Chuck, Thank you for this reminder. I have reviewed the proposed approach to deliberation and support it for the most part, but I have one question. The fourth bullet point under this section of the meeting notes states: · Follow random rotation and alternate between subjects - will commence with users/purposes, then data elements, followed by privacy, and repeat I take it this means that the proposal is to start with the first highlighted question under “users and purposes” on page 1 of the “proposed approach” document: Should gTLD registration data be accessible for any purpose or only for specific purposes? So far so good. If, after we complete (or come to a stopping point) on discussion of that question, is it proposed that we then move immediately to the first question under the “data elements” section of the document? That question is on page 6 and reads as follows: Do existing gTLD registration data elements sufficiently meet the needs of purposes identified as permissible? I see a disconnect here, because our deliberation on the first question will not have brought us anywhere close to identifying what purposes are permissible. At most it will have resolved (at least provisionally) whether we need to engage in a process of identifying “specific purposes” that are “permissible.” Once we have completed (or come to a stopping point) on this second question, would we then move to the first question listed under privacy, which is found on page 11: Do existing gTLD registration directory services policies sufficiently address compliance with applicable data protection, privacy, and free speech laws within each jurisdiction? This presents a different disconnect since its focus is on “existing policies,” rather than on the attributes we should be seeking in RDS going forward. Or am I focusing too much on the questions that are highlighted, and instead the proposal (at least as to this point) is to deliberate on the answers/principles proposed by the EWG (see the quote from pp. 11-12 of EWG report immediately below the question)? Have I misunderstood what is being proposed with respect to this “random rotation” approach? If so, perhaps this could be clarified , by spelling out which question specifically it is proposed we start deliberations on next Tuesday, which will be the question considered after that, etc. If in fact I have grasped the proposal correctly (a big if), then I question whether it is the best way to proceed. Don't we need to get at least somewhat farther (beyond the first question) on discussion of “users/purposes” before we can usefully turn to questions on “data elements”? Looking forward to being set straight on this. Steve Metalitz PS, I sense in the notes some frustration that only 18 people responded to the latest poll. Let’s not be too hard on ourselves, 18 represents a sizable proportion of the average attendance on our recent calls (40 and 34, as I count them). A return rate of roughly 50% is really not too bad. I think leadership has correctly concluded from the poll results that there was sufficient dissatisfaction with the previous approach to require a change in direction. And, in general, I think the change in direction proposed makes sense, my only major reservation is about the “random rotation” point spelled out above. From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 4:31 PM To: marika.konings@icann.org; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from RDS PDP WG Meeting on 6 December 2016 Importance: High Note the action item for all WG members to complete no later than end of day on Friday, 9 December: Action item #1: WG to provide their input on the proposed next steps to progress deliberations by Friday 9 December at the latest Please review the proposed approach to deliberation: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63149980/KeyConceptsApproach-MindMap-with-EWGExcerpts-6Dec.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63149980/KeyConceptsApproach-MindMap-with-EWGExcerpts-6Dec.pdf> 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 Marika Konings Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 1:09 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from RDS PDP WG Meeting on 6 December 2016 Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s RDS PDP WG meeting. Best regards, Marika Notes RDS PDP WG Meeting – 6 December 2016: 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<https://community.icann.org/x/C4xlAw>. 1. Roll Call / SOI Update • Attendance will be taken from Adobe Connect room • Please state name for transcription purposes and remember to put your phone/mic on mute when not speaking 2) Proposed next steps to progress deliberations - Review next steps poll results • 18 responses received to date (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63149980/RDS-PDP-NextStepsPoll-Results-6Dec.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63149980/RDS-PDP-NextStepsPoll-Results-6Dec.pdf>) - disappointing result. Could be a result of no strong feelings on the question? It will be critical for WG members to participate in a timely manner in the polls that are conducted. These polls are to facilitate work in between meetings and allow for progress to be made. Polls are designed to be short and easy to respond to. • Small sample, not enough to make firm decisions but nevertheless strong support to make some adjustments to the methodology. • Leadership team has been trying to get as much input as possible from the WG, but has been having difficulty getting input from WG members. Leadership team has now come to the conclusion it may work better if it is more directive instead of spending weeks discussing process which hasn't proven to be productive. However, WG is always able and welcome to provide feedback and input on process. • Leadership team to present proposed adjustments to process during today's meeting as a path forward. • One question poll - Introduce proposed key concepts approach • See https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63149980/KeyConceptsApproach-MindMap-with-EWGExcerpts-6Dec.pdf<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63149980/KeyConceptsApproach-MindMap-with-EWGExcerpts-6Dec.pdf> • Questions from mind map are included in this document, mapped to EWG Report Excerpts • EWG Report Excerpts are intended to be a starting point deliberation, open for WG review and modification. • Follow random rotation and alternate between subjects - will commence with users/purposes, then data elements, followed by privacy, and repeat. • Deliberation will take time and will require collaboration. • Covering these questions will hopefully address the key concepts which will then allow the WG to address the specific requirements. • Approach will be iterative and flexible as there are obvious links and dependencies between questions. • Legitimate need to collect may not be the same as legitimate need to display. Note that second question under users/purposes is: For what specific purpose should gTLD registration data be collected, maintained, and made accessible? • Once questions have been addressed, then move to gated access and accuracy questions, followed by the fundamental question. • Many issues that will need to be deliberated such as whether are registry operators allowed to publish more information than required? • Important to stay focused as it is not possible to deliberate on everything at once. Limit getting ahead of the game. • All WG members should feel free to contribute to the deliberations and asky any questions they may have. • Once WG agrees on key principles, it will become easier to get into the details. • Commence with this approach during WG meeting next week (13 December) • Leadership team will review comments received by Friday COB and communicate whether any further changes are to be made based on the iput received. Flexible and iterative will be key to this approach. • Questions from mind map are taken as key concepts - if there any others, WG members are encouraged to bring those forward. - Q&A during this WG call and throughout week on email - Resume deliberation using this approach on 13 & 21 December WG calls Action item #1: WG to provide their input on the proposed next steps to progress deliberations by Friday 9 December at the latest 3) Confirm next meeting date: Tuesday, 13 December 2016 at 17:00 UTC - Note: No WG calls on 27 December 2016 or 3 January 2017 Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@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-e...>.

