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