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