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

[Martin Pablo Silva Valent]

All my support to this comment.

Martín

On Fri, Oct 5, 2018, 11:42 Kathryn Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:

> 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> 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
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://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/20181005/1854a6b7/attachment.htm>