[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Apology for the next two meetings

Mon Jul 11 12:00:18 UTC 2016

 Hi Chuck 

 I am actually taking a holiday - including not attending meetings - 
for the next two weeks. I'll folllow the emails and catch up on the 
meetings, but will be either tramping around an island in Maine or 
(next week), sitting on the beach near Yarmouthport, Ma and - 
surprisingly - won't have my computer with me. 

 Cheers 

 Holly 

 On Mon 11/07/16 12:08 PM , "Gomes, Chuck" cgomes at verisign.com sent: 

	Ayden,  

	We hnave discussed your input on the leadership list and the 
following points were made that I think are worth noting:  

	". . . 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. 

 "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."  

	"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."   

	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.  

	 Chuck  

------------------------- 
 From: Ayden Férdeline [icann at ferdeline.com] 
 Sent: Saturday, July 09, 2016 3:44 PM 
 To: Gomes, Chuck 
 Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org 
 Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Latest Revision to Possible Approach 
to Determining Consensus 

    Hi, all-  
  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.  
  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.  
  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.  
  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.   
  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.  
  Thank you for considering these two proposals.  
  Best wishes,  
  Ayden  
  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.    
 On 8 July 2016 at 18:04, Gomes, Chuck  wrote: 

	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.  

	If possible, please try to review the edits made before our WG call 
next Tuesday. It will be a main item on our agenda.   

	Chuck    
 _______________________________________________ 
 gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list 
 gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org 
 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg [1] 

Links: 
------ 
[1] https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20160711/1f4660a2/attachment.html>