[PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
Avri Doria
avri
Mon Mar 10 17:56:31 EET 2014
Hi,
Wow a genuine dressing down. I'm impressed.
I think there is also a responsibility of the leaders of the group to
get these things. Wendy and I failed to achieve it when it was my turn,
and was hoping the new guys would be better at it.
So which are the 3 that responded. If you are going to use shame, you
might as well use name.
Just to indicate where I am at, started reading one of them got
confused. Asked a question and then got sidetracked to other things.
cheers,
avri
On 10-Mar-14 11:41, Robin Gross wrote:
> I can sympathize with frustration over needing to get comments in on
> behalf of NCSG, but having inadequate engagement from the individual
> representatives of NCSG PC to get the job done.
>
> There are duties and responsibilities that come with being a
> representative of the NCSG PC - including engaging in the process to get
> comments in on behalf of our members. That is what we members elect PC
> representatives to do on our behalf.
>
> If you are a NCSG PC representative, you have an affirmative obligation
> to read and comment on drafts that the PC is asked to endorse.
>
> If PC representatives are not able to meet the responsibilities of being
> a representative on the NCSG PC, he or she should let the chair know, so
> alternative arrangements can be made and members can be represented. We
> cannot go on with this low level of engagement from our PC. It is not
> fair to our members or those who did the drafting.
>
> My 2 cents,
> Robin
>
> On Mar 10, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks to those who have responded and showed support for the
>> statements. Unfortunately, we only got responses from three out of ten
>> NCSG-PC members. I don?t believe this qualifies as ?rough consensus?
>> as defined in the NCSG charter.
>>
>> It?s rather a shame that NCSG members put their time into following
>> these working groups and make an effort to draft comments when
>> feedback is sought only to be ignored by the policy committee. I still
>> believe it is important to submit the drafted comments, and so will
>> seek endorsement by NCUC. I hope we have better luck with responses
>> there than here.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have already supported the P/P questionnaire, and the EWG response,
>>> now I support the T&T position. And thanks to all drafters!!! the
>>> work never stops?.
>>> Stephanie
>>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Rudi,
>>>>
>>>> I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately,
>>>> we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to
>>>> review and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed,
>>>> and we?ve been asking for extensions for all of them. There has only
>>>> been an update to one of them (Translation & Transliteration of
>>>> Contact Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the
>>>> NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us through
>>>> during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others please give
>>>> feedback on this list?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>>
>>>> <NCSG Response to T&T of Contact Info PDP WG Questions.doc>
>>>> <NCSGResponsetoQuestionsfromProxyPrivacyAccrediationWG.docx
>>>> (00629345).docx>
>>>> <Comments of the NCSG to EWG Status Report March 2014.docx>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE
>>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a
>>>>> link to the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>>>>> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so
>>>>> we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rudi Vansnick
>>>>> NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>>> NPOC treasurer
>>>>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>>>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>>>>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Op 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and
>>>>>> indicate their support or not to the statements. we have
>>>>>> statements but they are waiting approval!
>>>>>> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't
>>>>>> think that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements
>>>>>> currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services
>>>>>> Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>>>>> 2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG
>>>>>> status update report
>>>>>> 3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of
>>>>>> Contact Information PDP WG
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual
>>>>>> statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the
>>>>>> responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be endorsed by either an
>>>>>> SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These are very important
>>>>>> statements that constitute the NCSG's official contribution to
>>>>>> PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a
>>>>>> position on them only because we fail to endorse statements
>>>>>> already drafted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I urge you all to read through all three of the statements,
>>>>>> ask questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that
>>>>>> you support or don?t support them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note: There are still more requests for input pending that
>>>>>> have not yet been drafted including the Policy and
>>>>>> Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial
>>>>>> report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list