+1 this calls into question NCSG's own transparency and accountability procedures. Regards Cintra Sooknanan On 30 Aug 2014 00:19, "Avri Doria" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > Bent out of shape because we are not following our processes? > What an idea? Almost worthy of a reconsideration request. > > It was sent in NCSG's name. Yet there was no process to do so. > > I know it is what you and handful of others want, but we have > Chartered processes by which we make decisions and no decision > process, as far as I can tell, was followed. > > avri > > > On 30-Aug-14 07:01, Robin Gross wrote: > > I don't think there is any cause to get bent out of shape. This > > was done in the personal capacities like the letter sent by > > community leaders to Fadi & Steve earlier in the week (and with > > plenty of notice). > > > > But if there is any question, I suggest we open it up for > > individual members to endorse so there can be no question exactly > > who supports what. And we can even up it up for endorsements to > > others outside our individual community to join if they share the > > concern and want a review and explanation of the issue. I > > understand that the Intellectual Property Constituency and also the > > ISP Constituency will send endorsements as well. It would be good > > the entire community to weigh in on the issue. > > > > Thanks, Robin > > > > > > On Aug 29, 2014, at 8:43 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > >> Signed PGP part I see that a reconsideration request has been > >> filled with the NCSG listed as requester, signed by Steve > >> DelBianco of the Business Constituency. > >> > >> > https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/request-bc-rysg-ncsg-29aug14-en.pdf > >> > >> > >> > Was NCSG listed with NCSG permission? > >> > >> If so, when did the NCSG-PC approve this? Or have we gotten to > >> the point that we no longer bother getting approval for such > >> things? I may be the only one who objects to this, especially > >> since it is made on flawed ground, but I do not remember any > >> consensus calls on the issue > >> > >> Seems somewhat ironic that we are complaining about the process > >> infractions of others when we no longer seem to care about about > >> NCSG processes. > >> > >> No matter what the merits of the case, the fact that this was > >> submitted in the NCSG's name without an NCSG decision to do so, > >> is of great concern. > >> > >> In so far as we may or may not have formal procedures that we > >> are using, I object to this action and request of review of what > >> process was followed in our decision to participate and > >> clarification as to who made the decision? > >> > >> If on the other hand it was submitted in our name without > >> authorization, then I request that an amendment to the request > >> be filed indicating that there was no authorization for the NCSG > >> to be listed on the reconsideration request. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUAVC6AAoJEOo+L8tCe36HlfIIAIXyv1Y4fZ4DrvDTcD1zgMUr > DmUEN4Gj+4j3d/cjxsXfYChWW+fA8fe0FMvAW+iWbiNKWHObpzruJr+mIzqK9PDh > vBeHzFog5n0M6lBy1YKVTKRazPM0ral79uMM4k4zUjf6gkj23DAJqxbvHvd4+dEA > /o7guwEUdSTwBF7thIYn9VJKbinoRAUncaiNAxn5Y2ZI5RpuLz+BKEDJtNngzILt > ozakLUPsa55i+Ndhq07Ia6MPvvPH9Y2VdEpScYNFj4UoRoosBSgcwo/ZILasQ/se > gH2MnwpIOzPT7YQT18Mm2D/EF7jEsYB3SSr+TBUb7100OLEySN8suxim6HT6db4= > =6kVj > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >