[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes from today's RDS PDP WG meeting

Tue Nov 22 21:27:48 UTC 2016

Dear All,

Please find below the notes from today’s RDS PDP WG meeting.

Best regards,

Marika

Notes RDS PDP WG meeting - 22/11:

For the different documents discussed, please see https://community.icann.org/x/v4-DAw.

These high-level notes are designed to help PDP WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not meant as a substitute for the transcript and/or recording. The MP3, transcript, and chat are provided separately and are posted on the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/C4xlAw.

1) Roll call/SOI update

·         Reminder - please keep your SOIs up to date

·         Attendance will be taken from Adobe Connect

2) Introduce poll #1 and proposed steps to progress deliberations:

·         WG members encouraged to ask questions and/or clarifications as needed

Recap overall approach

·         See slides presented during meeting which represent a sub-set of the slides presented during the Hyderabad F2F meeting

·         Random, rotating selection of possible requirements for deliberation (users/purposes, data elements, privacy)

·         Objective of this approach is to reach rough consensus in phase 1 resulting in a first and second Initial Report for public comment. Formal consensus call will happen after review of public comments received.

·         Fundamental question (12e) will need to be answered as a result of deliberations: can the agreed to requirements be met by the current WHOIS system (either with or without modifications) or is a next-generation RDS needed?

·         PR for deliberations are chosen based on random rotation, going from the top of the list down (incl. possible duplicates)

·         Phase 1 focuses on requirements for policy. Only when that work has been completed a decision will be taken on whether to move forward to phase 2.

Review proposed steps to progress deliberations and objective/approach of poll

·         See slides presented during meeting which graphically represent the steps detaled in the poll invitation

·         How can we streamline or facilitate deliberation on long list of possible requirements? Leadership discussed and came up with this proposed 6-step approach. Additional ideas welcome as we test this proposal

·         The shortest timeframe for completing all 6 steps is three weeks - may take more depending on each possible requrirement and level of difficulty

·         Assumes 5 day initial poll response and 5 day period for further deliberation on wiki

·         Initial test poll has been open since 17 Nov and will remain open until 25 Nov

·         For those who already participated, if you feel you would like to submit a new response, just indicate this to staff and take the poll again

Action item: WG to please respond to the survey by 25 November - https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W

Review initial poll

·         See document that displays poll questions and introduction

·         Members are encouraged to review the introduction before taking the poll.

·         Leadership team very well aware that this will be an iterative approach and that view points may change as the conversation progresses, but need to find a way to start moving forward.

·         Important to listen to different point of views in an effort to find common ground. Please approach survey in that sense.

·         Four choices available in response to some of the questions: could support as-is, might support with refinement, could not support in any form, no opinion. Important to ensure that WG understand what these responses mean.

·         Comments: too granular and random, difficult to see the broader picture and how this will connect. That made it difficult to respond. Should we look at key concepts instead of going into the current level of detail? Should a starting point be the EWG report and find out, conceptually, what people agree with and not, and accept the acceptable and negotiate/iterate where there is a difference? Draft recommendations in the poll where suggested during F2F meeting in Hyderabad as PR were multifaceted and could be read in different ways. Objective was to unravel PRs in different pieces to get better understanding of support (or lack thereof) which could then be pieced together again, if needed. Maybe it is a false assumption that the PR list needs to be reviewed in detail?

·         Are there concerns / objections to the approach suggested (instead of going through requirements one by one, identify key concepts and reach rough consensus on those and then apply those to the possible requirements)? Could the EWG final report be used to identify those key concepts? Some concerns about EWG Final Report - did not have benefit of thorough analysis, shortcoming by not commit to actual purpose. EWG Final Report wouldn't be taken as is, just as a source to identify potential key concepts which would then be further deliberated by the WG. Would just serve as a starting point.

·         The framework developed for this PDP already identified the key concepts - what is the WG looking for in addition when referring to key concepts? Important to distinguish between conclusions of EWG and concepts.

·         Devil is in the detail, need to get down to that sooner rather than later to ensure there is a commen understanding of what key concepts mean.

·         Also incorporate SSAC questions (SAC61) as part of consideration of EWG report? However, SAC61 commented on Initial Report not Final Report. SAC55 identified some of the bigger questions that may also apply here: Why are data collected? What purpose will the data serve? Who collects the data? Where is the data stored and how long is it stored? Where is the data escrowed and how long is it escrowed?Who needs the data and why? Who needs access to logs of access to the data and why?

·         Should we start deliberating on SAC55 questions as a first step?

·         Every document will have its own bias so important for WG to work through that and identify which parts it is able to support.

·         Possible next steps: review EWG Final Report and SSAC documents to identifying issues and possible modification of approach on deliberating possible requirements? Note that some of these doçuments had specific restraints and RDS WG work should not be necessarily limited in the same way.

Action item:

·         Staff to provide links to reports discussed during call as well as summaries developed and subsets derived from those documents (SAC61, WHOIS RT Report and EWG Final Report)

·         WG members (especially Greg Shatan) to review these three documents with specific focus in mind - pull out 'key concepts' / issues and share those with the mailing list prior to the next meeting that would facilitate deliberation and achieving consensus instead of focusing on the list of PRs.

Action item: WG to please respond to the survey by 25 November - https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W

3) Continue deliberations on additional possible requirements:
·         Initial Deliberation List for Week 2
Deferred

4) Confirm next meeting date: Tuesday, 29 November 2016 at 17:00 UTC

Marika Konings
Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Email: marika.konings at icann.org<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>

Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO
Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses<http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso> and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages<http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers>.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20161122/bd339d25/attachment.html>