Dear All, The approach sounds good to me too and some of my concerns have been taken into account by precedents' e-mail. Thanks. Le mer. 7 déc. 2016 à 20:20, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com> a écrit :

Thanks for the excellent feedback and questions Steve.

You have accurately understood the proposed rotating approach and have also identified a possible gap if we follow that approach rigidly. The leadership team will definitely give this some serious thought and consider whether an adjustment might make sense.

As you know, the rotating approach was a compromise to deal with the fact that the WG could not agree on an order of the three first questions. We are trying to not favor any one question over the others but we also want to make sure that that doesn’t hinder our effectiveness.

Chuck

*From:* Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, December 07, 2016 11:53 AM *To:* Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>; marika.konings@icann.org; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from RDS PDP WG Meeting on 6 December 2016

Chuck,

Thank you for this reminder. I have reviewed the proposed approach to deliberation and support it for the most part, but I have one question.

The fourth bullet point under this section of the meeting notes states:

· Follow random rotation and alternate between subjects - will commence with users/purposes, then data elements, followed by privacy, and repeat

I take it this means that the proposal is to start with the first highlighted question under “users and purposes” on page 1 of the “proposed approach” document:

Should gTLD registration data be accessible for any purpose or only for specific purposes?

So far so good. If, after we complete (or come to a stopping point) on discussion of that question, is it proposed that we then move immediately to the first question under the “data elements” section of the document? That question is on page 6 and reads as follows:

Do existing gTLD registration data elements sufficiently meet the needs of purposes identified as permissible?

I see a disconnect here, because our deliberation on the first question will not have brought us anywhere close to identifying what purposes are permissible. At most it will have resolved (at least provisionally) whether we need to engage in a process of identifying “specific purposes” that are “permissible.”

Once we have completed (or come to a stopping point) on this second question, would we then move to the first question listed under privacy, which is found on page 11:

Do existing gTLD registration directory services policies sufficiently address compliance with applicable data protection, privacy, and free speech laws within each jurisdiction?

This presents a different disconnect since its focus is on “existing policies,” rather than on the attributes we should be seeking in RDS going forward.

Or am I focusing too much on the questions that are highlighted, and instead the proposal (at least as to this point) is to deliberate on the answers/principles proposed by the EWG (see the quote from pp. 11-12 of EWG report immediately below the question)?

Have I misunderstood what is being proposed with respect to this “random rotation” approach? If so, perhaps this could be clarified , by spelling out which question specifically it is proposed we start deliberations on next Tuesday, which will be the question considered after that, etc.

If in fact I have grasped the proposal correctly (a big if), then I question whether it is the best way to proceed. Don't we need to get at least somewhat farther (beyond the first question) on discussion of “users/purposes” before we can usefully turn to questions on “data elements”?

Looking forward to being set straight on this.

Steve Metalitz

PS, I sense in the notes some frustration that only 18 people responded to the latest poll. Let’s not be too hard on ourselves, 18 represents a sizable proportion of the average attendance on our recent calls (40 and 34, as I count them). A return rate of roughly 50% is really not too bad. I think leadership has correctly concluded from the poll results that there was sufficient dissatisfaction with the previous approach to require a change in direction. And, in general, I think the change in direction proposed makes sense, my only major reservation is about the “random rotation” point spelled out above.

*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:* Tuesday, December 06, 2016 4:31 PM *To:* marika.konings@icann.org; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from RDS PDP WG Meeting on 6 December 2016 *Importance:* High

Note the action item for all WG members to complete no later than end of day on Friday, 9 December:

*Action item #1*: WG to provide their input on the proposed next steps to progress deliberations by Friday 9 December at the latest

Please review the proposed approach to deliberation: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63149980/KeyConceptsApproac...

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 *Marika Konings *Sent:* Tuesday, December 06, 2016 1:09 PM *To:* gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from RDS PDP WG Meeting on 6 December 2016

Dear All,

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

Best regards,

Marika

*Notes RDS PDP WG Meeting – 6 December 2016: *

*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* <https://community.icann.org/x/C4xlAw>*.*

*1. Roll Call / SOI Update*

· Attendance will be taken from Adobe Connect room

· Please state name for transcription purposes and remember to put your phone/mic on mute when not speaking

*2) Proposed next steps to progress deliberations*

- Review next steps poll results

· 18 responses received to date (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63149980/RDS-PDP-NextStepsP...) - disappointing result. Could be a result of no strong feelings on the question? It will be critical for WG members to participate in a timely manner in the polls that are conducted. These polls are to facilitate work in between meetings and allow for progress to be made. Polls are designed to be short and easy to respond to.

· Small sample, not enough to make firm decisions but nevertheless strong support to make some adjustments to the methodology.

· Leadership team has been trying to get as much input as possible from the WG, but has been having difficulty getting input from WG members. Leadership team has now come to the conclusion it may work better if it is more directive instead of spending weeks discussing process which hasn't proven to be productive. However, WG is always able and welcome to provide feedback and input on process.

· Leadership team to present proposed adjustments to process during today's meeting as a path forward.

· One question poll

- Introduce proposed key concepts approach

· See https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63149980/KeyConceptsApproac...

· Questions from mind map are included in this document, mapped to EWG Report Excerpts

· EWG Report Excerpts are intended to be a starting point deliberation, open for WG review and modification.

· Follow random rotation and alternate between subjects - will commence with users/purposes, then data elements, followed by privacy, and repeat.

· Deliberation will take time and will require collaboration.

· Covering these questions will hopefully address the key concepts which will then allow the WG to address the specific requirements.

· Approach will be iterative and flexible as there are obvious links and dependencies between questions.

· Legitimate need to collect may not be the same as legitimate need to display. Note that second question under users/purposes is: For what specific purpose should gTLD registration data be collected, maintained, and made accessible?

· Once questions have been addressed, then move to gated access and accuracy questions, followed by the fundamental question.

· Many issues that will need to be deliberated such as whether are registry operators allowed to publish more information than required?

