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_jMHBF... * 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: * 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; * 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); * 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
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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_10mftuhNy7YMgtCIu2ZRwsCleDgbP8AAAFz-5FjMHBFL70_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=82SUj4_pX0vh7HfRwvI4j0zPdRkzN_uUITr6jaG9NRg&s=rbjtIm6V7Ekzk3u5Gjrr0w4eOGZ5yaJzQMp8HnmS1Xc&e=> * 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: * 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; * 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); * 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
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. [cid:image001.png@01D63B2F.D38886D0] 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<mailto:migraham@expediagroup.com> [cid:image002.png@01D63B2F.D38886D0] 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<mailto:gnso-rpms-wg-sga-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 1:53 PM To: gnso-rpms-wg-sga@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpms-wg-sga@icann.org> <gnso-rpms-wg-sga@icann.org<mailto: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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_10mftuhNy7YMgtCIu2ZRwsCleDgbP8AAAFz-5FjMHBFL70_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=82SUj4_pX0vh7HfRwvI4j0zPdRkzN_uUITr6jaG9NRg&s=rbjtIm6V7Ekzk3u5Gjrr0w4eOGZ5yaJzQMp8HnmS1Xc&e=> * 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: * 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; * 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); * 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
And what is the evidence of need that wasn't present before? If this is a reference to a voluntary RPM, I'm not sure why it's shown as going to the full WG. Given our discussion about voluntary RPMs, I didn't think we had agreed to send this out. Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School 703 593 6759 ________________________________ From: Michael Graham (ELCA) <migraham@expediagroup.com> Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 2:52 PM To: Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu>; Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org>; gnso-rpms-wg-sga@icann.org <gnso-rpms-wg-sga@icann.org> Subject: RE: [GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGA] Sub Group A: Public Comment Analysis Summary Document 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. [cid:image001.png@01D63B2F.D38886D0] 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<mailto:migraham@expediagroup.com> [cid:image002.png@01D63B2F.D38886D0] 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<mailto:gnso-rpms-wg-sga-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org<mailto:ariel.liang@icann.org>> Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 1:53 PM To: gnso-rpms-wg-sga@icann.org<mailto:gnso-rpms-wg-sga@icann.org> <gnso-rpms-wg-sga@icann.org<mailto: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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_10mftuhNy7YMgtCIu2ZRwsCleDgbP8AAAFz-5FjMHBFL70_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMGaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=E-M4OQvQBo8UWqE1LwEiDR3PcWlfM0I-0jiI1c4ous0&m=82SUj4_pX0vh7HfRwvI4j0zPdRkzN_uUITr6jaG9NRg&s=rbjtIm6V7Ekzk3u5Gjrr0w4eOGZ5yaJzQMp8HnmS1Xc&e=> * 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: * 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; * 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); * 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
I am also a bit puzzled by this. My understanding was we were going back to see if it had previously been discussed. Having found that to be the case, and having failed to garner consensus on discussion, what's left to revisit? On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 2:57 PM Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu> wrote:
And what is the evidence of need that wasn't present before? If this is a reference to a voluntary RPM, I'm not sure why it's shown as going to the full WG. Given our discussion about voluntary RPMs, I didn't think we had agreed to send this out.
Rebecca Tushnet Frank Stanton Professor of First Amendment Law, Harvard Law School 703 593 6759 ------------------------------ *From:* Michael Graham (ELCA) <migraham@expediagroup.com> *Sent:* Friday, June 5, 2020 2:52 PM *To:* Tushnet, Rebecca <rtushnet@law.harvard.edu>; Ariel Liang < ariel.liang@icann.org>; gnso-rpms-wg-sga@icann.org < gnso-rpms-wg-sga@icann.org> *Subject:* RE: [GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGA] Sub Group A: Public Comment Analysis Summary Document
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 <http://expediagroup.com>*
Email: *migraham@expediagroup.com <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_jMHBF... <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_documen...>
- 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
_______________________________________________ GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGA mailing list GNSO-RPMs-WG-SGA@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rpms-wg-sga
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
participants (4)
-
Ariel Liang -
Michael Graham (ELCA) -
Michael Karanicolas -
Tushnet, Rebecca