What is the status of the interviewee responses? Are there some that we team members could reach out to personally?
I closed off Justine’s questions. So I think we are good to go.
I’d like to read the final doc before posting one more time. Please let me know when it is ready.
Thanks everyone and best regards,
Kurt
On 9 Sep 2025, at 2:29 am, John Emery <john.emery@icann.org> wrote:
Hello All,
Thank you, Justine, for the edits. I have accepted the grammatical changes throughout the document. There are a few open queries and wording changes if
people could please take a brief look today (or tomorrow at the latest) so we can finalize the report. I will let you know once it is finalized, so everyone can give it one final look before we publish it for the upcoming Council meeting.
All the best,
John R. Emery, Ph.D.
Policy Development Support Senior Specialist
Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Thanks for sending your comments in this format. Allows you to set up the reasoning with the proposed change.
Regarding:
3.1 General Findings
I’ll let the comments stand on their own with a neutral introduction. I did do a little survey of sorts and my kids all thought the statements were contradictory. I understand how the
first comments points to the back and forth with the Board and the second focusses on the rejection only, but that is a fine parsing: I think the first comment is “rejection fine" and the second is “rejection bad.” Nonetheless, it’s probably better for us
to let the reader arrive at her/his own conclusions.
Regarding:
3.2 Board Liaison Role
I certainly don’t want the reader to entertain the possibility that the Board might be pursuing its own agenda, rather than being responsive to that of the community’s. So good suggestion
there.
I’m just going through the document (which looks great).
Instead of adding notes I’ve just got a couple of comments (literally only 2) that I will post here. Due to time zones and schedules,
I’m not sure how practical, or necessary, it is to jump on a call. Please see below:
3.1 General Findings
During our last meeting we agreed that the wording of “contradictory” in the third paragraph would be amended as it wasn’t directly contradictory with several small team members suggesting edits to the
wording. I can see the addition of the term “somewhat” but that appears to be the only change. Can we still edit this as previously discussed?
3.2 Board Liaison Role
In the 3rd paragraph, there is a reference to the phrase “putting the finger on the scale” can we please consider revising this. This phrase has connotations and associations with dishonesty
and cheating, which I’m not sure is what you’re wanting to convey, if we are wanting to state “unduly influence” as a team we should just be transparent and say the thing.
Other than that- looks brilliant- thank you for putting this together.
If you want to chat about any aspects - where a brief conversation would be more effective to explain suggested changes - I am available Friday and through the weekend.
For a quick response, send me a text or WhatsApp or Telegram to +1-310-400-4184. I can also respond to email questions.
I just got off a call with Kurt and we have put the final draft of the report into the proper format in a combined google doc. Given the tight timeframe
prior to the GNSO Council meeting on 18 September, we ask that you keep comments to substantive issues or egregious spelling/grammar errors. Stylistic changes should be left alone in favor of the big picture question of: IIs the report conveying the findings
accurately in a clear manner?