Matt, I thank you for your mail outlining concerns of the CPH. I must admit that sometimes I also have the same feeling of slow progress in our deliberations but we work as a team and need to take into account interests of all members. Let me explain further course of actions that may alleviate (at least partially) your concerns. From the very beginning of Team's deliberations I asked the staff to capture and put aside all elements that as a result of our discussions could become part of the policy recommendations. Staff is doing this work and it will be presented to the Team in form of Zero draft either 30 August or 2 September. That will give the Team sufficient time to prepare for consideration of the Zero draft at the LA meeting. The structure of the draft will reflect the structure of our deliberations. On the demand side - building blocs representing request elements (requester and their categories; legal basis options; request submission modalities; applicable safeguards; possible accreditation options just to name some). On the supply side - elements representing disclosure modalities (evaluation and response modalities; possible automation; applicable safeguards just to name some). And elements of interface between demand and supply side - gateway or gateways options; liability issues, controller etc). Basically - hamburger (since ICANN lately is in gastronomic tittles:-) ). Outstanding issues (P2) should be added to building blocks where these are relevant to SSAD and we would need to find the best way of doing it. I hope that Zero draft will be accepted by the Team as a basis for further work and we will concentrate further to policy recommendation formulations. Happy to receive your reaction. Best regards JK On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 9:25 PM Matt Serlin <matt@brandsight.com> wrote:
Please note the below is being sent on behalf of the CPH (RrSG and RySG) reps…thank you.
With less than four weeks until our face-to-face meeting, the CPH is increasingly concerned with the lack of meaningful progress towards a first draft of policy recommendations. We attribute this lack of movement in part to the shortcomings of our approach to evaluating use cases. In our view, the success of this exercise depends on EPDP team members producing focused and specific use cases that, when viewed together, illustrate procedural commonalities and insights necessary to inform our recommendations. Instead, the use cases and our discussions so far are so broad or generalized that it is no longer clear how our review will ultimately lead to policy recommendation or actionable outcomes. Without an immediate correction to refocus our efforts, we are concerned about the EPDP team’s ability to meet deadlines and ultimately succeed in delivering a timely Initial Report for Phase II.
The CPH proposes the following reasonable steps to help improve the utility of the use cases and the efficiency of our deliberations:
- ● Use cases must be more specific, detailed, and focused on procedure in order to help us make observations and reach agreement. Use cases should be illustrative of a discrete set of procedural, legal, and policy considerations, rather than focused on validating a broad range of outcomes. - ● Our approach should not only consider use cases where access/disclosure is appropriate, but also examine circumstances where access/disclosure would not be granted. Our analysis of use cases is not intended to make value judgments about “deserving” users or interests. Our policy must focus on what is compliant, not what is merely desired. - ● We must prioritize and document agreement as we proceed through each use case. The Next Gen RDS implemented a “tentative agreements” document maintained by ICANN Staff to capture a list of non-binding, informal agreements that the group built upon as deliberations progressed. The document served as a transparent reference for all parties to help avoid re-litigating issues. This approach would also help solve a significant pain point from Phase I where the CPH found it difficult to track the source of agreements that ended up in the draft recommendations. We recommend adopting the same procedure.
The CPH remains committed to the success of the EPDP and offers these suggestions in the spirit of achieving our shared goal of timely completion of a Final Report for Phase II.
_______________________________________________ Gnso-epdp-team mailing list Gnso-epdp-team@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.