[PC-NCSG] urgent: re IANA survey

[Rudi Vansnick]

Dear Amr,

As Sam Lanfranco is NPOC?s Policy Committee chair, I support the proposals he has put forward and would like to endorse the present version of NCSG response.

Rudi Vansnick
Chair Non-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (NPOC)
www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>

rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32



> Op 26-feb.-2015, om 18:00 heeft Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> 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 <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: Amr Elsadr <ael016 at post.uit.no <mailto: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 <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>>> Cc: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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/20150227/f1f5074b/attachment.html>