Noting that some of the feedback appears to have arisen from my LE counterparts elsewhere in the globe, can anyone point me to who/where the feedback was obtained from, such that I might take action to speak directly? Separately – I confess I’m on split minds as to closing the door to such additional feedback from unexpected contributors. I know how hard it is to solicit/gather it, and view constructive feedback as gold. What would be the best way to ensure we leave the door open for unanticipated constructive feedback? Defer to editor’s choice on ranking columns/etc. G From: Sebastien--- via Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2024 11:45 AM To: Sarah Wyld <swyld@tucows.com>; gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org Subject: [EXTERNAL EMAIL] - [Gnso-rdrs-sc] Re: impressions doc - cleanup, and question Hi Sarah, Your proposed additional column sounds good to me, but I did hear voices again on our last call who have stronger opinion than I do on how to record prioritization criteria. I am happy to go with the group majority. Regarding you point on the document’s audience and usage. You are absolutely right, we did discuss that this is for the SC to enter and use. I specially asked that should input come from third parties, these should be recorded by members who 1/ would have filtered to ensure requirements remain with our mandate, and 2/ would be able to champion each item, prioritize, etc… Following the CSG session I asked for the finding to be incorporated in the document, rather than having us scouring through minutes. Steve Crocker, raise the issue of lack of resources from his group; I assume that Valerie Heng of staff, entered the items on behalf of the CSG SC members. I would ask now for these members to own the said entries, verify that they all are relevant and within our scope, before prioritising them. Thank you, Sebastien Ducos GoDaddy Registry | Senior Client Services Manager [signature_1555567929] +33612284445 France & Australia sebastien@registry.godaddy<mailto:sebastien@registry.godaddy> From: Sarah Wyld via Gnso-rdrs-sc <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org>> Date: Wednesday, 22 May 2024 at 7:19 PM To: gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org> <gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rdrs-sc@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-rdrs-sc] impressions doc - cleanup, and question Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Forward suspicious emails to isitbad@. Hi team, I'd like to ask our ICANN staff team to do some housekeeping in the Impressions document. I propose adding columns for the priority and LOE (they can be together as they are so interdependent), status, and notes. Then the info that's in the columns where it does not belong, or in the sidebar comments, can be moved into the appropriate boxes. This will make the sheet easier to read, and means that the tables can be re-sorted by priority, status (move all completed to the bottom), etc. What do you think? I also would like to clarify the specific purpose or audience of the Impressions doc. I thought it was for S.C. Members to submit our impressions so that the group could come to agreement on changes to make in the platform, but I see new input that I understand came from an engagement forum and did not go through this Committee. Is that how we'd like to proceed, with this sheet as sort of a clearinghouse for all the input? Thanks, -- Sarah Wyld, CIPP/E Policy & Privacy Manager Pronouns: she/they swyld@tucows.com<mailto:swyld@tucows.com>
