[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