[PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin
Mon Mar 10 19:45:52 EET 2014
I responded and I also did some of the drafting, so I feel a little self congratulatory, particularly since I wrote some of the chunks of the EWG report to which we are responding. So my conscience is clear as a policy committee member, from a contribution side, but maybe not from a conflict of interest side :-)
Stephanie
On 2014-03-10, at 11:56 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list