Hi Avri,
Tx for posting. Is the upcoming PDP just about a review of the 
recommendations of the Expert Working Group report -- and if not, where 
is the report's/staff's call for additional evaluation, information, 
analysis, and especially risks (the latter being Stephanie's theme and 
call for months and now years)?

The Expert Working Group report  was a highly controversial one (as you 
know, but I'll share for other readers of this email). In this day and 
age, the idea of creating a single centralized database of ALL gTLD 
Whois information -- moving it all from the individual registries to one 
central location - subject to all the ills of personalized data in one 
place (a massive dump if there is hacking) and one set of rules (the 
privacy/data protection/law enforcement laws and practices of one 
jurisdiction, abandoning the protections that exist in your country of 
registration) is really very controversial and dangerous.

I had hoped that the proposal for the PDP would be broader -- at least a 
call for work in related areas, a clear call for evaluation of the risks 
of the EWG recommendation (which never even saw the light of day of a 
final public comments on huge new sets of rules and ideas - an unheard 
of process in ICANN).

Please correct me if I am wrong (and I hope I am!). But this Draft 
Preliminary Issues Report appears to be an entire PDP dedicated to an up 
or down vote on the EWG recommendations:
==> "The EWG’s Final Report provides recommendations to address the 
questions that are the focus of the PDP, along with a proposed new model 
for gTLD Data Directory Services. The PDP should be focused on analyzing 
these recommendations from the EWG, as directed by the ICANN Board."
(Section 5.2 page 55)

Am I misreading?  If not, can this be quickly expanded to a real 
testing, evaluation, and risk-analysis of the EWG's proposals --- and 
opening for new proposals to address the common goals, but not the 
single solution offered?

Best,
Kathy


> hi,
>
> I am just reading this now.
>
> Let me know of anything in the next days.
>
> Just to make sure that people understand this is just a draft of the
> preliminary issues report.  that will come next - at which point we can
> submit formal comments.  At this point I will just be reviewing it as
> part of the process team.
>
> avri
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: 	[EWG-Process-WG] Draft Preliminary Issue Report
> Date: 	Tue, 16 Jun 2015 11:59:09 -0600
> From: 	Lisa Phifer <[log in to unmask]>
> To: 	[log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> Attached please find a DRAFT of a new Preliminary Issue Report for your
> review.
>
> As requested, staff has prepared this new draft to replace the original
> Preliminary Issue Report published in March 2013. This new draft:
>
> * incorporates by reference further work and correspondence on this
> topic over the past two years;
>
> * includes overviews of the EWG's outputs and Final Report (Section 3.6)
> and the EP-WG's Process Framework (Section 3.7);
>
> * frames the issue addressed by this PDP to reflect the 26 May 2015
> Board resolution (Section 3.5) and your framework adopted by that
> resolution; and
>
> * discusses that issue (Section 4) by identifying questions,
> available/needed inputs, and phased outputs, based on the EP-WG's
> Process Framework.
>
> As agreed, this DRAFT is now being sent to EP-WG members to preview the
> Preliminary Issue Report before it is posted for public comment, to
> ensure that your framework (2 April 2015) has been properly reflected.
>
> *Please raise any errors or omissions spotted during your preview of
> this DRAFT to the EP-WG list no later than 26 June.*
>
> Note that staff is also drafting a proposed PDP WG charter in parallel
> with your Issue Report preview. Any edits resulting from this EP-WG
> preview will be folded into the body of the Preliminary Issue Report and
> proposed charter.
>
> We expect to post the Preliminary Issue Report (including proposed
> charter) for public comment following your preview.
>
> In addition, after the public comment period, EP-WG members will have an
> opportunity to review public comments and recommend any needed changes
> to the framework.
>
> Staff (Marika and Margie) are also available in BA next week to discuss
> any questions or concerns.
>
> Best Regards,
> Lisa
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus