[PC-NCSG] Revised Version of NCUC Response to the Thick Whois PDP WG Questions

[Robin Gross]

I am perfectly fine with this going out as NCUC statement that NCSG  
subsequently endorses.

My point is simply that we are not going to let inaction by some  
members of the PC prevent the NCSG from getting its work done  
(including making statements).  The burden and responsibility is on  
the PC members to engage (or be replaced by those they represent).   
Either way, NCSG work goes forward.

Thanks,
Robin


On Jan 15, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I also said I supported it with edits (which you did) on the NCSG- 
> PC list.
>
> Even if i was recommending the NCUC put it out and the NCSG endorse  
> it.
>
> avri
>
> On 15 Jan 2013, at 13:17, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
>> Hi Robin,
>>
>> I couldn't find a Web-archive for the PC mail list, so I had no  
>> way of knowing what discussions were taking place. I'm pretty sure  
>> my emails aren't getting through to the PC since I am not  
>> authorized to post messages there, so my thinking was pretty much  
>> in line with Avri's.
>>
>> The only PC members I saw indicating that they support this  
>> statement are Wendy, Mary and yourself on the NCSG-discuss list.  
>> That's just three out of ten (including our reps on the council).
>>
>> Alain had previously indicated that he is in favor of a joint NCUC/ 
>> NPOC response, but I have not heard from him or Marie-Laure (or  
>> anyone from NPOC) since.
>>
>> I would personally prefer an NCSG statement to NCUC, especially  
>> since it appears we cannot count on anyone else's support (at  
>> least so far). I was hoping ALAC would provide a different  
>> response, or at least a minority view that is opposed to their  
>> more popular ones. I'll keep my fingers crossed pending feedback  
>> from registries and registrars.
>>
>> In any case, if we have an extension to the 23rd, then we have a  
>> little more time. I would be more than glad to change the  
>> statement to an NCSG response instead of NCUC if so advised.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Jan 15, 2013, at 8:51 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>
>>> All NCSG-PC members have a responsibility to read these documents  
>>> and participate in these discussions that formulate NCSG  
>>> positions.  We are not going to say we don't have a NCSG  
>>> statement because some members of the PC have not voiced any  
>>> opinion, when they have been asked and been given time to do so.   
>>> We must have PC members paying attention and voicing their  
>>> views.  Silence will be taken as agreement.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 15, 2013, at 10:23 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I think it is safest to send it out as a NCUC stmt and to send  
>>>> an NCSG stmt endorsing it if we are sure we have the endorsement.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I do not want to take a chance of having someone  
>>>> state that their constituency never agreed to it.  So I would  
>>>> like for the NCSG-PC endorsement to be explicit.  Ie. whoever is  
>>>> our PC Chair to do a rough consensus call and explicitly ask the  
>>>> members of the NCSG-PC to support a specific stmt.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15 Jan 2013, at 13:10, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why isn't this going out as NCSG statement as was discussed on  
>>>>> the NCSG PC list yesterday?
>>>>>
>>>>> No NCSG-PC members objected to its content in the timeframe  
>>>>> given, so I thought it was to be a NCSG statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 15, 2013, at 1:01 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've attached a copy of the answers revised for consistency in  
>>>>>> the language used as requested. Mainly to make sure that the  
>>>>>> responses are consistently from NCUC, not NCSG (except for  
>>>>>> references to the NCSG email list and Policy Committee) in  
>>>>>> addition to consistencies in the use of upper and lower case  
>>>>>> letters and so forth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless there are any reasons to the contrary, I think this  
>>>>>> document can be forwarded to Glen as NCUC's response to the  
>>>>>> WG's questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amr<thick Whois - SG - C Input Template - Final 5 December  
>>>>>> 2012 - NCUC Response.doc>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IP JUSTICE
>>>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>>>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>>>>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>>>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IP JUSTICE
>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130115/ab4bb29f/attachment-0001.html>