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

Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak at gmail.com
Tue Feb 19 19:41:07 EET 2019


Hi,

the edits were resolved and accepted
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pEKINvc1ltbvYKEDGtgZ1FHrvttZFI3mXBhZsTOg1G8/edit
.
I think the comment complement the one submitted by council
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/comments-reviews-standards-17dec18/2019q1/000000.html
.

I would also to remind everyone to review the draft as the deadline for
submission is tomorrow.
Best,

Rafik

Le mar. 19 févr. 2019 à 21:15, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> a écrit :

> 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> <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> <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> <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> <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Ioana worked on draft comment for NCSG consideration on the updated
> operating standards for specific reviewhttps://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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190220/78ffc72d/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list