[PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements

Tue Mar 11 15:48:48 EET 2014

Hi,

Thanks Rafik. I would appreciate hearing views on wether NCSG-PC members feel that we have achieved rough consensus, or not. I?m a little confused by how ?rough consensus? is defined in the NCSG charter. It states that:

"while all members do not need to agree and that no single member can veto a decision, all views must be heard and considered. Any minority views must be recorded along with the rough consensus position."

This definition doesn?t exactly make it easy in the event that no view is provided at all. It also does not clearly define a period of time or deadlines for response. Does no view at this point = no objection? If it does, then I would like to go ahead and ask the NCSG Chair or the NCSG-PC Chair to submit the statements as NCSG statements. If not, I would like to know so that I could proceed to attempt to seek NCUC endorsement.

I have attached the latest drafts to this email.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 11, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Maria,
> 
> I suggested y to get views from PC members by monday since we need to send the drafts and know if PC members approve or disagree with statements.
> is it possible to make the last call and get response from the PC members who didn't respond?
> Thanks to Avri, Stephanie, Amr and you who replied already.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 
> 2014-03-07 23:58 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com>:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140311/46eafc54/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG Response to T&T of Contact Info PDP WG Questions.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 55296 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/46eafc54/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/46eafc54/attachment-0005.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSGResponsetoQuestionsfromProxyPrivacyAccrediationWG.docx (00629345).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 37164 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/46eafc54/attachment-0002.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/46eafc54/attachment-0006.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Comments of the NCSG to EWG Status Report March 2014.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 42076 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/46eafc54/attachment-0003.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/46eafc54/attachment-0007.html>