All official responses to items such as this are the remit of the NCSG policy committee to approve.

Obviously members are free to file their own comments individually.



-James









On 08/06/2016, 02:30, "NCSG-Discuss on behalf of Shane Kerr" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [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