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
|
