Dear all, On behalf of the leadership team, I am forwarding the following proposal to progress deliberation, including an invitation for all WG members to participate in this poll: RDS PDP WG Possible Requirement Poll #1 - 17 Nov 2016 https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W Best Regards, Lisa Proposed steps to progress Possible Requirements through deliberation - 17 November, 2016 As detailed in our Approach to reach consensus during Phase 1, the RDS PDP WG kicked off initial deliberation on possible requirements for Users/Purposes, Data Elements, and Privacy at ICANN57. During that F2F meeting, we spent roughly three hours discussing 7 possible requirements and 7 similar or duplicate requirements to get a preliminary sense of WG member thoughts on them. Output from this initial deliberation can be found in published meeting notes <https://community.icann.org/x/NAe4Aw> . Based on this experience, the leadership team believes that it will not be effective to draft and edit in detail WG recommendations on hundreds of possible requirements in real-time during WG meetings because doing so would require an inordinate amount of time. To progress possible requirements through deliberation effectively while making best use of meeting time, the leadership team has proposed the following approach to be tested over the next 2-3 weeks. Steps to progress possible requirements through deliberation Each weekly WG meeting will include both (a) some initial deliberation on a set of possible requirements, and (b) further deliberation on previously-discussed possible requirements. Deliberation on each possible requirement will be time-bounded during each meeting to promote effective use of meeting time and progress through the following steps: 1) Initial deliberation will focus on raising and recording preliminary thoughts about a set of possible requirements, including very similar or duplicate possible requirements. 2) Staff will create a poll to assess the WG's preliminary level of support for draft recommendations derived from initial deliberation. WG members will have 5 days to respond to the poll. 3) After each poll closes, poll results and draft recommendations will be posted on a wiki page created for each possible requirement within that set. 4) Those poll results and draft recommendations will be briefly discussed during a subsequent WG meeting, allowing for further deliberation at a conceptual level (that is, not word smithing). 5) WG members will then have 5 days to suggest specific edits to draft recommendations using the wiki page comment function (or if necessary, on the WG email list). 6) The leadership team will use suggested edits to refine draft recommendations, attempting to develop proposed final text which reflects rough consensus, to be confirmed by the WG. These steps are illustrated below, showing deliberation on several sets of possible requirements as they progress. For each set of possible requirements, Steps 1-4 may be completed in two WG meetings over a period of three weeks. Steps 5-6 rely upon the WG wiki and email to refine recommendations and reach rough consensus without requiring extensive WG meeting time. The leadership team hopes that these steps will help us draft, determine support for, and then edit in detail WG recommendations derived from possible requirements in a time-effective manner, while keeping the "pipeline" filled with initial deliberation on additional sets of possible requirements. We would like to test these proposed steps by using them to progress the first set of possible requirements deliberated on at Hyderabad ("Set A"). To start, we have created the following poll: RDS PDP WG Possible Requirement Poll #1 - 17 Nov 2016 https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W All WG members are asked to respond to this first poll, ideally by 20 November (midnight UTC). Initial results will be shared during the WG's 22 November meeting, where we will introduce and answer questions about these proposed steps, including how poll results will be used to inform further deliberation. As this is our first poll, the poll will remain open through 25 November (midnight UTC). During the WG's 22 and 29 November meetings, initial deliberation will continue on two more sets of possible requirements to ramp up this proposed process. During the WG's 6 December meeting, the first poll results will be used to continue deliberation on that set. Over the week(s) following that meeting, WG feedback will be solicited to refine the wording of draft recommendations and reach rough consensus on those for which there is at least rough support. We don't know how well this test will work. It may need to be refined. Or we may have to try a completely different approach. In conducting this test, we welcome feedback and new ideas. For now, all WG members are strongly encouraged to visit the poll URL <https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W> above and attempt to complete this first poll, keeping in mind that all poll responses are preliminary and will only be used to inform next-step deliberation on each of these possible requirements. The above proposal and poll will discussed during the WG's 22 November call. A PDF of the above proposal and the poll itself can also be found on the meeting page: https://community.icann.org/x/v4-DAw An updated list of possible requirements for initial deliberation will be circulated separately and also posted on the meeting page.
Hi Lisa
https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W All WG members are asked to respond to this first poll, ideally by 20 NOVEMBER (MIDNIGHT UTC). Initial results will be shared during the WG's 22 November meeting, where we will introduce and answer questions about these proposed steps, including how poll results will be used to inform further deliberation. As this is our first poll, the poll will remain open through 25 NOVEMBER (MIDNIGHT UTC).
