[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] A few comments on the 28 February meeting

[Gomes, Chuck]

I listened to the MP3 recording of the 28 February WG meeting and want to share a few comments.



First of all I want to thank Michele for chairing the meeting and compliment him for doing an excellent job.



Second, I want to acknowledge Marc Anderson's comment regarding the goal that the RDS Purpose Statement should be consistent with existing consensus policies.  It is important that everyone understand that our work should not be constrained by other consensus policies.  It is possible that we will make some recommendations that will require some adjustments to other consensus policies. It is okay if that happens as long as we also make implementation recommendations noting any adjustments that will need to be considered to maintain consistency of all consensus policies.  To reinforce this point, in my personal comments I plan to suggest that a qualifying clause to this goal in this regard.



Third, Stephanie asked whether the leadership team found the polls to be useful.  I want to add my response to the good responses that Michele and Susan gave. I definitely believe they are useful because:

1.      They provide an opportunity to confirm with members who attend a given meeting that at least rough consensus was reached on any tentative conclusions reached.

2.      They provide an opportunity for members who were not in the meeting to provide their input.

3.      It facilitates capturing a list of interim conclusions that will be very helpful when we start deliberating on specific requirements of a RDS.

It is important though for everyone to realize that participation in the WG meetings and polls is critical because lack of participation will be assumed to mean support for or at least non-objection to the conclusions reached for the time being.



Fourth, Alex Deacon asked if we are assuming that the purposes we have been discussion are primary purposes.  I admit that I am still not clear in my head what the difference is between a primary purpose and a secondary purpose.  For now though, I suggest this:  if we eventually decide that it is necessary to distinguish between primary and secondary purposes, we can categorize the purposes at that time.



Hope this is helpful.  Feel free to let me know if it is not and to ask any questions you have.



Chuck

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170302/44195cb8/attachment.html>