[NCSG-PC] [urgent for review] Proposed Comment on the Geographic Names at the Top Level - Supplemental Initial Report

[Elsa S]

Hey all,

Reviewed the comment and added some thoughts to it. Thanks to all those who
worked on it, particularly Bruna and Farzi, it looks very well studied.

As for the style of comments, I think it very much depends on the topic and
how the WG requires the comment to be structured. For instance, in the last
subpro comment, Bruna and I discovered that the drafted comment was not
going to be taken into proper consideration because it did not adhere to
the WG's standards of the subpro comments' structures. So our draft was put
under general reviews rather than specific sub-reviews as it would have
been most efficient.

So we shouldn't be wary about how unified our presentation of NCSG comments
is, rather how compatible it is with the WG's subject I'd say!

Thanks,

E.
--

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 8:30 AM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Farell,
>
> thanks for the feedback.
> I don't think the format can be an issue, the policy staff has still to go
> through the submitted document and  link each comment to recommendation,
> question or part of the report. I believe that the document explicitly
> indicates which recommendation or question we are commenting which make
> things easier for staff for compilation and WG members for review.
> EPDP is a particular case as the public comment was through a google form.
> Some WGs can ask to follow a different format for submission e.g.
> questionnaire.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> Le jeu. 31 janv. 2019 à 17:20, Farell FOLLY <farell at benin2point0.org> a
> écrit :
>
>> That is a very good comment. Apart from some minor typos, I have no
>> additional input. I thank the drafters, they did a very good job.
>>
>> However; the format is rather different from recent comments we wrote,
>> and for coherence I suggest that in the future we always try to stick to a
>> similar template (paragraphs, numbering style, etc.), otherwise our
>> targets/intended recipients could get confused about our style (i.e to
>> easily identify where we analyse, where we conclude and where we opine,
>> etc.) when they receive two or more consecutive feedbacks from us.
>> Nevertheless, the document is good and well written.
>>
>> @Rafik, I recall that a DIFFERENT feedback submission format has been
>> recently used for EPDP, and here; we had also agreed on a kind of template
>> (style, paragraphs, information, fields) to include in our NCSG comments,
>> consequently; do you think that we can merge both and suggest that to ICANN
>> as PC submission template? Or simply adapt it for our own use (and of
>> course, formalize it through our operations procedures)
>>
>> @__f_f__
>>
>> Best Regards
>> ____________________________________
>>
>> (Ekue) Farell FOLLY
>> NCUC Rep. to the NCSG Policy Committee
>> linkedin.com/in/farellf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 31 Jan 2019, at 06:52, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Tatiana and Ayden, looking for other PC members to review.
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> Le jeu. 31 janv. 2019 à 08:26, Tatiana Tropina <tatiana.tropina at gmail.com>
>> a écrit :
>>
>>> My support for submission and my thanks to Bruna and everyone who
>>> drafted it, too.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Tanya
>>>
>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 at 00:17, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I support the submission of this comment; thanks to Bruna et al for
>>>> drafting it!
>>>>
>>>> Ayden
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>>> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 6:48 AM, Rafik Dammak <
>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> we have this draft comment to review quickly , regarding WT5 initial
>>>> report.
>>>> it is a critical track in subpro WG.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>> From: *Bruna Martins dos Santos* <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>
>>>> Date: mar. 29 janv. 2019 à 20:35
>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed Comment on the Geographic Names at the
>>>> Top Level - Supplemental Initial Report
>>>> To: <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> I would like to share with you the proposed comment to the *Work Track
>>>> 5 on Geographic Names at the Top Level - Supplemental Initial Report of the
>>>> New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process. *Submissions
>>>> are due in just over three days time (feb 1st as a deadline), so I’m
>>>> sharing this on our mailing list today for your speedy review and suggested
>>>> edits.
>>>>
>>>> The proposed comment can be found here:
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EyQ_D37jbIpKByOyknOVwrBO0-GLKVdyFI_64_s2l9U/edit
>>>>
>>>> Ps. Thanks to Farzaneh and all the others who volunteered to work on
>>>> this comment.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> --
>>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>>>>
>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>>>> @boomartins
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>


-- 
--

Elsa Saade
Consultant
Gulf Centre for Human Rights
Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20190131/158b199b/attachment.htm>