[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed approach for reviewing public comments

Thu Jul 16 22:59:52 UTC 2015

Hi Kathy:
Yours - IMO - is in line with the proposal from James Gannon; first attempt
categorization - the [Ironic: (Objective/Subjective)] and [NonIronic:
Objective/Subjective] business via tech tools - then forming the sub teams
to dig deeper.

It makes good sense.

-Carlton

==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
wrote:

>  Hi Don, Steve, Graeme, Mary and all WG members,
> I would like recommend that we take a slightly different approach. We
> received over ten thousand comments, many coming from those who do not
> ordinarily participate in the ICANN process. They wrote to us us not only
> in response to our specific questions, but also to share agreement (and
> disagreement) to our consensus positions/report proposals, and to explain
> why proxy/privacy registrations are important to them. There has been a
> huge outpouring particularly on the last issue.
>
> While a few topics for cataloging these comments were presented on the
> call, with great respect, I do not think we have dealt with or cataloged
> all of the major issues and concerns raised by the comments yet. Before we
> leap forward to subteams and analysis, shouldn't we ask further, in
> writing, and with the whole of the WG participating -- have we gotten the
> topics right?  Have we created sufficient topics to allow us to catalog the
> broad range of information, concerns and comments shared with us by so many
> commenters?
>
> I would like to request that we be able to take big breath, and a slightly
> (only slightly!) different approach.  In preparation for Tuesday's call,
> could we all skim the comments -- with our array of expertise, insight,
> knowledge of aspects of our commenter base -- to come up with topics that
> we think the WG should evaluate in tour review?  Perhaps if we can
> circulate the topics online, and then discuss them on Tuesday.
>
> Then we discuss how these topics/this substance might be overlaid on the
> subteam process laid out below and shared for the first time on last week's
> call. We will then have both substance and process! And we will know that
> we have considered all of the major issues arising from these important
> comments.
>
> If we go forward now without this evaluation, I fear we may be missing
> much of what the comments have to offer.
>
> Best and tx,
> Kathy
>
>
> *From:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong
>
>   *Sent:* 14 July 2015 23:50
> *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A proposed approach for reviewing public
> comments
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Confidentiality Notice
> This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended
> exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This
> communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or
> confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not
> the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or
> disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this
> message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete
> all copies of the message.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing listGnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150716/8de2de9b/attachment-0001.html>