[gnso-policyimpl-wg] Re: ALAC & ISPCP input

[Gnosis IP Law & Consulting <gnosisiplaw@xxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck and Mary:

Sorry for the delayed response — chalk it up to cross-country trucking fatigue.

Anyway, as Mary points out, the three major concerns expressed by the ALAC in 
their comments have been incorporated as part of Deliverable 1 and are 
important components of this.  The subsequent letters to the ALAC and ISPCP are 
excellent as well.

Michael R.

On Aug 13, 2014, at 9:33 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thanks for the quick response Mary and special thanks to Olevie for preparing 
> the ISPCP input summary.  It seems to me that both of these summaries and the 
> comments below provide a good basis for communicated with the two groups to 
> let them know and how their input has been considered to date and will be 
> considered going forward.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: Mary Wong [mailto:mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 12:08 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Michael Graham
> Cc: gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: ALAC & ISPCP input
>  
> Hello Chuck, Michael and everyone,
>  
> The current draft Working Principles do take on board some of the ALAC’s 
> suggested principles, in particular the need for: (1) a methodology that 
> recognizes when a decision may impact the community, (2) a bottom up process 
> to address such decisions, and (3) time sensitive processes. What the 
> Principles may not yet fully address are the points regarding a way to come 
> to closure when the community is divided on an issue, and the role of the 
> Board in such an instance. These can be taken up by the WG when it returns to 
> reviewing the draft Principles after completing its work on the various 
> Deliverables, unless there is a reason to do so earlier.
>  
> On a separate but related note, attached to this email is a chart that Olevie 
> prepared on the ISPCP constituency input, which in the last column shows 
> whether the WG has considered the feedback. As it proceeds with its 
> deliberations on implementation issues, the WG may wish to note that the 
> ISPCP constituency made two specific suggestions – first, a mandatory 
> community implementation team for certain types of PDP work, and secondly, 
> public comment periods after certain milestones are reached during 
> implementation.
>  
> Cheers
> Mary
>  
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx
>  
>  
> From: <Gomes>, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 at 10:02 AM
> To: Michael Graham <gnosisiplaw@xxxxxxxxx>, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Agenda and draft documents for WG call on 
> 13 August 2014
>  
> Thank you very much Michael.  In your opinion, do you think there is anything 
> in the ALAC comments that should be incorporated in our Deliverable I work?
>  
> In my view, the ALAC principles are very useful.  I think we considered them 
> when we developed our principles but that has been quite a long time ago so I 
> think it would be useful to do a quick check to see if we did that.  I wonder 
> if Mary or Marika could do a comparison of the ALAC principles to the ones we 
> developed and identify which of our principles include the ALAC principles.  
> If any of the ALAC principles are not included in our principles, then we 
> could develop a rationale for why not or consider adding them.  We should 
> then have a good basis for replying to the ALAC and communicating how their 
> input has been used.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Graham
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 3:00 AM
> To: Mary Wong
> Cc: gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Agenda and draft documents for WG call on 
> 13 August 2014
>  
> I attach a summary of the ALAC comments for consideration.
>  
> Michael R.
> 
> mgraham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  
> 
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Dear WG members,
>  
> Here is the proposed agenda for the WG call on Wednesday 13 August:
> Roll Call/Updates to SOI
> Finalize proposed PGP/PIP flow chart (circulated on 11 August)
> Complete discussion on Deliverable I (sub-questions E(a), E(b) and E(c))
> Update on SO/AC/SG/C input received in relation to Deliverable I (reports 
> from Cheryl, Olevie, Michael)
> [if time permits] Commence discussions on Deliverable II (attached)
> In addition, a suggested draft email that can be sent to SG/C chairs 
> soliciting their groups’ feedback on the proposed GNSO Processes Flowcharts 
> is attached for your review. As you’ll recall from the call last week, it was 
> agreed that a consistent approach and thus a uniform email should be sent on 
> this topic.
>  
> Thanks and cheers
> Mary
>  
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> Email: mary.wong@xxxxxxxxx