The poll is asking to vote on things, so really needs the links to the those things and the actual text - it's difficult to follow even Q1 when you have to go off and search mailing lists and external systems for other docs before making a decsion for example Rob
Rob, I suggest that you not think of the polls as votes. Your responses to the polls will not be taken as votes in a final sense; that won't happen until much later in our work. The intent of the polls is to get an early sense of where people are to help us develop draft recommendations for possible RDS requirements. We fully understand that we will have to consider any draft recommendations we develop in light of all draft recommendations so we will have to go back and revisit them in the context of the whole package later. For now, please consider each possible requirement in its own right as best as possible. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Golding Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 5:46 PM To: lisa@corecom.com Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation Hi Lisa
https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W All WG members are asked to respond to this first poll, ideally by 20 NOVEMBER (MIDNIGHT UTC). Initial results will be shared during the WG's 22 November meeting, where we will introduce and answer questions about these proposed steps, including how poll results will be used to inform further deliberation. As this is our first poll, the poll will remain open through 25 NOVEMBER (MIDNIGHT UTC).
The poll is asking to vote on things, so really needs the links to the those things and the actual text - it's difficult to follow even Q1 when you have to go off and search mailing lists and external systems for other docs before making a decsion for example Rob _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Far be it from me to be putting my feet out of the toboggan as we rocket downhill on this venture folks, but I think this is not enough time to go through the list of recommendations. I am still getting over the inevitable cold that assails me every time I fly a long way to an ICANN meeting, and I am sure many of us are also catching up on neglected work. We need time to think as we go through the hundreds of recommendations, and consider them in context. May I suggest another week, which puts us into first week of December? Stephanie Perrin On 2016-11-18 11:03, Gomes, Chuck wrote: > Rob, > > I suggest that you not think of the polls as votes. Your responses to the polls will not be taken as votes in a final sense; that won't happen until much later in our work. The intent of the polls is to get an early sense of where people are to help us develop draft recommendations for possible RDS requirements. We fully understand that we will have to consider any draft recommendations we develop in light of all draft recommendations so we will have to go back and revisit them in the context of the whole package later. For now, please consider each possible requirement in its own right as best as possible. > > Chuck > > > -----Original Message----- > From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Golding > Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 5:46 PM > To: lisa@corecom.com > Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org > Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation > > Hi Lisa > >> https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W >> All WG members are asked to respond to this first poll, ideally by 20 >> NOVEMBER (MIDNIGHT UTC). Initial results will be shared during the >> WG's 22 November meeting, where we will introduce and answer questions >> about these proposed steps, including how poll results will be used to >> inform further deliberation. As this is our first poll, the poll will >> remain open through 25 NOVEMBER (MIDNIGHT UTC). > The poll is asking to vote on things, so really needs the links to the those things and the actual text > - it's difficult to follow even Q1 when you have to go off and search mailing lists and external systems for other docs before making a decsion for example > > Rob > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list > gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg > _______________________________________________ > gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list > gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Please do the best you can Stephanie. Please help me understand why you need to go through hundreds of recommendations. The purpose of the poll is to give us a sense of where people are not with the understanding that we will have to come back and revisit some of the recommended requirements later after we have a more complete picture of the whole package. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 4:32 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation Far be it from me to be putting my feet out of the toboggan as we rocket downhill on this venture folks, but I think this is not enough time to go through the list of recommendations. I am still getting over the inevitable cold that assails me every time I fly a long way to an ICANN meeting, and I am sure many of us are also catching up on neglected work. We need time to think as we go through the hundreds of recommendations, and consider them in context. May I suggest another week, which puts us into first week of December? Stephanie Perrin On 2016-11-18 11:03, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Rob, I suggest that you not think of the polls as votes. Your responses to the polls will not be taken as votes in a final sense; that won't happen until much later in our work. The intent of the polls is to get an early sense of where people are to help us develop draft recommendations for possible RDS requirements. We fully understand that we will have to consider any draft recommendations we develop in light of all draft recommendations so we will have to go back and revisit them in the context of the whole package later. For now, please consider each possible requirement in its own right as best as possible. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Golding Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 5:46 PM To: lisa@corecom.com<mailto:lisa@corecom.com> Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation Hi Lisa https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W All WG members are asked to respond to this first poll, ideally by 20 NOVEMBER (MIDNIGHT UTC). Initial results will be shared during the WG's 22 November meeting, where we will introduce and answer questions about these proposed steps, including how poll results will be used to inform further deliberation. As this is our first poll, the poll will remain open through 25 NOVEMBER (MIDNIGHT UTC). The poll is asking to vote on things, so really needs the links to the those things and the actual text - it's difficult to follow even Q1 when you have to go off and search mailing lists and external systems for other docs before making a decsion for example Rob _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Typo: change 'not' to 'now. So it reads: "Please do the best you can Stephanie. Please help me understand why you need to go through hundreds of recommendations. The purpose of the poll is to give us a sense of where people are now with the understanding that we will have to come back and revisit some of the recommended requirements later after we have a more complete picture of the whole package." Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 4:39 PM To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation Please do the best you can Stephanie. Please help me understand why you need to go through hundreds of recommendations. The purpose of the poll is to give us a sense of where people are not with the understanding that we will have to come back and revisit some of the recommended requirements later after we have a more complete picture of the whole package. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 4:32 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation Far be it from me to be putting my feet out of the toboggan as we rocket downhill on this venture folks, but I think this is not enough time to go through the list of recommendations. I am still getting over the inevitable cold that assails me every time I fly a long way to an ICANN meeting, and I am sure many of us are also catching up on neglected work. We need time to think as we go through the hundreds of recommendations, and consider them in context. May I suggest another week, which puts us into first week of December? Stephanie Perrin On 2016-11-18 11:03, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Rob, I suggest that you not think of the polls as votes. Your responses to the polls will not be taken as votes in a final sense; that won't happen until much later in our work. The intent of the polls is to get an early sense of where people are to help us develop draft recommendations for possible RDS requirements. We fully understand that we will have to consider any draft recommendations we develop in light of all draft recommendations so we will have to go back and revisit them in the context of the whole package later. For now, please consider each possible requirement in its own right as best as possible. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Golding Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 5:46 PM To: lisa@corecom.com<mailto:lisa@corecom.com> Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation Hi Lisa https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W All WG members are asked to respond to this first poll, ideally by 20 NOVEMBER (MIDNIGHT UTC). Initial results will be shared during the WG's 22 November meeting, where we will introduce and answer questions about these proposed steps, including how poll results will be used to inform further deliberation. As this is our first poll, the poll will remain open through 25 NOVEMBER (MIDNIGHT UTC). The poll is asking to vote on things, so really needs the links to the those things and the actual text - it's difficult to follow even Q1 when you have to go off and search mailing lists and external systems for other docs before making a decsion for example Rob _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
I completed the survey. I am not sure that it accomplished much to help us on our way, because so many times I felt I had to qualify support (given that so many of these "possible requirements" were summary statements pulled out of context). However, if you feel this kind of triage is useful, fine. I am not sure everyone will feel comfortable responding to a tiny set of requirements which have been selected (presumably by staff) as being exceptionally pertinent. We have to start somewhere, I just hope you are prepared to go back and rethink when we are in contention over some of the statements. Best Stephanie On 2016-11-18 16:54, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Typo: change ‘not’ to ‘now. So it reads: “Please do the best you can Stephanie. Please help me understand why you need to go through hundreds of recommendations. The purpose of the poll is to give us a sense of where people are now with the understanding that we will have to come back and revisit some of the recommended requirements later after we have a more complete picture of the whole package.”
Chuck
*From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Friday, November 18, 2016 4:39 PM *To:* Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation
Please do the best you can Stephanie. Please help me understand why you need to go through hundreds of recommendations. The purpose of the poll is to give us a sense of where people are not with the understanding that we will have to come back and revisit some of the recommended requirements later after we have a more complete picture of the whole package.
Chuck
*From:*gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Stephanie Perrin *Sent:* Friday, November 18, 2016 4:32 PM *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation
Far be it from me to be putting my feet out of the toboggan as we rocket downhill on this venture folks, but I think this is not enough time to go through the list of recommendations. I am still getting over the inevitable cold that assails me every time I fly a long way to an ICANN meeting, and I am sure many of us are also catching up on neglected work. We need time to think as we go through the hundreds of recommendations, and consider them in context. May I suggest another week, which puts us into first week of December?
