From robin  Tue Jul  2 22:25:29 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 12:25:29 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Meetings Plan for ICANN #47 in Durban
Message-ID: <26BB3CBE-7E4A-4A40-966E-3C07A0CC7817@ipjustice.org>


Keep track of NCSG's discussion topics proposed and meeting agendas as they develop for the Durban ICANN Meeting#47.

Link to NCSG Meetings in Durban Planning Document:
 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dEN6SHM2U2VZalQ4MXMzNWtneWJrWnc&usp=sharing

Thanks!
Robin


From avri  Thu Jul  4 19:10:30 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 12:10:30 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Letter to Board re NPOC seat on Nomcom
Message-ID: <0FC8B03D-717A-4D0A-9692-CA82B8B3B9D0@acm.org>

Having said I wasn't going to write it,
How about something like:


Dear ICANN Board,

It has come to the NCSG's attention that NPOC, one of our Stakeholder Group constituencies, still has not been given a seat on the NomCom.  While we understand that a By-Laws change is required for this, we would have expected the Board to have taken care of this within a year of having created a mechanism for the creation of new constituencies and having approved the creation of NPOC. It has been much longer and we understand that NPOC has tried to get this taken care of.

We also understand that there is no time for the Board to do so in time for this year's Nomcom, please get this done before next year's Nomcom.

We are currently faced with a NomCom where NPOC is not represented.  We understand that the Board has the ability to appoint an academic representative to the NomCom.  We urgently request that the Board immediately appoint that academic representative from the NPOC.

This urgent request has been endorsed by the NCSG Executive and Policy Committees

Signed

NCSG Chair






From robin  Mon Jul  8 02:27:53 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 16:27:53 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] [PC-NCSG] NCSG Meetings Plan for ICANN #47 in Durban
In-Reply-To: <7217A24B-5B21-49A5-92B6-9D5026AA3613@uzh.ch>
References: <26BB3CBE-7E4A-4A40-966E-3C07A0CC7817@ipjustice.org>
	<7217A24B-5B21-49A5-92B6-9D5026AA3613@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <F060B024-4AD4-44DE-B6E5-3358672781BC@ipjustice.org>

Thanks, Bill and all.  A few comments below.

On Jul 5, 2013, at 1:53 AM, William Drake wrote:

> Hi Folks
> 
> I can't write to NCSG EC, which was copied on the original (someone could forward please?) but I can write to NCUC EC, so copied here.
> 
> Since the constituency-level stuff is slighter and easier, I'm pretty much ready to send out an integrated listing of NCUC activities, but with one big caveat?the SG level stuff UC people should be encouraged to participate in seems to be in varying states of organization.  Shall we try to have a little focused conversation to nail stuff down for announcement?  After all we arrive at the Hilton in a week.
> 
> On Jul 2, 2013, at 9:25 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Link to NCSG Meetings in Durban Planning Document:
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dEN6SHM2U2VZalQ4MXMzNWtneWJrWnc&usp=sharing
> 
> This is really useful and someday may I should do the same.  For now, extracting the action points:
> 
> --------
> 
> Sunday
> 
> NCSG Policy Cmte 16-18:00
> 
> No chair named.  Can I propose David?

Yes, - I've asked David if he can chair this discussion.
> 
> Possible Discussion Topics:	
> Prep. for Thursday's G-Council Mtg
> Prep. for NCSG w/Board Mtg on Tuesday
> Directory Services
> *If there's the intention to propose a PDP re: the recon, that that would seem like something that might eat much of the hour.

Will add PDP on TM+50
> 
> *Any other pressing stuff?  Otherwise I suspect we'll need less than 2hrs.

Topics 1 and 2 will have a dozen sub-parts.  The various meaty issues we discuss with the board makes the PC mtg a meatier discussion than what it may seem above.  This PC mtg time should be used for the PC to get their ducks in a row for the board discussion on a number of meaty topics, like recon request, article 29 letter, policy movements toward censorship, etc.  And again to get the PC ducks in a row for the GNSO Council votes and discussions on Wed. 
> 
> 
> 18:15 NCSG Cocktails with ICANN Board of Directors
> 
> One would guess some of them might ask what our next steps on Recon are.  Do we just wing it or want a messaging plan? Anything else we'll like to stick in their eares?

I'd suggest a message over the need to preserve bottom-up, community-led policy for Internet governance.  Insist that staff follow the rules.  The Board should stop sucking up to GAC, etc.

> 	
> 
> Tuesday
> 
> NCSG meeting, 13:30-15:30
> 
> Avri chair
> 
> Possible Discussion Topics:	
> Update from constituencies on morning meeting
> Prep. for NCSG w/Board Mtg on Tuesday	
> Q: This seems a bit thin for two hours?  And item 2's already been covered in the PC. Could add NomCom letter. Anything else?  Or seems a short meeting

Wasn't meant to be a complete agenda - just a start.  But do we need to talk about the NomCom letter?  How about we send it before the 14th?  I think we just do it now.
> 
> 
> 15:30-16:30 Discussion with Board
> 
> Avri again
> 
> Possible Discussion Topics:	
> the question ICANN's committment to the bottom-up community-led model for Internet governance	
> Inclusive outreach strategy / scaling participation in ICANN	
> GNSO Review / Restructuring	
> policy movements toward censorship (control of Internet content via DNS)	
> These seem ok although one can easily imagine the guarded answers we'll be getting.  Is there an intent to push the Recons stuff specifically?  Do we need a division of labor by topic or just leave it all in Avri's lap to introduce and frame each piece?

When I have chaired this discussion, I've asked someone from NCSG to speak to each one of the points and try to provide a starting point for the topic's discussion.  Of course anyone can speak and we desperately need more individual engagement from our members in these discussions.  But as the person who is wearing the heels for NCSG's side of this discussion, I'l let Avri manage it as she sees fit.

> 
> 
> 1830-19:30 CSG Drink
> 
> Any agenda items to push or just schmooze?  Do we either want to bother with why no House meeting questions?

I think this schmooze is instead of the formal house meeting but that is just a perception.  I don't think more meetings with CSG are needed in Durban.
> 
> 
> Thursday
> 
> Public Forum
> 
> Possible interventions:	
> 
> the question ICANN's committment to the bottom-up community-led model for Internet governance	
> Inclusive outreach strategy / scaling participation in ICANN	
> Q: I'd think a statement with ALAC on Friday would fit here. Anything else?
> 
AGreed.  Do we have volunteers from the folks who will be on the ground in Durban to make these interventions?

> 
> Some Unidentified Time
Gisella is working on finding a time for this discussion.  Stay tuned.
> 
> Discussion with At-Large
> 
> co-chair WK
> 
> Process of adoption of TM+50 policy
> Request for return of Friday meetings during ICANN week
> Possible common policy goals for new gtlds
> Policy v Implementation
> Joint Statement Delivered in Thursday's Public Forum
> 
> Q: some more focused and action-oriented than others.  Olivier tends to prefer actionable items to let's chat items.  Should we press them on whether they'd support whatever we're doing on Recon?  Could some Councilors lead on that discussion item?
> 
I don't think we'll have time for all of these topics.  It is the list that has been suggested by various members and we may need to focus the discussion on what we can do in Durban (complete joint statement on TM+50 and Friday meetings return?)   Or perhaps we don't need discussion of those two topics because from the discussions we've had, we seem in agreement and what we need now are drafters?????

That's all for now.  Thanks!

Robin

> 
> 
> 	

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130707/8d0dbb08/attachment.html>


From robin  Mon Jul  8 04:03:29 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 18:03:29 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Fwd: [PC-NCSG] Letter to Board re NPOC seat on Nomcom
References: <A66C0197-A1AE-4129-870D-F27CA363615B@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <13CF58FC-DE07-4152-9A94-89FE4FF25AC0@ipjustice.org>

Dear NCSG-EC:

Can we get approval on the letter to the board to create a NomCom seat for NPOC?

Thanks,
Robin

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Letter to Board re NPOC seat on Nomcom
> Date: July 7, 2013 6:01:42 PM PDT
> To: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
> Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> 
> Thanks, Avri.  Yes I agree we should send it asap and I'll cool with sending it.  I will also send it to the EC for agreement.  It will carry the most weight if both the PC and the EC sign off on the letter.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Jul 5, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I totally agree that they should have their own seat.  Since that take a bylaws change they haven't been able to get done since the creation of NPOC, to expect it to happen in time for next year's Nomcom is optimistic.  The Board should have taken care of this more than a year ago.  But it wasn't a priority, I guess.
>> 
>> Bill suggested a one time use, i beleive it was a one time use, of the Ed seat for NPOC.  I agreed it was worth a try.  The can always cut the knot by appointing an academic from NPOC.  That is why I wrote the last line a bit ambiguously.  At least I think it is a bit ambiguous.
>> 
>> Wendy, is it safe to say we have PC consensus?  people from both Constituencies have spoken in favor and no one has spoken against.
>> 
>> Robin: Is there EC agreement?  You cool with sending it?  I think the sooner the better at this point.
>> 
>> thanks
>> 
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 5 Jul 2013, at 11:33, Maria Farrell wrote:
>> 
>>> Sorry, Avri, I thought it was about creating a new seat from scratch. Personally I think that's more straightforward than resurrecting an old one and arguing that npoc should get it,  but my bad on losing the thread. I still support your letter.
>>> 
>>> Cheers, m
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On 5 Jul 2013, at 12:28, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I am confused.  You support the leeter, I appreciate that, but I am following Bill Drake's suggestion that the academic seat be filled with someone from NPOC.  Is that the 'tie in the academic seat' you write about?
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik, changing the bylaws takes at least as long as a comment period.  It is too late for that now, isn't it?
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 5 Jul 2013, at 06:38, Maria Farrell wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I support avri's letter, too. I think it would be a mistake to tie in the academic seat - background too murky, will cause delay in this letter & open up opportunity to board to obfuscate by saying it 's too difficult or complicated, or external parties should be drawn in, etc etc.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Maria
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 5 Jul 2013, at 08:56, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi ,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> maybe I am misunderstanding but I thought the goal is to ask Board to change the bylaws quickly and activate two nomcom rep seat: one for NPOC and one for academic.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rafik 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2013/7/5 William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>>>>>> Letter's good, although I 'd have thought the initiative should have been taken by the key party to the claim
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> BD
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Having said I wasn't going to write it,
>>>>>>> How about something like:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dear ICANN Board,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It has come to the NCSG's attention that NPOC, one of our Stakeholder Group constituencies, still has not been given a seat on the NomCom.  While we understand that a By-Laws change is required for this, we would have expected the Board to have taken care of this within a year of having created a mechanism for the creation of new constituencies and having approved the creation of NPOC. It has been much longer and we understand that NPOC has tried to get this taken care of.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We also understand that there is no time for the Board to do so in time for this year's Nomcom, please get this done before next year's Nomcom.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We are currently faced with a NomCom where NPOC is not represented.  We understand that the Board has the ability to appoint an academic representative to the NomCom.  We urgently request that the Board immediately appoint that academic representative from the NPOC.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This urgent request has been endorsed by the NCSG Executive and Policy Committees
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Signed
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> NCSG Chair
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> **********************************************************
>>>>>> William J. Drake
>>>>>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>>>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>>>>>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org
>>>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>>>>>> www.williamdrake.org
>>>>>> ***********************************************************
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130707/e99768d2/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Sun Jul 14 00:19:23 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 14:19:23 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Fwd: Serving as a Group Facilitator during the Monday
	Strategic Planning Session 10:30 - Noon
References: <CAPcHvQF2vGaSksX5JbynqdcgjvX_H0GKp-rabvxSzbBLRdJkHg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0DF968BD-AC9A-410D-B08C-D2D29343432D@ipjustice.org>

Any volunteers?

