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

[Mary Wong]

> Hello Susan and everyone,
> 
> Yes, one factor that we have tried to take into consideration in each update
> of our Work Plan has been the expiration date of the current interim
> specification (1/1/2017). As the date currently stands, the implementation of
> many of our current preliminary recommendations (if ultimately adopted by the
> GNSO Council and the Board) will likely take considerable time, including
> giving affected registrars and providers sufficient lead time for execution
> prior to the run-out date. In addition, our WG has yet to discuss whether any
> of the feedback provided on our preliminary recommendations to date by ICANN
> operational staff might affect those recommendations or their phrasing.
> 
> None of this is to suggest, of course, that staff does not support the WG¹s
> desire to perform a thorough review of all the public comments received;
> however, that¹s the context for the last few iterations of our Work Plan and
> time line.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> From:  Susan Kawaguchi <susank at fb.com>
> Date:  Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 18:35
> To:  Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> Subject:  Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A proposed approach for reviewing public
> comments
> 
>> Hi Mary, 
>> 
>> Thanks for all the hard work on the comments.  It is really helpful.
>> 
>> If we delay and do not get the final report delivered by the Dublin meeting
>> does that run us into the expiration date of the specification?   I just want
>> to be sure there is other motivation for delaying this work.
>> 
>> Best, 
>> Susan Kawaguchi
>> Domain Name Manager
>> Facebook Legal Dept.
>>  
>> Phone - 650 485-6064
>> 
>> 
>> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
>> Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 3:50 PM
>> To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org" <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 ³test case² for the
>> exercise.
>> * As outlined on the call, a sub team will do a ³first pass² 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 ³collapse² (per James¹ 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>   
>> 
>> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150717/b104b898/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5044 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150717/b104b898/smime-0001.p7s>