Hi, For details on the NCSG Policy Committee’s composition, duties, decision-making method, etc…, you may want to check out section 2.5 of the NCSG charter: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Charter The PC’s email archives can be found here: http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/ Thanks. Amr > On Jun 14, 2016, at 1:55 AM, Ayden Férdeline <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > 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 <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] <mailto:[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 <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Ayden+F%C3%A9rdeline+SOI>