Hi Victoria, James, Stephanie and Paul, Tx for taking on the mantle of comment review! I have divided up the comments//in #2 below and here are two documents to assist us with our work: 1) PART 4: created by Staff, this is 76 substantive comments that Staff identified that seem to contain ideas, concerns and suggestions not yet reflected in the work of subteams 1, 2 and 3. Staff has excerpted comments that they think add new ideas to our process. But Paul and I asked Mary, and she provided links to the full comments themselves (tx you, Mary!) This is to allow you to check the comment in full, in context, where you may find additional ideas, suggestions and concerns to add to your template. PART 4 at: */https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691542&preview=/5... 2) SUBTEAM 4 TEMPLATE: There is a blank template attached which is a slight variation of the templates of subteams 1-3. It has some of the same fields plus additional fields to capture and categorize the new ideas submitted to the WG. Hopefully, the categories will be helpful for us and the WG. Category A, for example, is comments re: Law Enforcement access to Customer data (e.g, whether it should track Annex E (private persons access) or be different. Category b is for comments that ask the WG to create additional processes to oversee and monitor the accreditation program once created. Etc. There are six other specific categories (A-F) and one catch-all category for anything we've forgotten ( Category G). I've divided the comments into six parts -- using the 76 comments from "Part 4" in #1. a) Victoria - comments 1-15 in PART 4, Section I(a) b) James - comments 16-30 (same) c) Stephanie - comments 31-45 (same) d) Paul - comments 46-60 (same) e) Kathy - comments 61-76 (same) ** _Please edit the first column of your template document attached to a) have your name on it and b) renumber column 1, titled "#", to reflect Your Comment Numbers._** (currently listed as 1-15). /If you need any assistance in understanding categories or reading comments you can't get to, please let me know. For the first time in months, I have a little extra time this week.// / /*We need to report to the WG on Tuesday, so if you could have your templates back by _this __Friday afternoon_, Paul and I can put them together into a report. **Should we try to have a call on Friday afternoon too? */* * /Best, Kathy (working with Paul) Link: To PART 4 (with 76 comments summarized, and links to them) -- https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691542&preview=/5... Attached: SUBTEAM 4 TEMPLATE / On 9/16/2015 11:46 AM, Victoria Sheckler wrote:
Yes I can do some
*From:*gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman *Sent:* Wednesday, September 16, 2015 7:13 AM *To:* gnso-ppsai4@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam's 4 moment - and a timely question
Hi All, It's Subteam 4's time to hit the books (the comments really) and report back. Our reporting date is this Tuesday and we have a lot of work to do - but not as much as you might think. there are about 76 comments in the "no comment left behind" category and we want to divide them up. /Who has some time this week? Who can take on the review of a subset of comments?
/Please let me know as soon as possible (by 1pm Eastern, if possible) and we will divvy up the 76 comments among the people who respond. We have some great tools that Mary has created -- including easy links, templates and summaries. I'll send those out at 1pm too.
But please let us know if you can devote a few hours to this on or before the end of the week - your time is much appreciated! Best, Kathy and Paul
Thanks, Kathy and everyone just two points of clarification for your information as you all begin the review exercise: (1) There are actually seven WG participants who volunteered for this Sub Team; so in addition to Kathy, Paul, Vicky, James and Stephanie there is also Amr Elsadr and Frank Michlick (who should both be subscribed to this PPSAI-4 mailing list as well). (2) Kathy I notice that your template document differs from the one staff had prepared and distributed after the Sub Team call in mid-August. Where that had five categories (or ³buckets²) based on the gist of the discussion during the call, the current template now has seven. Obviously, staff is not saying that the earlier template is better in any way, but we do want to caution against trying to fill in a template that has more rather than fewer categories. Moreover, it may not be clear what the dividing lines might be for instance, what would the new category labeled ³Issues involving Law Enforcement² cover that is not within the scope of, say, Sub Team 1? Would it be easier and less confusing for whoever comes across such a comment in their assignments to simply highlight it for forwarding to Sub Team 1? (3) As noted on the call with the WG co-chairs last Friday, there is another group of comments in Part 4 of the Public Comment Review Tool that does not individually list separate comments (as these number in the hundreds, if not thousands). Rather, they are all summarized into several categories of concerns surrounding largely a loss of privacy. The Sub Team was to also look at these categories, to see if any of them required further discussion by the WG. How would the Sub Team wish to approach this other exercise? 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: <gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 01:32 To: Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler@riaa.com>, "gnso-ppsai4@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai4@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam 4 - Handing out comments
Hi Victoria, James, Stephanie and Paul, Tx for taking on the mantle of comment review! I have divided up the commentsin #2 below and here are two documents to assist us with our work:
1) PART 4: created by Staff, this is 76 substantive comments that Staff identified that seem to contain ideas, concerns and suggestions not yet reflected in the work of subteams 1, 2 and 3. Staff has excerpted comments that they think add new ideas to our process. But Paul and I asked Mary, and she provided links to the full comments themselves (tx you, Mary!) This is to allow you to check the comment in full, in context, where you may find additional ideas, suggestions and concerns to add to your template.
PART 4 at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691542&preview=/5... 91542/56135563/PCRT%20Part%204%20-%20updated%2014%20Sept.docx
2) SUBTEAM 4 TEMPLATE: There is a blank template attached which is a slight variation of the templates of subteams 1-3. It has some of the same fields plus additional fields to capture and categorize the new ideas submitted to the WG. Hopefully, the categories will be helpful for us and the WG. Category A, for example, is comments re: Law Enforcement access to Customer data (e.g, whether it should track Annex E (private persons access) or be different. Category b is for comments that ask the WG to create additional processes to oversee and monitor the accreditation program once created. Etc.
There are six other specific categories (A-F) and one catch-all category for anything we've forgotten ( Category G).
I've divided the comments into six parts -- using the 76 comments from "Part 4" in #1. a) Victoria - comments 1-15 in PART 4, Section I(a) b) James - comments 16-30 (same) c) Stephanie - comments 31-45 (same) d) Paul - comments 46-60 (same) e) Kathy - comments 61-76 (same)
** Please edit the first column of your template document attached to a) have your name on it and b) renumber column 1, titled "#", to reflect Your Comment Numbers.** (currently listed as 1-15). If you need any assistance in understanding categories or reading comments you can't get to, please let me know. For the first time in months, I have a little extra time this week.
We need to report to the WG on Tuesday, so if you could have your templates back by this Friday afternoon, Paul and I can put them together into a report. Should we try to have a call on Friday afternoon too?
