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

[Farell FOLLY]

I have no comment. 

@__f_f__

Best Regards
____________________________________

(Ekue) Farell FOLLY
NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee
linkedin.com/in/farellf 






> On 6 Oct 2018, at 10:33, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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 <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 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 <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 <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 <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 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
> <Next Steps On Reviews - NCSG Comment.pdf>_______________________________________________
> 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/20181007/0a7c7d8a/attachment.htm>