From rafik.dammak Tue Mar 4 15:47:23 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 22:47:23 +0900 Subject: [EC-NCSG] Fwd: Recording and attendance NCSG EC call - 27 February 2014 at 1600 UTC In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Hi, please find the recording of the last EC call *MP3 recording: * https://icann.box.com/shared/static/z48x8i3obl5yiswx3gd1.mp3 Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Tue Mar 4 19:18:36 2014 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:18:36 -0800 Subject: [EC-NCSG] need for independent evaluation with ombudsman References: Message-ID: Dear EC Members: It would seem the best course for NCSG is to now file this request for an independent evaluation with ICANN's ombudsman over the issue of board-staff circumventing the process stated in ICANN's bylaws for making policy. I propose we now do this. Ed Morris is willing to continue to work with me to see this issue through so he and I will begin to prepare this request and perhaps we can make some progress in Singapore on this issue. Thanks, Robin Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Chris LaHatte >> Subject: RE: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue >> Date: February 9, 2014 3:54:23 PM PST >> To: Robin Gross >> >> Hi Robin >> >> Thank you for the reply. I believe the independent evaluation may be the best way to proceed on this matter, because if there is nothing further to discuss on the part of ICANN, then a mediation may be difficult. I was keen to promote this idea, if for no other reason than enabling each party to have a better understanding of their views, even if they did not agree. However ICANN legal were just not enthusiastic. I certainly can proceed to such an evaluation is that would involve an assessment of whether the procedure followed was fair, bringing this into my jurisdiction. I have suggested this to the legal Department and it may be the best way to take the next step. Could I trouble you to make a submission along those lines, to the effect that your view is that ICANN did not follow its corporate bylaws, and I will ask for a similar submission from legal. Once I have these I can consider the matter and make a determination. >> >> Please contact me if you need to discuss this further. >> >> Regards >> >> >> Chris LaHatte >> Ombudsman >> Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ >> Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman >> >> >> Confidentiality >> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential. The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint >> >> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] >> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 11:20 AM >> To: Chris LaHatte >> Cc: Milton Mueller; Edward Morris; Rafik Dammak; Steve Crocker; Raymond Plzak >> Subject: Re: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue >> >> Thank you, Chris. >> >> It is disappointing that ICANN legal dept takes the position that its decisions cannot be changed, even if found to violate the organization's bylaws. We want an evaluation of what the bylaws require of ICANN when making policy compared with how this policy was adopted. An evaluation that depends on the guidance of ICANN legal dept., as all evaluations have done just become circular. This issue has not been before an independent evaluator and that is necessary to receive any kind of independent judgement. ICANN legal's reassurance that it 'can do what it did and even if it can't, it's too late to do anything about it now' underscores the circular problem we are having and have been for a year now on this issue. If policies that violate the bylaws REALLY can't be changed because they've already been adopted, then ICANN has an even bigger accountability issue on its hands. >> >> We would like to go ahead with the mediation and try to get an independent evaluation from you on the key issue in question: violation of corporate bylaws. What a proper remedy would be is a different question that I am happy to explore further. But as I have said before, we would like to have a ruling on whether the corporate bylaws were violated in the adoption of this policy. Are you able to investigate this issue even if ICANN legal does not wish for it to continue? >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >> >> On Jan 30, 2014, at 4:54 PM, Chris LaHatte wrote: >> >> >> Hi Robin >> >> I have finally had a lengthy discussion with John Jeffries and Amy Stathos about this issue. The position is that they are unsure what they can offer by way of any concession at a mediation. As you may have predicted, they take the strong view that this was implementation and that there was adequate presentation of the case for an appropriate level for the Trademark Clearinghouse. Their view is that the decisions cannot now be unravelled and therefore they are unsure as to what can be offered at a mediation. After some discussion, and which I expressed my view that at least a principal aim should be to avoid conflict and to avoid the need for an Independent Review Panel, it was suggested that I should ask what your community would want out of such a mediation, given their view is that it is not possible to revisit the decisions at this stage. So if you can help me on this, I would be grateful. >> >> Regards >> >> Chris LaHatte >> Ombudsman >> Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ >> Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman >> >> >> Confidentiality >> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential. The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From rafik.dammak Wed Mar 5 14:49:55 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 21:49:55 +0900 Subject: [EC-NCSG] need for independent evaluation with ombudsman In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Hi Robin, I think that is the option we have now. hopefully we can start such process before singapore. lets wait to see other EC members reactions, and if there is no objection we can proceed. Best, Rafik 2014-03-05 2:18 GMT+09:00 Robin Gross : > Dear EC Members: > > It would seem the best course for NCSG is to now file this request for an > independent evaluation with ICANN's ombudsman over the issue of board-staff > circumventing the process stated in ICANN's bylaws for making policy. I > propose we now do this. Ed Morris is willing to continue to work with me > to see this issue through so he and I will begin to prepare this request > and perhaps we can make some progress in Singapore on this issue. > > Thanks, > Robin > > Begin forwarded message: > > > *From: *Chris LaHatte > *Subject: **RE: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue* > *Date: *February 9, 2014 3:54:23 PM PST > *To: *Robin Gross > > Hi Robin > > Thank you for the reply. I believe the independent evaluation may be the > best way to proceed on this matter, because if there is nothing further to > discuss on the part of ICANN, then a mediation may be difficult. I was keen > to promote this idea, if for no other reason than enabling each party to > have a better understanding of their views, even if they did not agree. > However ICANN legal were just not enthusiastic. I certainly can proceed to > such an evaluation is that would involve an assessment of whether the > procedure followed was fair, bringing this into my jurisdiction. I have > suggested this to the legal Department and it may be the best way to take > the next step. Could I trouble you to make a submission along those lines, > to the effect that your view is that ICANN did not follow its corporate > bylaws, and I will ask for a similar submission from legal. Once I have > these I can consider the matter and make a determination. > > Please contact me if you need to discuss this further. > > Regards > > > Chris LaHatte > Ombudsman > Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ > Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman > > > Confidentiality > All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as > confidential. The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary > to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not > involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman > shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the > existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution > of the complaint. The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary > to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence > and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential > nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution > of a complaint > > *From:* Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] > *Sent:* Saturday, February 08, 2014 11:20 AM > *To:* Chris LaHatte > *Cc:* Milton Mueller; Edward Morris; Rafik Dammak; Steve Crocker; Raymond > Plzak > *Subject:* Re: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue > > Thank you, Chris. > > It is disappointing that ICANN legal dept takes the position that its > decisions cannot be changed, even if found to violate the organization's > bylaws. We want an evaluation of what the bylaws require of ICANN when > making policy compared with how this policy was adopted. An evaluation > that depends on the guidance of ICANN legal dept., as all evaluations have > done just become circular. This issue has not been before an independent > evaluator and that is necessary to receive any kind of independent > judgement. ICANN legal's reassurance that it 'can do what it did and even > if it can't, it's too late to do anything about it now' underscores the > circular problem we are having and have been for a year now on this issue. > If policies that violate the bylaws REALLY can't be changed because > they've already been adopted, then ICANN has an even bigger accountability > issue on its hands. > > We would like to go ahead with the mediation and try to get an independent > evaluation from you on the key issue in question: violation of corporate > bylaws. What a proper remedy would be is a different question that I am > happy to explore further. But as I have said before, we would like to have > a ruling on whether the corporate bylaws were violated in the adoption of > this policy. Are you able to investigate this issue even if ICANN legal > does not wish for it to continue? > > Thanks, > Robin > > > On Jan 30, 2014, at 4:54 PM, Chris LaHatte wrote: > > > Hi Robin > > I have finally had a lengthy discussion with John Jeffries and Amy Stathos > about this issue. The position is that they are unsure what they can offer > by way of any concession at a mediation. As you may have predicted, they > take the strong view that this was implementation and that there was > adequate presentation of the case for an appropriate level for the > Trademark Clearinghouse. Their view is that the decisions cannot now be > unravelled and therefore they are unsure as to what can be offered at a > mediation. After some discussion, and which I expressed my view that at > least a principal aim should be to avoid conflict and to avoid the need for > an Independent Review Panel, it was suggested that I should ask what your > community would want out of such a mediation, given their view is that it > is not possible to revisit the decisions at this stage. So if you can help > me on this, I would be grateful. > > Regards > > Chris LaHatte > Ombudsman > Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ > Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman > > > Confidentiality > All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as > confidential. The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary > to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not > involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman > shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the > existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution > of the complaint. The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary > to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence > and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential > nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution > of a complaint > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > EC-NCSG mailing list > EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Mon Mar 10 04:10:14 2014 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 19:10:14 -0700 Subject: [EC-NCSG] need for independent evaluation with ombudsman In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Thanks, Rafik. Having heard no objections, we'll get the process underway now. Best, Robin On Mar 5, 2014, at 4:49 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Robin, > > I think that is the option we have now. hopefully we can start such process before singapore. > lets wait to see other EC members reactions, and if there is no objection we can proceed. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2014-03-05 2:18 GMT+09:00 Robin Gross : > Dear EC Members: > > It would seem the best course for NCSG is to now file this request for an independent evaluation with ICANN's ombudsman over the issue of board-staff circumventing the process stated in ICANN's bylaws for making policy. I propose we now do this. Ed Morris is willing to continue to work with me to see this issue through so he and I will begin to prepare this request and perhaps we can make some progress in Singapore on this issue. > > Thanks, > Robin > > Begin forwarded message: > >>> >>> From: Chris LaHatte >>> Subject: RE: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue >>> Date: February 9, 2014 3:54:23 PM PST >>> To: Robin Gross >>> >>> Hi Robin >>> >>> Thank you for the reply. I believe the independent evaluation may be the best way to proceed on this matter, because if there is nothing further to discuss on the part of ICANN, then a mediation may be difficult. I was keen to promote this idea, if for no other reason than enabling each party to have a better understanding of their views, even if they did not agree. However ICANN legal were just not enthusiastic. I certainly can proceed to such an evaluation is that would involve an assessment of whether the procedure followed was fair, bringing this into my jurisdiction. I have suggested this to the legal Department and it may be the best way to take the next step. Could I trouble you to make a submission along those lines, to the effect that your view is that ICANN did not follow its corporate bylaws, and I will ask for a similar submission from legal. Once I have these I can consider the matter and make a determination. >>> >>> Please contact me if you need to discuss this further. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> >>> Chris LaHatte >>> Ombudsman >>> Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ >>> Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman >>> >>> >>> Confidentiality >>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential. The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint >>> >>> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] >>> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 11:20 AM >>> To: Chris LaHatte >>> Cc: Milton Mueller; Edward Morris; Rafik Dammak; Steve Crocker; Raymond Plzak >>> Subject: Re: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue >>> >>> Thank you, Chris. >>> >>> It is disappointing that ICANN legal dept takes the position that its decisions cannot be changed, even if found to violate the organization's bylaws. We want an evaluation of what the bylaws require of ICANN when making policy compared with how this policy was adopted. An evaluation that depends on the guidance of ICANN legal dept., as all evaluations have done just become circular. This issue has not been before an independent evaluator and that is necessary to receive any kind of independent judgement. ICANN legal's reassurance that it 'can do what it did and even if it can't, it's too late to do anything about it now' underscores the circular problem we are having and have been for a year now on this issue. If policies that violate the bylaws REALLY can't be changed because they've already been adopted, then ICANN has an even bigger accountability issue on its hands. >>> >>> We would like to go ahead with the mediation and try to get an independent evaluation from you on the key issue in question: violation of corporate bylaws. What a proper remedy would be is a different question that I am happy to explore further. But as I have said before, we would like to have a ruling on whether the corporate bylaws were violated in the adoption of this policy. Are you able to investigate this issue even if ICANN legal does not wish for it to continue? