Dear Trang, Lise and I reviewed this and it seems to be a reasonable approach. However, there is a concern that the CWG may not be / be able to be responsive enough to deal with the comments as and when they come up. Key here will be to synchronise the planning of CWG meetings to with the public comment period/s that require/s CWG input. For this reason, I have copied Grace into this mail. It may be that we can use the IOTF to good effect here but we will need to be careful not to leave the CWG out / behind. So, we understand the reason for the alternative suggestion below and will try to work with it. Thank-you, Lise & Jonathan From: Trang Nguyen [mailto:trang.nguyen@icann.org] Sent: 08 July 2016 06:42 To: Lise Fuhr <Fuhr@etno.eu>; iotf@icann.org Subject: Re: [IOTF] Process for public consultation Dear Lise, Thank you for your note. This process for the most part sounds good and is consistent with the standard practice for ICANN public comment periods. The one area that we are concerned about is step #4 occurring at the end of the process. The concern that we have is the potential for this step to create multiple rounds of reviews at the end of the process when timing is very tight. There might be ways to fold that step into an earlier part of the process to achieve the intent of the step and to ensure that the substantive discussions occur before any documents are finalized. One possible approach may be that if any comments submitted are identified as requiring discussions with the CWG because it is not clear whether the comment is in alignment with or not in alignment with the CWG proposal, we would have those discussions as soon as possible, potentially even during the public comment period. The discussions would inform ICANN in performing the analysis and updating of the document to the agreed upon approach. Draft language to reflect how the comment would be incorporated could be exchanged with the CWG and Sidley during the comment process and as the analysis is being performed so as to eliminate the need for an approval step at the end of the process. If comments are submitted close to the end of the comment period, we could hold a call with the CWG right after the public comment period closes. This would allow for a timely completion of the analysis and updating of the document to incorporate comments received. This approach approximates the approach that we used for the ICANN Bylaws, which allowed us to complete the analysis and updating of the document 5 days after the close of the comment period. This is the same number of days that we have provided for ICANN to perform analysis and updating of the PTI documents that will go out for public comment. Having experience with and seeing this work, we wanted to offer it for consideration as one possible alternative to the last step of the process. Warm regards, Trang From: <iotf-bounces@icann.org <mailto:iotf-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Lise Fuhr <Fuhr@etno.eu <mailto:Fuhr@etno.eu> > Date: Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 1:19 AM To: "iotf@icann.org <mailto:iotf@icann.org> " <iotf@icann.org <mailto:iotf@icann.org> > Subject: [IOTF] Process for public consultation Hi Trang and Yuko, At the IOTF call yesterday you asked about guidance on how to proceed with the different proposals after the public consultation period. Jonathan and I have discussed what we find to be the best procedure. We also find that it is good to have the procedure documented. The process should be the following: 1. The implementation team (staff) run the public comment period 2. Staff gather the comments and publish the comments in a document 3. Staff propose a revised version of the original proposal with the comments incorporated 4. CWG review and sign off the revised proposal. If you have any questions or concerns to the procedure above please don't hesitate to get back to either Jonathan or me. Thank you. Best regards, Lise