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Denise Michel <denise.michel at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: Serving as a Group Facilitator during the Monday Strategic Planning Session 10:30 - Noon
> Date: July 11, 2013 1:16:06 PM PDT
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Reply-To: denise.michel at icann.org
> 
> Thanks for the quick response. Please let me know if there's another NCSG leader in attendance you would recommend to serve in this capacity.
> 
> Thanks
> Denise
> 
> Denise Michel
> VP Strategic Initiatives
> & Advisor to the President
> ICANN
> denise.michel at icann.org
> +1.408.429.3072 mobile
> +1.310.578.8632 direct
> denisemichelicann skype
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> Sorry but I won't be at the Durban ICANN meeting.  Thanks for the invite.  Perhaps next time.
> 
> Good luck,
> Robin
> 
> On Jul 11, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Denise Michel wrote:
> 
>> Dear Robin:
>> 
>> We would like to offer you a slot as a group facilitator for our community strategic planning brainstorming session on Monday morning in the main ballroom.  This session is structured to be a community-led and focused event, so we are asking community leaders to help encourage cross-community conversations in the break-out groups. 
>> 
>> As previously noted, this session will be focused on generating discussion and input from the community on a large scale. We'll be dividing a ballroom of people into breakout groups that will be facilitated by community leaders using a common framework of the key challenges facing ICANN in the next five years. Xplane and ICANN Staff will be on hand to assist, as needed, and no advance preparation is required of you. We will provide simple instructions to help encourage the group discussion.
>> 
>> Please confirm your availability to serve as a group facilitator by emailing Charla (cc'd) before Sunday and we will provide additional information via email. We are asking facilitators to meet Xplane staff and me in front of the stage in Hall 6 immediately following Fadi's remarks (10:00 am).  
>> 
>> Thanks for your help and safe travels.
>> 
>> Denise
>> 
>> Denise Michel
>> VP Strategic Initiatives
>> & Advisor to the President
>> ICANN
>> denise.michel at icann.org
>> +1.408.429.3072 mobile
>> +1.310.578.8632 direct
>> denisemichelicann skype
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130713/252b2748/attachment.html>


From avri  Sun Jul 14 13:16:27 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 12:16:27 +0200
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Serving as a Group Facilitator during the Monday
	Strategic Planning Session 10:30 - Noon
In-Reply-To: <0DF968BD-AC9A-410D-B08C-D2D29343432D@ipjustice.org>
References: <CAPcHvQF2vGaSksX5JbynqdcgjvX_H0GKp-rabvxSzbBLRdJkHg@mail.gmail.com>
	<0DF968BD-AC9A-410D-B08C-D2D29343432D@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CFCBB511-42F9-4512-8AD5-FE33F53EAC72@acm.org>

Hi,

I can do this if there are not other volunteers.

avri

On 13 Jul 2013, at 23:19, Robin Gross wrote:

> Any volunteers?
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Denise Michel <denise.michel at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: Serving as a Group Facilitator during the Monday Strategic Planning Session 10:30 - Noon
>> Date: July 11, 2013 1:16:06 PM PDT
>> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>> Reply-To: denise.michel at icann.org
>> 
>> Thanks for the quick response. Please let me know if there's another NCSG leader in attendance you would recommend to serve in this capacity.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Denise
>> 
>> Denise Michel
>> VP Strategic Initiatives
>> & Advisor to the President
>> ICANN
>> denise.michel at icann.org
>> +1.408.429.3072 mobile
>> +1.310.578.8632 direct
>> denisemichelicann skype
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>> Sorry but I won't be at the Durban ICANN meeting.  Thanks for the invite.  Perhaps next time.
>> 
>> Good luck,
>> Robin
>> 
>> On Jul 11, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Denise Michel wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear Robin:
>>> 
>>> We would like to offer you a slot as a group facilitator for our community strategic planning brainstorming session on Monday morning in the main ballroom.  This session is structured to be a community-led and focused event, so we are asking community leaders to help encourage cross-community conversations in the break-out groups. 
>>> 
>>> As previously noted, this session will be focused on generating discussion and input from the community on a large scale. We'll be dividing a ballroom of people into breakout groups that will be facilitated by community leaders using a common framework of the key challenges facing ICANN in the next five years. Xplane and ICANN Staff will be on hand to assist, as needed, and no advance preparation is required of you. We will provide simple instructions to help encourage the group discussion.
>>> 
>>> Please confirm your availability to serve as a group facilitator by emailing Charla (cc'd) before Sunday and we will provide additional information via email. We are asking facilitators to meet Xplane staff and me in front of the stage in Hall 6 immediately following Fadi's remarks (10:00 am).  
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your help and safe travels.
>>> 
>>> Denise
>>> 
>>> Denise Michel
>>> VP Strategic Initiatives
>>> & Advisor to the President
>>> ICANN
>>> denise.michel at icann.org
>>> +1.408.429.3072 mobile
>>> +1.310.578.8632 direct
>>> denisemichelicann skype
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg




From robin  Mon Jul 15 22:46:08 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:46:08 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Request to ICANN Board of Directors to Provide NPOC
	with Representation on Nominating Committee
Message-ID: <C39CE0B1-6BBC-477B-A3A6-277711EF9451@ipjustice.org>

Dear EC & PC members:

As the below text was circulated for approval on 4 July to the EC and PC lists and not having heard any objections to it and only endorsements for it, I will send the below letter to the ICANN Board of Directors requesting that NPOC be provided a seat on the Nominating Committee today.  Thanks for your input.  I'll let you know if you receive any response from the board on the request.

Thank you,
Robin
________________________


Dear ICANN Board of Directors,

It has come to the NCSG's attention that NPOC, one of our Stakeholder Group constituencies, still has not been given a seat on ICANN's Nominating Committee.  While we understand that a corporation bylaws change is required for this, we would have expected the Board to have taken care of this within a year of having created a mechanism for the creation of new constituencies and having approved the creation of NPOC.  It has been much longer and we understand that NPOC has tried to get this taken care of.

We also understand that there is no time for the Board to do so in time for this year's Nominating Committee, please get this done before next year's Nominating Committee.

We are currently faced with a NomCom where NPOC is not represented.  We understand that the Board has the ability to appoint an academic representative to the NomCom.  We urgently request that the Board immediately appoint that academic representative from the NPOC.

This urgent request has been endorsed by the NCSG Executive and Policy Committees

Signed,
Robin Gross
NCSG Chair



From robin  Tue Jul 16 02:25:58 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:25:58 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior to
	Filing for an Independent Review
Message-ID: <85FA19DC-62A0-46D4-94CA-4B17517415D2@ipjustice.org>

The Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group (NCSG), per Article IV Section 3 (14) of the Bylaws of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), respectfully invokes the Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP) in an effort to resolve certain issues at dispute with ICANN prior to filing a request for an independent review.

The following information is presented in full compliance with rules governing initiation of a CEP request, as amended on 11 April 2013:

1. The single point of contact for the NCSG in this matter shall be:

Ms. Robin Gross

Chair, Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG)

1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, California  94117  USA

Telephone number:  +1-415-553-6261

E-Mail: robin at ipjustice.org

 
2.  The Board action subject to the CEP:

Resolution 2013.07.02.NG01 of the New gTLD Program Committee, dated 2 July 2013, adopting the revised recommendation of the Board Governance Committee relating to Reconsideration Request 13-3.

