Re: [soac-newgtldapsup-wg] updated summary of the Second Milestone Report public forum

[Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak@xxxxxxxxx>]

hello,

replying to last comments, the WG already replied to public comments for
first MRs and questions received via gnso council so we will follow that
practice and answer the questions to respect the efforts made by many who
are not among the usual suspects of ICANN community. moreover, many comments
are from people from developing countries so it will be ironic that we don't
give enough attention to that and try to do our best. We have a specific
space for all questions and so the work will be an addition
to existing answers and FAQ (to be reviewed to ensure consistency)

understanding that is another workload and we already worked hard during
this summer under pressure, I think that Avri proposal that chairs and staff
working on the answers and then WG going through to review can be an
appropriate way to proceed. moreover, the review shouldn't take more than 1
call and discussion should be done via ML.

we will discuss about in Today call anyway.

Best,

Rafik

2011/9/13 Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>

>
> Hi,
>
> I tend to beleive that the WG needs to produce, with staff help, a proper
> response to the comments from the 2nd milestone report.  Following some
> excellent examples from staff in the new gTLD process and other WGs, and
> comments made by the AOC Accountability and Transparency review about giving
> proper regard to the responses of comments, I do not see how we can do
> otherwise.  And while I have no doubt about the short shrift that
> ALAC/At-large have received on comments in the past (I remember the days
> when ALAC had to include an RSVP at the end of the communiqués to the Board
> if they had any hope of getting a response), I do not think that is a good
> reason for doing the same to others.
>
> From a practical point of view, if we do not respond to the comments, those
> who commented, when the next comment period comes around will be justified
> in saying:  "no way am I supporting this proposal - I commented and they
> ignored my comments."  They would be wrong, of course, we did not ignore the
> comments, but how would they know that we considered their comments and
> decided not to do as they asked for reasons a, b and c.
>
> So I beleive the JAS WG needs to follow through and produce a comments
> report that is in keeping with current ICANN standards for such reports.
>
> I have been in many ICANN WGs.  In each and every one of them, one of the
> staff members wrote up the comments and the responses, perhaps with the aid
> of the chair, and then the WG walked through each one of them, giving
> comment and direction for correction.  The policy staff that have worked  in
> other GNSO WGs I have been in have been superb at guiding the WG through
> this activity and producing a credible redsponse document. I have every
> expectation that this WG's expert staff support would be every bit as good.
>
> I suggest that this, and neither of the proposals given by Karla, should be
> the path this WG takes.
>
> Thanks
> avri
>
>
> On 12 Sep 2011, at 23:06, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On 12 September 2011 22:41, Karla Valente <karla.valente@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > Dear Carlton and Rafik,
> >
> >
> >
> > I am resending the Second Milestone Summary that is still missing an
> analysis from the WG. Please let me know how you want to proceed with this?
>  Here are few options:
> >
> > ·         We post only summary and point people to the Final Report. This
> is not ideal as it does not provide direct response to comments people
> expect.
> >
> > ·         Have one or more WG members work on the proposed text for the
> analysis and send to the mailing list for approval by Friday.
> >
> >
> > I'm personally happy with the first option. We have neither the time nor
> the resources to start churning on historical text.
> >
> > As for the "direct response people expect".... well, At-Large has been
> commenting on issues for years and has yet to receive a direct response on
> most of them. So incorporating comments, rather than responding point by
> point to comments, is a mode more familiar to the At-Large members here. If
> it's considered to be acceptable treatment for us, it should be acceptable
> to others as well.
> >
> > Sure it's not ideal. Nothing to do with the parameters and environment we
> deal with is ideal. Why start now?
> >
> > - Evan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> >
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > Karla Valente
> >
> > Director, gTLD Registry Programs
> >
> > Mobile:  +1 310 936 4639
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Karla Valente
> > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 3:28 PM
> > To: soac-newgtldapsup-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: Seth Greene; Wendy Profit
> > Subject: updated summary of the Second Milestone Report public forum
> > Importance: High
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear JAS- WG,
> >
> >
> >
> > Please find attached the updated summary of the second milestone report
> public comments. The new content is in BLUE, which now includes two more
> comments:
> >
> > (1) the ALAC-GAC submission and
> >
> > (2) the second, much longer submission by UISOC (I.A. Shah, Pakistan).
> >
> >
> >
> > Both of these comments are posted in the public forum list under 4 Aug.
> 2011.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please let me know if you have questions.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Karla Valente
> >
> > Director, gTLD Registry Programs
> >
> > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> >
> > Direct:  + 1 310 301 3878
> >
> > Mobile:  +1 310 936 4639
> >
> > Skype: kdlvalente
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>