· Important to stay focused as it is not possible to deliberate on everything at once. Limit getting ahead of the game.

· All WG members should feel free to contribute to the deliberations and asky any questions they may have.

· Once WG agrees on key principles, it will become easier to get into the details.

· Commence with this approach during WG meeting next week (13 December)

· Leadership team will review comments received by Friday COB and communicate whether any further changes are to be made based on the iput received. Flexible and iterative will be key to this approach.

· Questions from mind map are taken as key concepts - if there any others, WG members are encouraged to bring those forward.

- Q&A during this WG call and throughout week on email

- Resume deliberation using this approach on 13 & 21 December WG calls

*Action item #1*: WG to provide their input on the proposed next steps to progress deliberations by Friday 9 December at the latest

*3) Confirm next meeting date: Tuesday, 13 December 2016 at 17:00 UTC*

- Note: No WG calls on 27 December 2016 or 3 January 2017

*Marika Konings*

*Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *

*Email: marika.konings@icann.org <marika.konings@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-e...>. *

_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg

-- Salutations - Regards @__f_f__ [image: --] FARELL FOLLY about.me/farell <https://about.me/farell?promo=email_sig&utm_source=email_sig&utm_medium=emai...>

It will be Steve. Hopefully you have now seen the agenda. Chuck From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 10:27 AM To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com>; marika.konings@icann.org; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from RDS PDP WG Meeting on 6 December 2016 Leaving to one side for the moment the issue of what will be the second question we address -- can you confirm that the first question we will address on tomorrow’s call is the following: “Should gTLD registration data be accessible for any purpose or only for specific purposes?” Thanks. Steve Metalitz From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 2:20 PM To: Metalitz, Steven; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from RDS PDP WG Meeting on 6 December 2016 Thanks for the excellent feedback and questions Steve. You have accurately understood the proposed rotating approach and have also identified a possible gap if we follow that approach rigidly. The leadership team will definitely give this some serious thought and consider whether an adjustment might make sense. As you know, the rotating approach was a compromise to deal with the fact that the WG could not agree on an order of the three first questions. We are trying to not favor any one question over the others but we also want to make sure that that doesn’t hinder our effectiveness. Chuck From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met@msk.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 11:53 AM To: Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@verisign.com<mailto:cgomes@verisign.com>>; marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from RDS PDP WG Meeting on 6 December 2016 Chuck, Thank you for this reminder. I have reviewed the proposed approach to deliberation and support it for the most part, but I have one question. The fourth bullet point under this section of the meeting notes states: · Follow random rotation and alternate between subjects - will commence with users/purposes, then data elements, followed by privacy, and repeat I take it this means that the proposal is to start with the first highlighted question under “users and purposes” on page 1 of the “proposed approach” document: Should gTLD registration data be accessible for any purpose or only for specific purposes? So far so good. If, after we complete (or come to a stopping point) on discussion of that question, is it proposed that we then move immediately to the first question under the “data elements” section of the document? That question is on page 6 and reads as follows: Do existing gTLD registration data elements sufficiently meet the needs of purposes identified as permissible? I see a disconnect here, because our deliberation on the first question will not have brought us anywhere close to identifying what purposes are permissible. At most it will have resolved (at least provisionally) whether we need to engage in a process of identifying “specific purposes” that are “permissible.” Once we have completed (or come to a stopping point) on this second question, would we then move to the first question listed under privacy, which is found on page 11: Do existing gTLD registration directory services policies sufficiently address compliance with applicable data protection, privacy, and free speech laws within each jurisdiction? This presents a different disconnect since its focus is on “existing policies,” rather than on the attributes we should be seeking in RDS going forward. Or am I focusing too much on the questions that are highlighted, and instead the proposal (at least as to this point) is to deliberate on the answers/principles proposed by the EWG (see the quote from pp. 11-12 of EWG report immediately below the question)? Have I misunderstood what is being proposed with respect to this “random rotation” approach? If so, perhaps this could be clarified , by spelling out which question specifically it is proposed we start deliberations on next Tuesday, which will be the question considered after that, etc. If in fact I have grasped the proposal correctly (a big if), then I question whether it is the best way to proceed. Don't we need to get at least somewhat farther (beyond the first question) on discussion of “users/purposes” before we can usefully turn to questions on “data elements”? Looking forward to being set straight on this. Steve Metalitz PS, I sense in the notes some frustration that only 18 people responded to the latest poll. Let’s not be too hard on ourselves, 18 represents a sizable proportion of the average attendance on our recent calls (40 and 34, as I count them). A return rate of roughly 50% is really not too bad. I think leadership has correctly concluded from the poll results that there was sufficient dissatisfaction with the previous approach to require a change in direction. And, in general, I think the change in direction proposed makes sense, my only major reservation is about the “random rotation” point spelled out above. 