Best, Kathy (working with Paul)
Link: To PART 4 (with 76 comments summarized, and links to them) -- https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691542&preview=/5... 91542/56135563/PCRT%20Part%204%20-%20updated%2014%20Sept.docx Attached: SUBTEAM 4 TEMPLATE
On 9/16/2015 11:46 AM, Victoria Sheckler wrote:
Yes I can do some
From:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 7:13 AM To: gnso-ppsai4@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam's 4 moment - and a timely question
Hi All, It's Subteam 4's time to hit the books (the comments really) and report back. Our reporting date is this Tuesday and we have a lot of work to do - but not as much as you might think. there are about 76 comments in the "no comment left behind" category and we want to divide them up. Who has some time this week? Who can take on the review of a subset of comments?
Please let me know as soon as possible (by 1pm Eastern, if possible) and we will divvy up the 76 comments among the people who respond. We have some great tools that Mary has created -- including easy links, templates and summaries. I'll send those out at 1pm too.
But please let us know if you can devote a few hours to this on or before the end of the week - your time is much appreciated! Best, Kathy and Paul
Hi Mary, I have not heard back from Amr and Frank, and so I am assuming they are busy. In the interest of moving forward, let's work with those who responded and if they have time, great! Re: categories, we took yours and revised them to more easily reflect certain patterns we are seeing in various comments we scanned. It is inclusive: yours plus a few others. Unless you have any further objections, I recommend we move forward -- with tx again to all who volunteered today! Best, Kathy On 9/16/2015 2:17 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
Thanks, Kathy and everyone – just two points of clarification for your information as you all begin the review exercise:
(1) There are actually seven WG participants who volunteered for this Sub Team; so in addition to Kathy, Paul, Vicky, James and Stephanie there is also Amr Elsadr and Frank Michlick (who should both be subscribed to this PPSAI-4 mailing list as well).
(2) Kathy – I notice that your template document differs from the one staff had prepared and distributed after the Sub Team call in mid-August. Where that had five categories (or “buckets”) based on the gist of the discussion during the call, the current template now has seven. Obviously, staff is not saying that the earlier template is better in any way, but we do want to caution against trying to fill in a template that has more rather than fewer categories. Moreover, it may not be clear what the dividing lines might be – for instance, what would the new category labeled “Issues involving Law Enforcement” cover that is not within the scope of, say, Sub Team 1? Would it be easier and less confusing for whoever comes across such a comment in their assignments to simply highlight it for forwarding to Sub Team 1?
(3) As noted on the call with the WG co-chairs last Friday, there is another group of comments in Part 4 of the Public Comment Review Tool that does not individually list separate comments (as these number in the hundreds, if not thousands). Rather, they are all summarized into several categories of concerns surrounding largely a loss of privacy. The Sub Team was to also look at these categories, to see if any of them required further discussion by the WG. How would the Sub Team wish to approach this other exercise?
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: <gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 01:32 To: Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler@riaa.com <mailto:vsheckler@riaa.com>>, "gnso-ppsai4@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai4@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai4@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai4@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam 4 - Handing out comments
Hi Victoria, James, Stephanie and Paul, Tx for taking on the mantle of comment review! I have divided up the commentsin #2 below and here are two documents to assist us with our work:
1) PART 4: created by Staff, this is 76 substantive comments that Staff identified that seem to contain ideas, concerns and suggestions not yet reflected in the work of subteams 1, 2 and 3. Staff has excerpted comments that they think add new ideas to our process. But Paul and I asked Mary, and she provided links to the full comments themselves (tx you, Mary!) This is to allow you to check the comment in full, in context, where you may find additional ideas, suggestions and concerns to add to your template.
PART 4 at: */https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691542&preview=/5...
2) SUBTEAM 4 TEMPLATE: There is a blank template attached which is a slight variation of the templates of subteams 1-3. It has some of the same fields plus additional fields to capture and categorize the new ideas submitted to the WG. Hopefully, the categories will be helpful for us and the WG. Category A, for example, is comments re: Law Enforcement access to Customer data (e.g, whether it should track Annex E (private persons access) or be different. Category b is for comments that ask the WG to create additional processes to oversee and monitor the accreditation program once created. Etc.
There are six other specific categories (A-F) and one catch-all category for anything we've forgotten ( Category G).
I've divided the comments into six parts -- using the 76 comments from "Part 4" in #1. a) Victoria - comments 1-15 in PART 4, Section I(a) b) James - comments 16-30 (same) c) Stephanie - comments 31-45 (same) d) Paul - comments 46-60 (same) e) Kathy - comments 61-76 (same)
** _Please edit the first column of your template document attached to a) have your name on it and b) renumber column 1, titled "#", to reflect Your Comment Numbers._** (currently listed as 1-15). /If you need any assistance in understanding categories or reading comments you can't get to, please let me know. For the first time in months, I have a little extra time this week.// / /*We need to report to the WG on Tuesday, so if you could have your templates back by _this __Friday afternoon_, Paul and I can put them together into a report. **Should we try to have a call on Friday afternoon too? */* * /Best, Kathy (working with Paul)
Link: To PART 4 (with 76 comments summarized, and links to them) -- https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691542&preview=/5... Attached: SUBTEAM 4 TEMPLATE
/ On 9/16/2015 11:46 AM, Victoria Sheckler wrote:
Yes I can do some
*From:*gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman *Sent:* Wednesday, September 16, 2015 7:13 AM *To:* gnso-ppsai4@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam's 4 moment - and a timely question
Hi All, It's Subteam 4's time to hit the books (the comments really) and report back. Our reporting date is this Tuesday and we have a lot of work to do - but not as much as you might think. there are about 76 comments in the "no comment left behind" category and we want to divide them up. /Who has some time this week? Who can take on the review of a subset of comments?
/Please let me know as soon as possible (by 1pm Eastern, if possible) and we will divvy up the 76 comments among the people who respond. We have some great tools that Mary has created -- including easy links, templates and summaries. I'll send those out at 1pm too.
