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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Sounds like an event I can't afford to miss.

avri

On 21-Mar-15 16:20, Marika Konings wrote:
> I am afraid you are all going to be very disappointed....;-)
>
> Marika
>
> On 21 mrt. 2015, at 19:36, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx
> <mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>> Indeed!
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 11:43 AM, Alan Greenberg
>> <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>     <mailto: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 <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>     <mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx> >
>>>>     Date:03/20/2015 5:55 PM (GMT-05:00)
>>>>     To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>     <mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Greg Shatan
>>>>     <gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx> >
>>>>     Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx
>>>>     <mailto:marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> >,
>>>>     GNSO-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 don̢۪t
>>>>>     think it is wiseise to cancel it.
>>>>>
>>>>>      
>>>>>     Chuck
>>>>>      
>>>>>     *From:* Greg Shatan
>>>>>     [<mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx>mailto:gregshatanipc@xxxxxxxxx]
>>>>>     *Sent:* Friday, March 20, 2015 3:56 PM
>>>>>     *To:* Gomes, Chuck
>>>>>     *Cc:* Alan Greenberg; Marika Konings;
>>>>>     GNSO-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx <mailto: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>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
>>>>>
>>>>>      
>>
>>



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com