From robin  Fri Dec  2 21:53:58 2011
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 11:53:58 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO council 15 Dec  meeting draft agenda
References: <FD9639322266774594CCBC99E438A05004A76351@s4de8dsaank.west.t-com.de>
Message-ID: <921D690A-13C2-45AC-968B-CE9FF2F8BF89@ipjustice.org>

FYI:

Begin forwarded message:

> From: <KnobenW at telekom.de>
> Date: December 2, 2011 3:49:28 AM PST
> To: <marilynscade at hotmail.com>, <met at msk.com>, <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: GNSO council 15 Dec meeting draft agenda
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> 
> Attached is a first draft of the agenda for the 15 Dec GNSO council
> meeting. If from your SG/constituency point of view any agenda items
> should be added to this agenda pls. let me know asap.
> 
> According to the rules the deadline for motions is 8 days before the
> meeting.
> 
> 
> Kind regards
> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben
> 
> 




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111202/766d781a/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Agenda GNSO Council Meeting 15 December v0 1.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 43520 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111202/766d781a/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111202/766d781a/attachment-0003.html>


From robin  Sat Dec  3 04:57:32 2011
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 18:57:32 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] doodle poll for December NCSG Open Policy Call
In-Reply-To: <EF9DC97B-F2C7-4DEC-A53C-99F125D62403@ipjustice.org>
References: <EF9DC97B-F2C7-4DEC-A53C-99F125D62403@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <5F4316BB-97BC-48A8-8BD4-0BBBAA9B5DE1@ipjustice.org>

Reminder:  Please mark your availability between 12-14 December.  This doodle poll closes SUNDAY 4 December.  Thank you!!
     http://www.doodle.com/224fx5ycz2gzxr56


On Nov 29, 2011, at 7:51 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> Dear Members of NCSG Policy Comte:
> 
> Please mark your availability for the DECEMBER 2011 NCSG Open Policy Discussion:
>       http://www.doodle.com/224fx5ycz2gzxr56
> 
> This monthly discussion is intended to facilitate direct interaction between the NCSG Policy Committee & the entire NCSG membership. All NCSG Policy Comte members & working group participants are expected to attend.  
> 
> The NCSG Open Policy Call will be held from 12-14 December, just before the 15 Dec. GNSO Council Meeting.
> 
> The December meeting is being scheduled with deference to our members in the Asia-Pacific region, since our last few meetings have been scheduled in the middle of the night for them (and we are trying to share the pain).  :-)
> 
> This doodle poll closes on 4 Dec (EoB in CA), so please mark your availability asap. Thank you!
> 
> Best,
> Robin
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111202/42596028/attachment.html>


From robin  Mon Dec  5 22:35:02 2011
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 12:35:02 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: ICANN / Budget FY13 / SO-AC request process and
	template
References: <CAFD6E99.2EEC%xavier.calvez@icann.org>
Message-ID: <A105BB6E-6B0B-4EF2-B174-6D5A790DE3F8@ipjustice.org>

FYI

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Xavier J. Calvez" <xavier.calvez at icann.org>
> Date: December 5, 2011 12:23:40 PM PST
> To: Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>, Chris Chaplow <chris at andalucia.com>, "gchynoweth at dyn.com" <gchynoweth at dyn.com>, "ocl at gih.com" <ocl at gih.com>, Lesley Cowley <lesley at nominet.org.uk>, "raul at lacnic.com" <raul at lacnic.com>, Heather Dryden <heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca>, "paf at cisco.com" <paf at cisco.com>, "robin at ipjustice.org" <robin at ipjustice.org>, Byron Holland <byron.holland at cira.ca>, "tonyarholmes at btinternet.com" <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk" <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>, "dmaher at pir.org" <dmaher at pir.org>, Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer at sidn.nl>, "junsec at wide.ad.jp" <junsec at wide.ad.jp>, "asterling at aamc.org" <asterling at aamc.org>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>, "stephane.vangelder at indom.com" <stephane.vangelder at indom.com>
> Cc: Juan Ojeda <juan.ojeda at icann.org>, Aba Diakite <aba.diakite at icann.org>, Janice Douma Lange <janice.lange at icann.org>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich at icann.org>, Jeannie Ellers <jeannie.ellers at icann.org>, Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel at icann.org>, Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>, David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>
> Subject: ICANN / Budget FY13 / SO-AC request process and template
> 
> All,
> 
> As a reminder, the SO-AC request process below pertains to the dedicated budget that is set aside from the overall ICANN budget to be able to take into account specific requests from the community for activities that are not already included in the recurring ICANN budget. 
> Please find below a revision to the timeline and process suggested to be retained for the FY 13 Budget "additional request process". We had originally suggested a deadline of December 9th for requests to be submitted, so that such requests are included in the Budget framework, currently scheduled to be posted on January 17th. Instead, we are now proposing to desynchronize the requests timeline from the publication of the framework, as described below. The revised deadline to submit additional requests is therefore January 20th 2012 as indicated in paragraph 3 below.
> 
> The process we are suggesting to retain for FY 13 is as follows:
> 1.     Please complete the attached request template for each individual new resource or activity that your community is requesting. The form has been designed to give you an opportunity to describe in detail theactual scope of the activity you propose, how it relates to the current Strategic Plan, and how the funds are to be implemented.
> 
> 2.     We ask that you give consideration to the number of requests and to the priority of the requests prior to submitting them. By noting the respective priorities of your requests it will make it easier to evaluate the requests from various community groups. Indicating all of them with a high priority will have the opposite effect to the one desired: it will make it more difficult to take into account any of your requests, and/or it will lead the ICANN staff to have to prioritize your request, obviously less adequately than you would.
> 
> 3.     Please send each completed request form to the controller at icann.org mailbox by January 20th 2012.  Though all requests will be examined and processed, the requests will be processed in the order they are received: the earlier your requests enter the process, the more opportunity we collectively will have for review and consideration.
> 
> 4.     Each request will be reviewed by a member of the Finance within 48 hours of receipt for a first review to either (i) clarify elements of the request if need be, or (ii) acknowledge receipt.
> 
> 5.     All Additional requests will be aggregated for review and selection. A placeholder ?additional requests" envelope will be included in the Framework for a total of US$0.5m for all requests. This is the amount that everyone should have in mind when submitting requests. Being a placeholder, we may decide, through the selection process, to change the amount of the envelope suggested for additional requests, dependent upon what conclusions the selection process (see below) reaches. If such is the case, the revised amount will be submitted for approval by the Board Finance Committee, and possibly by the Board.
> 
> 6.     ICANN Staff will be suggesting a process to collectively determine which of the additional requests will be retained and incorporated into the FY 13 Budget. The objective is to conclude the selection process with a final list of requests to be included in the budget by the end of the Costa Rica ICANN meeting.
> 
> 7.     The Board Finance Committee and ICANN Executive Staff will have the opportunity to review the various requests and discuss them as appropriate with community leaders throughout the entire budget process - from publication of the Framework document through posting the draft Operating Plan and Budget on 1 May 2012.
> 
> 8.     Requests that are approved by the ICANN Board will be implemented in FY 13 in conjunction with the ICANN staff and community work.
> 
> Additionally, for newly approved travel support, community leaders will still need to comply with the already established process of filling out the ICANN Constituency Travel template prior to travel to an ICANN meeting or approved alternate meeting.
> Our Finance Team is committed to the transparency of the objectives, outcomes and expenditures for each funded request.  Detailed implementation plans and finance tracking of each activity and expenditure will greatly improve the likelihood that we will achieve that transparency goal.  All approved requests will be located within a ?Community Support Services? budget category and will be documented, tracked and expensed.  
> If you have any questions about these processes or thetemplate, please contact the Finance Team through controller at icann.org. This email address will help us manage the documentation and review process and will ensure that your questions are promptly addressed.
> To ICANN policy support staff: at the next opportunity, please check with the addressees above that they have effectively received my email as this will be the first email to a number of them. Thank you.
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Xavier
> 
> Xavier Calvez
> ICANN ? Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> CFO
> Office: +1 (310) 301-5838
> Cell: +1 (805) 312-0052
> E-fax: +1 (310) 957-2348
> 
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> Marina Del Rey, CA 90292




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111205/a6cb6b04/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SO_AC Outreach Support Request Template_ver JDL05.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 42347 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111205/a6cb6b04/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111205/a6cb6b04/attachment-0003.html>


From wendy  Tue Dec  6 22:44:01 2011
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2011 15:44:01 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-consumercci-dt] CCCI Measures Matrix
Message-ID: <4EDE7E91.5000207@seltzer.com>

Does anyone have comment on these definitions?  I think they're better
than they were, though still non-optimal.  This is the "Consumer
Competition, Choice, Trust" measurement wg.

--Wendy


>Consumer - Internet users and registrants

>Consumer Trust - refers to the confidence registrants and users can
have in the consistency of name resolution (from registrar to registry),
and the degree of confidence among registrants and users that a TLD
registry operator is fulfilling its proposed purpose and is complying
with ICANN policies and applicable national laws

>Consumer Choice - is evident in the range of options available to
registrants and users for domain scripts and languages, and for TLDs
that offer choices as to the proposed purpose and integrity of their
domain name registrants

>Competition - is evident in the quantity and diversity of gTLDs,TLD
registry operators, and registrars


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-consumercci-dt] CCCI Measures Matrix
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 20:03:00 -0700
From: Berry Cobb <mail at berrycobb.com>
To: <gnso-consumercci-dt at icann.org>

CCCI Team,



Here is the first draft of compiling the Consumer Choice, Trust, &
Competition measures.  I only extracted measures that were presented in the
Dakar presentation.  If we have time on Tuesday, we can review.  Else, I am
eager for your input to advance this along on the list.  Let me know if you
have any questions.  Thank you.









Berry Cobb

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email:  <mailto:mail at berrycobb.com> mail at berrycobb.com
Tel: +1 720 839 5735
Skype ID: berry.cobb





-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ccci_matrix_v0.1.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 21268 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111206/35448d66/attachment-0001.xlsx>


From avri  Tue Dec  6 23:59:21 2011
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 16:59:21 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [gnso-consumercci-dt] CCCI Measures Matrix
In-Reply-To: <4EDE7E91.5000207@seltzer.com>
References: <4EDE7E91.5000207@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <593AE837-C9F6-40FE-AFAD-8F044E79C25F@acm.org>

Hi,

A couple thought when i read it.
Not sure if they are relevant to the scope of the consumer WG.

avri

On 6 Dec 2011, at 15:44, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> Does anyone have comment on these definitions?  I think they're better
> than they were, though still non-optimal.  This is the "Consumer
> Competition, Choice, Trust" measurement wg.
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> 
>> Consumer - Internet users and registrants
> 
>> Consumer Trust - refers to the confidence registrants and users can
> have in the consistency of name resolution (from registrar to registry),
> and the degree of confidence among registrants and users that a TLD
> registry operator is fulfilling its proposed purpose and is complying
> with ICANN policies and applicable national laws

Would the ability to interact with privacy protection by the Consumer be relevant to trust?

> 
>> Consumer Choice - is evident in the range of options available to
> registrants and users for domain scripts and languages, and for TLDs
> that offer choices as to the proposed purpose and integrity of their
> domain name registrants
> 

Doesn't choice depend on the capacity of an actor, the consumer, to actually make consumption decisions based on scripts, language, services, price and availability  and maybe even jurisdiction and privacy constraints.

>> Competition - is evident in the quantity and diversity of gTLDs,TLD
> registry operators, and registrars

Wouldn't this be an active capability of the provider.  And not just the quality and diversity, but the access they have to the consumer and the ease with which they can poach each other's customers (at least in terms of registrars).




From william.drake  Wed Dec  7 13:01:57 2011
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 12:01:57 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-consumercci-dt] CCCI Measures Matrix
In-Reply-To: <4EDE7E91.5000207@seltzer.com>
References: <4EDE7E91.5000207@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <93176B54-1504-4A90-8EA3-9BA7876FAA23@uzh.ch>

Not having followed this process closely, I'm sort of surprised it's still at the stage of trying to devise rudimentary defs for its core terms...

I hesitate to just raise general concerns but I don't have time to focus on suggesting precise alternatives, so: shouldn't the choice or trust defs somehow entail the notions of confidence that one's rights (not just trademark obviously) will be fully protected and advance, e.g. privacy, foe, etc?

Shouldn't the competition def be more precise, e.g. building on standard antitrust/competition policy concepts about market power, abuse of dominant position, etc?  This came up in the VI context too, and to the extent that ICANN is always in a space where legal actions could arise, one would think they'd want to have a definition that is in tune with recognized parameters etc.

