Hi,

For details on the NCSG Policy Committee’s composition, duties, decision-making method, etc…, you may want to check out section 2.5 of the NCSG charter: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter

The PC’s email archives can be found here: http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/

Thanks.

Amr

> On Jun 14, 2016, at 1:55 AM, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> As is probably apparent, I have largely been off email for the past 10 days and am only just catching up on missed messages. So I apologise for the scattered and untimely response as I bring some order back to my overflowing inbox.
> 
> To add to James' comments, my understanding is that the NCSG Policy Committee tries to keep to the following schedule. I'm not sure it was formally adopted, but as a rough internal operating procedure, it does outline how positions are drafted, edited, reviewed, and ultimately either approved or rejected: http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/2015-December/003349.html <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/2015-December/003349.html>
> 
> Ayden
> 
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 2:30 AM, Shane Kerr [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> All,
> 
> 
> 
> At 2016-06-07 14:07:25 +0200
> 
> Niels ten Oever <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > On 06/03/2016 08:13 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
> 
> > > I tried responding on the pad, but it will not save my comments.
> 
> > >
> 
> > > I don't have a hard objection to the NCSG responding to this
> 
> > > consultation – indeed, I believe we should be submitting responses
> 
> > > whenever we are given the opportunity – but the drafted response is not
> 
> > > one that I can support.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that I have a process question.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the NCSG way for getting approval to send an NCSG response? I
> 
> know how RIPE and the IETF and the NRO do such things, but I don't know
> 
> how the NCSG declares a decision.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, in RIPE it is the job of the working group chair to
> 
> declare consensus, and there is an oversight and appeals process
> 
> defined. In the IETF it is roughly similar, although the details are
> 
> vastly different. In the NRO, each of the heads of the RIRs must agree
> 
> to any statement made by the NRO.
> 
> 
> 
> I ask because I think that this seems to be an area where consensus
> 
> will be very hard to achieve.
> 
> 
> 
> --------
> 
> 
> 
> One possible way forward may be to have an NCSG “official response” -
> 
> which would be a sort of vague, watered-down response that a politician
> 
> would have. “We find this very important, blah blah blah.” Some members
> 
> of the NCSG could also make a “minority response” which goes further.
> 
> “We think that ICANN should do X, Y, and Z.”
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I am happy to add my support to the strongest position
> 
> possible against harassment, without regard to cultural or other
> 
> sensitivities.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Shane
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ayden Férdeline
> Statement of Interest <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Ayden+F%C3%A9rdeline+SOI>