Hello George and all, With apologies for this reply coming so close to the time of our call, this is just to note that, after consultation with Petter and Phil, our suggestion is that for today we try to proceed Recommendation by Recommendation, and for each Recommendation we will note the response (if any) from the GAC, USG, OECD and WIPO. Additionally, the Public Comment Review Tool table will be updated after the call to reflect new facts or legal arguments highlighted by the comments, and any notes (if applicable) where facts or arguments had already been considered by the Working Group. This is in line with the email that Phil has just sent to the group on his and Petter’s behalf outlining the co-chairs’ proposed approach as we move toward preparation of our Final Report. If this approach works, we can consider adopting it for future calls too. Thanks and cheers Mary On 4/5/17, 20:38, "gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of George Kirikos" <gnso-igo-ingo-crp-bounces@icann.org on behalf of icann@leap.com> wrote: Thanks, Mary. To prepare for tomorrow's call, I went back and re-read the three submissions (by WIPO, US Government, and OECD) to refresh my memory (I read them as they came in last month), and also went through your very useful summary tables. Any ideas on how we're going to proceed tomorrow, organizationally? Should we as a group go through each comment from beginning to end during the call (most of the comments have been under 5 pages in length, and often they'd quote our reports, so the "new" material is even shorter)? Or should we tackle each submission's appearance on the summary table alone? (which requires jumping back/forth between the various pages of the summary where each submission appears) Or both ways? We want to make sure that we're thorough, but also want to also be time efficient. Also, there were calls for continued outreach to the IGOs (and/or the GAC), to get their more active engagement in our work as we reach final conclusions. Is there any change on that front? Looking at the members list, it still lists some as Observers (so they're subscribed to our mailing list), but they might want to consider elevating themselves into Participants at this stage of the PDP. Sincerely, George Kirikos 416-588-0269 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.leap.com_&d=DwIGaQ&c... On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote: > Dear Working Group members, > > > > Please find attached an initial draft of the tabular Public Comment Review > Tool that was mentioned on our last call. This is basically a tabular > summary prepared by staff of all the public comments received on our Initial > Report, organized according to Recommendation number corresponding to the > specific recommendation in the Report (with additional sections for General > and Other Comments). As the document is rather long, we attach the PDF > format here but please let me know if you’d prefer to receive the Word > version – staff will also post them to the Working Group wiki space. > > > > Some numbers that may be of interest: > > · We received a total of 46 comments (including several from one > individual commentator (Mr Richard Hill, who participated in the Working > Group’s open session at ICANN58), a few individual Working Group members, > one ICANN Advisory Committee (GAC) and four GNSO Stakeholder > Groups/Constituencies (the Registries and Registrars Stakeholder Groups, the > Business Constituency and the Intellectual Property Constituency). > > > > · Well over a dozen IGOs submitted comments, and a substantial > number also signed on to the comments submitted by WIPO (10) and the OECD > (15). > > > > Please also note the following caveats regarding the attached table: > > > > · This table was prepared to assist with your review of the comments > received but does not replace or supersede the actual reading of the > complete comments. > > > > · Where we judged it to be helpful, we have excerpted specific text > from a comment in the table for clarity or context, and also provided a link > to the specific comment so that you can read it in full. > > > > · In some excerpts, we have shortened or summarized certain language > in the comment – this is indicated by square brackets around the relevant > word or phrase. > > > > · As we are dealing with a relatively new format (typically, staff > prepares a similar table for all PDP Working Groups), some of the formatting > came out strangely. We will try to fix these problems, but in the interests > of time we thought it best to get this rough version out to you as soon as > we could. > > > > Finally, as noted on the Working Group call last week, for this Thursday we > will plan on meeting for 90 minutes, and, following a brief opportunity to > close out on the GAC’s comments (continued from last week), we will proceed > to discuss the comments that were received from the OECD, WIPO and the US > Government. > > > > You can find these comments here: > > · WIPO - > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forum.icann.org_lists_c... > > · OECD - > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forum.icann.org_lists_c... > > · US Government - > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__forum.icann.org_lists_c... > > > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary > > > > > > Mary Wong > > Senior Policy Director & Special Adviser for Strategic Policy Planning > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Email: mary.wong@icann.org > > Telephone: +1-603-5744889 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list > Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp