[PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] My answers to the CWG-IANA questions

[Matthew Shears]

I concur Amr.

On 2/24/2015 1:46 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just sent a response to the discuss list before reading these emails. 
> I certainly agree that the responses need to be (or at least appear to 
> be) consolidated. Right now, they kind of seem all over the place.
>
> We have no SOP detailed in our charter on how to achieve rough 
> consensus on the policy committee. I would like to think that the PC 
> members take into consideration what they?ve heard from members before 
> deciding what to endorse as NCSG input to a process, and what not to.
>
> My suggestion would be to send in Milton?s initial responses. That is 
> my view, because I personally largely agree with them, in addition to 
> numerous members indicating their agreement.
>
> There are other comments provided in the google doc, that aren?t 
> necessarily in conflict with Milton?s. If anyone would like to work on 
> consolidating them, they?re welcome to have a go at it. At some point, 
> the PC members will need a hard deadline to show support or lack of. 
> Avri?, can you give guidance on when we need to submit these comments?
>
> Lastly, in term of the dissenting/conflicting comments; as far as I 
> can tell, there hasn?t been much support for them unless I?ve missed 
> something. They seem to be the views of only one NCSG member, who is 
> also a member of the CWG representing ALAC. His views are consistent 
> with theirs, and the ALAC and NCSG views have been notoriously 
> conflicting since the CWG started its discussions. I see no need 
> whatsoever in NCSG being required to include the ALAC view in its 
> responses. I?m pretty sure they won?t include ours.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Feb 24, 2015, at 2:12 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org 
> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:
>
>> I am comfortable with Milton's answers as supported by numerous +1s.  
>> Of course there are some dissenting views.  Not sure what the 
>> mechanisms are for taking this forward.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> On 2/24/2015 12:09 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> So how we get a coherent set of answers at this point is beyond me.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I am too close at the moment.
>>>
>>> Somehow we need to come up with a single answer, not sure there is 
>>> much value in sending in a mixed view.  I do not see a single view 
>>> at this point.  But perhaps others can see one.
>>>
>>> Chair how do you want to handle this?
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 24-Feb-15 07:51, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> As I had indicated earlier, I had been collecting responses in a 
>>>> Drive doc:
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U72dVBIuwU3eq8K1e3DWstXNZLOCpcB4YFvKmqHCHQ0/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>
>>>> No one has  commented there in a few days, though we have seen some 
>>>> +1s on the list for Milton's position
>>>>
>>>> I am copying the NCSG Policy Committee on this asking what they 
>>>> want to do.  A few of people have stood up for Milton's responses 
>>>> perhaps with a few quibbles, and he did already offer them as the 
>>>> NCSG positon in the live session.  On the other hand a few people 
>>>> have indicated some disagreement with his responses.
>>>>
>>>> While it is late, responses could still be submitted.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150224/2fff31c5/attachment.html>