[NCSG-PC] O.com comment

Wed Jun 20 02:40:42 EEST 2018

Hi ,

I think that is "solved" now as the extension was not granted. we can
discuss how we can improve things later. I am not blaming anyone here.

Best,

Rafik

Le mar. 19 juin 2018 à 19:34, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> a
écrit :

> 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/20180620/fafdb6be/attachment.htm>