But please let us know if you can devote a few hours to this on or before the end of the week - your time is much appreciated! Best, Kathy and Paul
Hey Kathy I agree I think we can get started as we have a limited time window to get this work completed, much thanks to you and Paul for shepherding us through this critical piece of work and Mary and staff for your assistance! -James On 16 Sep 2015, at 19:39, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM<mailto:kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>> wrote: Hi Mary, I have not heard back from Amr and Frank, and so I am assuming they are busy. In the interest of moving forward, let's work with those who responded and if they have time, great! Re: categories, we took yours and revised them to more easily reflect certain patterns we are seeing in various comments we scanned. It is inclusive: yours plus a few others. Unless you have any further objections, I recommend we move forward -- with tx again to all who volunteered today! Best, Kathy On 9/16/2015 2:17 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Thanks, Kathy and everyone – just two points of clarification for your information as you all begin the review exercise: (1) There are actually seven WG participants who volunteered for this Sub Team; so in addition to Kathy, Paul, Vicky, James and Stephanie there is also Amr Elsadr and Frank Michlick (who should both be subscribed to this PPSAI-4 mailing list as well). (2) Kathy – I notice that your template document differs from the one staff had prepared and distributed after the Sub Team call in mid-August. Where that had five categories (or “buckets”) based on the gist of the discussion during the call, the current template now has seven. Obviously, staff is not saying that the earlier template is better in any way, but we do want to caution against trying to fill in a template that has more rather than fewer categories. Moreover, it may not be clear what the dividing lines might be – for instance, what would the new category labeled “Issues involving Law Enforcement” cover that is not within the scope of, say, Sub Team 1? Would it be easier and less confusing for whoever comes across such a comment in their assignments to simply highlight it for forwarding to Sub Team 1? (3) As noted on the call with the WG co-chairs last Friday, there is another group of comments in Part 4 of the Public Comment Review Tool that does not individually list separate comments (as these number in the hundreds, if not thousands). Rather, they are all summarized into several categories of concerns surrounding largely a loss of privacy. The Sub Team was to also look at these categories, to see if any of them required further discussion by the WG. How would the Sub Team wish to approach this other exercise? 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: <<mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org>gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 01:32 To: Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler@riaa.com<mailto:vsheckler@riaa.com>>, "gnso-ppsai4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam 4 - Handing out comments Hi Victoria, James, Stephanie and Paul, Tx for taking on the mantle of comment review! I have divided up the commentsin #2 below and here are two documents to assist us with our work: 1) PART 4: created by Staff, this is 76 substantive comments that Staff identified that seem to contain ideas, concerns and suggestions not yet reflected in the work of subteams 1, 2 and 3. Staff has excerpted comments that they think add new ideas to our process. But Paul and I asked Mary, and she provided links to the full comments themselves (tx you, Mary!) This is to allow you to check the comment in full, in context, where you may find additional ideas, suggestions and concerns to add to your template. PART 4 at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691542&preview=/5... 2) SUBTEAM 4 TEMPLATE: There is a blank template attached which is a slight variation of the templates of subteams 1-3. It has some of the same fields plus additional fields to capture and categorize the new ideas submitted to the WG. Hopefully, the categories will be helpful for us and the WG. Category A, for example, is comments re: Law Enforcement access to Customer data (e.g, whether it should track Annex E (private persons access) or be different. Category b is for comments that ask the WG to create additional processes to oversee and monitor the accreditation program once created. Etc. There are six other specific categories (A-F) and one catch-all category for anything we've forgotten ( Category G). I've divided the comments into six parts -- using the 76 comments from "Part 4" in #1. a) Victoria - comments 1-15 in PART 4, Section I(a) b) James - comments 16-30 (same) c) Stephanie - comments 31-45 (same) d) Paul - comments 46-60 (same) e) Kathy - comments 61-76 (same) ** Please edit the first column of your template document attached to a) have your name on it and b) renumber column 1, titled "#", to reflect Your Comment Numbers.** (currently listed as 1-15). If you need any assistance in understanding categories or reading comments you can't get to, please let me know. For the first time in months, I have a little extra time this week. We need to report to the WG on Tuesday, so if you could have your templates back by this Friday afternoon, Paul and I can put them together into a report. Should we try to have a call on Friday afternoon too? Best, Kathy (working with Paul) Link: To PART 4 (with 76 comments summarized, and links to them) -- https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691542&preview=/5... Attached: SUBTEAM 4 TEMPLATE On 9/16/2015 11:46 AM, Victoria Sheckler wrote: Yes I can do some From:<mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org>gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 7:13 AM To: gnso-ppsai4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam's 4 moment - and a timely question Hi All, It's Subteam 4's time to hit the books (the comments really) and report back. Our reporting date is this Tuesday and we have a lot of work to do - but not as much as you might think. there are about 76 comments in the "no comment left behind" category and we want to divide them up. Who has some time this week? Who can take on the review of a subset of comments? Please let me know as soon as possible (by 1pm Eastern, if possible) and we will divvy up the 76 comments among the people who respond. We have some great tools that Mary has created -- including easy links, templates and summaries. I'll send those out at 1pm too. But please let us know if you can devote a few hours to this on or before the end of the week - your time is much appreciated! Best, Kathy and Paul _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai4 mailing list Gnso-ppsai4@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai4
Thanks Kathy! Any chance we could have the team call on Monday instead? I am in Vienna this week and pretty fully booked already for Friday. If not, please proceed without me. I will get started on my comment set! Best, Paul From: gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 1:49 PM To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: gnso-ppsai4@icann.org; Victoria Sheckler Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam 4 - Handing out comments Hey Kathy I agree I think we can get started as we have a limited time window to get this work completed, much thanks to you and Paul for shepherding us through this critical piece of work and Mary and staff for your assistance! -James On 16 Sep 2015, at 19:39, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM<mailto:kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>> wrote: Hi Mary, I have not heard back from Amr and Frank, and so I am assuming they are busy. In the interest of moving forward, let's work with those who responded and if they have time, great! Re: categories, we took yours and revised them to more easily reflect certain patterns we are seeing in various comments we scanned. It is inclusive: yours plus a few others. Unless you have any further objections, I recommend we move forward -- with tx again to all who volunteered today! Best, Kathy On 9/16/2015 2:17 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Thanks, Kathy and everyone - just two points of clarification for your information as you all begin the review exercise: (1) There are actually seven WG participants who volunteered for this Sub Team; so in addition to Kathy, Paul, Vicky, James and Stephanie there is also Amr Elsadr and Frank Michlick (who should both be subscribed to this PPSAI-4 mailing list as well). (2) Kathy - I notice that your template document differs from the one staff had prepared and distributed after the Sub Team call in mid-August. Where that had five categories (or "buckets") based on the gist of the discussion during the call, the current template now has seven. Obviously, staff is not saying that the earlier template is better in any way, but we do want to caution against trying to fill in a template that has more rather than fewer categories. Moreover, it may not be clear what the dividing lines might be - for instance, what would the new category labeled "Issues involving Law Enforcement" cover that is not within the scope of, say, Sub Team 1? Would it be easier and less confusing for whoever comes across such a comment in their assignments to simply highlight it for forwarding to Sub Team 1? (3) As noted on the call with the WG co-chairs last Friday, there is another group of comments in Part 4 of the Public Comment Review Tool that does not individually list separate comments (as these number in the hundreds, if not thousands). Rather, they are all summarized into several categories of concerns surrounding largely a loss of privacy. The Sub Team was to also look at these categories, to see if any of them required further discussion by the WG. How would the Sub Team wish to approach this other exercise? 