Dear Antonietta, Elisa and Karen,

Thank you for your informative explanation, and many thanks to the whole
team for addressing the situation! Human errors are inevitable, and
I am very pleased to see that the system catches and recovers from them.

Kind regards,

	Julf

On 23/02/2024 01:31, Antonietta Mangiacotti wrote:
> Dear Mr. Helsingius,
> 
> Thank you for your message on behalf of the NonCommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG). We recognize that significant time and effort was spent drafting NCSG’s input for the Public Comment Proceeding on the Proposed Updates to Existing Rights Protection Mechanisms Documentation.
> 
> While NCSG’s submission was captured in Sections 2 and 3 (General Comments) of the Public Comment Summary Report, it appears that NCSG’s input was not carried over to the post Public Comment versions of the RPM procedural documents that were shared with the Implementation Review Team (IRT) during RPM IRT meeting #6, where we kicked off the review and discussions of public comments received.
> 
> After researching this issue, we discovered that this was a mistake caused by human error when creating new versions of the documents. As such, we went back and reviewed all Public Comments received for any input that was missing, including NCSG’s feedback, and have updated the RPM procedural documents accordingly. Following the updates, we discussed NCSG’s comments during RPM IRT meeting #7 and we will continue to address NCSG’s input as we review the RPM procedural documents.
> 
> We appreciate that this issue was brought to our attention during RPM IRT meeting #6 and we take responsibility for our mistake of not including NSCG’s Public Comment on the relevant sections of the RPM procedural documents. We value your continued participation in ICANN and we are committed to always working to increase the effectiveness of the implementation process.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Antonietta, Elisa, Karen
> 
> On 2/20/24, 7:16 AM, "Johan Helsingius" <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> Dear RPM IRT Staff,
> 
> 
> I am writing to express the NCSG's concern about the absence of our
> comment in the "Proposed Updates to Existing Rights Protection
> Mechanisms Documentation" first post-public comment analysis.
> 
> 
> Despite us submitting it within the agreed extended deadline,another
> RPM IRT meeting had to be scheduled so our commentary could be properly
> discussed - something that is particularly concerning considering
> that part of it was related to excerpts that apparently were out of
> the scope of the WG recommendations.
> 
> 
> This omission is serious enough to raise questions about the
> guarantee of effective participation in this PDP. The NCSG invested
> significant time and effort in crafting thoughtful feedback, going
> back to details on what was previously discussed within the WG.
> 
> 
> We feel it is important to explain the reasomns for the
> exclusion of our comments in order to preserve faith in the
> legitimacy of the process related to the adequate consideration of
> diverse perspectives.
> 
> 
> Therefore, we would like to kindly ask you to look into and
> help our membership and comment drafting team to better understand
> the situation.
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> 
> Julf Helsingius, NCSG Chair
> 
> 
> 
> 
>