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

Sat Oct 6 11:33:54 EEST 2018

Hi all,

if there is no strong objection in coming hours, I will submit the attached
comment.

Best,

Rafik

Le ven. 5 oct. 2018 à 23:51, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> a écrit :

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20181006/9cc8dd84/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Next Steps On Reviews - NCSG Comment.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 57650 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20181006/9cc8dd84/attachment.pdf>