[NCSG-PC] O.com comment

Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Tue Jun 19 10:56:41 EEST 2018


Hi,

comments are considered if the extension is requested beforehand and before
staff starts working on the report. they can reject the request of course,
or accept the extension and follow-up about its submission.
I don't concur with you about the characterization as "unprofessional"
since several groups like BC and others ask regularly for an extension, or
with your conclusion regarding our comment inclusion. last budget comment
was submitted before the deadline, we have to review staff report to ensure
inclusion.
there are only 6 open public comments now.
we got a draft, people can add what they think missing and try o edit. we
are asking for few days and it is likely to get granted. I am for trying
till the end. but I don't see how we can finalize one in 24 hours without
some discussion.

Best,

Rafik

Le mar. 19 juin 2018 à 16:48, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a
écrit :

> Hi,
>
> I have thought about this further and think we should just meet the
> deadline. It is unprofessional to request an extension, and I think this is
> a large reason why many of our comments do not make the staff report for a
> particular public comment (along with bias). I’m not sure there is any
> obligation to consider our comments when they are submitted after the
> deadline, nor should there be, and given there are another 10 comments
> closing over the next month, we should just get this one out of the way.
>
> Best,
>
> Ayden
>
> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 05:24, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> while I know that several people will be flying to Panama, I don't think
> they will be offline :) I will ask for an extension and see staff reaction
> first as they factor in their response when they have to start working on
> the report. so we can get an extension to Friday or later on. the extension
> at least gives time to inform the membership about the draft if not
> possible to get input.
>
> as I shared, we got some draft that we can work on and add elements
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1l9YFvDr_RGV0poMcqzdWFB2szGznV0orpIWyPuNVn-o/edit
> .
>
> best,
>
> Rafik
>
> Le lun. 18 juin 2018 à 23:47, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> I suggest that our comment on this issue includes the following points:
>>
>> - we support to move forward with the auction of o.com
>>
>> - we support having the funds support the public good of the Internet
>> community, with capacity building having a broad and inclusive definition
>>
>> I would like to see these auction funds going to support the kind of
>> activities that benefit all of the ICANN community, particularly capacity
>> building initiatives *that work* and allow our members to engage more at
>> the national and regional level in broader Internet governance activities
>> that directly and indirectly benefit ICANN (i.e. make this a trust fund to
>> support CROP).
>>
>> I don't know how feasible an extension is. The deadline is Wednesday, and
>> given many NCSG members will be offline for at least the next week (and we
>> know sometimes, a week after a meeting), we're going to need an extension
>> of a minimum of two weeks, maybe three. Perhaps we should just try to meet
>> this deadline?
>>
>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>
>>
>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>> On 18 June 2018 4:38 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I will go through it. I think we need an extension.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:34 AM Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Is this comment coming together, or should I draft one? I note the
>>> deadline is in two days time...
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Ayden
>>>
>>>
>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>> On 10 June 2018 2:31 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>
>>> thanks for raising this. it is quite an old issue and need to ask those
>>> who were involved before 2007. On another hand, I think the similar issue
>>> is the 2-letters characters and it is something that Farzaneh worked on and
>>> followed closely. she may give us some guidance here.
>>> for auctions, I don't think they are not intended to be for ICANN but
>>> for non-profit organisations serving internet community (likely separate
>>> from ICANN). the idea is worthy to be explored but my concern is that will
>>> encourage ICANN to leave more of its responsibility and count on these
>>> uncertain auctions to fund community activities.
>>>
>>> I think 0.comis still reserved as in the same process that reserved
>>> other 1 character like o.com, so the security risk may raise later if
>>> 0.comis requested to be removed from the reserved list.
>>>
>>> for NCSG draft comment, I think Bruna will submit one by this Monday.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> Le dim. 10 juin 2018 à 06:10, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> So I have been reading up on the allocation of single character gTLDs
>>>> vis-a-vis this comment
>>>> <https://www.icann.org/public-comments/o-com-single-char-2018-05-10-en>
>>>> on the potential release of O.com. This issue has been brewing for some
>>>> time, however I was wondering if the NCSG/NCUC/predecessor had released a
>>>> comment on this issue. I could find a personal comment from Avri
>>>> <https://forum.icann.org/lists/allocationmethods/msg00007.html> back
>>>> in 2007 but not quite anything from us. Did we ever comment on this?
>>>>
>>>> Also, I was wondering our thoughts on where the money from the sale of
>>>> O.com (and potentially other single character .coms) should go. I am
>>>> opposed to this money going into the new gTLD Auction Proceeds fund, an
>>>> idea I have seen floated around. I don't want to create a big burdensome
>>>> programme here but I do think we should spend the funds on the ICANN
>>>> community. CROP and ABRs are being cut, so perhaps these funds could be put
>>>> aside to advance and sustain these community programmes in the future.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, could someone reasonably confuse O.com (letter 'o') with 0.com
>>>> (number zero)? I think they could...
>>>>
>>>> Ayden
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>> --
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180619/0c311ad4/attachment.htm>


More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list