Thanks Avri for the very useful clarifications you have sent to the list. Matthew On 24/10/2016 12:40, avri doria wrote: > Hi, > > As I have pointed out before, it does not answer the specific questions > that the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures asked in the CC1 comment request. > > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/58001974/NCSG%20Outreach%20-%20Community%20Comment%201.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1465420832733&api=v2> > > I think it contains must useful comment for the work that is now > beginning in the various Work Tracks > > * > Work Track 1: Overall Process/Support/Outreach > <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490732> > * > Work Track 2: Legal/Regulatory > <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490775> > * > Work Track 3: String Contention / Objections & Disputes > <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490779> > * > Work Track 4: Internationalized Domain Names/Technical & Operations > <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=60490781> > * > Proposed Work Track 5: Implementation Guidance > <https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/Proposed+Work+Track+5%3A+Implementation+Guidance+Related+Work> > > But we have not yet put out a call for these efforts. > > avri > > > On 24-Oct-16 06:54, farzaneh badii wrote: >> I am not a PC member but I can tell you why it was not submitted by PC >> so that those who want to submit public comments in the future know >> how it works. [ I see that I had noted this before too on the same >> thread] >> >> The person in charge of drafting the public comment (shall we say the >> pen holder), when sending the document to the mailing list should set >> a deadline for comments. After the deadline or between posting and the >> deadline, the pen holder needs to resolve all the comments received >> and resolve the issues that are raised. After the deadline, the pen >> holder announces on the mailing list that the public comment will be >> sent to PC. or just ask the PC on NCSG mailing list to consider the >> public comment. >> >> The problem here is that the public comment was never finalized and PC >> was not asked to consider it. Hence no action was taken. >> >> The above process which I explained is how I got the public comments >> submitted before through PC ( including others) it is a >> customary process I'd say. But that is how you can get it done. >> >> On 24 October 2016 at 12:36, Niels ten Oever >> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Is it true that this has not been picked up by the Policy >> Committee and >> this has not been submitted? >> >> I think that would be a real pity of all the work people have put into >> this, and I think it's worth to still process it. If not, I would like >> to understand why. >> >> Best, >> >> Niels >> >> On 09/19/2016 03:32 AM, Vidushi Marda wrote: >> > 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# >> <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# >> <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]> >> <mailto:[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]> >> > <mailto:[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]> >> > <mailto:[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 >> <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]> >> > <mailto:[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 >> <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> >> <http://www.article19.org> >> > >> > PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 >> > 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Farzaneh >> > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> 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 > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus -- -------------- Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus