[PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
Amr Elsadr
aelsadr
Tue Mar 11 17:56:11 EET 2014
+1
Amr
On Mar 11, 2014, at 4:24 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list