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

Thu Jul 2 21:36:12 EEST 2015

Hi,

I just made some changes to that papra.

hope it makes sense now.

avri

On 02-Jul-15 10:12, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> 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> 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> 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>
>>>>> 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> 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> 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>:
>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we got this comment initiated by James
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus