[NCSG-PC] O.com comment

Tue Jun 19 11:13:32 EEST 2018

Hi,

Thanks
Le mar. 19 juin 2018 à 17:04, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a
écrit :

> I believe there are 11 comments open at present. Plus this new
> accreditation model (though it does not seem to be a formal public comment).
>

I refer to this https://www.icann.org/public-comments#open-public , we can
add the new consultation.

> And yes I do think it is unprofessional to miss deadlines and to require
> extensions. If other constituencies or stakeholder groups request them that
> is their prerogative.
>
>
we are disagreeing here regarding the conlcusion and characterization and
that is fine. happy for other to jump in and share their thoughts.

Best,

Rafik

>
>
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:56, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> 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/20180619/4b8c2420/attachment.htm>