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

[David Cake]

Happy to help on 1.3.2 initially, also would like to be on 1.3.3

David

> On 15 Jul 2015, at 6:50 am, Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150717/2030efa0/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150717/2030efa0/signature.asc>