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

[Amr Elsadr <aelsadr@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Chuck,

On Apr 1, 2015, at 1:44 AM, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> [Chuck Gomes] Did you see the compromise language I proposed on the RySG 
> recommendation?  I didn’t test it with the RySG but I think it would 
> accomplish what was intended in the suggested change.  The RySG did not 
> intend the change from ‘community’ to ‘GNSO’ to mean that community members 
> outside of the GNSO could not contribute but rather to reflect the fact that 
> the GNSO is responsible for gTLD policy work and hence should be responsible 
> for challenging any implementation steps that it believes is beyond what was 
> intended in the policy.  That said, I am not prepared to fight hard for the 
> change.

If by that language, you mean this:

> Principle D.1.b: “Changes to GNSO implementation guidance need to be examined 
> bythe GNSO Council or  another appropriate entity as designated by the GNSO 
> Council onwhere they fall in the spectrum of policy and implementation. In 
> all cases, thecommunityGNSO maintains the right to challenge whether such 
> updates need furtherreview 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.”


Having been one who objected to the change suggested by the RySG on this one, I 
think this modification would do nicely. Although (and please forgive me for 
picking on this) — again…, since we do have a very inclusive definition of the 
word “stakeholders” in the initial report, I would replace “all impacted 
parties in the community” with “all stakeholders”.

Thanks.

Amr