Dear All,
Thank you for the work on this draft comment. Is it possible for the EC to pick this up now?
Best,
Vidushi
----- On Sep 20, 2016, at 9:07 PM, avri doria [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I oppose this addition.
>
>
> Not only do I disagree with the way it is worded, I think that PICs are
> important and should be enforced.
>
>
> I also think that the issue of PICs should be discussed in a PDP and
> that they probably should be part of the gTLD SubPro PDP WG
> consideration. New gTLD SubPro should talk about their use and others
> should talk about their enforcement.
>
>
> I agree that they way they were done in the last round was adhoc and
> arbitrary. As far as coercive, while some may claim to having been
> coerced many applicants did refuse to create any without any repercussion.
>
>
> I think that if an applicant applies for name and commits in their
> application to enforce some public interest conditions, those should be
> included in the contract and should be enforced.
>
>
> avri
>
>
> On 20-Sep-16 10:29, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, Vidushi.
>>
>> I added a new paragraph about PICs (public interest commitments) to
>> the HR section.
>>
>>
>>
>> PICS. We oppose allowing the GAC or ALAC to hold applicants hostage in
>> order to extract so-called “Public Interest Commitments” from new
>> registries. PICs actually constitute a form of policy making that
>> bypasses the GNSO and the entire bottom up process. By imposing
>> content regulations on registries, they also can clash with ICANN’s
>> new mission statement, which is supposed to prevent it from regulating
>> content
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:*[log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2016 1:44 AM
>> *To:* Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]>
>> *Cc:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: pre-warning draft comment to gTLD subsequent procedure WG
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Milton,
>>
>> Thanks for your comments. I have taken off the FCFS section and made
>> it a comment for anyone who disagrees with this change.
>>
>> Some other comments that require a rewrite I have not resolved - I
>> would ask you to edit the document directly as that would be most
>> accurate.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Vidushi
>>
>> ----- On Sep 19, 2016, at 6:41 PM, Mueller, Milton L
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> I hope this is not the final version, it contain some sections
>> that don't make sense and need to be modified.
>>
>> I have added some comments in the Google doc. In particular, I
>> think we need to delete altogether what is now section c), and
>> probably also section d).
>>
>> Neither of them make coherent points and they espouse positions
>> which do not have consensus support i n NCSG
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:*NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Vidushi Marda
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>> *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2016 3:32:06 AM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Subject:* [Deadline for comments 9/9] Re: pre-warning draft
>> comment to gTLD subsequent procedure WG
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Here is the final version of the NCSG comment to the gTLD
>> Subsequent Procedures WG:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1IC7-KJz12XuDBFeEYiDMoh8I1ibks_McW0XqHh_nw/edit#.
>> All comments have been addressed and resolved. Hoping that the
>> policy committee can pick this up now.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Vidushi
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From: *[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *To: *[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Cc: *[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>> *Sent: *Monday, September 19, 2016 11:06:35 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [Deadline for comments 9/9] Re: pre-warning draft
>> comment to gTLD subsequent procedure WG
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> Here is the final version of the NCSG comment to the gTLD
>> Subsequent Procedures WG:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1IC7-KJz12XuDBFeEYiDMoh8I1ibks_McW0XqHh_nw/edit#.
>> All comments have been addressed and resolved. Hoping that the
>> policy committee can pick this up now.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Vidushi
>>
>>
>> ----- On Sep 6, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Vidushi Marda
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I think the idea of deadlines for comments work well. Thanks
>> for the suggestion Farzi.
>>
>> Can we make the last day for comments/feedback on the doc this
>> Friday the 9th? That way we should be able to send in the doc
>> by next week after incorporating them.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Vidushi
>>
>> ----- On Sep 5, 2016, at 7:01 AM, Michael Oghia
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> +1 Farzi
>>
>>
>> -Michael
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 5:18 PM, farzaneh badii
>> <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Vidushi and Niels,
>>
>> I think your document will benefit from more
>> referencing to the actual policies you are talking
>> about. Also as Tatiana pointed out you need to resolve
>> the comments first. I suggest set a deadline for
>> people to comment, then resolve those comments and
>> then send it out to policy committee. This is what we
>> did in the past and worked out well.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best
>>
>>
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4 September 2016 at 14:33, Tatiana Tropina
>> <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Niels and all,
>>
>> some of the comments in the google doc (e.g.
>> Avri's comments) require further work and/or
>> clarification, don't think the document can be
>> sent to the PC as it is.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Tatiana
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4 September 2016 at 14:30, Niels ten Oever
>> <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> This document has now been reviewed and
>> commented on by several people,
>> perhaps the policy committee can pick this up?
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>>
>> On 08/30/2016 07:43 PM, Vidushi Marda wrote:
>> > Dear All,
>> >
>> > Please find the first draft comment to the
>> gTLD Subsequent Procedure WG at this link:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1IC7-KJz12XuDBFeEYiDMoh8I1ibks_McW0XqHh_nw/edit?usp=sharing
>> >
>> > While the request was extremely detailed
>> with six subjects and specific questions under
>> each, due to paucity of time, this draft only
>> discusses over arching human rights concerns.
>> >
>> > I look forward to your feedback and comments.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> >
>> > Vidushi
>> >
>> > ----- On Aug 26, 2016, at 7:57 PM, Kathy
>> Kleiman [log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Niels,
>> >>
>> >> I think this idea is a very good one. I
>> have been worried that we did
>> >> not submit a comment to the New gTLD
>> Subsequent Procedures Working
>> >> Group, especially on Community Groups. A
>> few weeks ago, Avri was kind
>> >> enough to answer my questions about this,
>> and encourage our NCSG
>> >> participation. I think it is the perfect
>> time to submit a comment --
>> >> even a little late!
>> >>
>> >> But quick note, at least in the US, next
>> week is big end of summer
>> >> vacation week and traditionally very quiet.
>> Perhaps allowing a week for
>> >> comment would enable more people to
>> participate.
>> >>
>> >> Best and tx to you, Vidushi and the CCWP HR,
>> >>
>> >> Kathy
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 8/26/2016 7:50 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>> >>> Dear all,
>> >>>
>> >>> I hope this e-mail finds you all well. We
>> just had a very productive
>> >>> call of the CCWP HR in which we discussed
>> several issues in which the
>> >>> gTLD Subsequenty Procedures WG impacts
>> human rights (community priority
>> >>> procedure, how 'community' is defined,
>> lack of gTLD applications from
>> >>> the global south, etc).
>> >>>
>> >>> I am aware that the first official
>> input/comment period of this WG is
>> >>> over, but I think if we would send
>> something in it might still be
>> >>> considered, especially since the NCSG did
>> not send comment yet.
>> >>>
>> >>> Vidushi has graciously offered to do the
>> drafting, also based on the
>> >>> report she initially drafted and which was
>> accepted as CCWP HR document [0].
>> >>>
>> >>> So this is an early warning that you'll
>> receive a draft comment on
>> >>> Tuesday, if we want to it to be considered
>> I think we would need to
>> >>> submit it rather switfly, that's why I am
>> sending this pre-warning so
>> >>> you know you can excpect it. Stay tuned :)
>> >>>
>> >>> All the best,
>> >>>
>> >>> Niels
>> >>>
>> >>> [0]
>> >>>
>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53772653/4.CCWP-HR%20Jurisdiction.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1467180138000&api=v2
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>>
>> --
>> Niels ten Oever
>> Head of Digital
>>
>> Article 19
>> www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org>
>>
>> PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>> 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
