[NCSG-PC] pragraph when re-submitting short and long term reviews

[Rafik Dammak]

hi all,

this a reminder about reviewing this draft comment
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i5n7qp3MdZ6XTao4bbfMLR5BrBlX-NQ_c9mu_cGLs1I/edit
I added some bits I mentioned before. the deadline for submission is today.

Best,

Rafik
Le jeu. 4 oct. 2018 à 09:15, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a écrit :

> Hi,
>
> Thanks, Farznaeh for the short draft. I reviewed the paper again and what
> it is suggesting as options. one issue is that some are not related to what
> we got mainly in the first paper about timelines:
>
> 1- proposed timeline for ATRT is something we can support. the ATRT will
> start its work on January 2019 and in fact, GNSO is confirming the
> selection (September Council meeting discussion). no issue here.
> 2- the proposed scope for ATRT to discuss "streamlining" specific reviews.
> that is of high concern as it is limit the de factiATRT scope and also
> impact other specific reviews. I think we should add a comment on that
> front to not prevent the ATRT from setting its own scope and what covers as
> areas such as review ATRT2 recommendations and linking to WS1&2
> recommendations.
> 3- to "streamline" organizational review and starting a consultation
> process led by the board(OEC), no particular issue here in term of the
> process but we will see with what is proposed. the outcome will impact us
> directly as it concerns the GNSO review too that should start likely in
> 2020. one possible comment will be to avoid having the process as board and
> staff led only and ensure community full participation (they mention
> consultation but...)
> 4- operating standards for specific review, we missed commenting on the
> first draft, the concern would be about the ability to comment on the
> second draft and what is proposed here.  for reminders the operating
> standards covered area like the scoping, formation and other operating
> procedures for review teams. one possible comment is to request that the
> second version of operating standards should go through a public comment
> and consultation e.g. public session.
>
> do you think we can include those items?
>
> let's share the current draft in NCSG list and I moved it to the google
> doc
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i5n7qp3MdZ6XTao4bbfMLR5BrBlX-NQ_c9mu_cGLs1I/edit
> .
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> Le jeu. 4 oct. 2018 à 04:19, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a
> écrit :
>
>> Thanks, Farzi. Please find below in red some suggested edits:
>>
>> The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group is we are re-submitting our
>> comments dated 31 July 2018 pertaining on to the future of short-term[1] and
>> long-term[2] specific and organizational reviews. We were are disappointed
>> surprised that the Bboard in its 10 August 2018 Organizational
>> Effectiveness Committee meeting[3] formed the view (in OEC meeting)
>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-oec-2018-08-10-en>
>>  decided that there was insufficient not enough consensus to move
>> forward. on short and long term reviews due to limited comments (a total
>> of 9 but from two ACs (ALAC and SSAC)
>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-reviews-long-term-timeline-16aug18-en.pdf> and
>> Supporting organizations (GNSO and CCNSO) and most of  GNSO stakeholder
>> groups and constituencies). The Board's decision to gather further
>> community input through an additional comment window is disappointing,
>> because ask for more comments despite the fact that clearly there was
>> consensus among the submitted comments, and reopening this topic puts a
>> great strain on a community of volunteers with limited time and
>> resources.  In parallel with the effectiveness of Policy Development
>> Processes, the Board should also consider how many issues it re-opens and
>> instructs the community to work on. In future when reopening an issue
>> for further input, wWe also ask thate the Board to clearly state its
>> method of gauging consensus in when evaluating public comments
>> submissions and outline why it believes additional input is required. Thank
>> you. Otherwise, it can arbitrarily re-open issues.
>>
>>
>>
>> [1]
>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-specific-reviews-short-term-timeline-14may18/2018q3/000009.html
>>
>> [2]
>> https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-reviews-long-term-timeline-14may18/2018q3/000007.html
>>
>> [3]
>> https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-oec-2018-08-10-en
>>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3 Oct 2018, at 19:48, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>> I wrote this paragraph to be added as an introduction to the resubmission
>> of our comments. Please see below. Also I suggest Rafik share it with the
>> mailing list after receiving your comments tomorrow. we have to submit on
>> Friday.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> we are re-submitting our comments on the short term and long term review.
>> We are surprised that the board (in OEC meeting)
>> <https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-oec-2018-08-10-en>
>> decided that there was not enough consensus on short and long term reviews
>> due to limited comments (a total of 9 but from two ACs (ALAC and SSAC)
>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-reviews-long-term-timeline-16aug18-en.pdf> and
>> Supporting organizations (GNSO and CCNSO) and most of  GNSO stakeholder
>> groups and constituencies). The Board's decision to ask for more comments
>> despite the fact that clearly there was consensus among the submitted
>> comments puts a great strain on a community of volunteers with limited
>> time.  In parallel with the effectiveness of Policy Development Processes,
>> the Board should also consider how many issues it re-opens and instructs
>> the community to work on. We also ask the Board to clearly state its method
>> of gauging consensus when evaluating public comments. Otherwise, it can
>> arbitrarily re-open issues.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20181005/d9232bae/attachment.htm>