As I understand the discussion, this is due to the fact that the Public Comment proposal was not the broad “spanning the dot” proposal that was discussed, but a much narrower proposal with specified restrictions.

 

Michael R.

 

 

 

Michael R. Graham

Senior Counsel and Global Director,

Intellectual Property, Expedia Group

T +1 206 481 4330 | M +1 425 241 1459

1111 Expedia Group Way W | Seattle, WA 98119

expediagroup.com

Email: migraham@expediagroup.com

 

 

 

From: GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGA <gnso-rpms-wg-sga-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Tushnet, Rebecca
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 11:48 AM
To: Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>; gnso-rpms-wg-sga@icann.org
Subject: Re: [GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGA] Sub Group A: Public Comment Analysis Summary Document

 

Can I ask why "spanning the dot" is to be referred to the full WG according to this document despite apparent agreement that it's a proposal that was previously considered and no new information has been provided? That doesn't seem consistent with the principles announced.

 

 

Rebecca Tushnet

Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School
703 593 6759

From: GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGA <gnso-rpms-wg-sga-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 1:53 PM
To: gnso-rpms-wg-sga@icann.org <gnso-rpms-wg-sga@icann.org>
Subject: [GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGA] Sub Group A: Public Comment Analysis Summary Document

 

Dear Sub Group A members,

 

As mentioned during the call, staff have been developing a public comment analysis document to succinctly encapsulate/summarize the Sub Group’s deliberations on the public comments. We hope this document can help Sub Group A present the outcome of its work for review/consideration by the full WG. Please see the document here with a brief introduction below: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10mftuhNy7YMgtCIu2ZRwsCleDgbP8AAAFz_jMHBFL70/edit?usp=sharing

 

  • This document is not meant to replace Sub Group A’s transcripts/recordings/chat records, which include the full details of each meeting;
  • In general, we hope this document can be continuously used by the full WG after Sub Group A’s deliberation is completed;
  • Each recommendation/question title/number is linked to the wiki page that contains the contextual language;
  • Under each recommendation/question, there are three sub sections:
    1. Public Comment Referred to WG: It contains the public comments the Sub Group A decides to flag to the WG for further deliberation; link to the public comment review tool (PCRT) and corresponding row number(s) are included here;
    2. Public Comment Deliberation Summary: It includes two sub sections – 1) Sub Group A Deliberation Summary & 2) WG Deliberation Summary;
      • Under “Sub Group A Deliberation Summary”, it Includes a high-level summary of the Sub Group’s response/action related to the public comments, particularly the flagged public comments that will be referred to the full WG;
      • Under “WG Deliberation Summary”, the content is TBD and will be populated after the WG has reviewed the flagged public comments (if any) and the Sub Group’s deliberation summary; staff expect that content under this sub section will be included in the Final Report (as part of the context/deliberation);
    1. Proposed Final Recommendation Language:
      • The final recommendation language confirmed by the full WG will be populated here;
      • If Sub Group A agrees on any edits/revisions to the recommendations, the proposed language will be included here for the full WG to review/consider;
  • The highlighted text (“[not completed]”) indicates that the Sub Group A’s deliberations on certain recommendation/question are not completed.

 

The update of this document will be ongoing -- staff aim to update this document shortly after each meeting finishes and circulate it for Sub Group members’ review. You are welcome to provide input/feedback and point out any error/mischaracterization/missing content on list. To facilitate your review, staff can provide a brief presentation on this document during next week’s call.

 

Thank you for your time and review.

 

Best Regards,

Mary, Julie, Ariel