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

avri doria avri at apc.org
Fri Mar 24 14:35:11 EET 2017 

PS.

In terms of metrics, I was not talking a budget received, I was
referencing the measurement of accomplishments.

How do we do that?

avri


On 24-Mar-17 08:32, avri doria wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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