one cent,

Bill

On Dec 6, 2011, at 9:44 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> Does anyone have comment on these definitions?  I think they're better
> than they were, though still non-optimal.  This is the "Consumer
> Competition, Choice, Trust" measurement wg.
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> 
>> Consumer - Internet users and registrants
> 
>> Consumer Trust - refers to the confidence registrants and users can
> have in the consistency of name resolution (from registrar to registry),
> and the degree of confidence among registrants and users that a TLD
> registry operator is fulfilling its proposed purpose and is complying
> with ICANN policies and applicable national laws
> 
>> Consumer Choice - is evident in the range of options available to
> registrants and users for domain scripts and languages, and for TLDs
> that offer choices as to the proposed purpose and integrity of their
> domain name registrants
> 
>> Competition - is evident in the quantity and diversity of gTLDs,TLD
> registry operators, and registrars
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [gnso-consumercci-dt] CCCI Measures Matrix
> Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 20:03:00 -0700
> From: Berry Cobb <mail at berrycobb.com>
> To: <gnso-consumercci-dt at icann.org>
> 
> CCCI Team,
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the first draft of compiling the Consumer Choice, Trust, &
> Competition measures.  I only extracted measures that were presented in the
> Dakar presentation.  If we have time on Tuesday, we can review.  Else, I am
> eager for your input to advance this along on the list.  Let me know if you
> have any questions.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Berry Cobb
> 
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> 
> Email:  <mailto:mail at berrycobb.com> mail at berrycobb.com
> Tel: +1 720 839 5735
> Skype ID: berry.cobb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <ccci_matrix_v0.1.xlsx>_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From k.komaitis  Thu Dec  8 13:10:08 2011
From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis)
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 11:10:08 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-consumercci-dt] CCCI Measures Matrix
In-Reply-To: <4EDE7E91.5000207@seltzer.com>
References: <4EDE7E91.5000207@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <D8B87832BDC13F45B7265357FCF323C301689F8897DE@E2K7-MS2.ds.strath.ac.uk>

Apologies for getting back to you on this late Wendy: only one comment - under consumer trust, I would recommend adding "and the degree of confidence and EXPECTATION...". at least in Europe, the degree and amount of expectation consumers have in commercial (and not only) transactions can be critical.

Thanks

KK

Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis,

Senior Lecturer,
Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses
Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law
University of Strathclyde,
The Law School,
Graham Hills building, 
50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA 
UK
tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306
http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765
Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038
Website: www.komaitis.org


-----Original Message-----
From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer
Sent: ?????, 6 ?????????? 2011 8:44 ??
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-consumercci-dt] CCCI Measures Matrix

Does anyone have comment on these definitions?  I think they're better than they were, though still non-optimal.  This is the "Consumer Competition, Choice, Trust" measurement wg.

--Wendy


>Consumer - Internet users and registrants

>Consumer Trust - refers to the confidence registrants and users can
have in the consistency of name resolution (from registrar to registry), and the degree of confidence among registrants and users that a TLD registry operator is fulfilling its proposed purpose and is complying with ICANN policies and applicable national laws

>Consumer Choice - is evident in the range of options available to
registrants and users for domain scripts and languages, and for TLDs that offer choices as to the proposed purpose and integrity of their domain name registrants

>Competition - is evident in the quantity and diversity of gTLDs,TLD
registry operators, and registrars


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-consumercci-dt] CCCI Measures Matrix
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 20:03:00 -0700
From: Berry Cobb <mail at berrycobb.com>
To: <gnso-consumercci-dt at icann.org>

CCCI Team,



Here is the first draft of compiling the Consumer Choice, Trust, & Competition measures.  I only extracted measures that were presented in the Dakar presentation.  If we have time on Tuesday, we can review.  Else, I am eager for your input to advance this along on the list.  Let me know if you have any questions.  Thank you.









Berry Cobb

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Email:  <mailto:mail at berrycobb.com> mail at berrycobb.com
Tel: +1 720 839 5735
Skype ID: berry.cobb








From robin  Thu Dec  8 20:08:38 2011
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2011 10:08:38 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] Draft Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting -
	15 December 2011 at 20:00UTC
References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A7DDCEB1D@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <5C97BCC3-D42E-4A5C-8E24-A6538FCC10CA@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: December 8, 2011 10:06:40 AM PST
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] Draft Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting - 15 December 2011 at 20:00UTC
> 
>  
>  
> Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting - 15 December 2011
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-15dec11-en.htm
> 
> Wiki Agenda
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+15+December+2011
> 
> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council.
> http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf
> For convenience:
> 
> * An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
> * An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda.
> 
> Meeting Time 20:00 UTC
> Coordinated Universal Time: 20:00 UTC
> 
> 12:00 Los Angeles; 15:00 Washington DC;  20:00 London; 21:00 Paris;
> 
> 16 December 2011
> 05:00 Tokyo; 09:00 Wellington
> 
> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed.
> 
> GNSO Council meeting audiocast
> 
> http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
> 
> Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
> 
> Roll Call 
> 
> 1.2 Statement of interest updates
> ?         Mason Cole
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Mason+Cole+SOI
> 
> 1.3 Review/amend agenda
> 
> 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:
> 
> ?         17 November minutes ? will be approved on 8 December 2011.
> .
> 
> Item 2: GNSO Pending Projects List (5 minutes)
> 
> Standard agenda item looking at changes made to the GNSO's Pending Projects list since the previous meeting.
> Refer to Pending Projects list 
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf
> 2.1 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (St?phane Van Gelder)
> 
> ? GNSO activities: 9 (9 - No change).
> ? Other activities:  10 (11 - Deleted: RAP, request to ICANN Compliance complete) 
> ? Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 - no change).
> ? Outstanding recommendations: 2 (2 - no change).
> 
> Item 3: Outreach Task Force Charter (20 minutes)
> 
> As part of the GNSO improvements, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC)'s Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team worked on a set of recommendations on a global outreach program
> 
> At the previous Council meeting, a motion on this was not approved. It was proposed that a small group be assisted by Staff to produce a new motion that would include specific revisions to the charter.
> 
> Refer to motion:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+15+December+2011
>  
> Reading of the motion (Zahid Jamil)
>  
> 3.1 Discussion
> 3.2 Vote
> 3.3 Next steps
> 
> Item 4: UDRP (25 minutes)
> 
> Following the drafting of an Issue Report on a possible review of the UDRP, a motion is before the Council to initiate a PDP on this topic and that a drafting team be formed to write a charter for the working group.
> 
> Refer to motion
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+15+December+2011
> 
> The motion was deferred from the Nov 17 Council meeting.
> 
> 4.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) 
> 4.2 Discussion
> 4.3 Vote
> 
> 
> Item 5: Joint ccNSO/GNSO IDN Working Group (JIG) (15 minutes)
> 
> The JIG is proposing that both GNSO and ccNSO councils ask their Chairs to send to the ICANN Board a letter in response to their August 2011 resolution on Single Character IDN TLDs.
> 
> The letter would note discrepancies between the WG's work and the Board resolution.
> 
> Refer to motion
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+15+December+2011
> 
> 5.1 Reading of the motion (Ching Chiao) 
> 5.2 Discussion
> 5.3 Vote
> 
> Item 6: Cross-TLD registration scam and domain kiting (10 minutes)
> 
> At the previous Council meeting, there was discussion on possible next steps and decisions that could be made on this topic, following SSAC's response (http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gnso-council-chair-to-faltstrom-10oct11-en.pdf) .
> Staff has suggested several options:
>  
> Adding these issues to the mandate of the Fake Renewal Notices Drafting Team which is tasked to prepare a request for information for the Registrar Stakeholder Group to obtain further information on the issue of Fake Renewal Notices in order to help inform the GNSO Council on the appropriate next steps, if any. As there are certain similarities, especially between the cross-tld registration scam and fake renewal notices, it might be possible for this DT to also try and obtain further information on that specific issue to help inform the Council's deliberations.
> Continue discussions on the topic of cross-TLD registration scam with the ccNSO to discuss whether there are any steps that could be taken or considered jointly. The GNSO Council and the ccNSO Council had some initial discussions on this topic at its meeting in Dakar and as this is an issue that also affects ccTLDs there might be common approaches to be explored. As noted, such approaches might involve improved communication / education in relation to this issue as it is not clear at this stage that this issue could be addressed through policy development.
> Do nothing ? as there is no set mechanism for data gathering or monitoring of abuses at the moment or any evidence that these practices are in non-compliance with ICANN policies or agreements, the GNSO Council could decide to not undertake any further action at this stage. Note, at any point in time, should further information or data become available, any Council member or SO/AC could raise this issue again for further consideration.
>  
> 
> This discussion item aims at seeing if this issue should be closed or if work should continue.
> 
> 6.1 Discussion
> 6.2 Next steps
> 
> Item 7: Joint SO/AC WG on New gTLD Applicant Support Working Group (JAS WG) (10 minutes)
> 
> This agenda item is to update the Council on recent developments in the JAS WG, and more specifically details of the measures being taken to implement the recommendations made in the JAS Final Report that was sent to the Board.
> 
> 7.1 Update from Staff (X Y) 
> 7.2 Discussion
> 
> Item 8: Transitioning existing PDP work to the new PDP procedures (10 minutes)
> 
> At its meeting on December  8, 2011, the Board adopted the new GNSO PDP.
> Out of that comes the following text: 'For all ongoing PDPs initiated prior to the adoption by the Board, the Council shall determine the feasibility of transitioning to the procedures set forth in this Annex A for all remaining steps within the PDP. If the Council determines that any ongoing PDP cannot be feasibly transitioned to these updated procedures, the PDP shall be concluded according to the procedures set forth in Annex A in force on before the adoption of the new Annex A by the Board'.
> Currently the following PDPs are under way:
> -       IRTP Part C (Working Group)
> -       Thick Whois (Preliminary Issue Report out for public comment)
> -       RAA (Preliminary Issue Report in preparation)
> -       Uniformity of Contracts (Preliminary Issue Report in preparation)
> -       UDRP (pending)
> -       Law Enforcement recommendations (pending)
> 
> 8.1 Update from Staff (Margie Milam) 
> 8.2 Discussion
> 8.3 Next steps
> 
> Item 9: Any Other Business (5 minutes)
> 
> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3)
> 
> 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions:
> 
> 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House;
> 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (?PDP?) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House;
> 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (?GNSO Supermajority?);
> 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation;
> 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and
> 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that ?a two-thirds vote of the council? demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision.
> 
> Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4)
> 
> 4.4.1 Applicability
> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures.
> a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
> b. Approve a PDP recommendation;
> c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws;
> d. Fill a Council position open for election.
> 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting?s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present.
> 
> 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available.
> 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> Local time between October & March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> California, USA (PST) UTC-8+0DST 12:00 
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 15:00
> Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 17:00 
> Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 18:00
> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 20:00 
> Abuja,Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 21:00
> Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 
> Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 
> Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00 
> Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+0DST 22:00
> Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 01:00 next day
> Beijing, China (CST ) UTC+8+0DST 04:00 next day
> Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9+0DST 05:00 next day 
> Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 09:00 next day 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2012, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com
>  
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>  




