[NCSG-PC] [URGENT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review

Ayden Férdeline icann at ferdeline.com
Fri Mar 24 14:10:21 EET 2017 

Hi,

In the budgetary questions document, I have sought to ascertain precisely what support At-Large receives (and the level of support provided to each stakeholder group in the GNSO), and in the comments you put forward your opposition to these metrics being requested in relation to At-Large. If we do not have metrics I accept that we cannot definitively say if we receive a fraction of the support that they do, so it will be useful to have the Finance department provide us with figures.

Personally, I do not see the sentence below as controversial and I do think the sentiment is accurate, if ineloquently put. If anyone has suggested wording for how that paragraph can be rephrased please do come forward with it. Thanks!

Best wishes,

Ayden

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 12:00 pm, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote: Hi,

Thank you for accepting most of the edits.

I read through it again since I could not find the notes on the edits
you did not accept. Found 2 more typos while doing it that I have
suggested edits for.

Also I see you retained:

> *We are hesitant to note - but feel an obligation to lay this fact on
> the table - that the NCSG accomplishes as much, if not more, than
> At-Large does, while receiving only a fraction of the support.*

to which I commented:

This is boastful, and unverifiable. I wonder if it is true. And wonder
what the metrics are for determining this.Also as pointed out a few
times in terms of budget, the ALC/At-Large is the equivalent,
organizationally of G-Council and GSNO. I think it adds nothing but
fight to the note. . If budgets and output are to be compared, that
would be a more appropriate comparison.Not that I recommend saying that
either. It is not a competition.

In any case, as an observer, at this point will not object to this
comment as currently offered.

Avri

On 24-Mar-17 04:32, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
> Thank you for the edits, Avri. I have accepted nearly all of them, and
> commented in the document where I have not.
>
> I would now like to collect individual PC signatories [Observers are
> welcome to sign on, too].
>
> Unless I hear objections otherwise, I propose that if 2/3 of PC
> members sign on, this statement be adopted as the NCSG statement. If
> it is not adopted, those who express their support on the list now
> will be named as signatories, and of course non-PC members may sign on
> too. Thanks.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden
>
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:00 am, avri doria <avri at apc.org
> <mailto:avri at apc.org>> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I thank you taking on the thankless task of writing the first draft. As
>> you know I had many issues with that first draft, and do believe I was
>> specific about what those were.
>>
>> In any case, the rework Stephanie did has made it much easier for me to
>> not object (i know i don't have a vote, just a voice). I have layered
>> some more edits on Stephanie's revision. While I still do not agree
>> with everything it says, I know that the things I have problems with are
>> things others in the NCSG probably support and do not have an objection
>> to them, though in some cases I have tried to make it a bit more
>> diplomatic.
>>
>> I hope my suggested edits are acceptable.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 23-Mar-17 19:09, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>> > The statement is still a work in progress, and is not complete. I will
>> > continue working on it tonight, and encourage others to share feedback
>> > on how they believe it should be edited so they are comfortable
>> with it.
>> >
>> > Whether or not the PC endorses it is a discussion to be had tomorrow,
>> > once it is in a more complete stage. Certainly I would hope an
>> > endorsement was forthcoming, but if it isn't, I also understand that
>> > is a possible outcome.
>> >
>> > If people would like to have a substantive discussion on the comments,
>> > it would actually make it a lot easier to write so please feel free to
>> > do so... :-)
>> >
>> > That said, if someone does not wish to endorse the comments, it would
>> > be helpful to know specifically what within the text they do not
>> support.
>> >
>> > Yes, these comments have been written quickly and there has not been
>> > much time for discussion, but we do not have a documented process for
>> > seeking the PC's endorsement and I have been on the PC for fewer than
>> > 3 months. Until such time as there is a process, all I can do is
>> > propose text in the hopes that others will jump in and offer
>> > constructive thoughts on a different direction to be taken, if
>> > applicable.
>> >
>> > Ayden
>> >
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > From: matthew shears <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>>
>> > Date: On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 10:27 pm
>> > Subject: Fwd: Re: Fwd: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
>> > To: PC-NCSG <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>> > <mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>,Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>> > <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>> > CC:
>> >>
>> >> Hi all
>> >>
>> >> I am conscious of the impending deadline for these comments
>> >> (tomorrow). I recognize that Ayden has put time and thought into
>> >> proposing comments for NCSG's consideration. This said, we have had
>> >> no substantive discussion of these comments and their merit on the
>> >> list or in the PC, nor have we had, realistically, sufficient time to
>> >> do so. Because of this I do not feel that I, as a member of the PC,
>> >> can endorse these comments for NCSG.
>> >>
>> >> The NCSG PC should have a better process in place for ensuring that
>> >> there is time to do so in the future and we will, hopefully, be
>> >> rectifying this promptly.
>> >>
>> >> Matthew
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 23/03/2017 11:33, matthew shears wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hello PC
>> >>>
>> >>> Teeing this up as comments are due tomorrow. Please review these
>> >>> suggested inputs carefully.
>> >>>
>> >>> Related docs can be found here.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en
>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Your thoughts/suggestions in the google doc (below) are appreciated
>> >>> asap.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks.
>> >>>
>> >>> Matthew
>> >>>
>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>> >>> Subject: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
>> >>> Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:52:33 -0400
>> >>> From: Ayden Férdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM>
>> >>> Reply-To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> >>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Greetings all,
>> >>>
>> >>> I have drafted up on Google Docs
>> >>>
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>
>>
>> >>> some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of the
>> >>> At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd welcome
>> >>> your feedback on what arguments should be refined, what I might have
>> >>> missed, or what we might want to remain silent on. I'm not happy
>> >>> with it at the moment, but I figured it would be better to get some
>> >>> words down onto paper, and we can refine this together... so please
>> >>> take a read of the proposed statement here
>> >>>
>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>,
>>
>> >>> with the understanding that it's definitely a work-in-progress. And
>> >>> please share your thoughts, either in the document itself or on this
>> >>> mailing list!
>> >>>
>> >>> Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to get
>> >>> this together unfortunately. You can read the draft report here
>> >>>
>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf>
>> (PDF
>> >>> link) if you haven't seen it already.
>> >>>
>> >>> /A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG mailing
>> >>> list: this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not been endorsed
>> >>> yet by the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will likely change between
>> >>> now and the time it is submitted (if it is submitted)./
>> >>>
>> >>> Best wishes,
>> >>>
>> >>> Ayden Férdeline
>> >>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>> >>> Virus-free. www.avg.com
>> >>>
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> ------------
>> >> Matthew Shears
>> >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> >> + 44 771 2472987
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > NCSG-PC mailing list
>> > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

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

_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170324/60f3109d/attachment.htm>

More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list