[CPWG] Subsequent Procedures: Request for reactions to letter by GAC Chair to SubPro PDP WG Co-Chairs relaying GAC input on the scope of upcoming SubPro public comment

[Justine Chew]

All,

Thank you for your input, Alberto.

This matter was discussed by CPWG on its 4 Dec call whereupon *feedback was
received to react positively to the GAC letter*.

It was also decided that I should re-circulate my email (see below after
Alberto's reply) for input for another 48 hours, and thereafter, I was to
highlight the outcome to the ALAC for their onward action.

Thus, if anyone has additional reactions to this issue, please let me have
the same *by 7 Dec*.

Thank you,

*Justine Chew*
At-Large/ALAC liaison for Subsequent Procedures
ALAC Member
-----


On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 at 21:30, <alberto at soto.net.ar> wrote:

> The GAC notes the benefit of a comment period that includes all draft
> final recommendations.
>
> We do not know what final recommendations could affect end users.
>
> In my humble opinion and from what I hear in the SubPro PDP WG, ALAC
> should discuss giving support to the GAC note. And a small group research
> on issues that may affect end users.
>
>
>
> Kind regards
>
>
>
> Alberto
>
>
>
> *De:* Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com>
> *Enviado el:* jueves, 28 de noviembre de 2019 3:56
> *Para:* CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
> *Asunto:* Subsequent Procedures: Request for reactions to letter by GAC
> Chair to SubPro PDP WG Co-Chairs relaying GAC input on the scope of
> upcoming SubPro public comment
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> RE:*Letter from the GAC Chair, Manal Ismail, on behalf of GAC Membership:
> GAC Input on Scope of Upcoming New gTLDs Subsequent Procedures PDP WG
> Public Comment
> <https://gac.icann.org/contentMigrated/gac-input-on-scope-of-upcoming-new-gtlds-subsequent-procedures-pdp-wg-public-comment>*
>
>
>
>
> I had tabled for discussion at yesterday's (27 Nov) CPWG call the
> above-referenced correspondence from the GAC Chair to the Subsequent
> Procedures PDP WG Co-Chairs which relayed GAC's input on the scope of the
> upcoming (additional) call for public comments to recommendations (whether
> preliminary or not) of the SubPro PDP WG. However, as I was otherwise
> detained, I was unable to make the said CPWG call and am now taking a
> remedial step to initiate the intended discussion.
>
> *Context*
>
> SubPro PDP WG is close to completing its review of public comments to its
> Initial Report of 2018, although some work is ongoing in respect of certain
> topics which have raised new ideas and are likely to lead to significant
> changes for subsequent procedures (IMO).
>
> Among others, one key question that *SubPro PDP WG is determining is, in
> basic terms, whether [A] to confine the additional call for public comments
> to preliminary recommendations (or questions) relating to those topics
> which SubPro PDP WG Leadership opines were not put out for Community input
> in earlier calls for public comments.* This decision is still pending and
> debate among members of the SubPro PDP WG on this matter is ongoing, *with
> an alternative being proposed, which is [B] to put, again in basic terms, a
> version of a "draft Final Report" with recommendations in its entirety, out
> for public comment*. In that scenario the document would not be "final"
> in form, of course.
>
> If I may abbreviate hereon, the rationale for [A] limiting the scope of
> what would be put out for public comment centres around the elements of (1)
> duplicity - we have already asked for community input on much of the WG's
> earlier work; (2) public comment fatigue; and (3) pressure to complete the
> WG's work within an already elongated timeline.
>
> While the arguments put forth for [B] putting a report in its entirety
> out for comment revolve around (1) keeping open opportunity for broad-based
> indirect participation by the Community; (2) enabling the Community to
> better understand and appreciate crucial connections between topics which
> would otherwise be effectively severed, ie. "allow Community to see the
> whole picture because changes to one part of the picture might affect
> perspectives to other parts of the picture"; (3) this is needed precursor
> work to better facilitate the goal of Community-wide accepted Final Report
> recommendations.
>
> *Request for Reactions*
>
> The afore-linked letter from the GAC Chair sets out the GAC's reaction to
> this question.
>
> I invite feedback, *especially from At-Large colleagues active on the
> SubPro PDP WG*, on whether At-Large/ALAC should also react to this
> question, and if yes, how so.
>
> Discussion on this list can be expected to be taken up at a subsequent
> CPWG call.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
> *Justine **Chew*
>
> At-Large/ALAC liaison for Subsequent Procedures
>
> ALAC Member
>
>
> -----
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20191205/8592196c/attachment.html>