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: <gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 01:32 To: Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler@riaa.com<mailto:vsheckler@riaa.com>>, "gnso-ppsai4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam 4 - Handing out comments Hi Victoria, James, Stephanie and Paul, Tx for taking on the mantle of comment review! I have divided up the commentsin #2 below and here are two documents to assist us with our work: 1) PART 4: created by Staff, this is 76 substantive comments that Staff identified that seem to contain ideas, concerns and suggestions not yet reflected in the work of subteams 1, 2 and 3. Staff has excerpted comments that they think add new ideas to our process. But Paul and I asked Mary, and she provided links to the full comments themselves (tx you, Mary!) This is to allow you to check the comment in full, in context, where you may find additional ideas, suggestions and concerns to add to your template. PART 4 at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691542&preview=/5... 2) SUBTEAM 4 TEMPLATE: There is a blank template attached which is a slight variation of the templates of subteams 1-3. It has some of the same fields plus additional fields to capture and categorize the new ideas submitted to the WG. Hopefully, the categories will be helpful for us and the WG. Category A, for example, is comments re: Law Enforcement access to Customer data (e.g, whether it should track Annex E (private persons access) or be different. Category b is for comments that ask the WG to create additional processes to oversee and monitor the accreditation program once created. Etc. There are six other specific categories (A-F) and one catch-all category for anything we've forgotten ( Category G). I've divided the comments into six parts -- using the 76 comments from "Part 4" in #1. a) Victoria - comments 1-15 in PART 4, Section I(a) b) James - comments 16-30 (same) c) Stephanie - comments 31-45 (same) d) Paul - comments 46-60 (same) e) Kathy - comments 61-76 (same) ** Please edit the first column of your template document attached to a) have your name on it and b) renumber column 1, titled "#", to reflect Your Comment Numbers.** (currently listed as 1-15). If you need any assistance in understanding categories or reading comments you can't get to, please let me know. For the first time in months, I have a little extra time this week. We need to report to the WG on Tuesday, so if you could have your templates back by this Friday afternoon, Paul and I can put them together into a report. Should we try to have a call on Friday afternoon too? Best, Kathy (working with Paul) Link: To PART 4 (with 76 comments summarized, and links to them) -- https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691542&preview=/5... Attached: SUBTEAM 4 TEMPLATE On 9/16/2015 11:46 AM, Victoria Sheckler wrote: Yes I can do some From:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 7:13 AM To: gnso-ppsai4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam's 4 moment - and a timely question Hi All, It's Subteam 4's time to hit the books (the comments really) and report back. Our reporting date is this Tuesday and we have a lot of work to do - but not as much as you might think. there are about 76 comments in the "no comment left behind" category and we want to divide them up. Who has some time this week? Who can take on the review of a subset of comments? Please let me know as soon as possible (by 1pm Eastern, if possible) and we will divvy up the 76 comments among the people who respond. We have some great tools that Mary has created -- including easy links, templates and summaries. I'll send those out at 1pm too. But please let us know if you can devote a few hours to this on or before the end of the week - your time is much appreciated! Best, Kathy and Paul _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai4 mailing list Gnso-ppsai4@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai4 The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
If it works for the group I would be ok for either day. -j On 16 Sep 2015, at 21:40, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Thanks Kathy! Any chance we could have the team call on Monday instead? I am in Vienna this week and pretty fully booked already for Friday. If not, please proceed without me. I will get started on my comment set! Best, Paul From: gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 1:49 PM To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: gnso-ppsai4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4@icann.org>; Victoria Sheckler Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam 4 - Handing out comments Hey Kathy I agree I think we can get started as we have a limited time window to get this work completed, much thanks to you and Paul for shepherding us through this critical piece of work and Mary and staff for your assistance! -James On 16 Sep 2015, at 19:39, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM<mailto:kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>> wrote: Hi Mary, I have not heard back from Amr and Frank, and so I am assuming they are busy. In the interest of moving forward, let's work with those who responded and if they have time, great! Re: categories, we took yours and revised them to more easily reflect certain patterns we are seeing in various comments we scanned. It is inclusive: yours plus a few others. Unless you have any further objections, I recommend we move forward -- with tx again to all who volunteered today! Best, Kathy On 9/16/2015 2:17 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Thanks, Kathy and everyone – just two points of clarification for your information as you all begin the review exercise: (1) There are actually seven WG participants who volunteered for this Sub Team; so in addition to Kathy, Paul, Vicky, James and Stephanie there is also Amr Elsadr and Frank Michlick (who should both be subscribed to this PPSAI-4 mailing list as well). (2) Kathy – I notice that your template document differs from the one staff had prepared and distributed after the Sub Team call in mid-August. Where that had five categories (or “buckets”) based on the gist of the discussion during the call, the current template now has seven. Obviously, staff is not saying that the earlier template is better in any way, but we do want to caution against trying to fill in a template that has more rather than fewer categories. Moreover, it may not be clear what the dividing lines might be – for instance, what would the new category labeled “Issues involving Law Enforcement” cover that is not within the scope of, say, Sub Team 1? Would it be easier and less confusing for whoever comes across such a comment in their assignments to simply highlight it for forwarding to Sub Team 1? (3) As noted on the call with the WG co-chairs last Friday, there is another group of comments in Part 4 of the Public Comment Review Tool that does not individually list separate comments (as these number in the hundreds, if not thousands). Rather, they are all summarized into several categories of concerns surrounding largely a loss of privacy. The Sub Team was to also look at these categories, to see if any of them required further discussion by the WG. How would the Sub Team wish to approach this other exercise? 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: <gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 01:32 To: Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler@riaa.com<mailto:vsheckler@riaa.com>>, "gnso-ppsai4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam 4 - Handing out comments Hi Victoria, James, Stephanie and Paul, Tx for taking on the mantle of comment review! I have divided up the commentsin #2 below and here are two documents to assist us with our work: 1) PART 4: created by Staff, this is 76 substantive comments that Staff identified that seem to contain ideas, concerns and suggestions not yet reflected in the work of subteams 1, 2 and 3. Staff has excerpted comments that they think add new ideas to our process. But Paul and I asked Mary, and she provided links to the full comments themselves (tx you, Mary!) This is to allow you to check the comment in full, in context, where you may find additional ideas, suggestions and concerns to add to your template. PART 4 at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691542&preview=/5... 