[PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements

Avri Doria avri
Tue Mar 11 16:52:55 EET 2014


Hi,


For the last year I tried to interpret/implement it as:

- It has been floated on the NCSG discuss

- At least one person (other than me - as alt-chair i tried to be more 
NCSG neutral than NCUC) from each Constituency says 'for it.'

- No one was screaming against

- and a 24-48+ hours 'speak now if you object'  last call had been held

avri



On 11-Mar-14 09:48, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>>     <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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         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 <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>>         Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>         <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>>>         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