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

Fri Oct 5 17:42:01 EEST 2018

I'm an observer, but I support. Important to submit!

Kathy

On 10/5/2018 10:34 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> a écrit :
>
>         Thanks, Farzi. Please find below in red some suggested edits:
>
>         The Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group is we arere-submitting
>         our comments dated 31 July 2018 pertainingontothe future
>         ofshort-term[1] and long-term[2] specific and
>         organizational reviews. We were aredisappointed 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> decidedthat
>         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 clearlythere was consensus among the submitted
>         comments, and reopening this topicputs 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 alsoask
>         thatetheBoard toclearly state its method of gauging consensus
>         in whenevaluating public commentssubmissions 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20181005/445f6af5/attachment.htm>