Whereas I think it is a pity that the document still contains a line
that serves no purpose other than to stand as an insult to At-Large and
the ALAC. The first line of 21 states:
" *We are hesitant to comment on the comparison of results between ALAC
and the NCSG, particularly because of the disparity in resources
allocated by ICANN, and the different missions. However, we do feel that
At-Large could deliver measurably better advice with significantly fewer
resources."*
**1. comparisons between the budget for one of the SOAC and one of the
subcomponents of a SOAC makes no sense.**
**2. in what way could this be verified. It is a boastful claim that
cannot be verified.**
**3. these are insulting words that serve no meaningful purpose.**
****
**I think it would be "****inexcusable for NCSG " to send something out
with this sentence still in it.**
****
**avri **
On 24-Mar-17 17:13, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote:
> +1 on this
>
> On 24 Mar 2017 19:25, "Mueller, Milton L" <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> I think you’ve done a great job shepherding this statement and I
> support it.
>
> It would be inexcusable for NCSG not to be able to weigh in with
> comments on this.
>
>
>
> --MM
>
>
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Ayden Férdeline
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 23, 2017 7:22 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
>
>
>
> I didn't realise I wrote to the NCSG-Discuss list earlier. What is
> with my emailing today? (Well a mobile device...)
>
>
>
> Thanks for these comments, Stefi, and for reading the blog post.
> For now my priority is to continue editing the Statement, revising
> it to accommodate some very legitimate points which have been
> made, and then coming back to the PC list to see who is
> comfortable endorsing it. I would hope an endorsement was
> forthcoming but I know that outcome is not a forgone conclusion,
> and that is understandable (if disappointing).
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Ayden Férdeline
>
> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:12 pm, Milan, Stefania
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Dear Ayden, thanks for taking care of this. I have read and
> enjoyed your blog post.
> I have not read the report in question, and I feel a have very
> little ground to move any objection--so I feel also
> uncomfortable at supporting it unless 2/3 of the PC members
> approve. Does it make sense?
> Anyhow thanks for your great great work! Stefania
> ps and good luck with fixing laptop!!
> ________________________________________
> Da: NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> per conto di Ayden
> Férdeline <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Inviato: giovedì 23 marzo 2017 13.12.43
> A: [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> Oggetto: Re: [DRAFT] NCSG Statement on the ALAC Review
>
> Hi,
>
> We need to get something out by tomorrow, as that is the
> deadline. I am currently laptopless with my MacBook getting
> its battery replaced today, so I'm stuck making edits through
> Google Docs on my iPhone :/ That said, I'll be working on a
> second draft today and refining a few of the points, as I'm
> not happy with the document as it stands. I have published a
> blog post on the Report itself which basically sums up where I
> stand on the Review:
>
> http://www.internetgovernance.org/2017/03/23/re-thinking-icanns-at-large-community/
> <http://www.internetgovernance.org/2017/03/23/re-thinking-icanns-at-large-community/>
>
>
> I hope this is useful.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 12:08 pm, Martin Pablo Silva Valent
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]:[log in to unmask]>>>
> wrote:
> Ayden, any deadline or idea towards when it will, if,
> submitted? I am travelling this week.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
> On 21 Mar 2017 15:52, "Ayden Férdeline"
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]:[log in to unmask]>>>
> wrote:
> Greetings all,
>
> I have drafted up on Google
> Docs<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>>
> some comments on behalf of the NCSG regarding the Review of
> the At-Large community. This is a really rough draft, and I'd
> welcome your feedback on what arguments should be refined,
> what I might have missed, or what we might want to remain
> silent on. I'm not happy with it at the moment, but I figured
> it would be better to get some words down onto paper, and we
> can refine this together... so please take a read of the
> proposed statement
> here<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZgdafZs4KBENsb-Kl9GO0l_Bh4gYdQd6F-ORpZPr27s/edit?usp=sharing>>,
> with the understanding that it's definitely a
> work-in-progress. And please share your thoughts, either in
> the document itself or on this mailing list!
>
> Comments are due in three days, so we don't have too long to
> get this together unfortunately. You can read the draft report
> here<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf
> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atlarge-review-draft-report-31jan17-en.pdf>>
> (PDF link) if you haven't seen it already.
>
> A friendly note to those ALAC members who read the NCSG
> mailing list: this statement is a work-in-progress, it has not
> been endorsed yet by the NCSG Policy Committee, and it will
> likely change between now and the time it is submitted (if it
> is submitted).
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden Férdeline
> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline
> <http://linkedin.com/in/ferdeline><http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>>
>
>
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or
> entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
> and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission,
> dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or
> taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by
> persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
> prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If
> you received this communication in error, please contact the
> sender and delete the material from any computer.
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
