[PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements

Avri Doria avri
Tue Mar 11 17:28:42 EET 2014


Hi,

Someone has to drive the process for it to work.  And I failed lots of 
times, but did manage to get support.

i do recommend you get NCUC support using whatever mechanism NCUC uses 
these days.

I think it is always good to do them in parallel.

avri


On 11-Mar-14 11:26, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Thanks Avri,
>
> Maybe we should discuss this at more length either here or at the PC
> meeting in Singapore.
>
> We do have support from one NCUC-appointed PC member (Stephanie), but
> none from NPOC. So if we use that method to achieve consensus, we don?t
> have it yet, with no guarantees of having it soon.
>
> The documents have been submitted for over a week now. I?m personally
> only willing to wait a few more hours, but then plan to float the
> comments on the NCUC list for endorsement later this evening.
>
> I wish folks who have been silent would speak up and let us know how we
> could make this process easier in the future.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 11, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG
> <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>> 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>
>>> <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>
>>>> <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>
>>>>    <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><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><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/><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><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>
>>>>>>        <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><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><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><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><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
>




More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list