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111208/b48dd512/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Sun Dec 11 23:13:09 2011
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2011 13:13:09 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion agenda for Tuesday's NCSG Open Policy Call
	with membership
Message-ID: <2BF5F2E6-018A-41E5-A533-D4650153A137@ipjustice.org>

Dear NCSG Policy Committee:

Please see the below draft discussion agenda for Tuesday's call with the membership.  I hope you all will be able to participate in the call.  Thank you!

Best,
Robin


NCSG Open Policy Discussion
13 December 2011 (Tuesday)
21:00 - 23:00 UTC

Draft Discussion Agenda

1.  GNSO Counsel Policy Issues
A.  Thick Whois Report out for Public Comment (15 minutes)
B.  ICANN Outreach Efforts to Increase Participation (15 minutes)
C.  Review of the UDRP (15 minutes)
D.  Joint Applicant Support Update (15 minutes)
E.  15 Dec 2011 GNSO Council Meeting - key votes & discussion items (15 minutes)

2.  Open Discussion on NCSG Membership Criteria (20 minutes)
What does it mean to be a "non-commercial organization" for purposes of NCSG membership eligibility?
How do organizations living in the ccTLD space fit in GTLD/NCSG space?
Membership criteria for individuals applying for membership.

3.  What's Open for Public Comment at ICANN Now? (10 minutes)

4.  Related Issues NCSG May Wish to Comment on: (10 minutes)
SOPA/PIPA & domain name take-downs?

5.  AOB? (5 minutes)

Call in details:  http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCSG_Passcodes.htm




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111211/c6b61ba2/attachment.html>


From asterling  Mon Dec 12 21:06:59 2011
From: asterling (Amber Sterling)
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:06:59 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion agenda for Tuesday's NCSG Open Policy
	Call	with membership
In-Reply-To: <2BF5F2E6-018A-41E5-A533-D4650153A137@ipjustice.org>
References: <2BF5F2E6-018A-41E5-A533-D4650153A137@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <5C2ED0B08B6C4642BE29890FA61411E46BD5AD08@ADL4-EXMB-01.adm.aamc.org>

I will be unable to attend as the time selected overlaps the already scheduled NPOC monthly call.  NPOC calls are held at 21:00 UTC on the second Tuesday of each month.

Amber Sterling
Senior Intellectual Property Specialist
Association of American Medical Colleges

From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 4:13 PM
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion agenda for Tuesday's NCSG Open Policy Call with membership

Dear NCSG Policy Committee:

Please see the below draft discussion agenda for Tuesday's call with the membership.  I hope you all will be able to participate in the call.  Thank you!

Best,
Robin


NCSG Open Policy Discussion
13 December 2011 (Tuesday)
21:00 - 23:00 UTC

Draft Discussion Agenda

1.  GNSO Counsel Policy Issues
A.  Thick Whois Report out for Public Comment (15 minutes)
B.  ICANN Outreach Efforts to Increase Participation (15 minutes)
C.  Review of the UDRP (15 minutes)
D.  Joint Applicant Support Update (15 minutes)
E.  15 Dec 2011 GNSO Council Meeting - key votes & discussion items (15 minutes)

2.  Open Discussion on NCSG Membership Criteria (20 minutes)
What does it mean to be a "non-commercial organization" for purposes of NCSG membership eligibility?
How do organizations living in the ccTLD space fit in GTLD/NCSG space?
Membership criteria for individuals applying for membership.

