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:
avri doria <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:09:41 +0100
Reply-To:
matthew shears <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID:
Subject:
From:
matthew shears <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
MIME-Version:
1.0
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (362 lines)
Thanks Avri for the very useful clarifications you have sent to the list.

Matthew


On 24/10/2016 12:40, avri doria wrote:
> 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

-- 
--------------
Matthew Shears
Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
+ 44 771 2472987


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

ATOM RSS1 RSS2