[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed approach for reviewing public comments
Kathy Kleiman
kathy at kathykleiman.com
Fri Jul 17 19:51:33 UTC 2015
Hi Steve,
According to ICANN's Public Comment website, we did invite comment not
only on our questions, but on our preliminary recommendations (please
see language below). We also promised "analysis of all public comments
received."
==> "The WG's preliminary recommendations cover all aspects of its
Chartered questions, and include specific recommendations concerning
"relay and "reveal". Some of these preliminary recommendations cover
only certain aspects of a Charter topic, with the WG yet to reach
consensus on the remaining aspects and open questions. In some
instances, a preliminary recommendation or an open question may include
bracketed language indicating alternative versions still under
consideration by the WG and for which they would particularly welcome
community input.
==> Following analysis of all public comments received, the WG will
finalize its recommendations and prepare a Final Report for delivery to
the GNSO Council, for its review and action."
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ppsai-initial-2015-05-05-en
So yes, I think we have do have to deal with the concerns as voiced in
these comments. If a lot of those concerns were about "due process" and
the way we (the WG) handle "due process," that is going to be an issue
we need to discuss.. What I fear you might have done below is to a) take
an issue presented in many comments (hundreds? thousands?), analyze it
and dismiss it. I think (with a sigh because it is a lot of work), we
have to review it, analyze it and confront it -- whatever final decision
we (the WG) choose to make.
Best,
Kathy
On 7/17/2015 3:42 PM, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
>
> No, James, we should certainly consider those concerns but not
> necessarily change the report.
>
> The single concern raised more often than any other, I am positive, is
> that proxy services should not be permitted to disclose any
> information on their customer without a court order. That is not a
> standard that your service or any other that I know of can meet. We
> can change our report to make that a requirement for privacy/proxy
> service providers. Should we?
>
> Steve
>
> *From:*James M. Bladel [mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, July 17, 2015 3:35 PM
> *To:* Metalitz, Steven
> *Cc:* Kathy Kleiman; gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed
> approach for reviewing public comments
>
> Steve:
>
> With respect, if several thousand commenters raised issues that
> concern them, but are not addressed by our report, the our focus
> should be on changing the report, not discounting the comments.
>
> Thank you,
>
> J.
>
> ____________
>
> James Bladel
>
> GoDaddy
>
>
> On Jul 17, 2015, at 21:20, Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com
> <mailto:met at msk.com>> wrote:
>
> I am all in favor of people identifying topics they believe need
> to be addressed by the WG. However, Kathy, I have to disagree
> with your premise, which is that the ten thousand plus comments
> reflect responses to our questions or even statements of agreement
> or disagreement to our consensus positions or report proposals. A
> much smaller (though still significant) number of comments do
> that, and those should be our top priority for review and
> response. But the vast majority of comments clearly are not
> responses to our report. These mass comments raise a very limited
> number of issues, which I don’t think we will that much difficulty
> dealing with once we have addressed the responses to our questions
> and the reasoned statements of agreement or disagreement with
> specific proposals we have made.
>
> Let’s get started on the more substantive comments, starting with
> the questions we did pose. We have subteams forming to start to
> tackle that, and the staff (and Graeme!) are providing some tools
> to try to help facilitate that. For those who don’t wish to
> join subteams, again, I agree it would be useful to identify (as
> you put it) the “major issues and concerns” that you find in the
> comments, with citations to those comments that you believe raise
> those major issues and concerns.
>
> Steve
>
> *From:*gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org
> <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org>
> [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathy
> Kleiman
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 16, 2015 6:34 PM
> *To:* gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed
> approach for reviewing public comments
>
> 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>
> [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg/attachments/20150717/a489da4b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
mailing list