Turns out she was posting from a new email address and wants that email address added to this list, and we've forwarded that request on to the person who adds people to the list.
Thanks,
Robin
On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Dan Krimm wrote:
> Robin,
>
> I'm not able to monitor these events in detail, but seeing the list
> traffic. I didn't see Debbie's posts come through directly, only your
> replies with her original msgs incorporated.
>
> Maybe she is also cc-ing you directly? Is she using the correct email
> address with which she is subscribed to the list?
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> At 2:11 PM -0700 3/14/12, Robin Gross wrote:
>> Not sure why you think you aren't the list. You are and just posted to it.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Mar 14, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Hughes, Debra Y. wrote:
>>
>>> Robin,
>>>
>>> Since I appear to have been removed from the NCSG/NCUC list, can you
>>> please post to the list. I remain the representative for American Red
>>> Cross within the NPOC and NCSG.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Debbie
>>>
>>> Debra Y. Hughes
>>> Senior Counsel
>>>
>>> American Red Cross
>>> 2025 E Street, NW
>>> Washington, D.C. 20006
>>> 202.303.5356 (p)
>>> 202.303.0143 (f)
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>>
>>> From: Hughes, Debra Y.
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 4:53 PM
>>> To: 'Robin
>>> Gross'; <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: RE: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the
>>> Vote
>>>
>>>
>>> Robin,
>>>
>>> Can you please clarify the precise results of the vote by NCSG on this
>>> decision for deferral, including whether there was any opposition to this
>>> decision by any NCSG constituency?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Debbie
>>>
>>>
>>> Debra Y. Hughes
>>> Senior Counsel
>>>
>>> American Red Cross
>>> 2025 E Street, NW
>>> Washington, D.C. 20006
>>> 202.303.5356 (p)
>>> 202.303.0143 (f)
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>>
>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
>>> Of Robin Gross
>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 3:51 PM
>>> To: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the Vote
>>>
>>> NCSG finds it impossible to bypass ICANN's bottom-up policy development
>>> process in this way. At a time when multi-stakeholder processes on the
>>> Internet are being challenged, this proposal is both questionable on the
>>> merits, and contrary to ICANN's processes. Therefore, the NCSG has no
>>> option at this stage but to defer the vote at least until the public
>>> comment period is closed.
>>> Here are the reasons for our deferral.
>>> One of the most important parts of the ICANN process is the public
>>> comment period, which allows public engagement and permits those affected
>>> by policies to express their views. Public comments constitute a
>>> quintessential part of iCANN's ecosystem. How can ICANN depend on public
>>> comments when it makes a decision before they have all been received? The
>>> council should not hold a vote on something as important as the implicit
>>> creation of a new form of reserved names, especially one that singles out
>>> some international organisations for special consideration while ignoring
>>> others without full comment. The critical importance of public comments
>>> was recognized by our colleague Mr. Steve Metalitz, chair of the IPC in a
>>> recent comment. Mr Metalitz said:
>>> "In trying to make the decision before the public comment period has
>>> closed, ICANN has failed to fulfill its pledge, in the Affirmation of
>>> Commitments, to employ "responsive consultation procedures that provide
>>> detailed explanations of the basis for decisions, including how comments
>>> have influenced the development of policy consideration," and to
>>> "continually assess[] and improv[e] the processes by which ICANN receives
>>> public input (including adequate explanation of decisions taken and the
>>> rationale thereof)." <x-msg://784/#_ftn1>[1]
>>> We could not agree more with this statement by our fellow stakeholder
>>> group - the IPC.
>>> The community should take the necessary time to hear all the views on
>>> this issue and examine other proposals, such as those from Portugal
>>> earlier this week as well as the proposal from the Not-for-profit
>>> Operations Constituency that are intended to create a more fair and less
>>> arbitrary standard for reserved names.
>>> The NCSG-Policy Committee believes that this is a critical policy issue
>>> and needs the full guidance of the public comments before it can properly
>>> decide how to vote, and thus requests a deferral of this vote.
>>>
>>> <x-msg://784/#_ftnref1>[1] <http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm,
>>> paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c.
>
|
