Hello Susan and everyone,

Yes, one factor that we have tried to take into consideration in each update of our Work Plan has been the expiration date of the current interim specification (1/1/2017). As the date currently stands, the implementation of many of our current preliminary recommendations (if ultimately adopted by the GNSO Council and the Board) will likely take considerable time, including giving affected registrars and providers sufficient lead time for execution prior to the run-out date. In addition, our WG has yet to discuss whether any of the feedback provided on our preliminary recommendations to date by ICANN operational staff might affect those recommendations or their phrasing.

None of this is to suggest, of course, that staff does not support the WG¹s desire to perform a thorough review of all the public comments received; however, that¹s the context for the last few iterations of our Work Plan and time line.

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

From: Susan Kawaguchi <susank@fb.com> Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 18:35 To: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] A proposed approach for reviewing public comments

...

Hi Mary,

Thanks for all the hard work on the comments. It is really helpful.

If we delay and do not get the final report delivered by the Dublin meeting does that run us into the expiration date of the specification? I just want to be sure there is other motivation for delaying this work.

Best, Susan Kawaguchi Domain Name Manager Facebook Legal Dept.

Phone - 650 485-6064

From: Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 3:50 PM To: "gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org" <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 ³test case² for the exercise. * As outlined on the call, a sub team will do a ³first pass² 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 ³collapse² (per James¹ 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