 
3. We allege violation of the following provisions of ICANN?s Bylaws, with respect to the previously stated Board action:

ICANN Bylaws, Article 1 (2) (7)

ICANN Bylaws, Article I (2) (8)

ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, section 9

ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, section 10


We look forward to working with ICANN?s designated representative on this matter in a good faith effort to resolve the issues in contention and obviate the need for an independent review.

Submitted the 15th of July 2013,

Robin Gross
NCSG Chair

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130715/c31b8d00/attachment.html>


From robin  Tue Jul 16 02:40:07 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:40:07 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Fwd: NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior
	to Filing for an Independent Review
References: <85FA19DC-62A0-46D4-94CA-4B17517415D2@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <4E38D8DF-E565-4E72-8453-9D1B26220B1E@ipjustice.org>

Dear Bruce,

NCSG sent the below email (to independentreview at icann.org) to trigger the CEP as directed in the 11 April 2013 instructions on ICANN's website but we got a "bounce back" message to say it was a bad email address.

So now I'm not sure how to file this CEP request.  Any assistance you can provide in getting this filed would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
Robin

>From 11 April 2013 instructions on ICANN website:
The Cooperative Engagement Process is as follows:

In the event the requesting party elects to proceed to cooperative engagement prior to filing a request for independent review, the requesting party may invoke the cooperative engagement process by providing written notice to ICANN at [independentreview at icann.org], noting the invocation of the process, identifying the Board action(s) at issue, identifying the provisions of the ICANN Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation that are alleged to be violated, and designating a single point of contact for the resolution of the issue. ...


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior to Filing for an Independent Review
> Date: July 15, 2013 4:25:58 PM PDT
> To: independentreview at icann.org
> Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> 
> The Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group (NCSG), per Article IV Section 3 (14) of the Bylaws of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), respectfully invokes the Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP) in an effort to resolve certain issues at dispute with ICANN prior to filing a request for an independent review.
> 
> The following information is presented in full compliance with rules governing initiation of a CEP request, as amended on 11 April 2013:
> 
> 1. The single point of contact for the NCSG in this matter shall be:
> 
> Ms. Robin Gross
> 
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG)
> 
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, California  94117  USA
> 
> Telephone number:  +1-415-553-6261
> 
> E-Mail: robin at ipjustice.org
> 
>  
> 2.  The Board action subject to the CEP:
> 
> Resolution 2013.07.02.NG01 of the New gTLD Program Committee, dated 2 July 2013, adopting the revised recommendation of the Board Governance Committee relating to Reconsideration Request 13-3.
> 
>  
> 3. We allege violation of the following provisions of ICANN?s Bylaws, with respect to the previously stated Board action:
> 
> ICANN Bylaws, Article 1 (2) (7)
> 
> ICANN Bylaws, Article I (2) (8)
> 
> ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, section 9
> 
> ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, section 10
> 
> 
> We look forward to working with ICANN?s designated representative on this matter in a good faith effort to resolve the issues in contention and obviate the need for an independent review.
> 
> Submitted the 15th of July 2013,
> 
> Robin Gross
> NCSG Chair
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130715/8f150397/attachment.html>


From robin  Tue Jul 16 14:27:45 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 04:27:45 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Fwd: NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior
	to Filing for an Independent Review
References: <82F9D425-40F0-40C6-8C16-39FD38D53DBE@icann.org>
Message-ID: <09ACC8C2-960E-4035-BB03-7CC9D09B04B4@ipjustice.org>




Begin forwarded message:

> From: Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org>
> Date: July 15, 2013 10:43:00 PM PDT
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Cc: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> Subject: Re: NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior to Filing for an Independent Review
> 

> Hi Robin - This is to acknowledge receipt of your email below to independentreview at icann.org that Bruce forwarded to me.
> 
> We will be back to you in accordance with the process.  Thank you.
> 
> Amy A. Stathos
> Deputy General Counsel
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> +1-310-301-3866 (direct)
> amy.stathos at icann.org
> 
> 
>> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2013 1:40 AM
>> To: Bruce Tonkin
>> Cc: ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org; NCSG-Policy Policy
>> Subject: Fwd: NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior to Filing for an Independent Review
>>  
>> Dear Bruce,
>>  
>> NCSG sent the below email (to independentreview at icann.org) to trigger the CEP as directed in the 11 April 2013 instructions on ICANN's website but we got a "bounce back" message to say it was a bad email address.
>>  
>> So now I'm not sure how to file this CEP request.  Any assistance you can provide in getting this filed would be greatly appreciated.
>>  
>> Thank you,
>> Robin
>>  
>> From 11 April 2013 instructions on ICANN website:
>> The Cooperative Engagement Process is as follows:
>> 
>> 1.      In the event the requesting party elects to proceed to cooperative engagement prior to filing a request for independent review, the requesting party may invoke the cooperative engagement process by providing written notice to ICANN at [independentreview at icann.org], noting the invocation of the process, identifying the Board action(s) at issue, identifying the provisions of the ICANN Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation that are alleged to be violated, and designating a single point of contact for the resolution of the issue. ...
>> 
>>  
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> 
>> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>> Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior to Filing for an Independent Review
>> Date: July 15, 2013 4:25:58 PM PDT
>> To: independentreview at icann.org
>> Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>>  
>> The Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group (NCSG), per Article IV Section 3 (14) of the Bylaws of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), respectfully invokes the Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP) in an effort to resolve certain issues at dispute with ICANN prior to filing a request for an independent review.
>> The following information is presented in full compliance with rules governing initiation of a CEP request, as amended on 11 April 2013:
>> 1. The single point of contact for the NCSG in this matter shall be:
>> Ms. Robin Gross
>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG)
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, California  94117  USA
>> Telephone number:  +1-415-553-6261
>> E-Mail: robin at ipjustice.org
>>  
>> 2.  The Board action subject to the CEP:
>> Resolution 2013.07.02.NG01 of the New gTLD Program Committee, dated 2 July 2013, adopting the revised recommendation of the Board Governance Committee relating to Reconsideration Request 13-3.
>>  
>> 3. We allege violation of the following provisions of ICANN?s Bylaws, with respect to the previously stated Board action:
>> ICANN Bylaws, Article 1 (2) (7)
>> ICANN Bylaws, Article I (2) (8)
>> ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, section 9
>> ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, section 10
>>  
>> We look forward to working with ICANN?s designated representative on this matter in a good faith effort to resolve the issues in contention and obviate the need for an independent review.
>> Submitted the 15th of July 2013,
>> Robin Gross
>> NCSG Chair
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>  
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130716/767845fc/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Tue Jul 16 20:52:00 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 10:52:00 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Fwd: NCSG Request that NPOC Be Provided Representation on
	ICANN Nominating Committee
References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E83E58D6F3@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
Message-ID: <45A404CC-B68E-49D3-9B9C-BAD9336FDE35@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> Subject: RE: NCSG Request that NPOC Be Provided Representation on ICANN Nominating Committee
> Date: July 15, 2013 4:44:46 PM PDT
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> 
> Hello Robin,
> 
> I have posted it to the Board list.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2013 1:16 AM
> To: Michelle Bright
> Cc: Bruce Tonkin
> Subject: NCSG Request that NPOC Be Provided Representation on ICANN Nominating Committee
> 
> Dear Michelle,
> 
> Would you please distribute the below letter from NCSG to the ICANN Board of Directors?
> 
> Thank you,
> Robin
> 
> ________________________
> 
> Dear ICANN Board of Directors,
> 
> It has come to the NCSG's attention that NPOC, one of our Stakeholder Group constituencies, still has not been given a seat on ICANN's Nominating Committee.  While we understand that a corporation bylaws change is required for this, we would have expected the Board to have taken care of this within a year of having created a mechanism for the creation of new constituencies and having approved the creation of NPOC.  It has been much longer and we understand that NPOC has tried to get this taken care of.
> 
> We also understand that if there is no time for the Board to do so in time for this year's Nominating Committee, please get this done before next year's Nominating Committee.
> 
> We are currently faced with a NomCom where NPOC is not represented and noncommercial users are under-represented.  We understand that the Board has the ability to appoint an academic representative to the NomCom.  We urgently request that the Board immediately appoint that academic representative from the NPOC.
> 
> This urgent request has been endorsed by the NCSG Executive and Policy Committees.
> 
> Signed,
> Robin Gross
> NCSG Chair
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130716/e1fb5a74/attachment.html>


From robin  Tue Jul 23 22:27:55 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 12:27:55 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] request for update on BGC rationale 13-3 discussion
In-Reply-To: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E83E52CEE4@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
References: <8B11DDF8-8469-4E12-89DC-0EAE13FADF35@ipjustice.org>
	<263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E83E52CEE4@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
Message-ID: <39A5CFD2-E9F9-40AA-99CF-756D11F37756@ipjustice.org>

Hi Bruce,

Just a quick follow-up to check if the BGC meeting minutes from 25 June 2013 are available yet?  (They don't seem to be posted to the ICANN website yet).

Thanks for any assistance you can provide on tracking this info down.

Best,
Robin


On Jun 26, 2013, at 9:03 PM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:

> Hello Robin,
> 
> 
>>> I understand the BGC met yesterday and discussed NCSG's reconsideration request and the rationale supplied in BGC's earlier recommendation.  Is there any news on this discussion and whether the board will hold a community-wide discussion on the topic of the decision's rationale in Durban?
> 
> The BGC approved a revised version of the rationale, taking into account recent community feedback.   I expect that this will be published at:
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration   shortly.
> 
> The BGC also decided to send to the Board's new gTLD Program Committee for approval.  I expect that this will be at their next meeting - which I expect will be early July.  Once the meeting is confirmed, the details should be available here:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/meetings
> 
> The Board is certainly open to discuss the issues associated with and lessons learned with this reconsideration request at its meetings in Durban.  The Board will be meeting with the non-commercial stakeholder group as usual, and I assume we will also meet with the GNSO, and of course have a public forum later in the week.
> 
>> .  Also, when do the meeting minutes from the BGC's 18 June meeting get posted to the web?   We are all very eager for any news on what is happening on this issue within ICANN so any info you can tell us would be most appreciated.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> Normally once the staff have produced the minutes - they are sent to the BGC mailing list for approval via email.  They require approval from all members via email.  If we don't get full approval via email, then we approve as the first item of the agenda at the next meeting.   I expect that the latest they will be published will be after the BGC meeting in Durban - which is scheduled during the 1st weekend of the meeting.   I will post them on as soon as I am informed they have been published.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> 




From robin  Thu Jul 25 05:05:42 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 19:05:42 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG DIDP Request
Message-ID: <48D3B6A1-5481-4385-AAC0-7E14C7BB547D@ipjustice.org>

The Articles of Incorporation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), article 4, require ICANN to act through ?open and transparent processes.? ICANN is required by it?s corporate Bylaws to use  ?open and transparent policy development mechanisms? (Bylaws, article I, Section 2(7)) and to ?operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner? (Bylaws, article III, section 1 (1)).


To meet these obligations, ICANN has established a Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) which requires it to ?ensure that information contained in documents concerning ICANN?s operational activities, is made available to the public unless there is a compelling reason for confidentiality.?

The Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group (NCSG), with over 300 members the largest and most diverse constituent member of ICANN?s Generic Name Supporting Organization (GNSO), supports ICANN?s commitment to open and transparent policy processes.

The NCSG notes that under the DIDP ICANN is required to supply ?information not already publicly available? to any member of the public so requesting said information.  ?To the extent feasible? ICANN is required to provide this information to the requestor no later than 30 days from the date of receipt of the request.

As such, the Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG) respectfully requests that the following documentary information be provided to it without delay per the terms of the DIDP:

1.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, concerning and / or leading to the staff action of the imposition of the policy announced in the 20 March 2013 staff memo titled ?Trademark Claims Protection for Previously Abused Names. 

2.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, leading to adoption of staff recommendation of the so-called ?Trademark +50? policy, including, but not exclusively, any information, data, facts or rationale, per article 7 of the Affirmation of Commitments by the United States Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers, leading to the determination that the number ?50? was the appropriate enumerator for this unprecedented extension of property rights and if any other numbers were considered.

3.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, involved in the preparation, compilation and production of Fadi Chehade?s 19 September 2012 letter to members of the United States Congress.

4.  All correspondence between ICANN, staff and Board, and third parties, including but not exclusively government officials, trade associations, corporate and legal firms and interests, concerning the extension of trademark protection beyond the GNSO-approved ?exact match? standard in the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH).

5.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, concerning the meeting convened by Fadi Chehade in Los Angeles on 15-16 November 2012 to discuss the creation of new trademark privileges in new gtld policy.  This request explicitly includes but is not limited to materials relating to the meeting?s organization, the substance of its discussions, and any follow-up materials related to the meeting.

6.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, concerning staff memo of 29 November 2012, and the 3 December 2013 update, titled ?Trademark Clearinghouse: Strawman Solution?, involving any aspect of allegedly abusively registered strings and policy / implementation concerns thereof.

