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

Avri Doria avri
Mon Jul 6 00:23:53 EEST 2015


good idea

avri

On 05-Jul-15 17:20, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <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
>         >>>>>>> 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
>         >>>>>>
>         >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>         >>>>>> 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 <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>         >> 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
>         >
>         >
>
>
>         ---
>         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 <mailto: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





More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list