[PC-NCSG] Fwd: urgent: re IANA survey

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Amr,

endorsed

Rafik


2015-02-27 2:00 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi,
>
> This version is consistent with the one I believe Sam, Ed and I endorsed.
> Matt also indicated his support of it in the AC room chat of the webinar
> that just ended. Would be good to hear from everyone else as soon as
> possible in order to send it to the CWG-Stewardship at the earliest
> opportunity.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Amr
>
> On Feb 26, 2015, at 5:54 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Amr Elsadr <ael016 at post.uit.no>
> *Subject: **Re: urgent: re IANA survey*
> *Date: *February 26, 2015 at 5:53:07 PM GMT+1
> *To: *NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Cc: *NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>
> Hi,
>
> We just had a very constructive webinar in which Avri presented the latest
> version of the NCSG response to the questions in the IANA survey, as well
> as the Integrated Model she has been working on along with Matthew Shears
> and Brenden Kuerbis. There are policy committee members who?ve already
> shown support for two versions of the responses to the IANA survey. I am
> considering this the final version. It has already received some
> endorsements. Unless there is significant opposition to this going out
> (both on this list and the policy committee list) as the NCSG response to
> the survey questions, I?m going to ask Avri to send it to the
> CWG-Stewardship.
>
> I would like to point out that we have quite a few members who are putting
> in a lot of time and effort into representing the NCSG on the IANA
> Stewardship Transition CWG and ICANN Accountability CCWG. This is sincerely
> appreciated, and the NCSG Policy Committee should do everything it can to
> support you all.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> <NCSGresponsetothenineCWGquestions.pdf>
>
>
> On Feb 26, 2015, at 3:50 PM, Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at YORKU.CA> wrote:
>
> Milton,
>
> I would suggest that NCSG not only give some members "the pen" to work on
> documents, but assign "a gavel" to one member who can first warn of
> deadlines, and then pound the gavel and say "document closed and sent".
> Many of the nuances that are important don't really get carved in stone
> when documents are tabled and get struggled with in the ongoing processes.
> It is better to submit a more-or-less consensus document with a few warts
> to be struggled over later, than to submit no document at all.
>
> Sam L.
>
> On 26/02/2015 9:32 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Well, the CWG meeting discussing the surveys was this morning. Early.
> I wasn't able to attend, so maybe someone else can tell us whether we
> missed the boat.
> Probably so. This is very frustrating.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150227/3d3989bb/attachment.html>