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Robin >>> >>> >>> On Jan 30, 2014, at 4:54 PM, Chris LaHatte wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi Robin >>> >>> I have finally had a lengthy discussion with John Jeffries and Amy Stathos about this issue. The position is that they are unsure what they can offer by way of any concession at a mediation. As you may have predicted, they take the strong view that this was implementation and that there was adequate presentation of the case for an appropriate level for the Trademark Clearinghouse. Their view is that the decisions cannot now be unravelled and therefore they are unsure as to what can be offered at a mediation. After some discussion, and which I expressed my view that at least a principal aim should be to avoid conflict and to avoid the need for an Independent Review Panel, it was suggested that I should ask what your community would want out of such a mediation, given their view is that it is not possible to revisit the decisions at this stage. So if you can help me on this, I would be grateful. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Chris LaHatte >>> Ombudsman >>> Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ >>> Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman >>> >>> >>> Confidentiality >>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential. The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint >>> >>> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > EC-NCSG mailing list > EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From lori.schulman Tue Mar 11 19:49:54 2014 From: lori.schulman (Lori Schulman) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 17:49:54 +0000 Subject: [EC-NCSG] Process for independent review Message-ID: <07F06E6EBD995844BDC9E2F0714E727A5634E244@EX2K10MAILBOX1.ascd.org> Hi Robin, I know that I am getting up to speed on a lot of issues. I expect that I will learn a lot more in Singapore. Do you have the write up that you submitted regarding whether the ICANN Board did not follow the by-laws on a policymaking issue? Is this the Red Cross issue or another issue? If you have it, I would like to read it. If the Board has by-passed the process under the by-laws then I would agree in taking the matter further. Thank you. Lori Lori S. Schulman * General Counsel 1703 North Beauregard Street Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 P 703-575-5678 * Lori.Schulman at ascd.org [Description: cid:image001.png at 01CC81E2.512C46F0] "Your roadmap to success begins at the ASCD's 69th Annual Conference, March 15-17, in Los Angeles, Calif. Choose from more than 350 professional development sessions, featuring the most respected education leaders and experts, including Sir Ken Robinson, Russell Quaglia, Daniel Pink, Tony Wagner, Carl Glickman, and Jane McGonigal. Register NOW at www.ascd.org/annualconference." This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2196 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From robin Sun Mar 16 03:26:49 2014 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2014 18:26:49 -0700 Subject: [EC-NCSG] Process for independent review In-Reply-To: <07F06E6EBD995844BDC9E2F0714E727A5634E244@EX2K10MAILBOX1.ascd.org> References: <07F06E6EBD995844BDC9E2F0714E727A5634E244@EX2K10MAILBOX1.ascd.org> Message-ID: Thanks, Lori. Yes, here's the NCSG submission in the Cooperative Engagement Process: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/42730712/NCSG-CEP-TM%2B50.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1383876182000&api=v2 More background: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/ICANN+Unaccountability And here's an article I wrote explaining the issue: http://ipjustice.org/wp/2013/11/07/icann-expands-trademark-rights-violates-bottom-up-policy-process-ncsg-position-on-icann-board-staff-violation-of-corporate-bylaws-by-imposing-?tm50-policy?-on-gnso/ Note this isn't related to the Red Cross issue. This is the issue of the staff violating the bottom-up policy process that is mandated by ICANN's corporate bylaws in which the GNSO makes policy, so it is an important issue - not just for NCSG, but anyone in the community who is concerned with protecting ICANN's bottom-up multi-stakeholder policy process. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you've got any more questions on this issue. Thanks, Robin On Mar 11, 2014, at 10:49 AM, Lori Schulman wrote: > Hi Robin, > > I know that I am getting up to speed on a lot of issues. I expect that I will learn a lot more in Singapore. Do you have the write up that you submitted regarding whether the ICANN Board did not follow the by-laws on a policymaking issue? Is this the Red Cross issue or another issue? If you have it, I would like to read it. If the Board has by-passed the process under the by-laws then I would agree in taking the matter further > > Thank you. > > Lori > > > Lori S. Schulman ? General Counsel > 1703 North Beauregard Street > > Alexandria, VA 22311-1714 > > P 703-575-5678 ? Lori.Schulman at ascd.org > > > > > > > ?Your roadmap to success begins at the ASCD?s 69th Annual Conference, March 15?17, in Los Angeles, Calif. Choose from more than 350 professional development sessions, featuring the most respected education leaders and experts, including Sir Ken Robinson, Russell Quaglia, Daniel Pink, Tony Wagner, Carl Glickman, and Jane McGonigal. Register NOW at www.ascd.org/annualconference.? > This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of > > the person(s) to whom it has been sent, and may contain information that