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

Mon Jul 6 00:20:52 EEST 2015

Hi everyone,

while we got the extension to 8th july, I assume there was no changes in
the latest version. I will submit the comment today to close this task.

Best,

Rafik

2015-07-03 6:37 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> Hi,
> It sounds that the public comment period was extended to 8th july
> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-07-02-en
>
> Rafik
> On Jul 3, 2015 3:36 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150706/970ca940/attachment-0001.html>