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

Mon Mar 7 11:35:01 UTC 2016

Dear,

Finally, I am in Marrakech. Hope to see everyone who is already present.

Le jeu. 3 mars 2016 à 11:30, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> a
écrit :

> Correct this is one and the same meeting - scheduled to take place F2F for
> those in Marrakech and remotely for those not in attendance.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Marika
>
> On 3 mrt. 2016, at 09:14, Farell Folly <farellfolly at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The next meeting will take place on Wednesday 9 March from 16.00 –
> 18.00 UTC during the ICANN meeting in Marrakesh
>
> I am not sure I understand; will it be the same meeting ? i.e will the
> meeting take place physically in Marrakesh and other people will
> participate remotely ? Or you are just mentioning that we'll be having our
> weekly meeting at the same time?
>
> 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/20160307/a21592bc/attachment.html>