2) SUBTEAM 4 TEMPLATE: There is a blank template attached which is a slight variation of the templates of subteams 1-3. It has some of the same fields plus additional fields to capture and categorize the new ideas submitted to the WG. Hopefully, the categories will be helpful for us and the WG. Category A, for example, is comments re: Law Enforcement access to Customer data (e.g, whether it should track Annex E (private persons access) or be different. Category b is for comments that ask the WG to create additional processes to oversee and monitor the accreditation program once created. Etc. There are six other specific categories (A-F) and one catch-all category for anything we've forgotten ( Category G). I've divided the comments into six parts -- using the 76 comments from "Part 4" in #1. a) Victoria - comments 1-15 in PART 4, Section I(a) b) James - comments 16-30 (same) c) Stephanie - comments 31-45 (same) d) Paul - comments 46-60 (same) e) Kathy - comments 61-76 (same) ** Please edit the first column of your template document attached to a) have your name on it and b) renumber column 1, titled "#", to reflect Your Comment Numbers.** (currently listed as 1-15). If you need any assistance in understanding categories or reading comments you can't get to, please let me know. For the first time in months, I have a little extra time this week. We need to report to the WG on Tuesday, so if you could have your templates back by this Friday afternoon, Paul and I can put them together into a report. Should we try to have a call on Friday afternoon too? Best, Kathy (working with Paul) Link: To PART 4 (with 76 comments summarized, and links to them) -- https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691542&preview=/5... Attached: SUBTEAM 4 TEMPLATE On 9/16/2015 11:46 AM, Victoria Sheckler wrote: Yes I can do some From:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 7:13 AM To: gnso-ppsai4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam's 4 moment - and a timely question Hi All, It's Subteam 4's time to hit the books (the comments really) and report back. Our reporting date is this Tuesday and we have a lot of work to do - but not as much as you might think. there are about 76 comments in the "no comment left behind" category and we want to divide them up. Who has some time this week? Who can take on the review of a subset of comments? Please let me know as soon as possible (by 1pm Eastern, if possible) and we will divvy up the 76 comments among the people who respond. We have some great tools that Mary has created -- including easy links, templates and summaries. I'll send those out at 1pm too. But please let us know if you can devote a few hours to this on or before the end of the week - your time is much appreciated! Best, Kathy and Paul _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai4 mailing list Gnso-ppsai4@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai4 The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
Sure, Paul! How's Monday at 11am Eastern, All? If not, please suggest a good time. I would still like to keep a deadline of Friday for comment template summaries. Over the weekend, I'll put them together so that we have a document to review on Monday - and hopefully present on Tuesday! Does that make work? Enjoy Vienna, Kathy On 9/16/2015 4:48 PM, James Gannon wrote:
If it works for the group I would be ok for either day.
-j
On 16 Sep 2015, at 21:40, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com <mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote:
Thanks Kathy! Any chance we could have the team call on Monday instead? I am in Vienna this week and pretty fully booked already for Friday. If not, please proceed without me. I will get started on my comment set! Best, Paul *From:*gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org]*On Behalf Of*James Gannon *Sent:*Wednesday, September 16, 2015 1:49 PM *To:*Kathy Kleiman *Cc:*gnso-ppsai4@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai4@icann.org>; Victoria Sheckler *Subject:*Re: [Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam 4 - Handing out comments Hey Kathy I agree I think we can get started as we have a limited time window to get this work completed, much thanks to you and Paul for shepherding us through this critical piece of work and Mary and staff for your assistance! -James
On 16 Sep 2015, at 19:39, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM <mailto:kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>> wrote: Hi Mary, I have not heard back from Amr and Frank, and so I am assuming they are busy. In the interest of moving forward, let's work with those who responded and if they have time, great!
Re: categories, we took yours and revised them to more easily reflect certain patterns we are seeing in various comments we scanned. It is inclusive: yours plus a few others.
Unless you have any further objections, I recommend we move forward -- with tx again to all who volunteered today! Best, Kathy
On 9/16/2015 2:17 PM, Mary Wong wrote:
Thanks, Kathy and everyone – just two points of clarification for your information as you all begin the review exercise: (1) There are actually seven WG participants who volunteered for this Sub Team; so in addition to Kathy, Paul, Vicky, James and Stephanie there is also Amr Elsadr and Frank Michlick (who should both be subscribed to this PPSAI-4 mailing list as well). (2) Kathy – I notice that your template document differs from the one staff had prepared and distributed after the Sub Team call in mid-August. Where that had five categories (or “buckets”) based on the gist of the discussion during the call, the current template now has seven. Obviously, staff is not saying that the earlier template is better in any way, but we do want to caution against trying to fill in a template that has more rather than fewer categories. Moreover, it may not be clear what the dividing lines might be – for instance, what would the new category labeled “Issues involving Law Enforcement” cover that is not within the scope of, say, Sub Team 1? Would it be easier and less confusing for whoever comes across such a comment in their assignments to simply highlight it for forwarding to Sub Team 1? (3) As noted on the call with the WG co-chairs last Friday, there is another group of comments in Part 4 of the Public Comment Review Tool that does not individually list separate comments (as these number in the hundreds, if not thousands). Rather, they are all summarized into several categories of concerns surrounding largely a loss of privacy. The Sub Team was to also look at these categories, to see if any of them required further discussion by the WG. How would the Sub Team wish to approach this other exercise? 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 <mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> *From:*<gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> *Date:*Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 01:32 *To:*Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler@riaa.com <mailto:vsheckler@riaa.com>>, "gnso-ppsai4@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai4@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai4@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai4@icann.org>> *Subject:*[Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam 4 - Handing out comments
Hi Victoria, James, Stephanie and Paul, Tx for taking on the mantle of comment review! I have divided up the commentsin #2 below and here are two documents to assist us with our work:
1) PART 4: created by Staff, this is 76 substantive comments that Staff identified that seem to contain ideas, concerns and suggestions not yet reflected in the work of subteams 1, 2 and 3. Staff has excerpted comments that they think add new ideas to our process. But Paul and I asked Mary, and she provided links to the full comments themselves (tx you, Mary!) This is to allow you to check the comment in full, in context, where you may find additional ideas, suggestions and concerns to add to your template.
PART 4 at:*/https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691542&preview=/5...
2) SUBTEAM 4 TEMPLATE: There is a blank template attached which is a slight variation of the templates of subteams 1-3. It has some of the same fields plus additional fields to capture and categorize the new ideas submitted to the WG. Hopefully, the categories will be helpful for us and the WG. Category A, for example, is comments re: Law Enforcement access to Customer data (e.g, whether it should track Annex E (private persons access) or be different. Category b is for comments that ask the WG to create additional processes to oversee and monitor the accreditation program once created. Etc.
There are six other specific categories (A-F) and one catch-all category for anything we've forgotten ( Category G).