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: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 4:31 PM To: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from RDS PDP WG Meeting on 6 December 2016 Importance: High Note the action item for all WG members to complete no later than end of day on Friday, 9 December: Action item #1: WG to provide their input on the proposed next steps to progress deliberations by Friday 9 December at the latest Please review the proposed approach to deliberation: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63149980/KeyConceptsApproac... 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 Marika Konings Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 1:09 PM To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Notes and action items from RDS PDP WG Meeting on 6 December 2016 Dear All, Please find below the notes and action items from today’s RDS PDP WG meeting. Best regards, Marika Notes RDS PDP WG Meeting – 6 December 2016: 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 • Attendance will be taken from Adobe Connect room • Please state name for transcription purposes and remember to put your phone/mic on mute when not speaking 2) Proposed next steps to progress deliberations - Review next steps poll results • 18 responses received to date (see https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63149980/RDS-PDP-NextStepsP...) - disappointing result. Could be a result of no strong feelings on the question? It will be critical for WG members to participate in a timely manner in the polls that are conducted. These polls are to facilitate work in between meetings and allow for progress to be made. Polls are designed to be short and easy to respond to. • Small sample, not enough to make firm decisions but nevertheless strong support to make some adjustments to the methodology. • Leadership team has been trying to get as much input as possible from the WG, but has been having difficulty getting input from WG members. Leadership team has now come to the conclusion it may work better if it is more directive instead of spending weeks discussing process which hasn't proven to be productive. However, WG is always able and welcome to provide feedback and input on process. • Leadership team to present proposed adjustments to process during today's meeting as a path forward. • One question poll - Introduce proposed key concepts approach • See https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/63149980/KeyConceptsApproac... • Questions from mind map are included in this document, mapped to EWG Report Excerpts • EWG Report Excerpts are intended to be a starting point deliberation, open for WG review and modification. • Follow random rotation and alternate between subjects - will commence with users/purposes, then data elements, followed by privacy, and repeat. • Deliberation will take time and will require collaboration. • Covering these questions will hopefully address the key concepts which will then allow the WG to address the specific requirements. • Approach will be iterative and flexible as there are obvious links and dependencies between questions. • Legitimate need to collect may not be the same as legitimate need to display. Note that second question under users/purposes is: For what specific purpose should gTLD registration data be collected, maintained, and made accessible? • Once questions have been addressed, then move to gated access and accuracy questions, followed by the fundamental question. • Many issues that will need to be deliberated such as whether are registry operators allowed to publish more information than required? • Important to stay focused as it is not possible to deliberate on everything at once. Limit getting ahead of the game. • All WG members should feel free to contribute to the deliberations and asky any questions they may have. • Once WG agrees on key principles, it will become easier to get into the details. • Commence with this approach during WG meeting next week (13 December) • Leadership team will review comments received by Friday COB and communicate whether any further changes are to be made based on the iput received. Flexible and iterative will be key to this approach. • Questions from mind map are taken as key concepts - if there any others, WG members are encouraged to bring those forward. - Q&A during this WG call and throughout week on email - Resume deliberation using this approach on 13 & 21 December WG calls Action item #1: WG to provide their input on the proposed next steps to progress deliberations by Friday 9 December at the latest 3) Confirm next meeting date: Tuesday, 13 December 2016 at 17:00 UTC - Note: No WG calls on 27 December 2016 or 3 January 2017 Marika Konings Senior Policy Director & Team Leader for the GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@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-e...>.