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

avri doria avri at apc.org
Fri Mar 24 14:32:21 EET 2017 

Hi,

In case it was not obvious, my suggestion is the deletion, not rewrite,
of the sentence.

Thank you

avri


On 24-Mar-17 08:10, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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


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

More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list