<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">I support version 1 for Board Screening because i also think Farzi is right and Version 2 for NC because it is short and straight to the point<br><br><div id="AppleMailSignature"><div>-----------------</div><div>Arsène Tungali,</div><div><a href="http://about.me/ArseneTungali">about.me/ArseneTungali</a></div><div>+243 993810967</div><div>GPG: 523644A0</div><div>Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo</div><div><br></div>Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)</div><div><br>On Apr 20, 2018, at 7:32 AM, farzaneh badii <<a href="mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com">farzaneh.badii@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Ill go for comment no.1 for the Board screening. The reason is that, if they have an international due diligence consultant why are we setting objectives for ICANN? The due diligence consultant can set those criteria and we can commet onit. I don't know about Name Collision. will go with whatever others suggest.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 9:43 PM, Rafik Dammak <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" target="_blank">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi all,<div><br></div><div>we need to make a quick decision regarding the 2 public comments as the extension is only until this week Friday.</div><div><br></div><div><ul><li>For uniform board member screening, please weigh if you support version 1 or 2 to be submitted (attached)</li><li>for NCAP comment, I made a new short version supporting the proposed plan while expressing one concern regarding the cost of the studies (tried to capture the comments original draft). While we may have concerns about the structures to be used, I believe as this is really a technical project mandated to SSAC I don't think that must follow the usual model of open groups and representation (i.e representative from each SO/AC/SG/C) as there is required technical expertise and experience with the issue. </li></ul><div><br></div><ul><ul><li>the new version is here: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WVaunyKcFLRoiOL989ZnrawRV0k4zG8L61hKBlxyZIg/edit#" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/<wbr>document/d/<wbr>1WVaunyKcFLRoiOL989ZnrawRV0k4z<wbr>G8L61hKBlxyZIg/edit#</a></li><li>the original version here: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jwK6ik8VgMjM26QUFcSmA0y9hBASmxMAGupnvvDSe2A/edit#" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/<wbr>document/d/<wbr>1jwK6ik8VgMjM26QUFcSmA0y9hBASm<wbr>xMAGupnvvDSe2A/edit#</a></li></ul></ul><div>please let me know which version which submit for board screening comment, and if you are fine with the new version for NCAP to be submitted.</div></div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Rafik</div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
NCSG-PC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>NCSG-PC mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a></span><br><span><a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>