RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] P&I Survey

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Let's not resort to delays too quickly.

Chuck


Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S® 5, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:03/20/2015 5:55 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>, GNSO-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] P&I Survey

My schedule on Wednesday is not clear, so although I am officially sending my 
regrets for the meeting, I may end up on the call.

That being said, this work we are doing will have a VERY significant impact on 
gTLD future policies, and particularly any new policy work done in preparation 
for a new round of gTLDs. As important as it is to get our work done quickly 
and have a final report published for possible GNSO and Board action, it is 
MORE important that we do our work diligently and if that means a delay, so be 
it.

Alan


At 20/03/2015 05:05 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Yes we do.  J. Scott is going to chair it because I will be in route to 
Istanbul.  Avri and Allan may be in the same boat.  Because of our need to 
review all of the comments, I don’t think it is wise to cancel it.

Chuck

From: Greg Shatan [ mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 3:56 PM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Alan Greenberg; Marika Konings; GNSO-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] P&I Survey

Do we have a meeting next week (March 25)?  If so, I will be in Istanbul and 
probably unable to participate.

Greg

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Gomes, Chuck 
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

One of the things we will need to do as we continue to work our way through the 
public comments is to decide how best to cover those that were submitted late 
for sections that we have already covered.  Because we have only had one 
meeting to discuss the comments, we probably won't have to back track much at 
this point

Will it be possible to get the comment review form updated before the meeting 
next week?  If so, that will help a lot.

We only completed discussing comments on Section 3 (definitions) of the survey 
in our meeting this past Wednesday so it will be helpful if staff can identify 
any new input for section 3.  Because section 3 is probably one of the easier 
ones, we may want to discuss any new comments at the beginning of the 25 March 
meeting before picking up where we left off in section 4.

Because the review form already has numbered rows that continue across sections 
and because new comments will need to be added in each section, I would like to 
suggest that we change the row numbering scheme as follows to deal with these 
issues: format the row numbers as "(section #) - (sequential row number 
starting with 1 for each section)".   For section 3, the row numbers would be 
3-1, 3-2, 3-3, etc.  For section 4, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, etc.

I am open to other ideas so please feel free to suggest them or to modify my 
idea.

If there are other comments that need to be added to the form after our 25 
March meeting for sections we have already covered, I am inclined to deal with 
them at the end rather than going back each week.  But I open to other 
suggestions.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: 
owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx> [ 
mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 9:04 PM
To: Marika Konings
Cc: GNSO-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:GNSO-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] P&I Survey


Hi Marika,

Thanks for keeping the survey open. I have now completed it. Although I didn't 
realize it at the time, it was quite possible to include all of the comments 
that we submitted in our text comment within the survey comments, so the survey 
is all that really needs to be used by the WG.

Officially, I will be asking for a consensus call of the ALAC to ratify this 
submission, but as it contains pretty much exactly what we said in our text 
comment, I am not expecting any problems.

Alan