3.  What's Open for Public Comment at ICANN Now? (10 minutes)

4.  Related Issues NCSG May Wish to Comment on: (10 minutes)
SOPA/PIPA & domain name take-downs?

5.  AOB? (5 minutes)

Call in details:  http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCSG_Passcodes.htm




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111212/283f3ab6/attachment.html>


From alain.berranger  Mon Dec 12 21:14:44 2011
From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger)
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:14:44 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion agenda for Tuesday's NCSG Open Policy Call
 with membership
In-Reply-To: <5C2ED0B08B6C4642BE29890FA61411E46BD5AD08@ADL4-EXMB-01.adm.aamc.org>
References: <2BF5F2E6-018A-41E5-A533-D4650153A137@ipjustice.org>
	<5C2ED0B08B6C4642BE29890FA61411E46BD5AD08@ADL4-EXMB-01.adm.aamc.org>
Message-ID: <CANgs+SvRj7AAuQvR4apjHU0nGbVm+EctE-7exgvJCaOenFmt+w@mail.gmail.com>

The same for me.

Alain

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Amber Sterling <asterling at aamc.org> wrote:

>  I will be unable to attend as the time selected overlaps the already
> scheduled NPOC monthly call.  NPOC calls are held at 21:00 UTC on the
> second Tuesday of each month.****
>
> ** **
>
> Amber Sterling****
>
> Senior Intellectual Property Specialist****
>
> Association of American Medical Colleges****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:
> pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] *On Behalf Of *Robin Gross
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 11, 2011 4:13 PM
> *To:* pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> *Subject:* [PC-NCSG] discussion agenda for Tuesday's NCSG Open Policy
> Call with membership****
>
> ** **
>
> Dear NCSG Policy Committee:****
>
> ** **
>
> Please see the below draft discussion agenda for Tuesday's call with the
> membership.  I hope you all will be able to participate in the call.  Thank
> you!****
>
> ** **
>
> Best,****
>
> Robin****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> NCSG Open Policy Discussion****
>
> 13 December 2011 (Tuesday)****
>
> 21:00 - 23:00 UTC****
>
> ** **
>
> *Draft Discussion Agenda*****
>
> ** **
>
> *1.  GNSO Counsel Policy Issues*****
>
> A.  Thick Whois Report out for Public Comment (15 minutes)****
>
> B.  ICANN Outreach Efforts to Increase Participation (15 minutes)****
>
> C.  Review of the UDRP (15 minutes)****
>
> D.  Joint Applicant Support Update (15 minutes)****
>
> E.  15 Dec 2011 GNSO Council Meeting - key votes & discussion items (15
> minutes)****
>
> ** **
>
> *2.  Open Discussion on NCSG Membership Criteria* (20 minutes)****
>
> What does it mean to be a "non-commercial organization" for purposes of
> NCSG membership eligibility?****
>
> How do organizations living in the ccTLD space fit in GTLD/NCSG space?****
>
> Membership criteria for individuals applying for membership.****
>
> ** **
>
> *3.  What's Open for Public Comment at ICANN Now? *(10 minutes)****
>
> ** **
>
> *4.  Related Issues NCSG May Wish to Comment on:* (10 minutes)****
>
> SOPA/PIPA & domain name take-downs?****
>
>
> *5.  AOB? *(5 minutes)****
>
> ** **
>
> Call in details:  http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCSG_Passcodes.htm****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> IP JUSTICE****
>
> Robin Gross, Executive Director****
>
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA****
>
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451****
>
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
interim Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111212/71881fc5/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Mon Dec 12 21:23:17 2011
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:23:17 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion agenda for Tuesday's NCSG Open Policy Call
	with membership
In-Reply-To: <CANgs+SvRj7AAuQvR4apjHU0nGbVm+EctE-7exgvJCaOenFmt+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2BF5F2E6-018A-41E5-A533-D4650153A137@ipjustice.org>
	<5C2ED0B08B6C4642BE29890FA61411E46BD5AD08@ADL4-EXMB-01.adm.aamc.org>
	<CANgs+SvRj7AAuQvR4apjHU0nGbVm+EctE-7exgvJCaOenFmt+w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7A4F74F3-97DF-4070-AA83-0AE55F3FD80C@ipjustice.org>

I wish I would have known NPOC had monthly calls and when they would be scheduled.  I would not have scheduled this to conflict with the NPOC call.  I took the most popular time on the doodle that all NCSG Policy Committee members (including NPOC) should have filled-out to indicate availability.  That might have been a good time to raise the conflict issue so the NCSG call could be scheduled at a nonconflicting time.  Does NPOC have a public calendar so we will know in the future about its various calls, webinars, etc. and can avoid cross-scheduling?

Thanks,
Robin


On Dec 12, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Alain Berranger wrote:

> The same for me.
> 
> Alain
> 
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Amber Sterling <asterling at aamc.org> wrote:
> I will be unable to attend as the time selected overlaps the already scheduled NPOC monthly call.  NPOC calls are held at 21:00 UTC on the second Tuesday of each month.
> 
>  
> 
> Amber Sterling
> 
> Senior Intellectual Property Specialist
> 
> Association of American Medical Colleges
> 
>  
> 
> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 4:13 PM
> To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion agenda for Tuesday's NCSG Open Policy Call with membership
> 
>  
> 
> Dear NCSG Policy Committee:
> 
>  
> 
> Please see the below draft discussion agenda for Tuesday's call with the membership.  I hope you all will be able to participate in the call.  Thank you!
> 
>  
> 
> Best,
> 
> Robin
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> NCSG Open Policy Discussion
> 
> 13 December 2011 (Tuesday)
> 
> 21:00 - 23:00 UTC
> 
>  
> 
> Draft Discussion Agenda
> 
>  
> 
> 1.  GNSO Counsel Policy Issues
> 
> A.  Thick Whois Report out for Public Comment (15 minutes)
> 
> B.  ICANN Outreach Efforts to Increase Participation (15 minutes)
> 
> C.  Review of the UDRP (15 minutes)
> 
> D.  Joint Applicant Support Update (15 minutes)
> 
> E.  15 Dec 2011 GNSO Council Meeting - key votes & discussion items (15 minutes)
> 
>  
> 
> 2.  Open Discussion on NCSG Membership Criteria (20 minutes)
> 
> What does it mean to be a "non-commercial organization" for purposes of NCSG membership eligibility?
> 
> How do organizations living in the ccTLD space fit in GTLD/NCSG space?
> 
> Membership criteria for individuals applying for membership.
> 
>  
> 
> 3.  What's Open for Public Comment at ICANN Now? (10 minutes)
> 
>  
> 
> 4.  Related Issues NCSG May Wish to Comment on: (10 minutes)
> 
> SOPA/PIPA & domain name take-downs?
> 
> 
> 5.  AOB? (5 minutes)
> 
>  
> 
> Call in details:  http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCSG_Passcodes.htm
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> 
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> 
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> 
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca
> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
> interim Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
> Skype: alain.berranger
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111212/00eea3ec/attachment.html>


