RE: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] P&I Survey
No one is proposing any delays at the moment. I just do not want to take short-cuts because of the proposed schedule. When I hear talk about no time to go back and check new input, I do start to worry. Alan At 20/03/2015 06:38 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: 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 SurveyMy 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 donât 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 SurveyDo we have a meeting next week (March 25)? If so, I will be in Istanbul and probably unable to participate.GregOn Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:42 PM, Gomes, Chuck <<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>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 pointWill 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: <mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx [ mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan GreenbergSent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 9:04 PM To: Marika Konings Cc: <mailto:GNSO-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>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
|