I've divided the comments into six parts -- using the 76 comments from "Part 4" in #1. a) Victoria - comments 1-15 in PART 4, Section I(a) b) James - comments 16-30 (same) c) Stephanie - comments 31-45 (same) d) Paul - comments 46-60 (same) e) Kathy - comments 61-76 (same)
**_Please edit the first column of your template document attached to a) have your name on it and b) renumber column 1, titled "#", to reflect Your Comment Numbers._** (currently listed as 1-15). /If you need any assistance in understanding categories or reading comments you can't get to, please let me know. For the first time in months, I have a little extra time this week. / */We need to report to the WG on Tuesday, so if you could have your templates back by_thisFriday afternoon_, Paul and I can put them together into a report.Should we try to have a call on Friday afternoon too?/ * /Best, Kathy (working with Paul)
Link: To PART 4 (with 76 comments summarized, and links to them) --https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691542&preview=/5... Attached: SUBTEAM 4 TEMPLATE/
On 9/16/2015 11:46 AM, Victoria Sheckler wrote:
Yes I can do some *From:*gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org>[mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org]*On Behalf Of*Kathy Kleiman *Sent:*Wednesday, September 16, 2015 7:13 AM *To:*gnso-ppsai4@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai4@icann.org> *Subject:*[Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam's 4 moment - and a timely question
Hi All, It's Subteam 4's time to hit the books (the comments really) and report back. Our reporting date is this Tuesday and we have a lot of work to do - but not as much as you might think. there are about 76 comments in the "no comment left behind" category and we want to divide them up. /Who has some time this week? Who can take on the review of a subset of comments?
/Please let me know as soon as possible (by 1pm Eastern, if possible) and we will divvy up the 76 comments among the people who respond. We have some great tools that Mary has created -- including easy links, templates and summaries. I'll send those out at 1pm too.
But please let us know if you can devote a few hours to this on or before the end of the week - your time is much appreciated! Best, Kathy and Paul
_______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai4 mailing list Gnso-ppsai4@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-ppsai4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai4
The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
Thanks Kathy. 11am eastern works great for me. Best, Paul From: Kathy Kleiman [mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 4:03 PM To: McGrady, Paul D. Cc: gnso-ppsai4@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam 4 - Handing out comments Sure, Paul! How's Monday at 11am Eastern, All? If not, please suggest a good time. I would still like to keep a deadline of Friday for comment template summaries. Over the weekend, I'll put them together so that we have a document to review on Monday - and hopefully present on Tuesday! Does that make work? Enjoy Vienna, Kathy On 9/16/2015 4:48 PM, James Gannon wrote: If it works for the group I would be ok for either day. -j On 16 Sep 2015, at 21:40, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady@winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady@winston.com>> wrote: Thanks Kathy! Any chance we could have the team call on Monday instead? I am in Vienna this week and pretty fully booked already for Friday. If not, please proceed without me. I will get started on my comment set! Best, Paul From: gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of James Gannon Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 1:49 PM To: Kathy Kleiman Cc: gnso-ppsai4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4@icann.org>; Victoria Sheckler Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam 4 - Handing out comments Hey Kathy I agree I think we can get started as we have a limited time window to get this work completed, much thanks to you and Paul for shepherding us through this critical piece of work and Mary and staff for your assistance! -James On 16 Sep 2015, at 19:39, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM<mailto:kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM>> wrote: Hi Mary, I have not heard back from Amr and Frank, and so I am assuming they are busy. In the interest of moving forward, let's work with those who responded and if they have time, great! Re: categories, we took yours and revised them to more easily reflect certain patterns we are seeing in various comments we scanned. It is inclusive: yours plus a few others. Unless you have any further objections, I recommend we move forward -- with tx again to all who volunteered today! Best, Kathy On 9/16/2015 2:17 PM, Mary Wong wrote: Thanks, Kathy and everyone – just two points of clarification for your information as you all begin the review exercise: (1) There are actually seven WG participants who volunteered for this Sub Team; so in addition to Kathy, Paul, Vicky, James and Stephanie there is also Amr Elsadr and Frank Michlick (who should both be subscribed to this PPSAI-4 mailing list as well). (2) Kathy – I notice that your template document differs from the one staff had prepared and distributed after the Sub Team call in mid-August. Where that had five categories (or “buckets”) based on the gist of the discussion during the call, the current template now has seven. Obviously, staff is not saying that the earlier template is better in any way, but we do want to caution against trying to fill in a template that has more rather than fewer categories. Moreover, it may not be clear what the dividing lines might be – for instance, what would the new category labeled “Issues involving Law Enforcement” cover that is not within the scope of, say, Sub Team 1? Would it be easier and less confusing for whoever comes across such a comment in their assignments to simply highlight it for forwarding to Sub Team 1? (3) As noted on the call with the WG co-chairs last Friday, there is another group of comments in Part 4 of the Public Comment Review Tool that does not individually list separate comments (as these number in the hundreds, if not thousands). Rather, they are all summarized into several categories of concerns surrounding largely a loss of privacy. The Sub Team was to also look at these categories, to see if any of them required further discussion by the WG. How would the Sub Team wish to approach this other exercise? 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<mailto:mary.wong@icann.org> From: <gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com<mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com>> Date: Thursday, September 17, 2015 at 01:32 To: Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler@riaa.com<mailto:vsheckler@riaa.com>>, "gnso-ppsai4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4@icann.org>" <gnso-ppsai4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam 4 - Handing out comments Hi Victoria, James, Stephanie and Paul, Tx for taking on the mantle of comment review! I have divided up the commentsin #2 below and here are two documents to assist us with our work: 1) PART 4: created by Staff, this is 76 substantive comments that Staff identified that seem to contain ideas, concerns and suggestions not yet reflected in the work of subteams 1, 2 and 3. Staff has excerpted comments that they think add new ideas to our process. But Paul and I asked Mary, and she provided links to the full comments themselves (tx you, Mary!) This is to allow you to check the comment in full, in context, where you may find additional ideas, suggestions and concerns to add to your template. PART 4 at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691542&preview=/5... 2) SUBTEAM 4 TEMPLATE: There is a blank template attached which is a slight variation of the templates of subteams 1-3. It has some of the same fields plus additional fields to capture and categorize the new ideas submitted to the WG. Hopefully, the categories will be helpful for us and the WG. Category A, for example, is comments re: Law Enforcement access to Customer data (e.g, whether it should track Annex E (private persons access) or be different. Category b is for comments that ask the WG to create additional processes to oversee and monitor the accreditation program once created. Etc. There are six other specific categories (A-F) and one catch-all category for anything we've forgotten ( Category G). I've divided the comments into six parts -- using the 76 comments from "Part 4" in #1. a) Victoria - comments 1-15 in PART 4, Section I(a) b) James - comments 16-30 (same) c) Stephanie - comments 31-45 (same) d) Paul - comments 46-60 (same) e) Kathy - comments 61-76 (same) ** Please edit the first column of your template document attached to a) have your name on it and b) renumber column 1, titled "#", to reflect Your Comment Numbers.** (currently listed as 1-15). If you need any assistance in understanding categories or reading comments you can't get to, please let me know. For the first time in months, I have a little extra time this week. We need to report to the WG on Tuesday, so if you could have your templates back by this Friday afternoon, Paul and I can put them together into a report. Should we try to have a call on Friday afternoon too? Best, Kathy (working with Paul) Link: To PART 4 (with 76 comments summarized, and links to them) -- https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691542&preview=/5... Attached: SUBTEAM 4 TEMPLATE On 9/16/2015 11:46 AM, Victoria Sheckler wrote: Yes I can do some From:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 7:13 AM To: gnso-ppsai4@icann.org<mailto:gnso-ppsai4@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam's 4 moment - and a timely question Hi All, It's Subteam 4's time to hit the books (the comments really) and report back. Our reporting date is this Tuesday and we have a lot of work to do - but not as much as you might think. there are about 76 comments in the "no comment left behind" category and we want to divide them up. Who has some time this week? Who can take on the review of a subset of comments? Please let me know as soon as possible (by 1pm Eastern, if possible) and we will divvy up the 76 comments among the people who respond. We have some great tools that Mary has created -- including easy links, templates and summaries. I'll send those out at 1pm too. But please let us know if you can devote a few hours to this on or before the end of the week - your time is much appreciated! Best, Kathy and Paul _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai4 mailing list Gnso-ppsai4@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-ppsai4@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai4 The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
Hi,
On Sep 16, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Kathy Kleiman <kathy@KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
Hi Mary, I have not heard back from Amr and Frank, and so I am assuming they are busy. In the interest of moving forward, let's work with those who responded and if they have time, great!
