All official responses to items such as this are the remit of the NCSG policy committee to approve.
Obviously members are free to file their own comments individually.

-James




On 08/06/2016, 02:30, "NCSG-Discuss on behalf of Shane Kerr" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:

>All,
>
>At 2016-06-07 14:07:25 +0200
>Niels ten Oever <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> On 06/03/2016 08:13 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>> > I tried responding on the pad, but it will not save my comments.
>> > 
>> > I don't have a hard objection to the NCSG responding to this
>> > consultation – indeed, I believe we should be submitting responses
>> > whenever we are given the opportunity – but the drafted response is not
>> > one that I can support.
>
>I think that I have a process question.
>
>What is the NCSG way for getting approval to send an NCSG response? I
>know how RIPE and the IETF and the NRO do such things, but I don't know
>how the NCSG declares a decision.
>
>For example, in RIPE it is the job of the working group chair to
>declare consensus, and there is an oversight and appeals process
>defined. In the IETF it is roughly similar, although the details are
>vastly different. In the NRO, each of the heads of the RIRs must agree
>to any statement made by the NRO.
>
>I ask because I think that this seems to be an area where consensus
>will be very hard to achieve.
>
>--------
>
>One possible way forward may be to have an NCSG "official response" -
>which would be a sort of vague, watered-down response that a politician
>would have. "We find this very important, blah blah blah." Some members
>of the NCSG could also make a "minority response" which goes further.
>"We think that ICANN should do X, Y, and Z."
>
>Personally I am happy to add my support to the strongest position
>possible against harassment, without regard to cultural or other
>sensitivities.
>
>Cheers,
>
>--
>Shane