Dear Avri,
Thanks for these clarifications. As I understood it, since it was a last minute decision to file these comments, we would look at the broader issue and submit that as the NCSG submission, and make further submissions as and when necessary. The comments to this draft were resolved and finalized and as such this document is in its final form. Could it not be submitted to the work tracks you mentioned as it is?
Cheers,
Vidushi
----- On Oct 24, 2016, at 5:39 PM, matthew shears [log in to unmask] wrote:
> 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
|
