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

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all I finally got around to integrating my review of the comments from
RySG into Olevie's table (with a few modifications ;-) I hope this is what
is desired if not let me know...

PDF and .dox copy attached as newly named files


 *Cheryl Langdon-O**rr ...  *(CLO)

about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr
[image: Cheryl Langdon-Orr on about.me]
   <http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr>



On 18 August 2014 17:58, Gnosis IP Law & Consulting <gnosisiplaw@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

> 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 <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
> <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:
>
>    1. Roll Call/Updates to SOI
>    2. Finalize proposed PGP/PIP flow chart (circulated on 11 August)
>    3. Complete discussion on Deliverable I (sub-questions E(a), E(b) and
>    E(c))
>    4. Update on SO/AC/SG/C input received in relation to Deliverable I
>    (reports from Cheryl, Olevie, Michael)
>    5. [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
>
>
>

Attachment: SummaryofISPCP_and_RySGInput.docx
Description: Microsoft Office

Attachment: SummaryofISPCP_and_RySGInput.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document