[CWG-Stewardship] Public Comment Review Tool

[Marika Konings]

Hi Alan,

Thank you for your feedback. Please note, as stated on the first page, that the public comment review tool 'reflects the status of the CWG-Stewardship deliberations as of 1 June 2015'. Maybe we should make more explicit that following 1 June, certain recommendations may have changed or updated such as for example the change from GNSO to RySG which was subsequently changed back to GNSO (after 1 June)? The authoritative document to see where the CWG ended up is of course the Final Proposal. Maybe adding a link to the redline version will also facilitate those interested to see what changes were made as a result of the public comments and continued deliberations?

In relation to some of the other comments that were highlighted as relevant to particular DT, staff has assumed that these issues were considered, even if a specific response was not provided or no change was made. Of course, if there are DTs that would like to provide further details in the responses, you are encouraged to provide your suggested edits and we will update the public comment review tool accordingly.

Best regards,

Marika

From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>
Date: Thursday 11 June 2015 23:32
To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad at icann.org>>, "cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>" <cwg-stewardship at icann.org<mailto:cwg-stewardship at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] Public Comment Review Tool

I have reviewed the replies to the ALAC submission and offer three comments.

The first is a general one. Although I am not sure how we could have done otherwise given the volume of comments and the time-frame in which the CWG had to review them, I find many of the answers lack specificity and if I an my colleagues had not been on the calls to argue the issues when they were discussed, I am not sure we would have been very happy with how the answers were formulated. My next point is one such example.

In 200, the ALAC requested that at least for IFR members where where is only one person per represented group, that Alternates be formally allowed. The reply was that it would be considered by the CWG in its further deliberations. To the best of my knowledge, this was not considered (ie neither accepted nor rejected) and the Proposal was unaltered.

In 228, The ALAC raised the issue of the SIFR being triggered by a vote of the ccNSO and GNSO. This was ultimately not changed (although words were added regarding consultation). However the reply says that the GNOS was replaced by the RySG, something that simply did not happen. This needs to be corrected. But I am troubled that there may be other similar examples where the CWG reply does not mesh with what is in the final proposal.

Alan

At 11/06/2015 11:11 AM, Grace Abuhamad wrote:

Dear all,

Attached is the updated Public Comment Review Tool. I have included a redline and a clean version. The document is now 300-pages, so quite lengthy to review. In the interest of time, to make sure those who submitted comments can see how the CWG addressed their submissions, we will post this Review Tool to the Wiki and Public Comment page. Should there be a need for further updates, we can update the documents as requested.

The Wiki page is here: https://community.icann.org/x/x5o0Aw.

Best,
Grace
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150612/cef7b36b/attachment.html>