Hi Niels and all,

some of the comments in the google doc (e.g. Avri's comments) require further work and/or clarification, don't think the document can be sent to the PC as it is.

Thanks!

Tatiana 

On 4 September 2016 at 14:30, Niels ten Oever <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear all,

This document has now been reviewed and commented on by several people,
perhaps the policy committee can pick this up?

Best,

Niels

On 08/30/2016 07:43 PM, Vidushi Marda wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> Please find the first draft comment to the gTLD Subsequent Procedure WG at this link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1IC7-KJz12XuDBFeEYiDMoh8I1ibks_McW0XqHh_nw/edit?usp=sharing
>
> While the request was extremely detailed with six subjects and specific questions under each, due to paucity of time, this draft only discusses over arching human rights concerns.
>
> I look forward to your feedback and comments.
>
> Best,
>
> Vidushi
>
> ----- On Aug 26, 2016, at 7:57 PM, Kathy Kleiman [log in to unmask] wrote:
>
>> Hi Niels,
>>
>> I think this idea is a very good one. I have been worried that we did
>> not submit a comment to the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working
>> Group, especially on Community Groups. A few weeks ago, Avri was kind
>> enough to answer my questions about this, and encourage our NCSG
>> participation. I think it is the perfect time to submit a comment --
>> even a little late!
>>
>> But quick note, at least in the US, next week is big end of summer
>> vacation week and traditionally very quiet. Perhaps allowing a week for
>> comment would enable more people to participate.
>>
>> Best and tx to you, Vidushi and the CCWP HR,
>>
>> Kathy
>>
>>
>> On 8/26/2016 7:50 AM, Niels ten Oever wrote:
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> I hope this e-mail finds you all well. We just had a very productive
>>> call of the CCWP HR in which we discussed several issues in which the
>>> gTLD Subsequenty Procedures WG impacts human rights (community priority
>>> procedure, how 'community' is defined, lack of gTLD applications from
>>> the global south, etc).
>>>
>>> I am aware that the first official input/comment period of this WG is
>>> over, but I think if we would send something in it might still be
>>> considered, especially since the NCSG did not send comment yet.
>>>
>>> Vidushi has graciously offered to do the drafting, also based on the
>>> report she initially drafted and which was accepted as CCWP HR document [0].
>>>
>>> So this is an early warning that you'll receive a draft comment on
>>> Tuesday, if we want to it to be considered I think we would need to
>>> submit it rather switfly, that's why I am sending this pre-warning so
>>> you know you can excpect it. Stay tuned :)
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Niels
>>>
>>> [0]
>>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/53772653/4.CCWP-HR%20Jurisdiction.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1467180138000&api=v2
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

--
Niels ten Oever
Head of Digital

Article 19
www.article19.org

PGP fingerprint    8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4
                   678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9