[NCSG-PC] [NCSG-Discuss] Draft Input to the Initial Report SubPro

[Rafik Dammak]

thanks,
as we worked on cleaning up and reformatting the document today, while it
is far from perfect and many things can be improved, I will submit the
draft tonight (PST) unless there is a strong objection.
there are a few topics where there were disagreements that should be
brought up to list for further discussion and build NCSG positions. That
can be also a good opportunity to educate the membership on those topics.
submitting a public comment is not enough and we got to have more
representation in the WG itself in the different tracks to be effective.
maybe a good opportunity to get a few NCSG members to join and participate
in this phase since the WG asked for a lot of input and questions, and so
still working on the recommendations.

Best,

Rafik

Le jeu. 27 sept. 2018 à 06:46, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> a écrit :

> Given the deadline, I give my support to move it forward.
>
> Best,
> Martin
>
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2018, 02:52 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> hi all,
>>
>> I worked on this clean version (there are still some comments)
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SxCa4cn-NEiS_tea-jUP02DSG6IEzf_O4_MBPLUtxZs/edit
>> the contentions parts were removed and to be discussed later/
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>> Le mar. 25 sept. 2018 à 00:41, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a
>> écrit :
>>
>>> Thanks all for the comment
>>> the deadline for submission s the 26th Sept and not clear we can get
>>> some extension. I am still checking on that front.
>>> as the topic is contentious, one way is to take it out from the draft
>>> and comment separately having a proper discussion within NCSG, that is not
>>> a perfect option but at least to ensure that we cover the other areas of
>>> the public comment where there is no disagreement.
>>> the comment still needs to be tidied up and finalized.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>> Le lun. 24 sept. 2018 à 12:44, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>>> A lot of good work has gone into this comment, so thank you to those
>>>> involved in drafting it. However I think it is not yet ready for
>>>> submission. In the comments there have been some serious issues raised
>>>> which I think need a response. I agree that there should be consistency in
>>>> our comments, so if the position being taken today is different to the
>>>> position that the NCSG has taken in the past, we need to talk about what
>>>> has changed and why.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>>>
>>>> On 23 Sep 2018, at 17:34, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I had a look at the document. I abstain from approving it and here are
>>>> my reasons:
>>>>
>>>> While I believe in free market, innovation and everything else that
>>>> Robin and others claim should be in registries business model and they
>>>> think closed registries can bring that about and I believe that top level
>>>> domain names are property after allocation, I think having closed generics
>>>> and restricted brand registries by default can lead to the politicization
>>>> of the domain space even further. I don't even agree with having criteria
>>>> set by ICANN for community TLDs.  I believe it might have made sense to
>>>> support closed generics then, but the result is clear. We now have a much
>>>> stronger GAC to deal with in Geo names, we have public interest related to
>>>> each and every topic we discuss. And saying not to conflate trade mark with
>>>> closed generic without providing a reason how they are different (I have
>>>> read emails, transcripts etc) does not make sense to me.
>>>>
>>>> I support not allowing closed generics but allowing any other business
>>>> model in registries in favor of not politicizing the domain space. It might
>>>> be too late. but that is my opinion.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 11:44 AM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> this is a reminder about the subsequent procedures comment review
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Le mar. 18 sept. 2018 à 10:23, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>> a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>> hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the draft was shared in NCSG list for review. asking PC members to go
>>>>>> through the comment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>>> From: Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>
>>>>>> Date: mar. 18 sept. 2018 à 09:57
>>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft Input to the Initial Report SubPro
>>>>>> To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please find the initial draft of the NCSG Input to the Initial
>>>>>> Report on the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process
>>>>>> (Overarching Issues & Work Tracks 1-4).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Elsa and I are still working on this document
>>>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SxCa4cn-NEiS_tea-jUP02DSG6IEzf_O4_MBPLUtxZs/edit>
>>>>>> so its not yet finalized but considered the importance of the subject and
>>>>>> the upcoming deadline for submission (sep 26th) we thought we should this
>>>>>> share this with the NCSG list soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We will be finalizing this comment during the week and your input is
>>>>>> very much welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Bruna and Elsa
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/20180927/30423dcc/attachment.htm>