[NCSG-PC] O.com comment

Tue Jun 19 13:34:23 EEST 2018

I'd like to contribute to writing the comment and I need an extension
because i don't have the time to focus on it now. I do not agree with
asking for extension is unprofessional.

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:13 AM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>>
>>>> --
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20180619/909ce0de/attachment.htm>