[PC-NCSG] [Deadline for comments 9/9] Re: pre-warning draft comment to gTLD subsequent procedure WG
Dr. Tatiana Tropina
t.tropina
Mon Oct 24 13:57:14 EEST 2016
Niels,
This email only for you and PC list. I understand your frustration, but
I advise you to check the "final" google doc that you send before
blaming the PC to find the answers to your questions. The document still
has unresolved comments, like those from Milton starting with "I don't
get this" and they are neither cleaned nor deleted, thus I gather they
are not addressed. Therefore, since we are not those who draft the
comments, we can do very little if the document is not finalised.
We as a PC are not supposed to clean the documents with unresolved
issues when the document were not initiated by us, I assume. I hope this
answers you question "why".
Warm regards
Tanya
On 24/10/16 12:36, Niels ten Oever wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Is it true that this has not been picked up by the Policy Committee and
> this has not been submitted?
>
> I think that would be a real pity of all the work people have put into
> this, and I think it's worth to still process it. If not, I would like
> to understand why.
>
> Best,
>
> Niels
>
> On 09/19/2016 03:32 AM, Vidushi Marda wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Here is the final version of the NCSG comment to the gTLD Subsequent
>> Procedures WG:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1IC7-KJz12XuDBFeEYiDMoh8I1ibks_McW0XqHh_nw/edit#.
>> All comments have been addressed and resolved. Hoping that the policy
>> committee can pick this up now.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Vidushi
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From: *vidushi at cis-india.org
>> *To: *vidushi at CIS-INDIA.ORG
>> *Cc: *NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> *Sent: *Monday, September 19, 2016 11:06:35 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [Deadline for comments 9/9] Re: pre-warning draft comment
>> to gTLD subsequent procedure WG
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Here is the final version of the NCSG comment to the gTLD Subsequent
>> Procedures WG:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1IC7-KJz12XuDBFeEYiDMoh8I1ibks_McW0XqHh_nw/edit#.
>> All comments have been addressed and resolved. Hoping that the policy
>> committee can pick this up now.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Vidushi
>>
>> ----- On Sep 6, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Vidushi Marda <vidushi at CIS-INDIA.ORG>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I think the idea of deadlines for comments work well. Thanks for the
>> suggestion Farzi.
>>
>> Can we make the last day for comments/feedback on the doc this
>> Friday the 9th? That way we should be able to send in the doc by
>> next week after incorporating them.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Vidushi
>>
>> ----- On Sep 5, 2016, at 7:01 AM, Michael Oghia
>> <mike.oghia at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>
>> +1 Farzi
>>
>> -Michael
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 5:18 PM, farzaneh badii
>> <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Vidushi and Niels,
>> I think your document will benefit from more referencing to
>> the actual policies you are talking about. Also as Tatiana
>> pointed out you need to resolve the comments first. I
>> suggest set a deadline for people to comment, then resolve
>> those comments and then send it out to policy committee.
>> This is what we did in the past and worked out well.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>> On 4 September 2016 at 14:33, Tatiana Tropina
>> <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com
>> <mailto:tatiana.tropina at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Niels and all,
>> some of the comments in the google doc (e.g. Avri's
>> comments) require further work and/or clarification,
>> don't think the document can be sent to the PC as it is.
>> Thanks!
>> Tatiana
>>
>> On 4 September 2016 at 14:30, Niels ten Oever
>> <lists at digitaldissidents.org
>> <mailto:lists at digitaldissidents.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> This document has now been reviewed and commented on
>> by several people,
>> perhaps the policy committee can pick this up?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>> On 08/30/2016 07:43 PM, Vidushi Marda wrote:
>> > Dear All,
>> >
>> > Please find the first draft comment to the gTLD
>> Subsequent Procedure WG at this link:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1IC7-KJz12XuDBFeEYiDMoh8I1ibks_McW0XqHh_nw/edit?usp=sharing
>> >
>> > While the request was extremely detailed with six
>> subjects and specific questions under each, due to
>> paucity of time, this draft only discusses over
>> arching human rights concerns.
>> >
>> > I look forward to your feedback and comments.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Vidushi
>> >
>> > ----- On Aug 26, 2016, at 7:57 PM, Kathy Kleiman
>> kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM
>> <mailto:kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Niels,
>> >>
>> >> I think this idea is a very good one. I have been
>> worried that we did
>> >> not submit a comment to the New gTLD Subsequent
>> Procedures Working
>> >> Group, especially on Community Groups. A few
>> weeks ago, Avri was kind
>> >> enough to answer my questions about this, and
>> encourage our NCSG
>> >> participation. I think it is the perfect time to
>> submit a comment --
>> >> even a little late!
>> >>
>> >> But quick note, at least in the US, next week is
>> big end of summer
>> >> vacation week and traditionally very quiet.
>> Perhaps allowing a week for
>> >> comment would enable more people to participate.
>> >>
>> >> Best and tx to you, Vidushi and the CCWP HR,
>> >>
>> >> Kathy
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 8/26/2016 7:50 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>> >>> Dear all,
>> >>>
>> >>> I hope this e-mail finds you all well. We just
>> had a very productive
>> >>> call of the CCWP HR in which we discussed
>> several issues in which the
>> >>> gTLD Subsequenty Procedures WG impacts human
>> rights (community priority
>> >>> procedure, how 'community' is defined, lack of
>> gTLD applications from
>> >>> the global south, etc).
>> >>>
>> >>> I am aware that the first official input/comment
>> period of this WG is
>> >>> over, but I think if we would send something in
>> it might still be
>> >>> considered, especially since the NCSG did not
>> send comment yet.
>> >>>
>> >>> Vidushi has graciously offered to do the
>> drafting, also based on the
>> >>> report she initially drafted and which was
>> accepted as CCWP HR document [0].
>> >>>
>> >>> So this is an early warning that you'll receive
>> a draft comment on
>> >>> Tuesday, if we want to it to be considered I
>> think we would need to
>> >>> submit it rather switfly, that's why I am
>> sending this pre-warning so
>> >>> you know you can excpect it. Stay tuned :)
>> >>>
>> >>> All the best,
>> >>>
>> >>> Niels
>> >>>
>> >>> [0]
>> >>>
>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53772653/4.CCWP-HR%20Jurisdiction.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1467180138000&api=v2
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>>
>> --
>> Niels ten Oever
>> Head of Digital
>>
>> Article 19
>> www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org>
>>
>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
>>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list