Stephanie Perrin
On 2016-11-18 11:03, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Rob,
I suggest that you not think of the polls as votes. Your responses to the polls will not be taken as votes in a final sense; that won't happen until much later in our work. The intent of the polls is to get an early sense of where people are to help us develop draft recommendations for possible RDS requirements. We fully understand that we will have to consider any draft recommendations we develop in light of all draft recommendations so we will have to go back and revisit them in the context of the whole package later. For now, please consider each possible requirement in its own right as best as possible.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Golding
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 5:46 PM
To:lisa@corecom.com <mailto:lisa@corecom.com>
Cc:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation
Hi Lisa
https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W
All WG members are asked to respond to this first poll, ideally by 20
NOVEMBER (MIDNIGHT UTC). Initial results will be shared during the
WG's 22 November meeting, where we will introduce and answer questions
about these proposed steps, including how poll results will be used to
inform further deliberation. As this is our first poll, the poll will
remain open through 25 NOVEMBER (MIDNIGHT UTC).
The poll is asking to vote on things, so really needs the links to the those things and the actual text
- it's difficult to follow even Q1 when you have to go off and search mailing lists and external systems for other docs before making a decsion for example
Rob
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Thanks Stephanie. Like we said, it is a test. We welcome suggestions for a better way. Chuck From: Stephanie Perrin [mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 5:11 PM To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation I completed the survey. I am not sure that it accomplished much to help us on our way, because so many times I felt I had to qualify support (given that so many of these "possible requirements" were summary statements pulled out of context). However, if you feel this kind of triage is useful, fine. I am not sure everyone will feel comfortable responding to a tiny set of requirements which have been selected (presumably by staff) as being exceptionally pertinent. We have to start somewhere, I just hope you are prepared to go back and rethink when we are in contention over some of the statements. Best Stephanie On 2016-11-18 16:54, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Typo: change 'not' to 'now. So it reads: "Please do the best you can Stephanie. Please help me understand why you need to go through hundreds of recommendations. The purpose of the poll is to give us a sense of where people are now with the understanding that we will have to come back and revisit some of the recommended requirements later after we have a more complete picture of the whole package." Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 4:39 PM To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation Please do the best you can Stephanie. Please help me understand why you need to go through hundreds of recommendations. The purpose of the poll is to give us a sense of where people are not with the understanding that we will have to come back and revisit some of the recommended requirements later after we have a more complete picture of the whole package. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 4:32 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation Far be it from me to be putting my feet out of the toboggan as we rocket downhill on this venture folks, but I think this is not enough time to go through the list of recommendations. I am still getting over the inevitable cold that assails me every time I fly a long way to an ICANN meeting, and I am sure many of us are also catching up on neglected work. We need time to think as we go through the hundreds of recommendations, and consider them in context. May I suggest another week, which puts us into first week of December? Stephanie Perrin On 2016-11-18 11:03, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Rob, I suggest that you not think of the polls as votes. Your responses to the polls will not be taken as votes in a final sense; that won't happen until much later in our work. The intent of the polls is to get an early sense of where people are to help us develop draft recommendations for possible RDS requirements. We fully understand that we will have to consider any draft recommendations we develop in light of all draft recommendations so we will have to go back and revisit them in the context of the whole package later. For now, please consider each possible requirement in its own right as best as possible. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Golding Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 5:46 PM To: lisa@corecom.com<mailto:lisa@corecom.com> Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation Hi Lisa https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W All WG members are asked to respond to this first poll, ideally by 20 NOVEMBER (MIDNIGHT UTC). Initial results will be shared during the WG's 22 November meeting, where we will introduce and answer questions about these proposed steps, including how poll results will be used to inform further deliberation. As this is our first poll, the poll will remain open through 25 NOVEMBER (MIDNIGHT UTC). The poll is asking to vote on things, so really needs the links to the those things and the actual text - it's difficult to follow even Q1 when you have to go off and search mailing lists and external systems for other docs before making a decsion for example Rob _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Going back to the issue of time, the 5days are fine and will help save lots of time, agreeing to Chuck Though based on the long trip of the members I suggest granting an extra week to allow members to recover and we resume. Stephanie, when you say we have to start somewhere, I think this is going to guide us through and through, I would not mind going back to enable members or clear understanding of respective statements. Regards Nanghaka Daniel K. Executive Director - ILICIT Africa / Council Member - FOSSFA / Community Lead - ISOC Uganda Chapter Mobile +256 772 898298 (Uganda) Skype: daniel.nanghaka ----------------------------------------- *"Working for Africa" * ----------------------------------------- On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> wrote:
Thanks Stephanie. Like we said, it is a test. We welcome suggestions for a better way.