From avri  Mon Dec 12 21:53:58 2011
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:53:58 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion agenda for Tuesday's NCSG Open Policy
	Call	with membership
In-Reply-To: <5C2ED0B08B6C4642BE29890FA61411E46BD5AD08@ADL4-EXMB-01.adm.aamc.org>
References: <2BF5F2E6-018A-41E5-A533-D4650153A137@ipjustice.org>
	<5C2ED0B08B6C4642BE29890FA61411E46BD5AD08@ADL4-EXMB-01.adm.aamc.org>
Message-ID: <885BD36F-F023-4F47-8ED3-DBAB9EDFD706@acm.org>

Hi,

Is the NPOC mtg 2 hours?  
If not, perhaps interested NPOC members can join in for at least half of the call.

avri


On 12 Dec 2011, at 14:06, Amber Sterling wrote:

> I will be unable to attend as the time selected overlaps the already scheduled NPOC monthly call.  NPOC calls are held at 21:00 UTC on the second Tuesday of each month.
>  
> Amber Sterling
> Senior Intellectual Property Specialist
> Association of American Medical Colleges
>  
> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 4:13 PM
> To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion agenda for Tuesday's NCSG Open Policy Call with membership
>  
> Dear NCSG Policy Committee:
>  
> Please see the below draft discussion agenda for Tuesday's call with the membership.  I hope you all will be able to participate in the call.  Thank you!
>  
> Best,
> Robin
>  
>  
> NCSG Open Policy Discussion
> 13 December 2011 (Tuesday)
> 21:00 - 23:00 UTC
>  
> Draft Discussion Agenda
>  
> 1.  GNSO Counsel Policy Issues
> A.  Thick Whois Report out for Public Comment (15 minutes)
> B.  ICANN Outreach Efforts to Increase Participation (15 minutes)
> C.  Review of the UDRP (15 minutes)
> D.  Joint Applicant Support Update (15 minutes)
> E.  15 Dec 2011 GNSO Council Meeting - key votes & discussion items (15 minutes)
>  
> 2.  Open Discussion on NCSG Membership Criteria (20 minutes)
> What does it mean to be a "non-commercial organization" for purposes of NCSG membership eligibility?
> How do organizations living in the ccTLD space fit in GTLD/NCSG space?
> Membership criteria for individuals applying for membership.
>  
> 3.  What's Open for Public Comment at ICANN Now? (10 minutes)
>  
> 4.  Related Issues NCSG May Wish to Comment on: (10 minutes)
> SOPA/PIPA & domain name take-downs?
> 
> 5.  AOB? (5 minutes)
>  
> Call in details:  http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCSG_Passcodes.htm
>  
>  
>  
>  
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
> 
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From Mary.Wong  Tue Dec 13 18:03:56 2011
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:03:56 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Add-on to today's agenda?
Message-ID: <4EE7311C0200005B0008147D@smtp.law.unh.edu>


Hi - Gray Chynoweth (new chair, Registrars SG) has offered to call in to our meeting today. I told him we might be able to do 15 minutes, as I thought it would be a good idea for him to introduce himself to everyone and - for the time we have available - hear at least a little of our concerns over the LEA demands w.r.t. the RAA (as you'll have seen from the recent emails, negotiations have commenced between the Registrars and ICANN on this). 

Robin - will it be possible for him to call in either at 5 p.m. EST or 5.15 p.m. EST (that's the second hour of the NCSG call, I think)? 

Thanks! 
Mary 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111213/3a626c1a/attachment.html>


From wendy  Tue Dec 13 18:09:25 2011
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 11:09:25 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Add-on to today's agenda?
In-Reply-To: <4EE7311C0200005B0008147D@smtp.law.unh.edu>
References: <4EE7311C0200005B0008147D@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <4EE778B5.3000201@seltzer.com>

I think it might be more useful for a small group of us to talk with
him, rather than do a discussion with the whole group (if we expect many
on the call). Alternately, we might just be a small group on the call,
but having it recorded might be unhelpful at this stage.

just thoughts, thanks for starting the conversation!
--Wendy

On 12/13/2011 11:03 AM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote:
> 
> Hi - Gray Chynoweth (new chair, Registrars SG) has offered to call in to our meeting today. I told him we might be able to do 15 minutes, as I thought it would be a good idea for him to introduce himself to everyone and - for the time we have available - hear at least a little of our concerns over the LEA demands w.r.t. the RAA (as you'll have seen from the recent emails, negotiations have commenced between the Registrars and ICANN on this). 
> 
> Robin - will it be possible for him to call in either at 5 p.m. EST or 5.15 p.m. EST (that's the second hour of the NCSG call, I think)? 
> 
> Thanks! 
> Mary 
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 
> As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613
Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/



From robin  Tue Dec 13 19:53:36 2011
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:53:36 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Add-on to today's agenda?
In-Reply-To: <4EE778B5.3000201@seltzer.com>
References: <4EE7311C0200005B0008147D@smtp.law.unh.edu>
	<4EE778B5.3000201@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <47BCA295-99D6-42B5-8294-C7D1F661885F@ipjustice.org>

Thanks for the suggestion. I like the suggestion that we speak directly with Gray on this issue, but I also think it would be better to do that in a more focused discussion.   Today's schedule is pretty packed with 7+ hefty policy issues and I worry that we wouldn't have the time to make the most of his contribution in today's call.  Let's do a call with him (early next week?) with those members who are interested in working on this issue where we can spend an hour focused directly on the topic.  How does that sound?

Thanks,
Robin


On Dec 13, 2011, at 8:09 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> I think it might be more useful for a small group of us to talk with
> him, rather than do a discussion with the whole group (if we expect many
> on the call). Alternately, we might just be a small group on the call,
> but having it recorded might be unhelpful at this stage.
> 
> just thoughts, thanks for starting the conversation!
> --Wendy
> 
> On 12/13/2011 11:03 AM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote:
>> 
>> Hi - Gray Chynoweth (new chair, Registrars SG) has offered to call in to our meeting today. I told him we might be able to do 15 minutes, as I thought it would be a good idea for him to introduce himself to everyone and - for the time we have available - hear at least a little of our concerns over the LEA demands w.r.t. the RAA (as you'll have seen from the recent emails, negotiations have commenced between the Registrars and ICANN on this). 
>> 
>> Robin - will it be possible for him to call in either at 5 p.m. EST or 5.15 p.m. EST (that's the second hour of the NCSG call, I think)? 
>> 
>> Thanks! 
>> Mary 
>> Mary W S Wong
>> Professor of Law
>> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
>> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
>> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 
>> As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613
> Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org






From k.komaitis  Tue Dec 13 19:58:25 2011
From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:58:25 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Add-on to today's agenda?
In-Reply-To: <47BCA295-99D6-42B5-8294-C7D1F661885F@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CB0D4283.DA10%k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk>

I would also vote in favor of another time ? and I know that it has been difficult to find one, but I suspect it has to do with the time of the year and everyone being very busy prior to holidays. Do you think we can postpone until after the festive season, I.e. beginning of January?

