As of a little while ago, only eight people had responded to the one question survey. We need a much bigger sample than that to get a more reliable indication of WG opinions and the results will significantly impact our agenda for the WG meeting next week. So please respond not later than Saturday. We intentionally kept the poll very brief to make it easy. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 11:42 PM To: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Request for Input: Deliberation Approach for RDS PDP WG Message from the leadership team seeking input from all RDS PDP WG Members: In reviewing the comments submitted on the WG list and responses to the poll taken for possible RDS requirements that we started deliberating on at ICANN 57 in Hyderabad, the leadership team has concluded that it might be useful to solicit feedback on potential adjustments in our approach to deliberation on possible requirements. Before suggesting possible adjustments, recall the six-step approach that we have just started testing: 1) Initial deliberation to record preliminary thoughts about a new set of possible requirements (PRs) 2) Poll WG to assess preliminary level of support for further deliberation on each PR, along with draft recommendations derived from initial deliberation 3) Post poll results and draft recommendations on a wiki page created for each PR 4) Briefly discuss poll results, allowing for further deliberation at a conceptual level 5) Use wiki comment function to suggest specific edits to draft recommendations 6) Apply edits to refine draft recommendations, striving for rough consensus. As everyone hopefully saw, poll results for the first 7 possible requirements that we started deliberating on in Hyderabad were distributed yesterday (step 3.a). The intent had been to discuss those results in the 29 November WG meeting. That meeting was cancelled to give all of us more time to consider next steps, including obtaining more WG member feedback about next steps. We believe that the polling process has the potential to be a constructive tool as we wade through the hundreds of possible requirements compiled from the dozens of resource documents many of you helped to gather and summarize. However, questions were raised during the 22 November WG call on whether the above approach is the most effective way for deliberating on charter questions to produce draft recommendations. Challenges include reaching rough consensus on complex inter-dependent recommendations, while ensuring that the bigger picture is kept in mind, as well as making progress towards that goal in a timely manner. The leadership team has brain-stormed about this and other alternative approaches ever since the 22 November WG call. We seem to be converging on an approach that may prove helpful, but we would like feedback from as many WG members as possible on whether this or any other kind of adjustment is needed to move forward in our Phase 1 deliberations. Specifically, it was suggested during our last WG call that deliberations on detailed requirements may be more productive and time effective if we first deliberate on some key concepts that will provide a common foundation for more detailed deliberations. If most WG members believe that this kind of adjustment is necessary, the leadership team suggests that we try to apply our charter questions and the associated mind map that was developed earlier in our work. We believe they provide a useful guide for deliberation on the key concepts that need to be discussed. If we pursued this suggestion, instead of continuing to deliberate on individual possible requirements now, we would deliberate on sub-questions relating to charter questions for Users/Purposes, Data Elements, and Privacy, shown on the attached mind map subset presented in Hyderabad<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56986784/ICANN57-Slide10-Mi...>. We would use these sub-questions - refined as necessary during deliberation - to discuss possible answers to those sub-questions and associated key concepts. To illustrate this approach: When discussing Data Elements sub-questions, one example of a key concept might be "RDS policies must be precise about which (if any) gTLD registration data elements are public." After deliberating on a collection of key concepts in this manner, we would hopefully have established a foundation for completing deliberations on our long list of individual possible requirements, as necessary. Before further developing this suggestion, we invite everyone to comment on both the need for some kind of adjustment and this potential approach by responding to this two-question poll: https://s.zoomerang.com/r/JPMXSMB Responses are requested not later than Saturday, 3 December midnight UTC. All comments are welcome in response to this poll, including but not limited to: whether or not you think this or another kind of adjustment to our current approach is needed; suggestions that might help us evaluate and refine this possible adjustment; and alternative kinds of adjustments to our approach to deliberations. With your input, we hope to confirm whether we are on the right track before developing one or more concrete next-step approaches for WG consideration. A main objective for the WG meeting on 6 December would be to discuss and attempt to decide on any adjustments so that we can move forward on Phase 1 deliberation on the first three charter questions (Task 12.a).