[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from today's meeting

Tue Mar 1 19:09:29 UTC 2016

Dear Marika,

Thanks for your quick reaction to submit the report and to keep us focused
on our mission. Good evening.

Le mar. 1 mars 2016 à 19:03, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> a
écrit :

> Dear All,
>
> Please find below the notes & action items from today’s meeting. The next
> meeting will take place on Wednesday 9 March from 16.00 – 18.00 UTC during
> the ICANN meeting in Marrakesh (see
> https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/wed-rds). Remote
> participation details will be circulated shortly.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> ===============
>
> *Notes/Action items 1 March 2016 - Next–Generation RDS PDP WG Meeting*
>
> *1. Roll call/ SOI*
>
>    - Note, observers have read-only access to the mailing list and do not
>    receive the call details. If you want to change your status, you can inform
>    the GNSO Secretariat accordingly.
>    - Members are required to provide a Statement of Interest in order to
>    participate in the Working Group.
>    - Updates to SOIs are requested at the start of every meeting.
>
> *2. Review of WG membership & expertise update*
>
>    - Small team has further refined the categories based on the input
>    received
>    - Staff has developed a mock-up of the poll on membership expertise
>    - Poll will be circulated shortly to the WG for their input
>    - WG members will be asked to self-identify their expertise.
>    - Basic categories hopefully cover expertise expected to be required
>    as part of this PDP - WG can provide additional details as part of their
>    responses
>    - Civil law means non-criminal
>    - Consider having an investigator category? Or have private
>    investigator / researcher without refrence to cyber-crime?
>    - Government advisory - change to Government and add a sub-category
>    for advisory/lobbying
>    - Consider standalone category for GAC
>    - Should a category for NGOs be added under non-commercial?
>    - WG members will be able to check any category that applies to them
>    - Consider adding legislative category
>    - Consider adding a cyber-security category as well as IP theft
>    investigator?
>    - Does e-business cover those managing domain name portfolios?
>    - Avoid going into too much details - the 'other' category allows for
>    detailing specific exertise that may not be represented in the poll.
>    - Add to the intro for 2 that you should check areas that are closest
>    to your expertise, and may elaborate in #3
>    - Survey to be completed by 7 March at the latest to allow the WG to
>    review responses during 9 March meeting
>
> *Action item #1*: Sub team to finalise poll immediately following this
> call
>
> *Action item #2*: Staff to circulate SurveyMonkey poll link to WG members
>
> *Action Item #3*: WG members invited to respond to poll by Monday 7 March
>
> *Action Item #4*: Sub team to review and present results and outreach
> recommendations at Wednesday's meeting
>
> *3. Review rules of engagement (see section IV of the Charter -
> https://community.icann.org/x/E4xlAw
> <https://community.icann.org/x/E4xlAw>)*
>
>    - Explains how consensus is assessed in the context of a PDP process
>    - Initial report may preceed formation of consensus, and include
>    concepts for discussion upon which consensus has not yet been reached
>    - Level of consensus is to be included in the WG's Final Report to
>    inform the GNSO Council
>    - Polls are to be used sparingly as a method of coming to consensus
>    - Guildelines identify process for use in resolving disagreement
>    - Charter is intended to be flexibile (i.e., at a minimum,
>    consider...) but if the WG wants clarification or feels the charter is in
>    some way limiting, it may request clarification/changes from the GNSO
>    Council
>    - Note that for this PDP, a group of GNSO Councilors and Board Members
>    (EP-WG) developed a process framework to help the WG organize its work. The
>    WG may also ask that group for clarification or insights.
>
> *Action Item #5*: All WG members to review WG Charter, including rules of
> engagement
>
> *4. Review and discuss draft work plan *
>
>    - See draft work plan shared by Chuck on 29 February
>    - Note the assumptions that were made in creating the draft outline
>    - Phase 1 is focused on agreeing on requirements
>    - Should question first be asked what data is collected and for what
>    purposes? WG needs to further think about this question. EWG struggled with
>    similar question in its deliberations. Difficult to answer what data is
>    collected without purpose / use cases.
>    - Should input be obtained upfront from Data Protection Commissioners?
>    - Framework is clear that all questions need to be considered
>    collectively before a conclusion is reached.
>    - Consider conducting a tuturial on the process framework to better
>    understand why that group came up with the order as it did as a lot of
>    thought went into that.
>    - SAC055 - Blind Men and Elephant Report also provides further insight
>    into the suggested order of questions. Foundational question is what is the
>    purpose of registration data. SAC054 discussed data model for registration
>    data which asked the question of purpose in a slightly different way. EWG
>    did a good job providing an overview of existing uses, but should focus
>    also be what is within the remit considering ICANN's mission? Many other
>    use cases are anxiallary to the main purpose (management of the DNS -
>    support life cycle of a domain name) in the view of SAC054.
>
> *Action item #6*: All to review the draft work plan and provide feedback
> on the mailing list prior to the WG meeting on 9 March. Review the draft
> work plan in conjunction with Charter as well as Process Framework.
>
> *Action item #7*: Add to agenda for Marrakech meeting whether what data
> is collected or for what purpose should be considered first? Also consider
> order of other questions.
>
> *Action item #8*: Discuss further in Marrakech how to involve Data
> Protection Commissioners and what questions could be asked to help inform
> the WG deliberations.
>
> *Action item #9* Add tutorial on the process framework to the agenda for
> the F2F meeting and consider inviting members that participated in the
> framework group to the session to provide further details.
>
> *Action item #10*: Staff to circulate reference / overview of current
> data elements collected per the RAA.
>
> *5. Confirm next steps and next meeting*
>
>    - Next meeting will take place during the ICANN Meeting in Marrkech on
>    9 March from 16.00 - 18.00 local time. Remote participation details will be
>    circulated shortly.
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> 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/20160301/8a2bb54f/attachment.html>