Hi Stephanie and everyone,

The deadline was set to try to identify for the WG as many issues possibly meriting further WG consideration as we can. This will help the co-chairs plan the agendas for the coming weeks, including looking ahead to the Dublin meeting, and see how well we are able to keep to the Work Plan. As noted by Steve on the last call, the current Work Plan timeline has actually be extended since the WG issued its Initial Report in early May – once to allow for an extended public comment period as requested by some WG members, and then again subsequently in view of the number of comments that came in.

While we are very cognizant of the amount of work it will take to complete a review of the comments, do note that our WG is operating under the “external” constraint that is the January 2017 expiration date of the current interim P/P specification in the RAA. Note also that even in the best case scenario under our current Work Plan, if the WG completes its Final Report in time for the GNSO Council’s November meeting, the following still has to happen:
As you can see from the above, the current timeline already leaves very little time to take the policy from adoption to implementation, and any further extension brings both the WG and the eventual IRT up even closer against the January 2017 deadline. Given the momentum that the Sub Teams seem to be developing on the tricky open questions, the idea was that the rest of the WG could concurrently begin to close on final recommendations for the preliminary recommendations. 

Perhaps it will also help to note that what is required at this stage is for the WG to consider what (if anything) needs to be changed, deleted, or added to in terms of the preliminary recommendations. The Work Plan envisages about 2-3 weeks following the Sub Teams’ final reports for further WG discussion of the issues identified now for that purpose, so that by Dublin we will be able to focus on finalizing any remaining open or contentious topics.

I’m of course not saying that the Work Plan cannot be changed if the co-chairs and WG members believe that to be the most appropriate thing to do, but I hope that this email setting out the context for our work is helpful in some way.

Cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889
Email: mary.wong@icann.org


From: <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>
Date: Thursday, August 20, 2015 at 15:26
To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Last call for Issue-Spotting on Part 2 plus New Comments to Review (Parts 3 & 4)

What happens if we find something after the deadline, Mary?  I appreciate the desire to push this thing on but I reiterate that some of us have other lives and family holidays during this period, and I think the work effort required to go through all these comments demands more time.  I will keep saying this, I am trying to throw my boots off the toboggan and slow us down so that we can do a thorough job on this....the kind of job that 22000 comments deserves.
Sorry if that seems not being constructive to some, but it seems only fair to me.  I am sure I am not the only one who has not been through all the comments.
kind regards
Stephanie Perrin

On 2015-08-20 12:50, Mary Wong wrote:
Dear WG members,

This is a last call for any issues that you would like to bring to the WG’s attention concerning Part 2 of the WG Public Comment Review Tool (first circulated on 10 August), similar to the approach we adopted for issue-spotting in Part 1. Please send these to the email list for consideration at the next WG call as soon as you can, but no later than Monday (a day before the call) if at all possible.  

Please also find attached two documents - 

(1) Part 3 of the WG Public Comment Review Tool, containing excerpts from public comments sent directly to the public comment forum and responses to the online questions template that cover all the WG's remaining preliminary recommendations aside from those being analyzed by the Sub Teams (i.e. Preliminary Recommendations #16-20); and

(2) Part 4 of the WG Public Comment Review Tool, containing those comments and suggestions made by commenters and template responders that were not specifically framed as responses to particular WG recommendations. Part 4 also contains two additional elements, viz. a list of the types of concerns raised by signatories to the Save Domain Privacy petition (much of which is also reflected in many of the general comments received in the public comment forum), and a list of commenters who supported or endorsed other commenters’ submissions. While this Part 4 may be of particular usefulness to Sub Team 4, we attach it here to facilitate the WG's review of all the remaining comments not otherwise summarized in other parts of the Tool.

These two documents are the last in the series of documents that comprise the WG’s Public Comment Review Tool for our Initial Report, not including the additional documents that were prepared for the various Sub Teams that will also form part of the record for the Final Report. I should point out that some of the comments in these two documents include some strong language, but we have chosen to leave them in as they were sent in the same way as comments that used less robust language; I hope that is all right. 

Cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4889







_______________________________________________
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg