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

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Perhaps with the lack of secrets, not otherwise!  Alan

At 21/03/2015 04:20 PM, Marika Konings wrote:
> I am afraid you are all going to be very disappointed....;-)
>
> Marika
>
> On 21 mrt. 2015, at 19:36, Greg Shatan 
> <<mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Indeed!
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Alan 
> > Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > We get to watch Marika at work on a 
> > teleconference, letting us see all of her 
> > secrets!  Hard to turn that down.  Alan
> > At 20/03/2015 07:22 PM, Marika Konings wrote:
> > > For those that will be in Istanbul, which 
> > > includes myself, we'll try to arrange a 
> > > meeting room so that those willing and 
> > > available can take the call together. And I'll 
> > > make sure that the public comment review tool 
> > > is updated with Alan's responses.
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Marika
> > >
> > >
> > > On 20 mrt. 2015, at 23:38, Gomes, Chuck 
> > > <<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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 
> > > > <<mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx >
> > > > Date:03/20/2015 5:55 PM (GMT-05:00)
> > > > To: "Gomes, Chuck" 
> > > > <<mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
> > > > Greg Shatan <<mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx >
> > > > Cc: Marika Konings 
> > > > <<mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx>marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx  
> > > > >, <mailto:GNSO-policyimpl-wg@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 wiseise to cancel it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chuck
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Greg Shatan 
> > > > > [<mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx> 
> > > > > <mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 3:56 PM
> > > > > To: Gomes, Chuck
> > > > > Cc: Alan Greenberg; Marika Konings; 
> > > > > <mailto:GNSO-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>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 <<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 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: 
> > > > > <mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx>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: <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