[NCUC-DISCUSS] Extended - IMPORTANT: [Call for volunteers] ICANNFellowship Program Community Consultation

[Ayden Férdeline]

Hi,

The NCSG Chair has just shared a proposed comment which, in my opinion, is in good shape. I will propose a few suggested edits shortly as the document allows anyone to propose edits. However given the time crunch, and that the NCSG comment is in a more advanced state, I would suggest that it might be more appropriate for the NCSG to submit this instead, and therefore there is no need for the NCUC to submit a separate response.

Best wishes,

Ayden

Sent from ProtonMail Mobile

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 14:31, Liz Orembo <lizorembo at gmail.com> wrote:

> To be honest, I have only done a quick glance at the doc now and I agree that there's still much that needs to be worked on.
> I don't know which liner I'm supposed to spare here... but in my comments above I noted the period that the access concerns were mentioned.
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 3:12 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
>> Liz,
>>
>> I feel like I am the only person responding to this exchange who has clicked the link and read the proposed response. There is no way that this is suitable for submission, and I have clicked the link several times over the past fortnight -- there was no text a few days ago. So spare me the line that there has been ample time for the prose to be reviewed, because this is simply untrue. This is not a professional response, and those of us who do expect the NCUC to submit professional responses will continue to trickle away if we allow our standards to fall so low as to submit this one. I do not intend for my comment to sound disrespectful, but I'm sorry, this is not ready for submission.
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>> On April 5, 2018 2:06 PM, Liz Orembo <lizorembo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I see the draft was shared 10 days ago and in the first email of this thread, there were instructions to change settings to allow for comments and suggestions. Considering that the deadline to submit comments is tomorrow, I still think anyone can still input into the doc and the penholders can work on incorporating comments into the draft.
>>> If we had more time, I would suggest that the penholders compile and summarise the comments received from fellows, for clarity and to protect the identity of the fellows. (if that was the intention by hiding the names)
>>> @Ayden, I wish you raised the access concerns as soon as you experienced the challenges.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:25 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Renata,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your message.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree that there have been "many interventions" to this document. The Google Doc is in read-only mode, and I was not granted edit access, so I have not been able to share my contributions to the proposed text.
>>>>
>>>> Of the 13 pages, 9 pages are copied and pasted from other sources and do not relate to the questionnaire at hand. Of the 19 questions we have been asked to answer, most (14) have not been responded to, and those 5 with answers seem under-developed.
>>>>
>>>> We have already received one extension. This questionnaire was circulated on the NCSG list in January, and I do not believe the text that I see in the Google Doc today represents the view of the broader NCUC membership. I think it would be inappropriate for the EC to submit this, given the document has not been open to all members to edit, that the text is not final, and responses are not offered to a majority of the 19 questions being asked.
>>>>
>>>> A fortnight ago I requested, very modestly, that the membership have at least 24 hours to review the final text before the EC considers endorsing and submitting it. I am disappointed that this will not be the case. This is not how we used to work.
>>>>
>>>> I respectfully suggest that this response is under-developed and not suitable for submission on behalf of the NCUC. This is not a criticism of anyone (I thank those who have worked on this document), it is just the reality that we can't meet the deadline.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Ayden Férdeline
>>>>
>>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>>>>
>>>> On April 5, 2018 1:14 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Ayden
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, the deadline is 6th April.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll send the document today to the EC.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are 13 pages on the document with many interventions.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will try to get an extra extension for this comment but seems unlikely.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Renata
>>>>>
>>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>>
>>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>>
>>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Best regards.
>>> Liz.
>>>
>>> PGP ID: 0x1F3488BF
>
> --
>
> Best regards.
> Liz.
>
> PGP ID: 0x1F3488BF
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20180405/50a253b0/attachment.html>