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-----