Thank you for the edits, Avri. I have accepted nearly all of them, and commented in the document where I have not.
<div>
<br />
</div>
<div>I would now like to collect <span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">individual PC signatories [Observers are welcome to sign on, too]. </span>
</div>
<div>
<br />
</div>
<div>Unless I hear objections otherwise, I propose that if 2/3 of PC members sign on, this statement be adopted as the NCSG statement. If it is not adopted, those who express their support on the list now will be named as signatories, and of
course non-PC members may sign on too. Thanks. </div>
<div>
<br />
</div>
<div>Best wishes,
<br /><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);"></span>
<div>
<div>
<br />
</div>
<div id="protonmail_mobile_signature_block">Ayden </div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<br />
</div>On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:00 am, avri doria <<a href="mailto:avri@apc.org" class="">avri@apc.org</a>> wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite">Hi,
<br />
<br />I thank you taking on the thankless task of writing the first draft. As
<br />you know I had many issues with that first draft, and do believe I was
<br />specific about what those were.
<br />
<br />In any case, the rework Stephanie did has made it much easier for me to
<br />not object (i know i don't have a vote, just a voice). I have layered
<br />some more edits on Stephanie's revision. While I still do not agree
<br />with everything it says, I know that the things I have problems with are
<br />things others in the NCSG probably support and do not have an objection
<br />to them, though in some cases I have tried to make it a bit more diplomatic.
<br />
<br />I hope my suggested edits are acceptable.
<br />
<br />avri
<br />
<br />
<br />On 23-Mar-17 19:09, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
<br />> The statement is still a work in progress, and is not complete. I will
<br />> continue working on it tonight, and encourage others to share feedback
<br />> on how they believe it should be edited so they are comfortable with it.
<br />>
<br />> Whether or not the PC endorses it is a discussion to be had tomorrow,
<br />> once it is in a more complete stage. Certainly I would hope an
<br />> endorsement was forthcoming, but if it isn't, I also understand that
<br />> is a possible outcome.
<br />>
<br />> If people would like to have a substantive discussion on the comments,
<br />> it would actually make it a lot easier to write so please feel free to
<br />> do so... :-)
<br />>
<br />> That said, if someone does not wish to endorse the comments, it would
<br />> be helpful to know specifically what within the text they do not support.
<br />>
<br />> Yes, these comments have been written quickly and there has not been
<br />> much time for discussion, but we do not have a documented process for
<br />> seeking the PC's endorsement and I have been on the PC for fewer than
<br />> 3 months. Until such time as there is a process, all I can do is
<br />> propose text in the hopes that others will jump in and offer
<br />> constructive thoughts on a different direction to be taken, if
<br />> applicable.
<br />>
<br />> Ayden
<br />>
<br />> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
<br />> From: matthew shears <mshears@cdt.org <mailto:mshears@cdt.org>>
<br />> Date: On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:27 pm
<br />> Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
<br />> To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg@ipjustice.org
<br />> <mailto:pc-ncsg@ipjustice.org>>,Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com
<br />> <mailto:icann@ferdeline.com>>
<br />> CC:
<br />>>
<br />>> Hi all
<br />>>
<br />>> I am conscious of the impending deadline for these comments
<br />>> (tomorrow). I recognize that Ayden has put time and thought into
<br />>> proposing comments for NCSG's consideration. This said, we have had
<br />>> no substantive discussion of these comments and their merit on the
<br />>> list or in the PC, nor have we had, realistically, sufficient time to
<br />>> do so. Because of this I do not feel that I, as a member of the PC,
<br />>> can endorse these comments for NCSG.
<br />>>
<br />>> The NCSG PC should have a better process in place for ensuring that
<br />>> there is time to do so in the future and we will, hopefully, be
<br />>> rectifying this promptly.
<br />>>
<br />>> Matthew
<br />>>
<br />>>
<br />>> On 23/03/2017 11:33, matthew shears wrote:
<br />>>>
<br />>>> Hello PC
<br />>>>
<br />>>> Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow. Please review these
<br />>>> suggested inputs carefully.
<br />>>>
<br />>>> Related docs can be found here.
<br />>>>
<br />>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en
<br />>>>
<br />>>>
<br />>>> Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are appreciated
<br />>>> asap.
<br />>>>
<br />>>> Thanks.
<br />>>>
<br />>>> Matthew
<br />>>>
<br />>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
<br />>>> Subject: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
<br />>>> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
<br />>>> From: Ayden Férdeline <icann@FERDELINE.COM>
<br />>>> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann@ferdeline.com>
<br />>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
<br />>>>
<br />>>>
<br />>>>
<br />>>> Greetings all,
<br />>>>
<br />>>> I have drafted up on Google Docs
<br />>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>
<br />>>> some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the
<br />>>> At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome
<br />>>> your feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I might have
<br />>>> missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy
<br />>>> with it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get some
<br />>>> words down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so please
<br />>>> take a read of the proposed statement here
<br />>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>,
<br />>>> with the understanding that it's definitely a work-in-progress. And
<br />>>> please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or on this
<br />>>> mailing list!
<br />>>>
<br />>>> Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get
<br />>>> this together unfortunately. You can read the draft report here
<br />>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf> (PDF
<br />>>> link) if you haven't seen it already.
<br />>>>
<br />>>> /A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing
<br />>>> list: this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been endorsed
<br />>>> yet by the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change between
<br />>>> now and the time it is submitted (if it is submitted)./
<br />>>>
<br />>>> Best wishes,
<br />>>>
<br />>>> Ayden Férdeline
<br />>>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
<br />>>>
<br />>>>
<br />>>>
<br />>>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
<br />>>> Virus-free. www.avg.com
<br />>>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
<br />>>>
<br />>>>
<br />>>
<br />>> --
<br />>> ------------
<br />>> Matthew Shears
<br />>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
<br />>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
<br />>> + 44 771 2472987
<br />>
<br />>
<br />> _______________________________________________
<br />> NCSG-PC mailing list
<br />> NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is
<br />> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />---
<br />This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<br />https://www.avast.com/antivirus
<br />
<br />_______________________________________________
<br />NCSG-PC mailing list
<br />NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is
<br />https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
<br />
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>