Process question... (was Re: Public Comments - Revisions to ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviors)

[Shane Kerr]

All,

At 2016-06-07 14:07:25 +0200
Niels ten Oever <lists at DIGITALDISSIDENTS.ORG> wrote:

> On 06/03/2016 08:13 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
> > I tried responding on the pad, but it will not save my comments.
> > 
> > I don't have a hard objection to the NCSG responding to this
> > consultation – indeed, I believe we should be submitting responses
> > whenever we are given the opportunity – but the drafted response is not
> > one that I can support.

I think that I have a process question.

What is the NCSG way for getting approval to send an NCSG response? I
know how RIPE and the IETF and the NRO do such things, but I don't know
how the NCSG declares a decision.

For example, in RIPE it is the job of the working group chair to
declare consensus, and there is an oversight and appeals process
defined. In the IETF it is roughly similar, although the details are
vastly different. In the NRO, each of the heads of the RIRs must agree
to any statement made by the NRO.

I ask because I think that this seems to be an area where consensus
will be very hard to achieve.

--------

One possible way forward may be to have an NCSG "official response" -
which would be a sort of vague, watered-down response that a politician
would have. "We find this very important, blah blah blah." Some members
of the NCSG could also make a "minority response" which goes further.
"We think that ICANN should do X, Y, and Z."

Personally I am happy to add my support to the strongest position
possible against harassment, without regard to cultural or other
sensitivities.

Cheers,

--
Shane
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20160607/6b3bd0d5/attachment.sig>