KK

From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:53:36 +0000
To: "Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU<mailto:Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU>" <Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU<mailto:Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU>>
Cc: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Add-on to today's agenda?

Thanks for the suggestion. I like the suggestion that we speak directly with Gray on this issue, but I also think it would be better to do that in a more focused discussion.   Today's schedule is pretty packed with 7+ hefty policy issues and I worry that we wouldn't have the time to make the most of his contribution in today's call.  Let's do a call with him (early next week?) with those members who are interested in working on this issue where we can spend an hour focused directly on the topic.  How does that sound?

Thanks,
Robin


On Dec 13, 2011, at 8:09 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

I think it might be more useful for a small group of us to talk with
him, rather than do a discussion with the whole group (if we expect many
on the call). Alternately, we might just be a small group on the call,
but having it recorded might be unhelpful at this stage.
just thoughts, thanks for starting the conversation!
--Wendy
On 12/13/2011 11:03 AM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:
Hi - Gray Chynoweth (new chair, Registrars SG) has offered to call in to our meeting today. I told him we might be able to do 15 minutes, as I thought it would be a good idea for him to introduce himself to everyone and - for the time we have available - hear at least a little of our concerns over the LEA demands w.r.t. the RAA (as you'll have seen from the recent emails, negotiations have commenced between the Registrars and ICANN on this).
Robin - will it be possible for him to call in either at 5 p.m. EST or 5.15 p.m. EST (that's the second hour of the NCSG call, I think)?
Thanks!
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone<mailto:mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone>: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu<mailto:firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu>. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu
_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org<mailto:wendy at seltzer.org> +1 914-374-0613
Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>




_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From Mary.Wong  Tue Dec 13 21:08:13 2011
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:08:13 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Add-on to today's agenda?
In-Reply-To: <CB0D4283.DA10%k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk>
References: <47BCA295-99D6-42B5-8294-C7D1F661885F@ipjustice.org>
	<CB0D4283.DA10%k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <4EE75C4D0200005B000814B4@smtp.law.unh.edu>

Sure thing - but it should be ASAP. Two negotiation sessions have
already taken place - one on 18 Nov and the other on 8 Dec. Since the
Registrars are willing to talk (e.g. Mason and Gray) we really should
and soon.
 
Not sure when the next negotiation is as it's not on the wiki yet, but
I would say sooner rather than later is good. Maybe if it's just Gray
and us, esp. Wendy, KK and Robin, a call can be easier to arrange for
the next week or so.
 
BTW the wiki for the RAA negotiations is here:
https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Registrars+to+Amend+the+Registrar+Accreditation+Agreement;jsessionid=AE5E1EE2B6348C30D9B4C69162FD0ED7
 
Let me put everyone in touch (again).
 
Cheers
Mary

 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage:
http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on
the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 


From: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>
To:Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>, "Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU"
<Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>
CC:"pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
Date: 12/13/2011 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Add-on to today's agenda?
I would also vote in favor of another time ? and I know that it has
been difficult to find one, but I suspect it has to do with the time of
the year and everyone being very busy prior to holidays. Do you think we
can postpone until after the festive season, I.e. beginning of January?

KK

From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:53:36 +0000
To: "Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU<mailto:Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU>"
<Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU<mailto:Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU>>
Cc: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>"
<pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Add-on to today's agenda?

Thanks for the suggestion. I like the suggestion that we speak directly
with Gray on this issue, but I also think it would be better to do that
in a more focused discussion.   Today's schedule is pretty packed with
7+ hefty policy issues and I worry that we wouldn't have the time to
make the most of his contribution in today's call.  Let's do a call with
him (early next week?) with those members who are interested in working
on this issue where we can spend an hour focused directly on the topic. 
How does that sound?

Thanks,
Robin


On Dec 13, 2011, at 8:09 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

I think it might be more useful for a small group of us to talk with
him, rather than do a discussion with the whole group (if we expect
many
on the call). Alternately, we might just be a small group on the call,
but having it recorded might be unhelpful at this stage.
just thoughts, thanks for starting the conversation!
--Wendy
On 12/13/2011 11:03 AM,
Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu<mailto:Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:
Hi - Gray Chynoweth (new chair, Registrars SG) has offered to call in
to our meeting today. I told him we might be able to do 15 minutes, as I
thought it would be a good idea for him to introduce himself to everyone
and - for the time we have available - hear at least a little of our
concerns over the LEA demands w.r.t. the RAA (as you'll have seen from
the recent emails, negotiations have commenced between the Registrars
and ICANN on this).
Robin - will it be possible for him to call in either at 5 p.m. EST or
5.15 p.m. EST (that's the second hour of the NCSG call, I think)?
Thanks!
Mary
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH
03301USAEmail:
mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone<mailto:mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone>:
1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected
writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at:
http://ssrn.com/author=437584
As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with
the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of
New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have
changed and now follow the convention:
firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu<mailto:firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu>.
For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law,
please visit law.unh.edu
_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org<mailto:wendy at seltzer.org> +1
914-374-0613
Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e:
robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>




_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto: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/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111213/8a9e563b/attachment-0001.html>


From wendy  Mon Dec 26 09:51:34 2011
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2011 02:51:34 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [NCUC Public Comment] Thick and Thin
 Whois Preliminary issues report -- draft comment
In-Reply-To: <4EF66EB4.5030804@seltzer.com>
References: <BF6B648E-BD86-4050-9EBC-99D6E76B1C75@acm.org>
	<121F9B03-9553-4A2B-A661-DE8DC7F73C05@acm.org>
	<4EF66EB4.5030804@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <4EF82786.1020406@seltzer.com>

I know the timing is tight, but here are some draft comments on the
Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois
<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm>
(comment period closes Dec. 30)

That preliminary report recommends that we start a PDP to make "thick"
WHOIS a consensus policy binding on incumbent registries (Verisign,
which has a thin WHOIS, with distributed registrar records, for .com and
.net). I think that's a bad idea.

----draft comment----
[] offers this comment on the Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois.

As an initial matter, we question the impetus for this policy-making.
It is not clear that changing the thickness of WHOIS responds to the
IRTP working groups' concerns about secure data exchange in a transfer,
as neither the security properties nor alternatives are described in any
detail.

The items in the Applicant Guidebook, in particular the requirement that
all new gTLD applicants provide thick WHOIS, do not reflect a GNSO or
community consensus.  It would therefore reverse the policy-making
process to assert consistency with new gTLDs as a rationale for creating
a policy that required existing registries to change their WHOIS model.
The issue report correctly notes that no policy currently exists as to
WHOIS model. We do not believe this PDP is the time or way to make such
policy.