is > > confidential or legally protected. If you are not the intended recipient or > > have received this message in error, you are not authorized to copy, > distribute, or otherwise use this message or its attachments. Please notify the > sender immediately by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any > > attachments. ASCD makes no guarantee that this e-mail is error or virus free. > _______________________________________________ > EC-NCSG mailing list > EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From mllemineur Fri Mar 21 11:50:51 2014 From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 17:50:51 +0800 Subject: [EC-NCSG] nomination for Board seat 14 Message-ID: Dear all, I would like to nominate Sam Lanfranco for Board seat 14. I believe Sam has the required qualities and skills for this position having a combined academic background with an in-depht knowledge of development-related issues in the NGO world and is actively involved in Internet stakeholder engagement. best, Marie-laure -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Fri Mar 21 11:55:45 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 18:55:45 +0900 Subject: [EC-NCSG] nomination for Board seat 14 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Marie-laure, The discussion about the board seat and nomination will happen during the PC meeting in sunday. Best, Rafik On Mar 21, 2014 5:51 PM, "marie-laure Lemineur" wrote: > Dear all, > > I would like to nominate Sam Lanfranco for Board seat 14. I believe Sam > has the required qualities and skills for this position having a combined > academic background with an in-depht knowledge of development-related > issues in the NGO world and is actively involved in Internet stakeholder > engagement. > > > best, > > Marie-laure > > _______________________________________________ > EC-NCSG mailing list > EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mllemineur Sun Mar 23 06:10:04 2014 From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 12:10:04 +0800 Subject: [EC-NCSG] in memoriam Alain Message-ID: Dear all, This is to let you know that it has just confirmed to me that Alain will be recognized during the Board meeting on Thursday at 6pm SGT. Best, Marie-laure -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Sun Mar 23 11:40:15 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 18:40:15 +0900 Subject: [EC-NCSG] in memoriam Alain In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Marie-Laure, Thanks for this info, it is important that board should recognise the work of volunteers . Best Regards, Rafik 2014-03-23 13:10 GMT+09:00 marie-laure Lemineur : > Dear all, > > This is to let you know that it has just confirmed to me that Alain will > be recognized during the Board meeting on Thursday at 6pm SGT. > > Best, > > Marie-laure > > _______________________________________________ > EC-NCSG mailing list > EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Wed Mar 26 06:43:03 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 13:43:03 +0900 Subject: [EC-NCSG] Meeting with Bill Graham In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Just as heads-up we may meet Bill tomorrow at 8:30am, tbc later. Best Regards, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Wed Mar 26 08:06:35 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 15:06:35 +0900 Subject: [EC-NCSG] Meeting with Bill Graham In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Hi, So it will be at bras pasah 8 to 9 am Rafik On Mar 26, 2014 12:43 PM, "Rafik Dammak" wrote: > Hi, > > Just as heads-up we may meet Bill tomorrow at 8:30am, tbc later. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mllemineur Wed Mar 26 08:29:22 2014 From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur) Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:29:22 +0800 Subject: [EC-NCSG] Meeting with Bill Graham In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: May I ask what for? Just curious. best, ml On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > Just as heads-up we may meet Bill tomorrow at 8:30am, tbc later. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > _______________________________________________ > EC-NCSG mailing list > EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Thu Mar 27 02:06:36 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:06:36 +0900 Subject: [EC-NCSG] Meeting with Bill Graham In-Reply-To: References:

Message-ID: Reminder meeting with bill graham at 8am (now) bras basah (same room for ncsg meeting in tuesday) Rafik On Mar 26, 2014 2:06 PM, "Rafik Dammak" wrote: > Hi, > > So it will be at bras pasah 8 to 9 am > > Rafik > On Mar 26, 2014 12:43 PM, "Rafik Dammak" wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Just as heads-up we may meet Bill tomorrow at 8:30am, tbc later. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Sun Mar 30 23:11:33 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 16:11:33 -0400 Subject: [EC-NCSG] ncsg.is Message-ID: <53387A75.8060805@acm.org> Hi, Just wanted to remind people that I have the name ncsg.is i keep forgetting because I have never set it up to do anything. but i just opened the email receipt telling me i had just renewed it for another year. i don't have time to do anything with it, except make dns changes for server references once i find their interface and am instructed on what changes to make. so it is available for whatever ncsg grouping that might want to give it an NCSG server purpose. and administer it. not sure we have a group that does that yet. let me know. avri