[Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing

[kurt at kjpritz.com]

I agree with Kathy. 
 
We might scan the RPM Working Group list for registrars and schedule a call with just a few of the sub-group team to discuss a suitable data set. Do you think that might be an expeditious path forward. 
 
Kurt
 
--------- Original Message --------- Subject: Re: [Gnso-rpm-tmch] Revised Questions Listing
From: "Kathy Kleiman" <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
Date: 9/22/16 10:22 am
To: gnso-rpm-tmch at icann.org

 Hi Kurt and All,  Tx you for our discussion last Friday and I look forward to continuing this Friday. I also had a chance to give the docs a close look and I've added some comments to the Charter Questions document. I've also reviewed the SubTeam's List of Questions - working off the redline to try to preserve the concerns raised in some of the deleted questions.
 I have to tell you that I comfortable with the Provider questions - which I think should go out immediately, and generally with the Registry questions (as edited).
 But the Registrar questions trouble me. We are asking for a huge amount of data and they are potentially very, very timeconsuming. Given that the TMCH Subgroup does not have any Registrar representatives (am I missing someone?), i strongly recommend that this set of questions. in draft, go back to the full WG for review with our Registrar members. I would like to hear their thoughts on how we might phrase these questions in a  fair and balanced way - to encourage the best and fullest responses. 
 Both files attached in Redline.  
 Best, Kathy
  
 On 9/15/2016 9:17 PM, kurt at kjpritz.com wrote:
 Hi Everyone:
 
Attached are several forms of the questions for registry operators, registrars, et.al. that has been augmented with the questions developed by Susan and Kristine after their review of the charter.  
 
This might be overkill, but I am sending the question list in three forms: 
 
+ redlines to the last version of the question list that show:  
+ new questions from the charter review, 
+ a few question that were deleted where the group voiced concern, 
+ a few grammatical edits 
+ new comments 

  
+ a version with those redlines accepted but comments remaining 
+ a clean version. 

 During the meeting, I recommend we can use the version with redlines accepted but with comments as they can form the basis of our discussion. 
 
I also included a stand-alone list of the questions that were developed from the review of the charter so that you can see the sources of the new questions.
 
I hope you find this helpful.
 
Thank you Susan and Kristine.
 
Regards,
 
Kurt
 
 



 _______________________________________________
 Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list
 Gnso-rpm-tmch at icann.org
 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch  
_______________________________________________ Gnso-rpm-tmch mailing list Gnso-rpm-tmch at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpm-tmch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rpm-tmch/attachments/20160922/374a995b/attachment.html>