuss and attempt to decide on any adjustments so that we can move
forward on Phase 1 deliberation on the first three charter questions
(Task 12.a).<br>
</font></body>
</html>