[PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's Recommendations for Work-Stream 1

Tue Dec 22 00:34:14 EET 2015

And you accept that one webinar attended by a few people is sufficient
to call consensus?

That is a new one.  All of the decisions made by a small handful of
people should have been subject to explicit review by the entire NCSG
community.  that is what it means for things to be adequately discussed.

The community should have also been offered a chance to attached
dissenting views, a right many of us have relied upon in other situations.

avri

On 21-Dec-15 17:25, Robin Gross wrote:
> This recommendation and the NCSG response was discussed in detail during the NCSG webinar last week that you missed.  There wasn?t support for the position to rubber stamp the recommendation.  There was concern expressed from several members about how such a position would contradict long-held NCSG position on whois.  So it just isn?t accurate (and verifiably so) to say these views were not discussed.
>
> Robin
>
>
>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 2:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I see you included the rejection of Rec 9 even though this was never
>> discussed by the larger group.  I think this was misuse of power and
>> process and strongly object to this mode of operation the PC has adopted..
>>
>> I am sending in a letter of minority dissent.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 21-Dec-15 16:25, avri wrote:
>>> Hi, 
>>>
>>> Did we include the recommendation against incorporating AOC reviews?
>>>
>>> Avri
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>> Date:12/21/2015 4:19 PM (GMT-05:00)
>>> To: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> Cc:
>>> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG comment on the CCWG-Accountability's
>>> Recommendations for Work-Stream 1
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I?ve submitted the NCSG response via the survey, and I received a
>>> notification informing me that a PDF version of the response would be
>>> generated, and posted on the public comment forum within 24 hours. So
>>> I guess I won't submit a duplicate document then.
>>>
>>> I?ll share the link to this list once the NCSG comment is posted.
>>>
>>> Thanks again to everyone.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 8:22 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi yet again,
>>>>
>>>> I haven?t seen anyone raise objections over the past couple of days
>>> on the drafted responses to each of the CCWG?s proposed
>>> recommendations, so I?m calling it. Thanks again to all who
>>> participated in the getting the CCWG to where it is today, and
>>> everyone who was involved in drafting this comment.
>>>> I?m waiting for Robin and Ed to finish cleaning up the comments now.
>>> Once that is done, we?ll be able to submit them via both the
>>> traditional public comment forum, as well as surveymonkey.
>>>> I believe Tapani may be offline and roughing it in some outback
>>> right now, so when the work is done, I?ll go ahead and make the
>>> submissions.
>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>>
>>>>> On Dec 21, 2015, at 3:04 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi again,
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven?t heard from anyone on this, and we only have a few hours
>>> to the deadline. Unless anyone objects to the responses drafted, I
>>> will assume that we at least have rough consensus on endorsing these
>>> as NCSG responses to the proposed recommendations.
>>>>> I am still unclear on how folks would like to submit these. I?m
>>> assuming using the survey is acceptable?
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amr
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 19, 2015, at 7:08 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The deadline to submit a public comment on these recommendations
>>> is coming up in just a little over 48 hours. A number of NCSG members
>>> have done a great job on drafting responses to each of the
>>> recommendations on behalf of the NCSG.
>>>>>> Links to the responses to each of the recommendations can be found
>>> here:
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1TQEH74OPyWWp2hraJ9NDlvW2GezeX3ntqHFOKdkxFYc/edit?pref=2&pli=1.
>>>>>> I?m guessing most members of the NCSG Policy Committee are
>>> familiar with the content on each of the NCSG responses. If you
>>> haven?t read them all, we did have a number of opportunities to go
>>> over them on NCSG policy calls/webinars. If there are any concerns,
>>> please raise them as soon as you can. I?m hoping we can agree on NCSG
>>> endorsement of these by December 21st at UTC 17:00?, just a few hours
>>> before the deadline for submissions.
>>>>>> I also wanted to ask how folks would like to submit the NCSG
>>> response. My understanding is that there is a survey that could be
>>> used to submit the NCSG comments on each of the recommendations.
>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>
>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus