[NCSG-PC] Comment on Red Cross Names in all gtlds

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Ayden,

it is not the council this is a reconvened WG as the board asked to
initiate a GNSO PDP manual mechanism to amend the initial recommendations
approved by the council. motion voted last year for the reconvened WG
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+20+April+2017.
hard to say it is the council overreach...

Best,

Rafik

Le jeu. 26 juil. 2018 à 17:37, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a
écrit :

> Thanks so much for drafting this comment, Farzi.
>
> Overall it looks nearly ready for submission, in my opinion. I think it
> would be useful to elaborate on why second level registrations by third
> parties should be permitted. I found this recommendation a little
> confusing, though I understand your reasoning and think I just don't have
> the background to how it came to be. I couldn't find the original GNSO
> Council decision; was it the GNSO Council that overreached and reserved
> second level names for IGOs?
>
> Best wishes, Ayden
>
>
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On 24 July 2018 9:14 AM, Farell FOLLY <farell at benin2point0.org> wrote:
>
> Dear Farzaneh Badii,
>
> I reviewed your work and you did great as usual.
>
>  Before reading your comments (I didn’t read our report in 2013, sorry), I
> was questioning myself on why one would recommend reservation of those
> names : (191 countries times all names variants) of DNS strings. Quite a
> lot that could never be used. I thought that as NGO/IGO they had a
> discussion with NCSG and NCSG admitted for a special case. I am happy that
> it is not the case.
>
> I have no objection after reading your proposal. Most of my comments were
> about Specification 5, the finite list of identifiers and especially about
> the DNS strings, and whether each country was contacted to validate the DNS
> string computed by the algorithm after they had submitted their “Red Cross
> names”. I have a problem with some if not most.
>
> On a separate note, have we ever planned for a specific strategy in our
> outreaches to target those IGOs so that they have a rep (without a double
> voting capacity - LOL) within NCSG at earlier stage and be included in the
> discussions for the sake of more diversity and inclusiveness, or we just
> always conduct generic outreaches and let any Org to come us?
>
> Have a nice.
>
> @__f_f__
>
> Best Regards
> ____________________________________
>
> Ekue (Farell) FOLLY
> Technology Champion & Chapter Head
> Africa 2.0 Foundation.
> www.africa2point0.org
> linkedin.com/in/farellf
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 23 Jul 2018, at 09:49, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> here we go with another public comment, this time on Red Cross.
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/19xnBgqFoH4eOzgeMQug9y_2oXsCPka6efc9C7TjNQDg/edit
>
>
> We need to share this with the members very soon I think the deadline is
> 31 July.
>
>
> Farzaneh
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180726/71e5f495/attachment.htm>