Dear All, Thank you for the work on this draft comment. Is it possible for the EC to pick this up now? Best, Vidushi ----- On Sep 20, 2016, at 9:07 PM, avri doria [log in to unmask] wrote: > Hi, > > > I oppose this addition. > > > Not only do I disagree with the way it is worded, I think that PICs are > important and should be enforced. > > > I also think that the issue of PICs should be discussed in a PDP and > that they probably should be part of the gTLD SubPro PDP WG > consideration. New gTLD SubPro should talk about their use and others > should talk about their enforcement. > > > I agree that they way they were done in the last round was adhoc and > arbitrary. As far as coercive, while some may claim to having been > coerced many applicants did refuse to create any without any repercussion. > > > I think that if an applicant applies for name and commits in their > application to enforce some public interest conditions, those should be > included in the contract and should be enforced. > > > avri > > > On 20-Sep-16 10:29, 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus