Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Fwd: [council] Message from Policy & Implementation WG

["Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Several years ago the registry stakeholder group submitted comments that 
included a fairly detailed discussion of the history and meaning of the picket 
fence.  Might be useful to link out to that.

J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20006
Office: + 1.202.533.2932  Mobile:  +1.202.352.6367  / 
becky.burr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:becky.burr@xxxxxxxxxxx> / www.neustar.biz

From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Monday, March 17, 2014 at 9:48 AM
To: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Fwd: [council] Message from Policy & 
Implementation WG

Please see my responses below Amr.

Chuck

From: Amr Elsadr [mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 9:21 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Fwd: [council] Message from Policy & 
Implementation WG

Thanks Chuck, and thanks for clarifying the “picket fence” issue. Should we 
then, reconsider including it as a working definition?

[Chuck Gomes] As you probably saw in my responses to Mikey’s input on the 
definition, I supported this suggestion from him: “Might want to add “sometimes 
referred to as ‘the picket fence’ “ – it took me several years to figure out 
what that was all about.”  I personally don’t think we need a definition of the 
picket fence for the P&I WG but if we reference it as Mikey suggests, it might 
be helpful to provide a link to one of the registry agreements and the RAA that 
defines it.  Note that it is fairly long.  We can discuss this in our WG 
meeting in Singapore.

Regarding “Policy Advice”, I seem to remember things a bit differently. I 
wouldn’t be surprised if I am confused, though. If I’m not mistaken though, the 
process for submitting advice without a PDP is what we need to work out in 
“Policy Guidance”.

If I confused the two, I apologise.
[Chuck Gomes] I could be confused as well.  Let’s talk about it with the full 
WG and make any clarifications we think may be needed.  No apologies needed 
because there is so much going on.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Mar 17, 2014, at 1:58 PM, Gomes, Chuck 
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:


Your responses were excellent in my opinion Amr.  I very much appreciate you 
taking the time to enter into dialog with Mikey.  I inserted two comments in 
response to your comments in the attached version of the definitions. Please 
let me know if they make sense and are accurate.

Chuck

From: 
owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Amr Elsadr
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 4:18 PM
To: gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Fwd: [council] Message from Policy & 
Implementation WG

Hi Chuck and all,

You’ll find my responses to Mikey attached to this email. I’ve also included a 
third file with some responses from Mikey to the comments I sent him on the 
principles document. I hope I’ve helped out a little and not mucked things up 
for the rest of the group!! :)

Thanks.

Amr



Begin forwarded message:



From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [council] Message from Policy & Implementation WG
Date: March 16, 2014 at 5:20:03 PM GMT+1
To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" 
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, 
"gnso-policyimpl-chairs@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-chairs@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<gnso-policyimpl-chairs@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-chairs@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
ispcp@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:ispcp@xxxxxxxxx>

Hi Mikey,

I’ve included some preliminary thoughts on your comments in the documents 
attached, just as per my personal understanding of the ongoing discussions in 
the P&I WG. Brian and I are both Council liaisons to this WG, and I will be 
sure that all your comments are relayed to the full WG for further discussion 
and consideration.

Just to clarify, at this point, the “Principles” document is still (although 
almost complete) work-in-progress. The WG still needs to discuss it a bit more, 
and there are still suggestions for amendments being made. The principles are, 
however, meant to be broad in order to guide the future work of sub-teams still 
being formed, but not to get into too much detail in order to allow them the 
flexibility they will need to deliberate on the charter questions.

Regarding the “Working Definitions”, these are only meant to be used by the WG 
members in their internal discussions. They should help reduce confusion when 
more complex discussions start to take place, so that when a term is used, 
everybody understands to what it is referring. These definitions may change 
throughout the course of the WG as the WG members see fit.

Hope this helped a little.

Thanks.

Amr


On Mar 16, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Mike O'Connor 
<mike@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mike@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:



hi all,

these look great.  i marked them up with the questions that popped out at me as 
i read them.  i was doing this mostly as notes to myself and intended to just 
bring these up on Saturday.  but i’ve attached them to this reply in case time 
grows tight in Singapore.  these are my reactions as an individual and have not 
been reviewed by the ISPCP.

great start!

mikey


<PI Proposed Working Definitions - 19 February 2014 - Mikey.doc>
<PI Working Principles For Review in Singapore - Mikey.doc>


On Mar 14, 2014, at 2:30 PM, Marika Konings 
<marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:



Dear All,

On behalf of the Policy & Implementation Working Group I would like to share 
with you the working definitions and working principles (under final review) 
that the WG has developed to facilitate its deliberations on the charter 
questions. You are encouraged to share these with your respective groups and 
share any feedback you may have with the WG either during its update to the 
GNSO in Singapore or as part of its F2F meeting which has been scheduled for 
Wednesday 26 March from 15.30 – 17.00 SGT in room Sophia, please see 
http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-policy-implementation.

Best regards,

Marika
<PI Working Principles For Review in Singapore.doc><PI Proposed Working 
Definitions - 19 February 2014.doc>


PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: 
www.haven2.com<http://www.haven2.com/>, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, 
Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)



<PI Proposed Working Definitions - 19 February 2014 - Mikey + Amr + Chuck.doc>