Thanks Avri for the very useful clarifications you have sent to the list.
Matthew
On 24/10/2016 12:40, avri doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As I have pointed out before, it does not answer the specific questions
> that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures asked in the CC1 comment request.
>
> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58001974/NCSG%20Outreach%20-%20Community%20Comment%201.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1465420832733&api=v2>
>
> I think it contains must useful comment for the work that is now
> beginning in the various Work Tracks
>
> *
> Work Track 1: Overall Process/Support/Outreach
> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490732>
> *
> Work Track 2: Legal/Regulatory
> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490775>
> *
> Work Track 3: String Contention / Objections & Disputes
> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490779>
> *
> Work Track 4: Internationalized Domain Names/Technical & Operations
> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490781>
> *
> Proposed Work Track 5: Implementation Guidance
> <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Proposed+Work+Track+5%3A+Implementation+Guidance+Related+Work>
>
> But we have not yet put out a call for these efforts.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 24-Oct-16 06:54, farzaneh badii wrote:
>> I am not a PC member but I can tell you why it was not submitted by PC
>> so that those who want to submit public comments in the future know
>> how it works. [ I see that I had noted this before too on the same
>> thread]
>>
>> The person in charge of drafting the public comment (shall we say the
>> pen holder), when sending the document to the mailing list should set
>> a deadline for comments. After the deadline or between posting and the
>> deadline, the pen holder needs to resolve all the comments received
>> and resolve the issues that are raised. After the deadline, the pen
>> holder announces on the mailing list that the public comment will be
>> sent to PC. or just ask the PC on NCSG mailing list to consider the
>> public comment.
>>
>> The problem here is that the public comment was never finalized and PC
>> was not asked to consider it. Hence no action was taken.
>>
>> The above process which I explained is how I got the public comments
>> submitted before through PC ( including others) it is a
>> customary process I'd say. But that is how you can get it done.
>>
>> On 24 October 2016 at 12:36, Niels ten Oever
>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Is it true that this has not been picked up by the Policy
>> Committee and
>> this has not been submitted?
>>
>> I think that would be a real pity of all the work people have put into
>> this, and I think it's worth to still process it. If not, I would like
>> to understand why.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Niels
>>
>> On 09/19/2016 03:32 AM, Vidushi Marda wrote:
>> > 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#
>> <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#
>> <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]>
>> <mailto:[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]>
>> > <mailto:[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]>
>> > <mailto:[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
>> <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]>
>> > <mailto:[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
>> <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>
>> <http://www.article19.org>
>> >
>> > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
>> > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Farzaneh
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> 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
--
--------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