7.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, provided to or used by Mr. Chehade and/or staff in compiling Mr. Chehade?s 26 November 2012 blog post concerning strings and allegedly abusive registrations and policy / implementation issues thereof.  This request explicitly includes but is not limited to any such materials relating to the post-publication change, deletion, addition, or other editing of the text of the blog post.

8.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, used in the creation of Mr. Chehade?s e-mail to GNSO Chair Jonathan Robinson asking for ?policy guidance? on the portion of the Strawman Model relating to the scope of trademark claims.

9.  All documentation, contracts, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to ICANN, staff, board and external contractor?s, consideration of and response to Reconsideration Request 13-3.

10.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to the Board Governance Committee?s memo of 16 May 2013 concerning Reconsideration Request 13-3.  This request includes but is not limited to materials related to the BGC?s 16 May meeting in which NCSG?s request was discussed, including board discussions, staff briefings or any notes, records or other information related to those staff briefings or board discussions.

11.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to the Board Governance Committee?s Revised Recommendation of 25 June 2013, concerning Reconsideration Request 13-3, including but not limited to any materials relating to the reason for the revision.  This request includes but is not limited to materials related to the BGC?s 25 June meeting in which NCSG?s request was discussed, including staff briefings or any notes, records or other information related to those staff briefings or board discussions.

12.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to the New gTLD Program Committees action of 2 July 2013 relating to Reconsideration Request 13-3.

13.  All correspondence, and / or records thereof, between ICANN, staff and Board, and United States Senator Pat Leahy from 1 May 2012 to the present.

14.  All correspondence, and / or records thereof, between ICANN, staff and Board, and Yahoo! Inc., including that between ICANN and Yahoo!?s representatives and agents, from 1 May 2012 to the present.

15.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including contracts and invoices, relating to the involvement and / or contracting of outside counsel in any matter concerning Reconsideration Request 13-3. 

Prompt attention to this information request is greatly appreciated.  We would respectfully point out that the information requested, per the DIDP, is that which is not currently ?publicly available?.  We are aware of the contents of the ICANN website and do not need any guidance in locating materials on it.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.  We applaud ICANN for its commitment to openness and transparency and look forward to receiving the materials requested in a timely manner.

Sincerely,

Robin Gross

Chair, Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group (NCSG)

 

 

 

 

 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130724/9049c3dd/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Thu Jul 25 15:12:57 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:12:57 -0400
Subject: [EC-NCSG] [PC-NCSG] NCSG DIDP Request
In-Reply-To: <48D3B6A1-5481-4385-AAC0-7E14C7BB547D@ipjustice.org>
References: <48D3B6A1-5481-4385-AAC0-7E14C7BB547D@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <B491EC25-2D5C-45D6-B8E7-8C1CA014CE5E@ella.com>

Hi,

Good request.

BTW All remember to drop didp from theto/cc if/when you reply to the message.

avri



On 24 Jul 2013, at 22:05, Robin Gross wrote:

> The Articles of Incorporation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), article 4, require ICANN to act through ?open and transparent processes.? ICANN is required by it?s corporate Bylaws to use  ?open and transparent policy development mechanisms? (Bylaws, article I, Section 2(7)) and to ?operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner? (Bylaws, article III, section 1 (1)).
> 
> 
> To meet these obligations, ICANN has established a Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) which requires it to ?ensure that information contained in documents concerning ICANN?s operational activities, is made available to the public unless there is a compelling reason for confidentiality.?
> 
> The Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group (NCSG), with over 300 members the largest and most diverse constituent member of ICANN?s Generic Name Supporting Organization (GNSO), supports ICANN?s commitment to open and transparent policy processes.
> 
> The NCSG notes that under the DIDP ICANN is required to supply ?information not already publicly available? to any member of the public so requesting said information.  ?To the extent feasible? ICANN is required to provide this information to the requestor no later than 30 days from the date of receipt of the request.
> 
> As such, the Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG) respectfully requests that the following documentary information be provided to it without delay per the terms of the DIDP:
> 
> 1.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, concerning and / or leading to the staff action of the imposition of the policy announced in the 20 March 2013 staff memo titled ?Trademark Claims Protection for Previously Abused Names. 
> 
> 2.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, leading to adoption of staff recommendation of the so-called ?Trademark +50? policy, including, but not exclusively, any information, data, facts or rationale, per article 7 of the Affirmation of Commitments by the United States Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers, leading to the determination that the number ?50? was the appropriate enumerator for this unprecedented extension of property rights and if any other numbers were considered.
> 
> 3.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, involved in the preparation, compilation and production of Fadi Chehade?s 19 September 2012 letter to members of the United States Congress.
> 
> 4.  All correspondence between ICANN, staff and Board, and third parties, including but not exclusively government officials, trade associations, corporate and legal firms and interests, concerning the extension of trademark protection beyond the GNSO-approved ?exact match? standard in the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH).
> 
> 5.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, concerning the meeting convened by Fadi Chehade in Los Angeles on 15-16 November 2012 to discuss the creation of new trademark privileges in new gtld policy.  This request explicitly includes but is not limited to materials relating to the meeting?s organization, the substance of its discussions, and any follow-up materials related to the meeting.
> 
> 6.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, concerning staff memo of 29 November 2012, and the 3 December 2013 update, titled ?Trademark Clearinghouse: Strawman Solution?, involving any aspect of allegedly abusively registered strings and policy / implementation concerns thereof.
> 
> 7.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, provided to or used by Mr. Chehade and/or staff in compiling Mr. Chehade?s 26 November 2012 blog post concerning strings and allegedly abusive registrations and policy / implementation issues thereof.  This request explicitly includes but is not limited to any such materials relating to the post-publication change, deletion, addition, or other editing of the text of the blog post.
> 
> 8.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, used in the creation of Mr. Chehade?s e-mail to GNSO Chair Jonathan Robinson asking for ?policy guidance? on the portion of the Strawman Model relating to the scope of trademark claims.
> 
> 9.  All documentation, contracts, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to ICANN, staff, board and external contractor?s, consideration of and response to Reconsideration Request 13-3.
> 
> 10.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to the Board Governance Committee?s memo of 16 May 2013 concerning Reconsideration Request 13-3.  This request includes but is not limited to materials related to the BGC?s 16 May meeting in which NCSG?s request was discussed, including board discussions, staff briefings or any notes, records or other information related to those staff briefings or board discussions.
> 
> 11.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to the Board Governance Committee?s Revised Recommendation of 25 June 2013, concerning Reconsideration Request 13-3, including but not limited to any materials relating to the reason for the revision.  This request includes but is not limited to materials related to the BGC?s 25 June meeting in which NCSG?s request was discussed, including staff briefings or any notes, records or other information related to those staff briefings or board discussions.
> 
> 12.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to the New gTLD Program Committees action of 2 July 2013 relating to Reconsideration Request 13-3.
> 
> 13.  All correspondence, and / or records thereof, between ICANN, staff and Board, and United States Senator Pat Leahy from 1 May 2012 to the present.
> 
> 14.  All correspondence, and / or records thereof, between ICANN, staff and Board, and Yahoo! Inc., including that between ICANN and Yahoo!?s representatives and agents, from 1 May 2012 to the present.
> 
> 15.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including contracts and invoices, relating to the involvement and / or contracting of outside counsel in any matter concerning Reconsideration Request 13-3. 
> 
> Prompt attention to this information request is greatly appreciated.  We would respectfully point out that the information requested, per the DIDP, is that which is not currently ?publicly available?.  We are aware of the contents of the ICANN website and do not need any guidance in locating materials on it.
> 
> Thank you for your assistance in this matter.  We applaud ICANN for its commitment to openness and transparency and look forward to receiving the materials requested in a timely manner.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Robin Gross
> 
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group (NCSG)
> 
>  
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From robin  Thu Jul 25 18:26:31 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:26:31 -0700
Subject: [EC-NCSG] Fwd: NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior
	to Filing for an Independent Review
References: <4D625DF6-6431-41B6-BCED-9621F629AE4E@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <3D2B9DB7-FD10-4855-96BF-3760F2038110@ipjustice.org>

