he next GNSO Next-Gen RDS PDP Working Group teleconference is scheduled for Tuesday, 26 July at 16:00 UTC for 90 minutes.
09:00 PDT, 12:00 EDT, 17:00 London, 18:00 CEST
For other times: http://tinyurl.com/ht6ot55
Proposed Agenda for RDS PDP WG Call
1) Roll call/SOI updates
2) Pending assignments - progress update
3) Feedback on triage approach to organize possible requirements
4) Begin review of a draft example use case: objectives, Karnika's submission
5) Confirm Next Meeting - Tuesday 2 August
Mp3
Transcript
AC Chat
Attendance
Apologies: Olevie Kouami, Michele Neylon, Jim Galvin, Richard Padilla,Vlad Dinculescu, Andrew Sullivan, Farell Folly, Nathalie Coupet, Mark Svancarek, Marika Konings (staff),
On audio only: None
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://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/FwUNBg
Notes and Action Items
1) Roll call/SOI updates
- No updates noted
- Reminder: please remember to review and update your SOI if needed
2) Pending assignments - progress update
- Drafting team working on statement of purpose for the RDS PDP WG
- Alex Deacon circulated another draft statement to the team and they continue to review and work towards a version to share with the full WG for review/comment.
- See etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/gnso-rds-pbstatement-0
Action Item: Drafting team to circulate draft for WG review at least 24 hrs in advance of next call
Action Item: Volunteers to extract PRs from key input documents are asked to complete their assignments or let staff know to reassign the document
3) Feedback on triage approach to organize possible requirements
- Stephanie Perrin circulated comments on the categories for triaging possible requirements - distributed with meeting materials, update to email list 26 July
- Proposes a taxonomy of logical categories as an alternative to the "groups" included in the triage reviewed in last week's call
- Proposal is to add additional column to spreadsheet to add categories (see page 11) - for example, Goals, with subset categories Transparency, Diff Access, Auth Data, Accountability, etc
- Stephanie Perrin will provide descriptions for each of her proposed categories, and has already provided a mapping of groups to categories
- Will need to adjust nomenclature (coding) to avoid confusion between these categories/taxonomy names and the keywords (aka groups) - this can be done offline, focus now on overall taxonomy
- Note that categories and sub-categories could be expanded as we go
- Susan Kawaguchi and Lisa Phifer worked on developing descriptions for each of the keywords - to be circulated to WG
- Within the keywords, Susan Kawaguchi proposes replacing "abuse violation" with "abuse" as suggested by Stephanie Perrin’s comments
- Support in chat and from speakers to incorporate categories as a helpful way to organize PRs
- Questions as to whether both keywords and categories can or should coexist? Do we need to apply the categories to the PRs, and see how well the mappings work, and also whether keywords add value and are still needed
- Proposal: circulate definitions for keyword groups, categories from Stephanie Perrin's coding system, and apply the codes and mapping to the triaged spreadsheet to allow the WG to review and provide feedback
- Noted that the PR list is a large pile of data that needs to be organized - the WG has not yet deliberated on the PRs and their merit or completeness
- Some codes correspond to questions or phases in the PDP Process Framework, others do not?
- How will this coding (and other organizational tools) help us during deliberation?
- Re: contracted parties: registrars, registries, and (soon) PP providers. May need to include potential future contracted parties that are included in some PRs.
- To what level of granularity must the codes go to cover everything but still be useful at this stage. If there are too many codes, it becomes less useful as an organizational tool. Examples noted include law enforcement, contracted parties, risks. Should there be a heading for potential users (in addition to potential uses).
- Chat comment: [codes and keywords] are simply search aids, so I could use both or none at all. I'll still be searching the item list and probably the docs as well when deliberate on each topic.
Action: Stephanie Perrin to provide definitions for at least top-level codes to enable application to triaged list. Susan Kawaguchi to provide definitions for the keywords already used in triage.
Action: Staff to apply codes to triaged list for WG review next week to settle on initial coding to then be applied to entire PR list
4) Begin review of a draft example use case: objectives, Karnika Seth's submission
- Refer to Draft Use Case List and Template: https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/x/8gCGBg
- Chuck Gomes shared an answer to "Why discuss RDS use cases" (to be distributed with notes)
- The intent is to help prepare for deliberation - not begin deliberation.
- Drafting a use case for WG discussion does not imply that any described users or purposes should be permissible or that all ref'd data should be accessible or stored in the RDS
- Goal is not to establish complete set of all possible use cases but rather to get a sampling that help the WG examine issues raised & think through those issues during deliberation on PRs
- For example, see "Obtain domain name holder details for legal actions" use case submitted by Karnika Seth (see table at link above or meeting materials below)
- Describes scenario involving a number of different crimes, where a party tries to seek information about the registrar of the domain, the registrant of the domain (refer to use case) - in many cases you need to know who the registrar is (as party in action) as well as registrant
- Question - is the use case granular enough? Should it be separate use cases for different kinds of criminal activity? For example, to identify the actors involved (if they differ) or different data involved...
- The use case brings out a number of important questions that must be considered when attempting to recommend RDS requirement
- Noted that use cases involving criminal activity may not be the same in every jurisdiction since laws vary - but the scenarios may be common (for example, RPM - there is another PDP on that)
- Desire not to reinvent the wheel - EWG use cases are available for use by volunteers in drafting representative use cases for discussion by this PDP WG
- Suggestion from Rod Rasmussen in chat: "There are a ton of "different" types of use cases there that haven't been the main focus of the discussions of this PDP WG contained in the EWG work. For example, digital CERTs, domain portfolio management for large domain holders, anti-spoofing of registrants, prevention of assigning domains to nameservers without permission - all kinds of terrific use cases that are both current and potential that would make registering, using, and managing domains far better."
Action item: All WG members are asked to refer to table of volunteers drafting use cases, and volunteer if they wish to draft a different use case. (Volunteers are welcome to start with EWG case - just ask staff for the case of interest to you)
5) Confirm Next Meeting - Tuesday 2 August
- Re: Doodle poll for next ICANN Meeting: most likely 2 half-day meetings for 2 PDP Working Groups, on Day One (3 Nov).
- F2F would most likely be Thursday, the first day of the ICANN meeting
- Goal for next call: try to finish triage and discuss additional use cases in prep for deliberation
Meeting Materials: