As is probably apparent, I have largely been off email for the past 10 days and
am only just catching up on missed messages. So I apologise for the scattered
and untimely response as I bring some order back to my overflowing inbox.
To add to James' comments, my understanding is that the NCSG Policy Committee
tries to keep to the following schedule. I'm not sure it was formally adopted,
but as a rough internal operating procedure, it does outline how positions are
drafted, edited, reviewed, and ultimately either approved or rejected: http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/2015-December/003349.html
Ayden
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 2:30 AM, Shane Kerr [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





Ayden Férdeline Statement of Interest