fyi

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: Re: NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior to Filing for an Independent Review
> Date: July 25, 2013 8:25:14 AM PDT
> To: Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org>
> Cc: John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey at icann.org>
> 
> Dear Amy,
> 
> NCSG has filed a DIDP request to try to obtain some of the information necessary to sort out this disagreement.  Therefore we request that our initial CEP discussion take place after we have had a chance to review the requested information, which may sort out some of the issues without the need for further discussion.
> 
> I will need to check with my members as to whether or not an unrecorded meeting would be acceptable to resolve their issues.  It is our understanding that this CEP process is part of ICANN's commitment to accountability and so secret discussions that resolve important policy disputes or interpret corporate bylaws would probably be inadequate.  The entire GNSO has a direct interest in the subject matter of this dispute - the adoption of the TM+50 policy - and therefore many members of the community have an interest in understanding staff's position about its authority with respect to creating new policies and how it relates to the language in the corporate bylaws.  It would probably be best for ICANN to try to figure out a way to make transcripts of the discussions available so we can all benefit from learning staff's position on these matters which effect all of us - especially given ICANN's stated commitment to transparency in its operations.
> 
> So please let me know if we can set our CEP discussion time for a date after we've received the requested DIDP information and if ICANN can provide transcripts of the CEP discussions for purposes of transparency and accountability to the community.
> 
> Thank you,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Jul 24, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Amy Stathos wrote:
> 
>> Hi Robin. Thank you. We are available either time on Thursday so please let us know which time you would prefer and whether there is a number we should call or if you would prefer that we set up a conference call. 
>> 
>> In terms of your second question, the process does not contemplate a recording or transcript. The process was designed to allow for frank and spontaneous discussion to help resolve any issues that can be resolved and which generally would not be recorded. 
>> 
>> Regards, Amy
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On Jul 22, 2013, at 8:30 PM, "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello Amy,
>>> 
>>> Yes I can agree to providing the extension until 25 July.  I'm available at either 11:30 or 13:30 on the 25th.  Would one of those times work for you? 
>>> 
>>> Also, will there be a recording or transcript made of the conversation for transparency and for the public record?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:25 AM, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear Robin:  
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for initiating the Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP) in advance of filing a request for Independent Review.  ICANN has designated John Jeffrey as the Executive that will participate in the CEP you have initiated.  In light of the ICANN Durban meeting and associated travel schedules, pursuant to section 6 of the engagement provision we would ask that the the date for the conference called for in section 4 of the CEP be extended until either 24 or 25 July.  If you are agreeable to the extension, please let us know your availability on these suggested dates for a telephonic conference.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you and please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Amy A. Stathos
>>>> Deputy General Counsel
>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>>>> +1-310-301-3866 (direct)
>>>> amy.stathos at icann.org
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jul 16, 2013, at 7:43 AM, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Robin - This is to acknowledge receipt of your email below to independentreview at icann.org that Bruce forwarded to me.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We will be back to you in accordance with the process.  Thank you.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amy A. Stathos
>>>>> Deputy General Counsel
>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>>>>> +1-310-301-3866 (direct)
>>>>> amy.stathos at icann.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2013 1:40 AM
>>>>>> To: Bruce Tonkin
>>>>>> Cc: ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org; NCSG-Policy Policy
>>>>>> Subject: Fwd: NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior to Filing for an Independent Review
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Dear Bruce,
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> NCSG sent the below email (to independentreview at icann.org) to trigger the CEP as directed in the 11 April 2013 instructions on ICANN's website but we got a "bounce back" message to say it was a bad email address.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> So now I'm not sure how to file this CEP request.  Any assistance you can provide in getting this filed would be greatly appreciated.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> From 11 April 2013 instructions on ICANN website:
>>>>>> The Cooperative Engagement Process is as follows:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1.      In the event the requesting party elects to proceed to cooperative engagement prior to filing a request for independent review, the requesting party may invoke the cooperative engagement process by providing written notice to ICANN at [independentreview at icann.org], noting the invocation of the process, identifying the Board action(s) at issue, identifying the provisions of the ICANN Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation that are alleged to be violated, and designating a single point of contact for the resolution of the issue. ...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior to Filing for an Independent Review
>>>>>> Date: July 15, 2013 4:25:58 PM PDT
>>>>>> To: independentreview at icann.org
>>>>>> Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> The Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group (NCSG), per Article IV Section 3 (14) of the Bylaws of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), respectfully invokes the Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP) in an effort to resolve certain issues at dispute with ICANN prior to filing a request for an independent review.
>>>>>> The following information is presented in full compliance with rules governing initiation of a CEP request, as amended on 11 April 2013:
>>>>>> 1. The single point of contact for the NCSG in this matter shall be:
>>>>>> Ms. Robin Gross
>>>>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG)
>>>>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, California  94117  USA
>>>>>> Telephone number:  +1-415-553-6261
>>>>>> E-Mail: robin at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 2.  The Board action subject to the CEP:
>>>>>> Resolution 2013.07.02.NG01 of the New gTLD Program Committee, dated 2 July 2013, adopting the revised recommendation of the Board Governance Committee relating to Reconsideration Request 13-3.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 3. We allege violation of the following provisions of ICANN?s Bylaws, with respect to the previously stated Board action:
>>>>>> ICANN Bylaws, Article 1 (2) (7)
>>>>>> ICANN Bylaws, Article I (2) (8)
>>>>>> ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, section 9
>>>>>> ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, section 10
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> We look forward to working with ICANN?s designated representative on this matter in a good faith effort to resolve the issues in contention and obviate the need for an independent review.
>>>>>> Submitted the 15th of July 2013,
>>>>>> Robin Gross
>>>>>> NCSG Chair
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130725/00a7d1ee/attachment-0001.html>


From mueller  Thu Jul 25 21:04:50 2013
From: mueller (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 18:04:50 +0000
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG DIDP Request
In-Reply-To: <48D3B6A1-5481-4385-AAC0-7E14C7BB547D@ipjustice.org>
References: <48D3B6A1-5481-4385-AAC0-7E14C7BB547D@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24717C2@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>

Robin:
You forgot to ask for all the metadata of ICANN phone calls for the past 5 years.

From: ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:ec-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 10:06 PM
To: didp at icann.org
Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy; ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG DIDP Request

The Articles of Incorporation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), article 4, require ICANN to act through "open and transparent processes." ICANN is required by it's corporate Bylaws to use  "open and transparent policy development mechanisms" (Bylaws, article I, Section 2(7)) and to "operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner" (Bylaws, article III, section 1 (1)).
To meet these obligations, ICANN has established a Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) which requires it to "ensure that information contained in documents concerning ICANN's operational activities, is made available to the public unless there is a compelling reason for confidentiality."
The Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group (NCSG), with over 300 members the largest and most diverse constituent member of ICANN's Generic Name Supporting Organization (GNSO), supports ICANN's commitment to open and transparent policy processes.
The NCSG notes that under the DIDP ICANN is required to supply "information not already publicly available" to any member of the public so requesting said information.  "To the extent feasible" ICANN is required to provide this information to the requestor no later than 30 days from the date of receipt of the request.
As such, the Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG) respectfully requests that the following documentary information be provided to it without delay per the terms of the DIDP:
1.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it's possession, in any and all formats, form and media, concerning and / or leading to the staff action of the imposition of the policy announced in the 20 March 2013 staff memo titled "Trademark Claims Protection for Previously Abused Names.
2.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it's possession, in any and all formats, form and media, leading to adoption of staff recommendation of the so-called "Trademark +50" policy, including, but not exclusively, any information, data, facts or rationale, per article 7 of the Affirmation of Commitments by the United States Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers, leading to the determination that the number "50" was the appropriate enumerator for this unprecedented extension of property rights and if any other numbers were considered.
3.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it's possession, in any and all formats, form and media, involved in the preparation, compilation and production of Fadi Chehade's 19 September 2012 letter to members of the United States Congress.
4.  All correspondence between ICANN, staff and Board, and third parties, including but not exclusively government officials, trade associations, corporate and legal firms and interests, concerning the extension of trademark protection beyond the GNSO-approved 'exact match' standard in the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH).
5.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it's possession, in any and all formats, form and media, concerning the meeting convened by Fadi Chehade in Los Angeles on 15-16 November 2012 to discuss the creation of new trademark privileges in new gtld policy.  This request explicitly includes but is not limited to materials relating to the meeting's organization, the substance of its discussions, and any follow-up materials related to the meeting.
6.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it's possession, in any and all formats, form and media, concerning staff memo of 29 November 2012, and the 3 December 2013 update, titled "Trademark Clearinghouse: Strawman Solution", involving any aspect of allegedly abusively registered strings and policy / implementation concerns thereof.
7.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it's possession, in any and all formats, form and media, provided to or used by Mr. Chehade and/or staff in compiling Mr. Chehade's 26 November 2012 blog post concerning strings and allegedly abusive registrations and policy / implementation issues thereof.  This request explicitly includes but is not limited to any such materials relating to the post-publication change, deletion, addition, or other editing of the text of the blog post.
8.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it's possession, in any and all formats, form and media, used in the creation of Mr. Chehade's e-mail to GNSO Chair Jonathan Robinson asking for "policy guidance" on the portion of the Strawman Model relating to the scope of trademark claims.
9.  All documentation, contracts, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it's possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to ICANN, staff, board and external contractor's, consideration of and response to Reconsideration Request 13-3.
10.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it's possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to the Board Governance Committee's memo of 16 May 2013 concerning Reconsideration Request 13-3.  This request includes but is not limited to materials related to the BGC's 16 May meeting in which NCSG's request was discussed, including board discussions, staff briefings or any notes, records or other information related to those staff briefings or board discussions.
11.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it's possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to the Board Governance Committee's Revised Recommendation of 25 June 2013, concerning Reconsideration Request 13-3, including but not limited to any materials relating to the reason for the revision.  This request includes but is not limited to materials related to the BGC's 25 June meeting in which NCSG's request was discussed, including staff briefings or any notes, records or other information related to those staff briefings or board discussions.
12.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it's possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to the New gTLD Program Committees action of 2 July 2013 relating to Reconsideration Request 13-3.
13.  All correspondence, and / or records thereof, between ICANN, staff and Board, and United States Senator Pat Leahy from 1 May 2012 to the present.
14.  All correspondence, and / or records thereof, between ICANN, staff and Board, and Yahoo! Inc., including that between ICANN and Yahoo!'s representatives and agents, from 1 May 2012 to the present.
15.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it's possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including contracts and invoices, relating to the involvement and / or contracting of outside counsel in any matter concerning Reconsideration Request 13-3.
Prompt attention to this information request is greatly appreciated.  We would respectfully point out that the information requested, per the DIDP, is that which is not currently "publicly available'.  We are aware of the contents of the ICANN website and do not need any guidance in locating materials on it.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.  We applaud ICANN for its commitment to openness and transparency and look forward to receiving the materials requested in a timely manner.
Sincerely,
Robin Gross
Chair, Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group (NCSG)






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/attachments/20130725/12115f93/attachment-0001.html>