NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
NCSG-Discuss <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
Date:
Mon, 24 Oct 2016 06:36:51 -0400
Reply-To:
Niels ten Oever <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
Subject:
From:
Niels ten Oever <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=utf-8
MIME-Version:
1.0
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (233 lines)
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#.
> 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]
> *To: *[log in to unmask]
> *Cc: *[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]>
> 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]> 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
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9

ATOM RSS1 RSS2