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

[William Drake]

I don?t have a vote, but on the Google doc expressed support for the integrated model developed by Avri Matt Brenden.

BD

> On Feb 24, 2015, at 7:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
> 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 <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 <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <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 <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 <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 <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

*********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
Internet Governance: The NETmundial Roadmap http://goo.gl/sRR01q
*********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150227/b11a2f9b/attachment-0001.html>