[PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements

Tue Mar 11 15:08:09 EET 2014

Hi Rudi,

I am really confused by your response:

NPOC?s policy committee is reviewing the documents. So far, we did not see
> important changes to the presented position statements.
>

what kind of changes you were expecting? do you mean that you already made
some comments to the drafts?
we have 3 statements drafted which were shared , and we need to submit them
asap since we are already after the deadline . when the NPOC PC will
respond exactly?

Being involved in the Translation/transliteration WG, we have delayed the
> responses for a few extra weeks as we are still expecting a lot of replies
> to our query.
>

I thought that any WG want to get answers quickly from community to get
guidance, so delaying doesn't make so much sense IMHO. or do you mean that
WG extended the questionnaire period? because I didn't see any announcement
on that matter.

Best,

Rafik

>  NPOC treasurer
> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
> www.npoc.org
>
> Op 7-mrt.-2014, om 15:58 heeft Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM>
> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I personally
> support all of them and am sorry that my workload this week has been too
> frantic to allow me to contribute.
>
> I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy and proxy
> document, details attached below in bold and strikethrough, if there is
> time to revise them. (but these two points are not deal breakers if there
> is not time.)
>
> All the best, Maria
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <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
>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>> www.npoc.org
>>
>> Op 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <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>:
>>
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>
>>
> <maria farrell p&p comments.docx>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/a7da1b6a/attachment.html>