[PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements

Robin Gross robin
Tue Mar 11 17:24:39 EET 2014


Given lack of engagement, we should discuss if this practice makes sense or if it is unduly hampering the SG's ability to get its work done:

> - 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.'



On Mar 11, 2014, at 7:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> 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
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/4169d3b6/attachment.sig>



More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list