Milton, I need to better understand your comment in terms of the CCT-Review <question on PICs> where not PICs a voluntary offer by applicants??? why do you say PICs (as opposed to Safeguards) were imposed by GAC / ALAC? need some background please Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica) On 20 Sep 2016, at 8:29, Mueller, Milton L wrote: > Thanks, Vidushi. > I added a new paragraph about PICs (public interest commitments) to > the HR section. > > PICS. We oppose allowing the GAC or ALAC to hold applicants hostage in > order to extract so-called “Public Interest Commitments” from new > registries. PICs actually constitute a form of policy making that > bypasses the GNSO and the entire bottom up process. By imposing > content regulations on registries, they also can clash with ICANN’s > new mission statement, which is supposed to prevent it from regulating > content > > From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 1:44 AM > To: Mueller, Milton L <[log in to unmask]> > Cc: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: pre-warning draft comment to gTLD subsequent procedure WG > > Dear Milton, > > Thanks for your comments. I have taken off the FCFS section and made > it a comment for anyone who disagrees with this change. > > Some other comments that require a rewrite I have not resolved - I > would ask you to edit the document directly as that would be most > accurate. > > Thanks, > > Vidushi > > ----- On Sep 19, 2016, at 6:41 PM, Mueller, Milton L > <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > I hope this is not the final version, it contain some sections that > don't make sense and need to be modified. > > I have added some comments in the Google doc. In particular, I think > we need to delete altogether what is now section c), and probably also > section d). > > Neither of them make coherent points and they espouse positions which > do not have consensus support i n NCSG > > ________________________________ > From: NCSG-Discuss > <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > on behalf of Vidushi Marda > <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 3:32:06 AM > To: > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Subject: [Deadline for comments 9/9] Re: pre-warning draft comment to > gTLD subsequent procedure WG > > Dear All, > > Here is the final version of the NCSG comment to the gTLD Subsequent > Procedures WG: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1IC7-KJz12XuDBFeEYiDMoh8I1ibks_McW0XqHh_nw/edit#. > All comments have been addressed and resolved. Hoping that the policy > committee can pick this up now. > > Best wishes, > > Vidushi > > ________________________________ > From: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Cc: > [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 11:06:35 AM > Subject: Re: [Deadline for comments 9/9] Re: pre-warning draft comment > to gTLD subsequent procedure WG > > Dear All, > > Here is the final version of the NCSG comment to the gTLD Subsequent > Procedures WG: > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c1IC7-KJz12XuDBFeEYiDMoh8I1ibks_McW0XqHh_nw/edit#. > All comments have been addressed and resolved. Hoping that the policy > committee can pick this up now. > > Best wishes, > > Vidushi > > ----- On Sep 6, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Vidushi Marda > <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Dear All, > > I think the idea of deadlines for comments work well. Thanks for the > suggestion Farzi. > > Can we make the last day for comments/feedback on the doc this Friday > the 9th? That way we should be able to send in the doc by next week > after incorporating them. > > Best, > > Vidushi > > ----- On Sep 5, 2016, at 7:01 AM, Michael Oghia > <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > +1 Farzi > > -Michael > > On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 5:18 PM, farzaneh badii > <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > Thank you Vidushi and Niels, > I think your document will benefit from more referencing to the actual > policies you are talking about. Also as Tatiana pointed out you need > to resolve the comments first. I suggest set a deadline for people to > comment, then resolve those comments and then send it out to policy > committee. This is what we did in the past and worked out well. > > Best > > Farzaneh > > On 4 September 2016 at 14:33, Tatiana Tropina > <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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<http://www.article19.org> > > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > -- > Farzaneh