[NCSG-PC] Public comments review - Urgent

Thu Apr 19 04:28:10 EEST 2018

Hi Dorothy,

Thanks for the message and comment. Thanks again for the draft. your
comments are always welcomed and respect, nobody should feel unheard or
ignored, and if it is the case, it should be remedied.
As I see concerns, I am holding off sending the comment for now (we got an
extension to this Friday). I don't agree with the last conclusion but that
is not the matter here anyway.

With regard to the comment and to put context for everyone, there was a
discussion in google doc about changes as some were rejected. I understand
the argument that we should have a short comment. In the end, the issue is
not about substance itself as there is no disagreement in the content.  I
interpreted this as a question of styles and "tastes" regarding how a
comment should be shaped and since there is not really a single right
answer. From my personal point of view, it was not a big deal.

however, my concern is we got things too personally and maybe with pride.
When we have a draft, there is an expectation that can be changed and
modified when reviewed by the group.  We work by consensus and usually,
penholders try to resolve comments and accommodate inputs from others as
much as possible so we can share the ownership of the document. My question
for some comments or actions, are they really something you want to fight
hard for or not? if the response is no, we can live with the proposed
change and move on. I suggested that we keep comments and suggestions open
for a while so others can weigh in.

I take the responsibility and blame that I failed to find a common ground
here between the 2 sides of concern expressed in the google doc comment and
failed to act in time to finalize the comment. I am putting the versions of
comments so people can have a better idea about the difference and people
select which version (version 1 or version 2) we should send, we have 24
hours to do so.

Best,

Rafi*k*

2018-04-19 5:25 GMT+09:00 dorothy g <dgdorothydg at gmail.com>:

> Rafiq,  I believe we have now included language which is standard to any
> due diligence process and described a process already made explicit in the
> background documentation relating to the uniform screening process.
> Repeating it makes it look like we did not read the background documents
> and/or we are not familiar with how these processes work. In my view this
> is unfortunate.  I deliberately did not revert within the time period you
> gave because I am an observer on this group and I appreciate your workload
> issues.  Needless to say please do not associate me in anyway with that
> comment. I now understand better how the dynamic of these comments work and
> why so few people volunteer.
> best regards
>
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> [observer here]
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> Fully aware of being an observer of this group, I will reiterate what I
>> said on NCSG list
>> The NCAP was a real challenge and I don't think I did well on it, would
>> not submit as it was
>> I will continue to try and collaborate with other comments and possible
>> find more feasible ones to collaborate
>>
>> Since I submitted it though, it had contributions which I'm grateful for
>> so it is up to the PC NCSG where to take it
>>
>> I'm also aware that nothing what I had proposed is in the shortened
>> version but then again wouldn't expect that as the power is with the PC to
>> decide what to carry on to the final comment or not.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Renata
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 2:40 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks all, I think the comment for uniform screening process is ready
>>> and if there is no strong objection within the next 12 hours I will submit
>>> it. I attached the latest version.
>>> continuing to work on NCAP comment
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>> 2018-04-17 19:58 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:
>>>
>>>> I commented on two.  I cannot seem to get back into the integrity
>>>> screening one....I think our preamble, if it mentions the prescursor to the
>>>> NCUC, should name it.  Here is the name
>>>>
>>>> NCDNHC       Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency
>>>>
>>>> I added it to the reserve fund comment but not the other
>>>>
>>>> cheers steph
>>>>
>>>> On 2018-04-17 04:24, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks all, I will try to resolve the comments and taking into account
>>>> the suggestion to shorten the NCAP comment
>>>>  those who didn't review yet, please do asap.
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>> 2018-04-17 1:49 GMT+09:00 Farell FOLLY <farell at benin2point0.org>:
>>>>
>>>>> I have reviewed the NCAP comment and I am more or less aligned with
>>>>> the idea that it can be brief since there is nothing substantial we are
>>>>> pointing out.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that the penholder intends to raise an issue about
>>>>> Intellectual Property, but I am not getting the right point. I suggested to
>>>>> point out a use case to explain and we can see whether the issue is already
>>>>> covered in the proposed project plan or not. I can see that most of the
>>>>> points we’re raising in our draft are already taken into account. At the
>>>>> end, I made some inputs to format the document, if we were to be longer or
>>>>> consider adopting it in state.
>>>>>
>>>>> @__f_f__
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards
>>>>> ____________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY
>>>>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head
>>>>> Africa 2.0 Foundation.
>>>>> farell at benin2point0.org
>>>>> www.africa2point0.org
>>>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf
>>>>> twitter.com/@__f_f__
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16 Apr 2018, at 09:19, Farell FOLLY <farell at benin2point0.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Rafik,
>>>>>
>>>>> I will try and review some by today or no later than tomorrow.
>>>>>
>>>>> @__f_f__
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards
>>>>> ____________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY
>>>>> Technology Champion & Chapter Head
>>>>> Africa 2.0 Foundation.
>>>>> farell at benin2point0.org
>>>>> www.africa2point0.org
>>>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf
>>>>> twitter.com/@__f_f__
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 14 Apr 2018, at 03:44, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> we have several draft comments in pipeline and they need PC review.
>>>>> some may need some rework.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    - *Draft Project Plan for the Proposed Name Collision Analysis
>>>>>    Project*
>>>>>    <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ncap-project-plan-2018-03-02-en>
>>>>>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jwK6ik8VgMjM26Q
>>>>>    UFcSmA0y9hBASmxMAGupnvvDSe2A/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jwK6ik8VgMjM26QUFcSmA0y9hBASmxMAGupnvvDSe2A/edit?usp=sharing> ,
>>>>>    the dealdine is the 18th April
>>>>>    - Uniform Board Member Integrity Screening Process
>>>>>    <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/board-integrity-screening-2018-03-02-en>
>>>>>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YS4ZCtcD_dOlP6va
>>>>>    1aInp0XuS4l7tunhQBgdFzMhuqo/edit
>>>>>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YS4ZCtcD_dOlP6va1aInp0XuS4l7tunhQBgdFzMhuqo/edit>
>>>>>    , the deadline is the 17th April
>>>>>    - ICANN Reserve Fund: Proposed Replenishment Strategy
>>>>>    <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/reserve-fund-replenishment-2018-03-06-en>
>>>>>     https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cfjgDFI7KTPmxS9
>>>>>    _KLkIDHvtmoyRvNR6vlLsK-_l-2U/edit
>>>>>    <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cfjgDFI7KTPmxS9_KLkIDHvtmoyRvNR6vlLsK-_l-2U/edit>
>>>>>    deadline is the 25th April
>>>>>
>>>>> I expect that all PC members to review and help finalizing the
>>>>> comments with due diligeance. thanks to those who did already.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20180419/2a6d97e8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Uniform Board Member Integrity Screening Process - NCSG Comment.docx version 1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 13245 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180419/2a6d97e8/attachment.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Uniform Board Member Integrity Screening Process - NCSG Comment.docx - version 2.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 11061 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180419/2a6d97e8/attachment-0001.docx>