[NCSG-PC] [Public Comment] Review of Draft Comment for Updated Operating Standards for Specific Reviews

Stephanie Perrin stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Tue Feb 19 14:15:47 EET 2019


I must say I had the same concerns Arsene....I did not meet the standard described here, in my recent work on the RDS REview team....it was exhausting work enough, and as for reporting back. I did not notice much interest from the nominating committee (could have been largely due to simultaneous EPDP work) but I think it holds true for other reviews too.  Hard to find volunteers for these heavy research and drafting jobs...

Stephanie

On 2019-02-19 05:58, Arsène Tungali wrote:

Hi all,

I have now reviewed the comment and i believe it is in good shape. I
did have just one concern with regards to the accountability effort
required of RT members (Item N.2)

I do believe it is a good thing to emphasize on this and make it a
must but my worry is that this may lead to less volunteers stepping up
for the role. This is yet another volunteer role, where we need to
encourage people to consider but if we are too strong in what we
require them to do, then we might have less people.

The reporting requirement to the nominating body has never been
effective for all of our representatives at different levels and I
think the best way would simply be to request a reasonable level of
reporting requirement from our reps rather than making it mandatory.
And we therefore should expect them to report whenever there is
anything substantial that needs to be shared with the nominating
group.

I hope this makes sense.

Regards,
Arsene

2019-02-18 15:28 UTC+01:00, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:


hi all,

reminder to review this draft comment

Best,

Rafik

Le lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 07:18, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a
écrit :



hi all,

we have this draft comment for review too.
I was reached previously by ICANN staff if we were planning to submit
comment and indicated yes. I asked for few days extension and that should
be ok.

Best,

Rafik


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Date: lun. 11 févr. 2019 à 07:12
Subject: [Public Comment] Review of Draft Comment for Updated Operating
Standards for Specific Reviews
To: NCSG <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu><mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>


Hi all,

Ioana worked on draft comment for NCSG consideration on the updated
operating standards for specific review
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pEKINvc1ltbvYKEDGtgZ1FHrvttZFI3mXBhZsTOg1G8/edit

Please review the draft comment and share your edits and comments using
"suggestion" mode in the google doc. You can also share your thoughts
here
too for discussion.

Best Regards,

Rafik









-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20190219/e57683bf/attachment.html>


More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list