+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-----
>