[PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin
Tue Mar 11 17:43:19 EET 2014
As I have said many times since retirement, there are only two things I miss about working in govt, the cheque and my administrative assistant. I find it hard to keep up with the workload....I think it would help klutzes like me (and it would appear I am in good company here) to have a dashboard of some kind running....
Comments due: ddmmyy OUr brief due: REsponses due: Silence=consent
Principal readers: Joe Smith and Mary Jones
I never go to confluence between calls, but if someone tells me that is how to keep up with this I am willing to try....the email flood I am trying to digest at the moment is simply over the top, way over my capacity to keep up.
But it is very clear that this organization relies on the written word, and if we dont get comments in, we are irrelevant. Nobody cares what we say at the meetings...it is what goes into the documents and contracts that counts. I am in the midst of poring through institutional ethnography techniques, and it appears this has been well studied. So we have only ourselves to blame if we are not on top of it.....forget just getting the briefs in, we need to do analysis of how staff are tossing aside our comments in their summaries. We dont appear to be there yet...unless somebody can point to something that is absolutely brilliant and will cheer me up on this score....
cheers steph
On 2014-03-11, at 11:28 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list