I am all in favor of people identifying topics they believe need to be addressed by the WG. However, Kathy, I have to disagree with your premise, which is that the ten thousand plus comments reflect responses to our questions or even statements of agreement or disagreement to our consensus positions or report proposals. A much smaller (though still significant) number of comments do that, and those should be our top priority for review and response. But the vast majority of comments clearly are not responses to our report. These mass comments raise a very limited number of issues, which I don’t think we will that much difficulty dealing with once we have addressed the responses to our questions and the reasoned statements of agreement or disagreement with specific proposals we have made.

Let’s get started on the more substantive comments, starting with the questions we did pose. We have subteams forming to start to tackle that, and the staff (and Graeme!) are providing some tools to try to help facilitate that. For those who don’t wish to join subteams, again, I agree it would be useful to identify (as you put it) the “major issues and concerns” that you find in the comments, with citations to those comments that you believe raise those major issues and concerns.

Steve

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 6:34 PM
To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A slightly revised proposed approach for reviewing public comments

Hi Don, Steve, Graeme, Mary and all WG members,
I would like recommend that we take a slightly different approach. We received over ten thousand comments, many coming from those who do not ordinarily participate in the ICANN process. They wrote to us us not only in response to our specific questions, but also to share agreement (and disagreement) to our consensus positions/report proposals, and to explain why proxy/privacy registrations are important to them. There has been a huge outpouring particularly on the last issue.

While a few topics for cataloging these comments were presented on the call, with great respect, I do not think we have dealt with or cataloged all of the major issues and concerns raised by the comments yet. Before we leap forward to subteams and analysis, shouldn't we ask further, in writing, and with the whole of the WG participating -- have we gotten the topics right? Have we created sufficient topics to allow us to catalog the broad range of information, concerns and comments shared with us by so many commenters?

I would like to request that we be able to take big breath, and a slightly (only slightly!) different approach. In preparation for Tuesday's call, could we all skim the comments -- with our array of expertise, insight, knowledge of aspects of our commenter base -- to come up with topics that we think the WG should evaluate in tour review? Perhaps if we can circulate the topics online, and then discuss them on Tuesday.

Then we discuss how these topics/this substance might be overlaid on the subteam process laid out below and shared for the first time on last week's call. We will then have both substance and process! And we will know that we have considered all of the major issues arising from these important comments.

If we go forward now without this evaluation, I fear we may be missing much of what the comments have to offer.

Best and tx,
Kathy

From: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mary Wong

Sent: 14 July 2015 23:50
To: gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org
Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A proposed approach for reviewing public comments

Dear WG members,

Following from the WG call earlier today, the co-chairs and staff after some consultation would like to propose the following approach for your consideration:

1. Use of Sub Teams for Specific Topics:

Sub-teams comprising a few WG volunteers each can be formed to do the initial review of public comments received on the three topics suggested by Steve on the call, i.e. (1) Section 1.3.2 of the Initial Report (on escalation of relay requests and the handling of disclosure/publication requests from third parties other than IP rights holders); (2) Section 1.3.3 (on the open question regarding online financial transactions); and (3) Annex E (the Illustrative Disclosure Framework).
To assist the WG evaluate the usefulness of sub teams, a sub team for Section 1.3.2 can be formed first and serve as a “test case” for the exercise.
As outlined on the call, a sub team will do a “first pass” through a template, based on the Public Comment Review Tool, that staff will populate with all the input received on that particular issue. The sub team will report back to the full WG in a timely fashion, including suggesting a WG response and/or proposed action in relation to the comments received.
Sub teams may elect to do their work via email and online tools (e.g. Google Docs or a wiki page), with or without supplemental conference calls. Any calls will be recorded and transcribed for transparency purposes, and drafts and other documents prepared using online tools will also be made available to the full WG. (Do note, however, that depending on call scheduling and timing, staff support may not be available for all requested calls if several sub teams are used concurrently.)

PLEASE VOLUNTEER FOR SUB TEAM 1.3.2 IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ASSISTING WITH THIS INITIAL REVIEW. Staff will endeavor to provide the template tool for 1.3.2 to the sub team as soon as possible, hopefully by Monday.

2. Full WG Review of Other Comments to Continue in Parallel:

Staff will “collapse” (per James’ suggestion on the call) all those template responses received that were simply a Yes or No answer to a question, without any further comment added – these will be reflected in the Public Comment Review Tool accordingly, as a single collective entry. The current Tool (covering Preliminary Recommendations 1 through 9) will be updated in time for the WG to begin this review on the next call.

3. Collated Information:

In addition to the updated spreadsheet just circulated by Graeme, we can also send you archived mail files of the contributions received to the public comment forum, should you or your group wish to conduct searches through each comment yourselves.

We hope the above will be helpful in facilitating good progress on the work to be done in preparation for the Final Report.

Thanks and cheers

Mary

Mary Wong

Senior Policy Director

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)

Telephone: +1 603 574 4889

Email: mary.wong@icann.org

Confidentiality Notice
This message is being sent by or on behalf of a lawyer. It is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is proprietary, privileged or confidential or otherwise legally exempt from disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete all copies of the message.

_______________________________________________

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list

Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg