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

Fri Mar 24 17:08:37 EET 2017

I support.

Steph

On 2017-03-24 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170324/e1b9365e/attachment.htm>