[NCSG-PC] O.com comment

Tue Jun 19 18:54:38 EEST 2018

Hi,

I do think it is unprofessional when we miss a deadline; there have already been 12 comments submitted on this issue, and we seem to be a long way away from getting a comment together... and let's face it, we won't get one done this week or next week. At a minimum we're three weeks out from getting a consensus position together. There is no implied criticism here, it's just reality. We're really far behind and it isn't fair to the 12 people who submitted their comments by the deadline for staff to wait for us to draft something. I will submit some brief remarks in my personal capacity now, before the deadline, as this is an important issue that we should have been on top of.

Best wishes, Ayden

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On 19 June 2018 12:34 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20180619/0e53998d/attachment.htm>