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

Thu Apr 5 15:31:11 CEST 2018

Hi,
I have reviewed the document as well and I have looked to see the responses
to the questions asked apart from the statement from some fellows. We can
still do a better job of the comments. I thought there was going to be
responses to the document to which one can add or suggest input.

I am also guilty of not making contributions as I have been a fellow and
it's only appropriate to add my input if there is still a window of
opportunity.
We should work with the EC to issue a richer document is my view.

Thank you,
Benjamin

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:23 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> https://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20180405/0822aeda/attachment.html>