-----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-----