[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Fwd: Re: A proposed approach for reviewing public comments - reasonable time for review and evaluation

Wed Jul 15 16:04:21 UTC 2015

Building on comments so far from Kathy, Volker, Carlton, James G, James B, and others - even discounting the flat "no" comments that were generated in volume by a somewhat one-sided and incomplete description of the initial Report, and assuming that WG members can devote some decent amount of time between calls to their own reviews and/or sub-team work, and that we also adopt some of the efficiency tools that are being proposed -- the volume of comments that have some meaningful substance and should be at least considered is quite substantial. And then reaching consensus on some of the issues raised by them will be a further challenge.

While personally committed to fully engaging I am dubious that all this can be accomplished in the three calls set out for it, even if they are lengthened to 90 or 120 minutes.

Also, whether we view them as right or wrong, how this WG handles the very large volume of comments will be seen by many as a test of the MSM when it receives substantial input from groups and individuals who are not usually engaged in ICANN activities.

Finally, as our work coincides with the still incomplete job of designing IANA transition and ICANN accountability measures, and given the statements already made by some senior staff, we should presume that the Board will be very wary of generating any new controversy and will not be embracing recommendations in the proposed final Report for which we cannot demonstrate both adequate process in considering input as well as substantial consensus among us.

Adding all these considerations together, I believe that this WG should act as expeditiously as possible but in a manner that gives adequate time to fully considering and dealing with all substantive comments. While that may push a final Report past Dublin it also may substantially increase the prospects for adoption of  a broader array of final recommendations.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 11:20 AM
To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Fwd: Re: A proposed approach for reviewing public comments - reasonable time for review and evaluation

Hi All, I posted this email earlier today, but have not seen it pop up the list. Resending...
Best,
Kathy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All,
I agree with the emails of Volker and James G. that we have to do a thorough review of the comments. I also agree with the expansion of the time frame to do it.

The last time we had such an outpouring of comments at ICANN that I can remember was the Closed Generic proceeding and comments to the Board. Dozens of comments flowed in from parties who do not traditionally participate in ICANN processes. The Board took the time to read, evaluate and respond to the comments.

Here too we must take the time to read, evaluate and respond to the comments. As Volker points out, the issues before us are not only the questions we issued, but the consensus we presented. Do others agree with our consensus?  Do they support our direction?  Would they push it more in one direction or another or reject it outright?

One thing I have seen in my skimming of the comments is a lot of discussion of Due Process. There appears to be a good amount of commentary on this issue, and one we will need to read and evaluate closely.

Over the year of our work we have talked often about the month of August. How it is a time that many in certain countries take long vacations; how emails to business addresses are often unanswered until the person returns to her/his desk. I think a rush on this in the dead of summer is a) unnecessary b) will not result in full staffing of the teams that we are setting up and c) will not give us the time for the evaluation, analysis and incorporation that we need.

Analysis, evaluation, incorporation -- this is a very important task for us now.
Best,
Kathy

On 7/15/2015 5:50 AM, Volker Greimann wrote:
Hi all,

considering the outpouring of comments, we should not limit ourselves to these three topics but rather try to see how the comments affect the entire work so far. It does make sense to check the comments for these issues, but not exclusively.

That said, I volunteer for the first team.

I support the sugestion to "collapse" yes and no responses.

Best,

Volker
Am 15.07.2015 um 00:50 schrieb Mary Wong:
Dear WG members,

Following from the WG call earlier today, the co-chairs and staff after some consultation would like to propose the following approach for your consideration:

1. Use of Sub Teams for Specific Topics:

  *   Sub-teams comprising a few WG volunteers each can be formed to do the initial review of public comments received on the three topics suggested by Steve on the call, i.e. (1) Section 1.3.2 of the Initial Report (on escalation of relay requests and the handling of disclosure/publication requests from third parties other than IP rights holders); (2) Section 1.3.3 (on the open question regarding online financial transactions); and (3) Annex E (the Illustrative Disclosure Framework).
  *   To assist the WG evaluate the usefulness of sub teams, a sub team for Section 1.3.2 can be formed first and serve as a "test case" for the exercise.
  *   As outlined on the call, a sub team will do a "first pass" through a template, based on the Public Comment Review Tool, that staff will populate with all the input received on that particular issue. The sub team will report back to the full WG in a timely fashion, including suggesting a WG response and/or proposed action in relation to the comments received.
  *   Sub teams may elect to do their work via email and online tools (e.g. Google Docs or a wiki page), with or without supplemental conference calls. Any calls will be recorded and transcribed for transparency purposes, and drafts and other documents prepared using online tools will also be made available to the full WG. (Do note, however, that depending on call scheduling and timing, staff support may not be available for all requested calls if several sub teams are used concurrently.)
PLEASE VOLUNTEER FOR SUB TEAM 1.3.2 IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ASSISTING WITH THIS INITIAL REVIEW. Staff will endeavor to provide the template tool for 1.3.2 to the sub team as soon as possible, hopefully by Monday.

2. Full WG Review of Other Comments to Continue in Parallel:

  *   Staff will "collapse" (per James' suggestion on the call) all those template responses received that were simply a Yes or No answer to a question, without any further comment added - these will be reflected in the Public Comment Review Tool accordingly, as a single collective entry. The current Tool (covering Preliminary Recommendations 1 through 9) will be updated in time for the WG to begin this review on the next call.

3. Collated Information:

  *   In addition to the updated spreadsheet just circulated by Graeme, we can also send you archived mail files of the contributions received to the public comment forum, should you or your group wish to conduct searches through each comment yourselves.

We hope the above will be helpful in facilitating good progress on the work to be done in preparation for the Final Report.

Thanks and cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Email: mary.wong at icann.org<mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>

_______________________________________________

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

--

Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Volker A. Greimann

- Rechtsabteilung -

Key-Systems GmbH

Im Oberen Werk 1

66386 St. Ingbert

Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901

Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851

Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>

Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>

www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook:

www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>

www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>

Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin

Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken

Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP

www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>

Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen.

--------------------------------------------

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best regards,

Volker A. Greimann

- legal department -

Key-Systems GmbH

Im Oberen Werk 1

66386 St. Ingbert

Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901

Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851

Email: vgreimann at key-systems.net<mailto:vgreimann at key-systems.net>

Web: www.key-systems.net<http://www.key-systems.net> / www.RRPproxy.net<http://www.RRPproxy.net>

www.domaindiscount24.com<http://www.domaindiscount24.com> / www.BrandShelter.com<http://www.BrandShelter.com>

Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated:

www.facebook.com/KeySystems<http://www.facebook.com/KeySystems>

www.twitter.com/key_systems<http://www.twitter.com/key_systems>

CEO: Alexander Siffrin

Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken

V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534

Member of the KEYDRIVE GROUP

www.keydrive.lu<http://www.keydrive.lu>

This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone.

_______________________________________________

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg

________________________________
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.5961 / Virus Database: 4365/10125 - Release Date: 06/29/15
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150715/c7d38758/attachment-0001.html>