Chuck
*From:* Stephanie Perrin [mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca] *Sent:* Friday, November 18, 2016 5:11 PM *To:* Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
*Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation
I completed the survey. I am not sure that it accomplished much to help us on our way, because so many times I felt I had to qualify support (given that so many of these "possible requirements" were summary statements pulled out of context). However, if you feel this kind of triage is useful, fine. I am not sure everyone will feel comfortable responding to a tiny set of requirements which have been selected (presumably by staff) as being exceptionally pertinent. We have to start somewhere, I just hope you are prepared to go back and rethink when we are in contention over some of the statements.
Best
Stephanie
On 2016-11-18 16:54, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Typo: change ‘not’ to ‘now. So it reads: “Please do the best you can Stephanie. Please help me understand why you need to go through hundreds of recommendations. The purpose of the poll is to give us a sense of where people are now with the understanding that we will have to come back and revisit some of the recommended requirements later after we have a more complete picture of the whole package.”
Chuck
*From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Gomes, Chuck *Sent:* Friday, November 18, 2016 4:39 PM *To:* Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation
Please do the best you can Stephanie. Please help me understand why you need to go through hundreds of recommendations. The purpose of the poll is to give us a sense of where people are not with the understanding that we will have to come back and revisit some of the recommended requirements later after we have a more complete picture of the whole package.
Chuck
*From:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg- bounces@icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Stephanie Perrin *Sent:* Friday, November 18, 2016 4:32 PM *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation
Far be it from me to be putting my feet out of the toboggan as we rocket downhill on this venture folks, but I think this is not enough time to go through the list of recommendations. I am still getting over the inevitable cold that assails me every time I fly a long way to an ICANN meeting, and I am sure many of us are also catching up on neglected work. We need time to think as we go through the hundreds of recommendations, and consider them in context. May I suggest another week, which puts us into first week of December?
Stephanie Perrin
On 2016-11-18 11:03, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Rob,
I suggest that you not think of the polls as votes. Your responses to the polls will not be taken as votes in a final sense; that won't happen until much later in our work. The intent of the polls is to get an early sense of where people are to help us develop draft recommendations for possible RDS requirements. We fully understand that we will have to consider any draft recommendations we develop in light of all draft recommendations so we will have to go back and revisit them in the context of the whole package later. For now, please consider each possible requirement in its own right as best as possible.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Rob Golding
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 5:46 PM
To: lisa@corecom.com
Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation
Hi Lisa
https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W
All WG members are asked to respond to this first poll, ideally by 20
NOVEMBER (MIDNIGHT UTC). Initial results will be shared during the
WG's 22 November meeting, where we will introduce and answer questions
about these proposed steps, including how poll results will be used to
inform further deliberation. As this is our first poll, the poll will
remain open through 25 NOVEMBER (MIDNIGHT UTC).
The poll is asking to vote on things, so really needs the links to the those things and the actual text
- it's difficult to follow even Q1 when you have to go off and search mailing lists and external systems for other docs before making a decsion for example
Rob
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
We plan to spend quite a bit of time discussing the proposed process in our WG call next week. Chuck From: DANIEL NANGHAKA [mailto:dndannang@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 5:49 PM To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> Cc: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation Going back to the issue of time, the 5days are fine and will help save lots of time, agreeing to Chuck Though based on the long trip of the members I suggest granting an extra week to allow members to recover and we resume. Stephanie, when you say we have to start somewhere, I think this is going to guide us through and through, I would not mind going back to enable members or clear understanding of respective statements. Regards Nanghaka Daniel K. Executive Director - ILICIT Africa / Council Member - FOSSFA / Community Lead - ISOC Uganda Chapter Mobile +256 772 898298 (Uganda) Skype: daniel.nanghaka ----------------------------------------- "Working for Africa" ----------------------------------------- [Image removed by sender.][Image removed by sender.] [Image removed by sender.] On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>> wrote: Thanks Stephanie. Like we said, it is a test. We welcome suggestions for a better way. Chuck From: Stephanie Perrin [mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 5:11 PM To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation I completed the survey. I am not sure that it accomplished much to help us on our way, because so many times I felt I had to qualify support (given that so many of these "possible requirements" were summary statements pulled out of context). However, if you feel this kind of triage is useful, fine. I am not sure everyone will feel comfortable responding to a tiny set of requirements which have been selected (presumably by staff) as being exceptionally pertinent. We have to start somewhere, I just hope you are prepared to go back and rethink when we are in contention over some of the statements. Best Stephanie On 2016-11-18 16:54, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Typo: change ‘not’ to ‘now. So it reads: “Please do the best you can Stephanie. Please help me understand why you need to go through hundreds of recommendations. The purpose of the poll is to give us a sense of where people are now with the understanding that we will have to come back and revisit some of the recommended requirements later after we have a more complete picture of the whole package.” Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 4:39 PM To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation Please do the best you can Stephanie. Please help me understand why you need to go through hundreds of recommendations. The purpose of the poll is to give us a sense of where people are not with the understanding that we will have to come back and revisit some of the recommended requirements later after we have a more complete picture of the whole package. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 4:32 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation Far be it from me to be putting my feet out of the toboggan as we rocket downhill on this venture folks, but I think this is not enough time to go through the list of recommendations. I am still getting over the inevitable cold that assails me every time I fly a long way to an ICANN meeting, and I am sure many of us are also catching up on neglected work. We need time to think as we go through the hundreds of recommendations, and consider them in context. May I suggest another week, which puts us into first week of December? Stephanie Perrin On 2016-11-18 11:03, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Rob, I suggest that you not think of the polls as votes. Your responses to the polls will not be taken as votes in a final sense; that won't happen until much later in our work. The intent of the polls is to get an early sense of where people are to help us develop draft recommendations for possible RDS requirements. We fully understand that we will have to consider any draft recommendations we develop in light of all draft recommendations so we will have to go back and revisit them in the context of the whole package later. For now, please consider each possible requirement in its own right as best as possible. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rob Golding Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 5:46 PM To: lisa@corecom.com<mailto:lisa@corecom.com> Cc: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation Hi Lisa https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W All WG members are asked to respond to this first poll, ideally by 20 NOVEMBER (MIDNIGHT UTC). Initial results will be shared during the WG's 22 November meeting, where we will introduce and answer questions about these proposed steps, including how poll results will be used to inform further deliberation. As this is our first poll, the poll will remain open through 25 NOVEMBER (MIDNIGHT UTC). The poll is asking to vote on things, so really needs the links to the those things and the actual text - it's difficult to follow even Q1 when you have to go off and search mailing lists and external systems for other docs before making a decsion for example Rob _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Also, 5 days to vote is probably too short a time period, there may/will/is-likely-to-be discussion on-list about proposals, so forcing a vote on short timescales for those of us without staff to dedicate just tothe WG will I think impose unworkable time restrictions Rob
Thanks for the feedback Rob. We may indeed find the need for more time for the polls going forward but I would like to share some thoughts: 1) unless we want our phase 1 work to last many years, I think it is going to be essential for WG members to do their best to try to regularly participate in the process in as short a time as possible; 2) all of us will have occasions when we can't make deadlines but the currently proposed process has overlapping opportunities to make up for those occasional times; 3) if those occasions become standard procedure instead of exceptional, then that will significantly slow us down; so, whatever process we follow, we will need everyone to commit to regular and timely input as much as possible. Chuck Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 17, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Rob Golding <rob.golding@astutium.com> wrote:> Also, 5 days to vote is probably too short a time period, there may/will/is-likely-to-be discussion on-list about proposals, so forcing a vote on short timescales for those of us without staff to dedicate just tothe WG will I think impose unworkable time restrictions
Rob _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Just wondering if a meeting invite has been sent out for tomorrow’s meeting? Thanks, Sara From: <gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Lisa Phifer <lisa@corecom.com> Reply-To: "lisa@corecom.com" <lisa@corecom.com> Date: Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 3:24 PM To: "gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation Dear all, On behalf of the leadership team, I am forwarding the following proposal to progress deliberation, including an invitation for all WG members to participate in this poll: RDS PDP WG Possible Requirement Poll #1 - 17 Nov 2016 https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W Best Regards, Lisa Proposed steps to progress Possible Requirements through deliberation – 17 November, 2016 As detailed in our Approach to reach consensus during Phase 1<As%20detailed%20in%20our%20published%20Approach%20to%20reach%20consensus%20during%20Phase%201,>, the RDS PDP WG kicked off initial deliberation on possible requirements for Users/Purposes, Data Elements, and Privacy at ICANN57. During that F2F meeting, we spent roughly three hours discussing 7 possible requirements and 7 similar or duplicate requirements to get a preliminary sense of WG member thoughts on them. Output from this initial deliberation can be found in published meeting notes<https://community.icann.org/x/NAe4Aw>. Based on this experience, the leadership team believes that it will not be effective to draft and edit in detail WG recommendations on hundreds of possible requirements in real-time during WG meetings because doing so would require an inordinate amount of time. To progress possible requirements through deliberation effectively while making best use of meeting time, the leadership team has proposed the following approach to be tested over the next 2-3 weeks. Steps to progress possible requirements through deliberation Each weekly WG meeting will include both (a) some initial deliberation on a set of possible requirements, and (b) further deliberation on previously-discussed possible requirements. Deliberation on each possible requirement will be time-bounded during each meeting to promote effective use of meeting time and progress through the following steps: 1) Initial deliberation will focus on raising and recording preliminary thoughts about a set of possible requirements, including very similar or duplicate possible requirements. 2) Staff will create a poll to assess the WG’s preliminary level of support for draft recommendations derived from initial deliberation. WG members will have 5 days to respond to the poll. 3) After each poll closes, poll results and draft recommendations will be posted on a wiki page created for each possible requirement within that set. 4) Those poll results and draft recommendations will be briefly discussed during a subsequent WG meeting, allowing for further deliberation at a conceptual level (that is, not word smithing). 5) WG members will then have 5 days to suggest specific edits to draft recommendations using the wiki page comment function (or if necessary, on the WG email list). 6) The leadership team will use suggested edits to refine draft recommendations, attempting to develop proposed final text which reflects rough consensus, to be confirmed by the WG. These steps are illustrated below, showing deliberation on several sets of possible requirements as they progress. For each set of possible requirements, Steps 1-4 may be completed in two WG meetings over a period of three weeks. Steps 5-6 rely upon the WG wiki and email to refine recommendations and reach rough consensus without requiring extensive WG meeting time. [cid:image001.png@01D243CB.01F940A0] The leadership team hopes that these steps will help us draft, determine support for, and then edit in detail WG recommendations derived from possible requirements in a time-effective manner, while keeping the “pipeline” filled with initial deliberation on additional sets of possible requirements. We would like to test these proposed steps by using them to progress the first set of possible requirements deliberated on at Hyderabad (“Set A”). To start, we have created the following poll: RDS PDP WG Possible Requirement Poll #1 - 17 Nov 2016 https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W All WG members are asked to respond to this first poll, ideally by 20 November (midnight UTC). Initial results will be shared during the WG’s 22 November meeting, where we will introduce and answer questions about these proposed steps, including how poll results will be used to inform further deliberation. As this is our first poll, the poll will remain open through 25 November (midnight UTC). During the WG’s 22 and 29 November meetings, initial deliberation will continue on two more sets of possible requirements to ramp up this proposed process. During the WG’s 6 December meeting, the first poll results will be used to continue deliberation on that set. Over the week(s) following that meeting, WG feedback will be solicited to refine the wording of draft recommendations and reach rough consensus on those for which there is at least rough support. We don’t know how well this test will work. It may need to be refined. Or we may have to try a completely different approach. In conducting this test, we welcome feedback and new ideas. For now, all WG members are strongly encouraged to visit the poll URL<https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W> above and attempt to complete this first poll, keeping in mind that all poll responses are preliminary and will only be used to inform next-step deliberation on each of these possible requirements. The above proposal and poll will discussed during the WG’s 22 November call. A PDF of the above proposal and the poll itself can also be found on the meeting page: https://community.icann.org/x/v4-DAw An updated list of possible requirements for initial deliberation will be circulated separately and also posted on the meeting page.
