[PC-NCSG] Draft comments to the AoC/Organisational review schedule public comment

Thu Jul 2 19:06:58 EEST 2015

So are we doing individual endorsements as well? Not redundant?

If so feel free to add me?

BD

> On Jul 2, 2015, at 9:45 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> thanks for the edits. I went through the document to resolve edits/comments and format it. it sounds ready now, except for that question made by Stephanie. 
> The document is ready for submission. I am waiting for next hours to see if there is any objection and I will send it just before the deadline and that will be in 9 hours (it is almost midnight here, so if you make substantial changes or edits, I will need time to resolve that.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2015-07-02 23:12 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:
> I put some comments/edits in the document, there is one para that several of us have queried that is still awkward (I cannot figure out quite what we are trying to say) so would suggest the author take another look at it to try to simplify it....review on review after review etc.
> Thanks for the opportunity and kudos to the authors, especially James for initiating!  So much to do at the moment.....
> Stephanie
> 
> 
> On 2015-07-02 8:20, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Thanks Ed. That?s really helpful. I can?t argue with any of your rationale, especially regarding the organisational reviews. I would personally probably also endorse a statement pointing out your views. The only issues I have a strong opinion on here are probably the ATRT and WHOIS review.
> 
> I very much take Avri?s point to heart. If initiation of ATRTs are delayed because there are too many moving parts in ICANN, they?ll never get done.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Jul 2, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
> 
> Hi Amr.
> 
> I've modified my views a bit after thinking a bit about the impact of the accountability reforms on the SOAC's. All of these groups could be very different creatures depending upon the form accountability will take. Will they become legal persons? If so, charters will need to be redone and, in some cases, created. Will there be accountability requirements imposed upon the groups? If so, we may be reviewing an organization much different than what it is to become. I'm not sure how valuable a review would be in that case.
> 
> Initially I was going to suggest a postponement of the ATRT reviews as well, but a post by Avri where she wrote that something was always going on in ICANN-land (my words, not hers) and stressed the importance of the Accountability reviews caused me to reconsider.
> 
> If we are going ahead with the org reviews I do think at large should go first because it arguably has the most to reform and is larger than the other two.
> 
> I'm happy to support a statement with views different than my own because there are a number of reasonable positions on this matter. There is a lot more in the proposed submission that I agree with than not - my own views were submitted in a personal comment so will be represented in the staff report - so do support submission in whatever way you deem appropriate.
> 
> Ed
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jul 2, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Ed. Appreciate the support despite some difference in views? Can I ask why you believe org reviews should be halted? I thought you wanted (at least) for the At-Large review to not be delayed?
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Jul 1, 2015, at 7:45 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
> 
> My views are a bit different than those in the document: basically halt organizational reviews until the ACCT bylaws changes are done but proceed with the ATRT reviews, albeit possibly on a more relaxed schedule. If the organizational reviews are to go forward I would prioritize the at large review given the relative importance of the group to proposed reforms.
> 
> That said, I have no strong objection to the document as is and there is a lot of good stuff in it. Happy for it to go forward if others support it.
> 
> Ed
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the reminder, Rafik. Now would be a good time to start getting comments/endorsements for this. We will need to submit it before July 2nd, UTC 23:59.
> 
> I am generally supportive of the document, but have some concerns. The main one is recommending another WHOIS review at this time when the post-EWG PDP will be starting. It doesn?t make much sense to me to perform a WHOIS review when the WHOIS may change significantly. Also not sure how many volunteers would want to focus on working with a WHOIS review team while the post-EWG PDP is going on.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Jul 1, 2015, at 1:59 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> this is a reminder about the comment to be submitted by NCSG.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 2015-06-29 13:43 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> we got this comment initiated by James https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LLCWNYombphjN5Pxob4IVEXNMjyuNim8YPUNCQVdx3g/edit?usp=sharing <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LLCWNYombphjN5Pxob4IVEXNMjyuNim8YPUNCQVdx3g/edit?usp=sharing> and which received some edits. please review it so NCSG PC can endorse it . the deadline is 2nd July 23:59.
> 
> so please review, comments and help with edits.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150702/8efef607/attachment-0001.html>