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

[Stephanie Perrin]

Just to be clear, My quibble is just to raise it, I would go with 
Milton's statement.
On 2015-02-23 20:03, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Well Milton has already given them as if they were our opinions, so 
> that would be consistent. but we need to deal failry with the 
> dissenting voices.  Would not do to have out NCSG statement publicly 
> rebuked by those NCSG members who disagree.  Would not be fair to them 
> either.
>
> I will abstain from this decision and accept whatever way it goes.  I 
> have become the saleperson for the Integrated proposal and since these 
> comments endorse that proposal am somewhat cautious of supporting it.
>
> avri
>
> On 24-Feb-15 21:46, 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
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> 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/20150224/29034e29/attachment.html>