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

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi all,

if I don't hear a strong objection in coming hours, I will submit the
attached version.

Best,

Rafik

Le mer. 20 févr. 2019 à 02:41, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a
écrit :

> 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/20190220/1d90173d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Updated Operating Standards for Specific Reviews_ - NCSG Comment.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 126652 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20190220/1d90173d/attachment.pdf>