Yes…, I have been quite overwhelmed for quite some time now, and haven’t had as much time to help out as I would have liked to. My sincerest apologies for not contributing. Just thought I should let you all know. Thanks. Amr
Hi All, quick follow-up to see if anyone has any questions? If you can return comment summaries back by COB tomorrow, I'll put them together for/before our Monday meeting (@11am Eastern). Best, Kathy On 9/16/2015 1:32 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi Victoria, James, Stephanie and Paul, Tx for taking on the mantle of comment review! I have divided up the comments//in #2 below and here are two documents to assist us with our work:
1) PART 4: created by Staff, this is 76 substantive comments that Staff identified that seem to contain ideas, concerns and suggestions not yet reflected in the work of subteams 1, 2 and 3. Staff has excerpted comments that they think add new ideas to our process. But Paul and I asked Mary, and she provided links to the full comments themselves (tx you, Mary!) This is to allow you to check the comment in full, in context, where you may find additional ideas, suggestions and concerns to add to your template.
PART 4 at: */https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691542&preview=/5...
2) SUBTEAM 4 TEMPLATE: There is a blank template attached which is a slight variation of the templates of subteams 1-3. It has some of the same fields plus additional fields to capture and categorize the new ideas submitted to the WG. Hopefully, the categories will be helpful for us and the WG. Category A, for example, is comments re: Law Enforcement access to Customer data (e.g, whether it should track Annex E (private persons access) or be different. Category b is for comments that ask the WG to create additional processes to oversee and monitor the accreditation program once created. Etc.
There are six other specific categories (A-F) and one catch-all category for anything we've forgotten ( Category G).
I've divided the comments into six parts -- using the 76 comments from "Part 4" in #1. a) Victoria - comments 1-15 in PART 4, Section I(a) b) James - comments 16-30 (same) c) Stephanie - comments 31-45 (same) d) Paul - comments 46-60 (same) e) Kathy - comments 61-76 (same)
** _Please edit the first column of your template document attached to a) have your name on it and b) renumber column 1, titled "#", to reflect Your Comment Numbers._** (currently listed as 1-15). /If you need any assistance in understanding categories or reading comments you can't get to, please let me know. For the first time in months, I have a little extra time this week.// / /*We need to report to the WG on Tuesday, so if you could have your templates back by _this __Friday afternoon_, Paul and I can put them together into a report. **Should we try to have a call on Friday afternoon too? */* * /Best, Kathy (working with Paul)
Link: To PART 4 (with 76 comments summarized, and links to them) -- https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691542&preview=/5... Attached: SUBTEAM 4 TEMPLATE
/ On 9/16/2015 11:46 AM, Victoria Sheckler wrote:
Yes I can do some
*From:*gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman *Sent:* Wednesday, September 16, 2015 7:13 AM *To:* gnso-ppsai4@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam's 4 moment - and a timely question
Hi All, It's Subteam 4's time to hit the books (the comments really) and report back. Our reporting date is this Tuesday and we have a lot of work to do - but not as much as you might think. there are about 76 comments in the "no comment left behind" category and we want to divide them up. /Who has some time this week? Who can take on the review of a subset of comments?
/Please let me know as soon as possible (by 1pm Eastern, if possible) and we will divvy up the 76 comments among the people who respond. We have some great tools that Mary has created -- including easy links, templates and summaries. I'll send those out at 1pm too.
But please let us know if you can devote a few hours to this on or before the end of the week - your time is much appreciated! Best, Kathy and Paul
Hi All, I've just finished my 15 comments and want something I noted: some commenters are focused on one issue; others on multiple issues. If there are multiple issues that merit inclusion, please feel free to create multiple lines in the spreadsheet, e.g., 22(a), 22(b) and 22(c), as they issues may fall under an array of categories. Tx! Kathy On 9/17/2015 9:53 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi All, quick follow-up to see if anyone has any questions? If you can return comment summaries back by COB tomorrow, I'll put them together for/before our Monday meeting (@11am Eastern). Best, Kathy
On 9/16/2015 1:32 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi Victoria, James, Stephanie and Paul, Tx for taking on the mantle of comment review! I have divided up the comments//in #2 below and here are two documents to assist us with our work:
1) PART 4: created by Staff, this is 76 substantive comments that Staff identified that seem to contain ideas, concerns and suggestions not yet reflected in the work of subteams 1, 2 and 3. Staff has excerpted comments that they think add new ideas to our process. But Paul and I asked Mary, and she provided links to the full comments themselves (tx you, Mary!) This is to allow you to check the comment in full, in context, where you may find additional ideas, suggestions and concerns to add to your template.
PART 4 at: */https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691542&preview=/5...
2) SUBTEAM 4 TEMPLATE: There is a blank template attached which is a slight variation of the templates of subteams 1-3. It has some of the same fields plus additional fields to capture and categorize the new ideas submitted to the WG. Hopefully, the categories will be helpful for us and the WG. Category A, for example, is comments re: Law Enforcement access to Customer data (e.g, whether it should track Annex E (private persons access) or be different. Category b is for comments that ask the WG to create additional processes to oversee and monitor the accreditation program once created. Etc.
There are six other specific categories (A-F) and one catch-all category for anything we've forgotten ( Category G).
