[Gnso-epdp-team] Triage Survey - Part 1
mcanderson at verisign.com
Fri Aug 3 19:50:20 UTC 2018
Thank you Kurt, this is helpful and makes sense.
Based on this, I’d suggest that at this stage it would be better for the “if no” text box to be for rational (for selecting no) rather than to provide proposed edits and rationale supporting those edits. It seems to me it would be better to hold off on proposing edits until each group that selected “no” had an opportunity to provide their rational.
Thank you again for the follow up. Didn’t feel like a lecture at all but rather provided good context/clarification.
From: Kurt Pritz <kurt at kjpritz.com>
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2018 3:36 PM
To: Anderson, Marc <mcanderson at verisign.com>; gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] Triage Survey - Part 1
Thanks for the question.
I was in the process of writing an email concerning this exercise and will take advantage of your email to answer your question and make some additional points.
We saw two ways of conducting the triage: a simple thumbs up or down on each of the sections; or to provide the opportunity to provide some explanation. We chose the latter for several reasons:
* There is little value in a yes/no choice without rationale
* Providing some level of rationale will help prioritize later discussion and also point to where we can start gathering additional information
* Explaining one’s point of view is the first step in the consensus building process
* Provide an opportunity that, if an objection is easily addressed, we can do it on the spot
I think we’d agree that an up or down vote as sort of a waste of our valuable time as we would have opinions with no understanding. I think, to be meaningful, our triage report to the Council should provide some understanding of differences and not just where they exist. I also believe that writing, however briefly, helps to clarify one's thoughts. So when we get to the meeting, the oral responses are more likely to be succinct and clear.
A triage is more like: who is fine, who gets serious and immediate attention, who gets attention as need be, who will be left behind and who will we fix up right now since we are here. (Sorry, that last sentence was a bit pedantic.)
Importantly, I do not see the responses in any way foreclosing future discussions. Any contribution or agreement here will not prejudice discussion concerning the Initial Report. If a party thinks they “can live” with a contractual provision but later (due to changed circumstances) wishes to re-open discussion on it - I am amenable to that. I would rather encourage agreement on existing provisions and leave open the door to go back.
No one will be penalized or foreclosed later for going out on a limb a little to accept a clause or an accommodation now.
Everyone will be allowed to change the rationale presented by their writing based on the opinions voiced at the meeting.
Since this is our first substantive call, we do not know how the meeting flow will go down. The inputs are due hours before the meeting and so we are not sure how the results will be presented. This is all a result of everyone (members and support staff) trying to move quickly. I am sure we will learn a lot on Tuesday.
The agenda that was presented, I believe, will exceed the time allotted. Due to this uncertainty, we probably should not have put time frames on each agenda item. Let us go through this discussion on Tuesday and understand that we are learning how best to conduct our discussions as well as resolve substantive issues.
Penultimately, I realize this is a lot of work. The schedule we laid out on Wednesday was the most ambitious of the the options that we had developed. The fact that you are collaborating across time zones or with colleagues outside the group exacerbates the effects of the time compression. We will discuss adjustments to scheduling, which can be made wherever dictated by circumstances.
Finally, it would be terrific if submissions are made by Monday 19:00UTC. That is noon in LA, 3PM in DC and 9PM in Brussels and will give us a few hours to assemble the inputs in coherent fashion.
I hope this was helpful. None of it was meant to be a lecture (especially to Marc) but rather to provide reasoning that I meant to provide earlier. Thanks go to Marc for providing the platform to do that.
Please let me know if I can provide clarification or answer follow-on questions.
On Aug 3, 2018, at 11:19 AM, Anderson, Marc via Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>> wrote:
Kurt and all,
I’m in the process of working through all the sections that make up part 1 of the triage survey. In order to make sure I properly understand the deliverable I went back to charter and re-read the section on the first deliverable (triage document). For ease of reference here is the section:
The first deliverable of the EPDP Team shall be a triage document of the Temporary Specification, which includes items that have the Full Consensus support of the EPDP Team that these should be adopted as is (with no further discussion or modifications needed). These items need to be:
• In the body of the Temporary Specification (not in the Annex)
• Within the "picket fence" (per limitations on Consensus Policy as set out in the Contracts)
• Not obviously in violation of the GDPR / Assumed to be compliant with GDPR [Presumed to be legal according to the members’ best knowledge of GDPR]
• Consistent with ICANN’s Bylaws
Deliberations of this first deliverable should include at least one round of elimination of clauses, if appropriate, and a second round of Full Consensus approval of a whole set of clauses.
In short for the first deliverable we ae tasked to identify what sections of the Temporary Specification should be included, as is, in the final consensus policy recommendations of this working group.
Looking at part 1 of the triage survey, the questions include a box to fill out for sections the constituency does NOT support as is. This to me implies that the purpose of this triage survey is not just to inform discussions on the first triage report deliverable, but also the second “Initial Report” deliverable. To make sure everyone is on the same page could you clarify the purpose of this triage survey and how it will be used.
mcanderson at verisign.com<mailto:mcanderson at verisign.com>
12061 Bluemont Way, Reston, VA 20190
Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team