In our WG call yesterday, I asked all members who have not completed the poll below to please do so by the 25th. I asked that in full knowledge that we are still discussing and evaluating the polling approach. I do that for two reasons: 1) having completed the poll will give members a better understanding of it; 2) we may use a polling method later in our deliberations. In taking the poll, remember that it is not a vote , that you are not locking yourself into a permanent position, and that there will be plenty of opportunity to change your views in the future. Thanks to those who already completed the poll and thanks in advance to those who will do so this week. Chuck From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lisa Phifer Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 5:25 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Proposal and Poll Invitation Dear all, On behalf of the leadership team, I am forwarding the following proposal to progress deliberation, including an invitation for all WG members to participate in this poll: RDS PDP WG Possible Requirement Poll #1 - 17 Nov 2016 https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W Best Regards, Lisa Proposed steps to progress Possible Requirements through deliberation - 17 November, 2016 As detailed in our Approach to reach consensus during Phase 1<As%20detailed%20in%20our%20published%20Approach%20to%20reach%20consensus%20during%20Phase%201,>, the RDS PDP WG kicked off initial deliberation on possible requirements for Users/Purposes, Data Elements, and Privacy at ICANN57. During that F2F meeting, we spent roughly three hours discussing 7 possible requirements and 7 similar or duplicate requirements to get a preliminary sense of WG member thoughts on them. Output from this initial deliberation can be found in published meeting notes<https://community.icann.org/x/NAe4Aw>. Based on this experience, the leadership team believes that it will not be effective to draft and edit in detail WG recommendations on hundreds of possible requirements in real-time during WG meetings because doing so would require an inordinate amount of time. To progress possible requirements through deliberation effectively while making best use of meeting time, the leadership team has proposed the following approach to be tested over the next 2-3 weeks. Steps to progress possible requirements through deliberation Each weekly WG meeting will include both (a) some initial deliberation on a set of possible requirements, and (b) further deliberation on previously-discussed possible requirements. Deliberation on each possible requirement will be time-bounded during each meeting to promote effective use of meeting time and progress through the following steps: 1) Initial deliberation will focus on raising and recording preliminary thoughts about a set of possible requirements, including very similar or duplicate possible requirements. 2) Staff will create a poll to assess the WG's preliminary level of support for draft recommendations derived from initial deliberation. WG members will have 5 days to respond to the poll. 3) After each poll closes, poll results and draft recommendations will be posted on a wiki page created for each possible requirement within that set. 4) Those poll results and draft recommendations will be briefly discussed during a subsequent WG meeting, allowing for further deliberation at a conceptual level (that is, not word smithing). 5) WG members will then have 5 days to suggest specific edits to draft recommendations using the wiki page comment function (or if necessary, on the WG email list). 6) The leadership team will use suggested edits to refine draft recommendations, attempting to develop proposed final text which reflects rough consensus, to be confirmed by the WG. These steps are illustrated below, showing deliberation on several sets of possible requirements as they progress. For each set of possible requirements, Steps 1-4 may be completed in two WG meetings over a period of three weeks. Steps 5-6 rely upon the WG wiki and email to refine recommendations and reach rough consensus without requiring extensive WG meeting time. [cid:image002.jpg@01D245A2.AB618840] The leadership team hopes that these steps will help us draft, determine support for, and then edit in detail WG recommendations derived from possible requirements in a time-effective manner, while keeping the "pipeline" filled with initial deliberation on additional sets of possible requirements. We would like to test these proposed steps by using them to progress the first set of possible requirements deliberated on at Hyderabad ("Set A"). To start, we have created the following poll: RDS PDP WG Possible Requirement Poll #1 - 17 Nov 2016 https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W All WG members are asked to respond to this first poll, ideally by 20 November (midnight UTC). Initial results will be shared during the WG's 22 November meeting, where we will introduce and answer questions about these proposed steps, including how poll results will be used to inform further deliberation. As this is our first poll, the poll will remain open through 25 November (midnight UTC). During the WG's 22 and 29 November meetings, initial deliberation will continue on two more sets of possible requirements to ramp up this proposed process. During the WG's 6 December meeting, the first poll results will be used to continue deliberation on that set. Over the week(s) following that meeting, WG feedback will be solicited to refine the wording of draft recommendations and reach rough consensus on those for which there is at least rough support. We don't know how well this test will work. It may need to be refined. Or we may have to try a completely different approach. In conducting this test, we welcome feedback and new ideas. For now, all WG members are strongly encouraged to visit the poll URL<https://s.zoomerang.com/r/99FNX2W> above and attempt to complete this first poll, keeping in mind that all poll responses are preliminary and will only be used to inform next-step deliberation on each of these possible requirements. The above proposal and poll will discussed during the WG's 22 November call. A PDF of the above proposal and the poll itself can also be found on the meeting page: https://community.icann.org/x/v4-DAw An updated list of possible requirements for initial deliberation will be circulated separately and also posted on the meeting page.
participants (6)
-
DANIEL NANGHAKA -
Gomes, Chuck -
Lisa Phifer -
Rob Golding -
Sara Bockey -
Stephanie Perrin