I've divided the comments into six parts -- using the 76 comments from "Part 4" in #1. a) Victoria - comments 1-15 in PART 4, Section I(a) b) James - comments 16-30 (same) c) Stephanie - comments 31-45 (same) d) Paul - comments 46-60 (same) e) Kathy - comments 61-76 (same)
** _Please edit the first column of your template document attached to a) have your name on it and b) renumber column 1, titled "#", to reflect Your Comment Numbers._** (currently listed as 1-15). /If you need any assistance in understanding categories or reading comments you can't get to, please let me know. For the first time in months, I have a little extra time this week.// / /*We need to report to the WG on Tuesday, so if you could have your templates back by _this __Friday afternoon_, Paul and I can put them together into a report. **Should we try to have a call on Friday afternoon too? */* * /Best, Kathy (working with Paul)
Link: To PART 4 (with 76 comments summarized, and links to them) -- https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691542&preview=/5... Attached: SUBTEAM 4 TEMPLATE
/ On 9/16/2015 11:46 AM, Victoria Sheckler wrote:
Yes I can do some
*From:*gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org [mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kathy Kleiman *Sent:* Wednesday, September 16, 2015 7:13 AM *To:* gnso-ppsai4@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam's 4 moment - and a timely question
Hi All, It's Subteam 4's time to hit the books (the comments really) and report back. Our reporting date is this Tuesday and we have a lot of work to do - but not as much as you might think. there are about 76 comments in the "no comment left behind" category and we want to divide them up. /Who has some time this week? Who can take on the review of a subset of comments?
/Please let me know as soon as possible (by 1pm Eastern, if possible) and we will divvy up the 76 comments among the people who respond. We have some great tools that Mary has created -- including easy links, templates and summaries. I'll send those out at 1pm too.
But please let us know if you can devote a few hours to this on or before the end of the week - your time is much appreciated! Best, Kathy and Paul
Hello everybody, Paul has noted that we ought perhaps to have made clear why only some comments out of the 76 in the document for review have links to the actual public comment in question. Basically, only the first 25 or so comments have a link to the actual comment submitted. That¹s because the others were not comments made directly to the public forum, but rather were comments that were made as part of a responder¹s answer to the WG¹s online question template (which the WG had offered as either an alternative, or additional, method for commenters to provide input during the public comment period). Since that online question template containing all the WG¹s preliminary recommendations and open questions, listed individually was done using the Survey Monkey tool, we are not able to provide a link to each response as was done with the ³regular² public comments. Nevertheless, what you see is a full cut-and-paste of the responder¹s comment in response to a ³catch-all² ³Other Comments for the WG² section that made up the last question in the online template and, as such, has been provided in its own context. I hope this helps clear up any question or confusion you may have about the difference between the first 25 and the other comments. 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-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kathy Kleiman <kathy@kathykleiman.com> Date: Friday, September 18, 2015 at 03:27 To: "gnso-ppsai4@icann.org" <gnso-ppsai4@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam 4 - Handing out comments/ Friday return??
Hi All, I've just finished my 15 comments and want something I noted: some commenters are focused on one issue; others on multiple issues. If there are multiple issues that merit inclusion, please feel free to create multiple lines in the spreadsheet, e.g., 22(a), 22(b) and 22(c), as they issues may fall under an array of categories.
Tx! Kathy
On 9/17/2015 9:53 AM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi All, quick follow-up to see if anyone has any questions? If you can return comment summaries back by COB tomorrow, I'll put them together for/before our Monday meeting (@11am Eastern). Best, Kathy
On 9/16/2015 1:32 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
Hi Victoria, James, Stephanie and Paul, Tx for taking on the mantle of comment review! I have divided up the commentsin #2 below and here are two documents to assist us with our work:
1) PART 4: created by Staff, this is 76 substantive comments that Staff identified that seem to contain ideas, concerns and suggestions not yet reflected in the work of subteams 1, 2 and 3. Staff has excerpted comments that they think add new ideas to our process. But Paul and I asked Mary, and she provided links to the full comments themselves (tx you, Mary!) This is to allow you to check the comment in full, in context, where you may find additional ideas, suggestions and concerns to add to your template.
PART 4 at: https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691542&preview=/5 4691542/56135563/PCRT%20Part%204%20-%20updated%2014%20Sept.docx
2) SUBTEAM 4 TEMPLATE: There is a blank template attached which is a slight variation of the templates of subteams 1-3. It has some of the same fields plus additional fields to capture and categorize the new ideas submitted to the WG. Hopefully, the categories will be helpful for us and the WG. Category A, for example, is comments re: Law Enforcement access to Customer data (e.g, whether it should track Annex E (private persons access) or be different. Category b is for comments that ask the WG to create additional processes to oversee and monitor the accreditation program once created. Etc.
There are six other specific categories (A-F) and one catch-all category for anything we've forgotten ( Category G).
I've divided the comments into six parts -- using the 76 comments from "Part 4" in #1. a) Victoria - comments 1-15 in PART 4, Section I(a) b) James - comments 16-30 (same) c) Stephanie - comments 31-45 (same) d) Paul - comments 46-60 (same) e) Kathy - comments 61-76 (same)
** Please edit the first column of your template document attached to a) have your name on it and b) renumber column 1, titled "#", to reflect Your Comment Numbers.** (currently listed as 1-15). If you need any assistance in understanding categories or reading comments you can't get to, please let me know. For the first time in months, I have a little extra time this week.
We need to report to the WG on Tuesday, so if you could have your templates back by this Friday afternoon, Paul and I can put them together into a report. Should we try to have a call on Friday afternoon too?
Best, Kathy (working with Paul)
Link: To PART 4 (with 76 comments summarized, and links to them) -- https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=54691542&preview=/5 4691542/56135563/PCRT%20Part%204%20-%20updated%2014%20Sept.docx Attached: SUBTEAM 4 TEMPLATE
On 9/16/2015 11:46 AM, Victoria Sheckler wrote:
Yes I can do some
From: gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org <mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:gnso-ppsai4-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 7:13 AM To: gnso-ppsai4@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-ppsai4] Subteam's 4 moment - and a timely question
Hi All, It's Subteam 4's time to hit the books (the comments really) and report back. Our reporting date is this Tuesday and we have a lot of work to do - but not as much as you might think. there are about 76 comments in the "no comment left behind" category and we want to divide them up. Who has some time this week? Who can take on the review of a subset of comments?
Please let me know as soon as possible (by 1pm Eastern, if possible) and we will divvy up the 76 comments among the people who respond. We have some great tools that Mary has created -- including easy links, templates and summaries. I'll send those out at 1pm too.
But please let us know if you can devote a few hours to this on or before the end of the week - your time is much appreciated! Best, Kathy and Paul
participants (5)
-
Amr Elsadr -
James Gannon -
Kathy Kleiman -
Mary Wong -
McGrady, Paul D.