[gnso-policyimpl-wg] RE: Latest version of the comment review document

["Michael Graham (ELCA)" <migraham@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

This may be malware attack.

Michael R. Graham
Senior Corporate Counsel, Intellectual Property
Expedia Legal & Corporate Affairs
T +1 425.679.4330 | F +1 425.679.7251
M +1 425.241.1459
Expedia, Inc.
333 108th Avenue NE | Bellevue | WA 98004
MiGraham@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:MiGraham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message may contain private, 
confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended 
recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this message by others is 
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please (i) contact 
the sender immediately; and (ii) permanently delete the original and any copies 
of the message including file attachments.  Thank you for your cooperation.


From: owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 1:41 PM
To: gnso-policyimpl-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] Latest version of the comment review document
Importance: High

On my flight home from Istanbul, I went through the latest version of the 
comment review document.  Here are some comments and questions I have.

Who is responsible for performing any action items we identify? Note the 
following action items identified to date:

*         3.7  and multiple other items- we need further input from Carlos; 
Carlos made a lot of lengthy comments throughout the survey that I think would 
best be resolved via a conversation with him and the WG.  Let’s talk about 
this.  Here are the items: 3.7, 4.14, 5.2, 5.11, 5.20, 7.4, 8.4, 13.4, 14.3, 
G.1.

*         4.1 & other items - This wasn’t identified in the action column but 
rather in the response column.  Several of John Poole’s comments related to the 
initial error we made in referencing a section of the survey.  Did anyone 
communicate with him on the fact that the error was corrected?

*         4.4 - This wasn’t identified in the action column but rather in the 
response column.  We discussed asking the RySG to propose alternative language.

My comments on the items discussed in my absence on 25 March:

*         4.7 - The RySG comment was noted.  What do others think about adding 
the sentence redlined below?

Principle C.2.c): “Each of the principles in this document must be considered 
in terms of the degree to which they adhere to and further the principles 
defined in ICANN's Core Values as documented in article 2 of the ICANN by-‐laws 
(http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#I). 
P<http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#I)>articular note should be 
made to core value 4: “Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation 
reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet 
at all levels of policy development and decision-‐making.”  (The WG notes that 
informed communication depends on effective communication throughout the 
community.)


*         4.8 - The WG decided to reject the change suggested by the RySG from 
‘community’ to ‘GNSO’ because it was felt that it would narrow the scope to 
exclude affected parties outside of the GNSO from participating.  I actually 
think the RySG change is correct because the GNSO is the policy management 
body, not the full community, but I also believe it would be good to deal with 
the issue the WG identified.  What about the following?

Principle D.1.b: “Changes to GNSO implementation guidance need to be examined 
by the GNSO Council or  another appropriate entity as designated by the GNSO 
Council on where they fall in the spectrum of policy and implementation. In all 
cases, the communityGNSO maintains the right to challenge whether such updates 
need further review for policy implications while at the same time recognizing 
that all impacted parties in the community should be given the opportunity to 
contribute to the GNSO challenge process.”


*         4.14 and later substantial comments by Carlos - As I suggested toward 
the beginning of my response, I personally think it might be useful and the 
most time effective to schedule a call with Carlos and the WG or some subset of 
the WG to have a live discussion of his concerns and possible solutions.

The NCSG makes some substantial suggestions on at least 11 items. Fortunately, 
we have some NCSG members in our WG so I think it would be good for us to 
discuss those when the NCSG members can be present.  Here are the items: 5.4, 
5.22, 5.24, 5.31, 7.6, 8.6, 9.6, 11.6, 13.6, 14.5, G.4.

Likewise, the ALAC makes some substantial suggestions on at least 4 items. 
Fortunately, we have some ALAC members in our WG so I think it would be good 
for us to discuss those when the ALAC members can be present.  Here are the 
items:  5.5/5.6, 5.15, 5.33, G6.

And the IPC also makes some substantial suggestions on at least 6items. 
Fortunately, we have some IPC members in our WG so I think it would be good for 
us to discuss those when the IPC members can be present.  Here are the items:  
7.5, 9.5, 10.5, 12.5, 14.4, G.3.

Marika & I talked briefly in Istanbul.  We have not made as much progress on 
going through the public comments as we had hoped and may be in jeopardy of 
missing our target dates.  She suggested that we could get some volunteers (or 
small groups of volunteers) to draft possible responses for subsets of the 
items and then present those to the full WG.  Of course we would need 
volunteers for that to work.  How many of you would be willing to do this?  In 
the cases of the comments from the ALAC, IPC and NCSG, we would need to pair WG 
members from those respective groups with some who are not from those groups. 
Please respond to this email if you are willing to contribute in this way.  
Another option could be to lengthen our calls from 60 minutes to 90 minutes; 
please respond if you could or could not do that.

Marika/Mary - Note that we ended up with a sea pair of duplicate items: all of 
4.18 appears to be included in 4.19.  I suggest that we delete 4.18 and leave 
4.19.  The fact that this only happened once is pretty remarkable considering 
how much manual entry had to be done.

Chuck






“This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the 
individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that 
is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure 
under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are 
not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender 
immediately and delete this message immediately.”