Milton,
I need to better understand your comment in terms of the CCT-Review
<question on PICs>
where not PICs a voluntary offer by applicants???
why do you say PICs (as opposed to Safeguards) were imposed by GAC /
ALAC?
need some background please
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
On 20 Sep 2016, at 8:29, 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
|
