[NCSG-PC] O.com comment

Wed Jun 20 02:55:12 EEST 2018

I volunteered for this but lost track of time, so am guilty! I also thought
we had until Friday. I will look at it if I get the time tonight and see if
I can submit something personally.

Farzaneh

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 7:40 PM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20180619/5aec11bf/attachment.htm>