Further we question the timing and sequence of this proposed PDP.  A
drafting team is currently developing a survey of WHOIS technical
requirements, to gauge community needs from the WHOIS system.  Policy
requiring thick WHOIS appears to offer a solution without before the
problem is defined -- and so risks "solving" the wrong problem, while in
the process reducing flexibility to solve actual problems that the
community identifies.  We also have ongoing WHOIS studies. As the GNSO
Council frequently hears about the overload on staff resources, and
community members themselves face numerous competing demands on their
time, we believe these resources could be better optimized by rejecting
this PDP or postponing it until the prior WHOIS work gave definite
objectives that required changes to the WHOIS model such as a thick WHOIS.

Within the report itself, we would like to see more consideration of
alternative models, such as standards that could streamline the
distributed database of thin WHOIS, or a centralized database.  Many of
the format and accessibility concerns, for example, would appear to be
better served by agreement on a standardized format for WHOIS data
responses than by requirements on where the data must be kept. A new
policy meant to address these concerns should look at their root causes,
not


As this preliminary issue report was completed before the adoption of
the new PDP process, it does not contain the impact analysis recommended
there. NCSG has particular interest in the impact on privacy rights.
Moving all data to the registry could facilitate invasion of privacy and
decrease the jurisdictional control registrants have through their
choice of registrar.

----end draft comment----

Thanks to Avri for helpful suggestions starting the thread.  I propose
this as an NCSG or NCUC comment, depending on response.

Thanks,
--Wendy




From wendy  Fri Dec 30 09:54:43 2011
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 02:54:43 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC Public Comment] Thick and Thin Whois
 Preliminary issues report -- draft comment
Message-ID: <4EFD6E43.5010500@seltzer.com>

This is due today, Dec. 30, to thick-whois-preliminary-report at icann.org
On whose behalf shall I submit it?  NCSG or NCUC?
Current draft as circulated included below.

If it's acceptable, I'd like to add a bit more meat to the privacy
section, "Individual registrants in particular may be concerned that the
aggregation of data in a thick WHOIS makes it more attractive to data
miners and harder to confirm compliance with their local privacy laws."

Thanks,
--Wendy

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [NCUC Public Comment] Thick and Thin Whois
Preliminary issues report -- draft comment
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 11:19:37 +0000
From: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK>
Reply-To: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK>
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Hi Wendy,

this is a great statement - thanks for taking the time to draft this. I
fully support it. I would hope that this would become an NCSG statement
- can I ask whether NPOC would be willing to support it?

Thanks

KK

PS: going back to eating now....

---statement---
NCSG offers this comment on the Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois.

As an initial matter, we question the impetus for this
policy-making.  It is not clear that changing the thickness of
WHOIS responds to the IRTP working groups' concerns about secure
data exchange in a transfer, as neither the security properties
nor alternatives are described in any detail.

The items in the Applicant Guidebook, in particular the
requirement that all new gTLD applicants provide thick WHOIS, do
not reflect a GNSO or community consensus. It would therefore
reverse the policy-making process to assert consistency with new
gTLDs as a rationale for creating a policy that required existing
registries to change their WHOIS model.  The issue report
correctly notes that no policy currently exists as to WHOIS
model. We do not believe this PDP is the time or way to make such
policy.

Further we question the timing and sequence of this proposed
PDP. A drafting team is currently developing a survey of WHOIS
technical requirements, to gauge community needs from the WHOIS
system. Policy requiring thick WHOIS appears to offer a solution
without before the problem is defined -- and so risks "solving"
the wrong problem, while in the process reducing flexibility to
solve actual problems that the community identifies. We also have
ongoing WHOIS studies. As the GNSO Council frequently hears about
the overload on staff resources, and community members themselves
face numerous competing demands on their time, we believe these
resources could be better optimized by rejecting this PDP or
postponing it until the prior WHOIS work gave definite objectives
that required changes to the WHOIS model such as a thick WHOIS.

If there is any consideration of a PDP on Thick Whois, it should
include the issue of the legitimacy of the current Applicant
Guidebook requirement on new gTLD applicants to use the Thick
Whois model. It is quite clear that this subject is within the
scope of the GNSO, a scope that should not have been preempted by
the New gTLD application process.  The Issues report should cover
this topic before any discussion on the appropriateness of
extending the model to the incumbent registries.

Within the report itself, we would like to see more consideration
of alternative models, such as standards that could streamline
the distributed database of thin WHOIS, or a centralized
database.  Many of the format and accessibility concerns, for
example, would appear to be better served by agreement on a
standardized format for WHOIS data responses than by requirements
on where the data must be kept. A new policy meant to address
these concerns should look at their root causes, and explore the
range of available options, not simply pick thick WHOIS because
it's common.


As this preliminary issue report was completed before the
adoption of the new PDP process, it does not contain the impact
analysis recommended there. NCSG has particular interest in the
impact on privacy rights. Moving all data to the registry could
facilitate invasion of privacy and decrease the jurisdictional
control registrants have through their choice of registrar.

For these reasons, NCSG opposes commencement of a PDP and recommends
constriction, not expansion of the thick WHOIS mandate.

---/statement---



From avri  Fri Dec 30 13:14:28 2011
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 06:14:28 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC Public Comment] Thick and Thin Whois
	Preliminary issues report -- draft comment
In-Reply-To: <4EFD6E43.5010500@seltzer.com>
References: <4EFD6E43.5010500@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <A39BC34A-B274-4837-841B-E7159DF036A1@acm.org>


On 30 Dec 2011, at 02:54, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> If it's acceptable, I'd like to add a bit more meat to the privacy
> section, "Individual registrants in particular may be concerned that the
> aggregation of data in a thick WHOIS makes it more attractive to data
> miners and harder to confirm compliance with their local privacy laws."

The addition is fine with me.

As for who to submit it from, my two cents:  You seem to have a green light from NCUC, but have not heard officially from NPOC.  I would suggest that it be submitted from NCUC unless you hear from NPOC Chair, V-Chair, NCUC Policy Chair or NPOC  in time.  They, and consequently NCSG, can always send in a late endorsement of the statement if it is ok with them.  Better that, then to find ourselves in a situation where it gets submitted from NCSG and then we end up in a kerfuffle over not having had agreement and have people disputing its legitimacy.    Alternatively, if the NCSG Chair, NCSG PC Chair based on rough consensus, or all NPOC reps in NCSG-PC tell you it is fine to submit it from NCSG, go for it.

avri


From william.drake  Fri Dec 30 18:50:12 2011
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 10:50:12 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC Public Comment] Thick and Thin Whois
	Preliminary issues report -- draft comment
In-Reply-To: <A39BC34A-B274-4837-841B-E7159DF036A1@acm.org>
References: <4EFD6E43.5010500@seltzer.com>
	<A39BC34A-B274-4837-841B-E7159DF036A1@acm.org>
Message-ID: <F3D93647-63DE-40EB-95BC-4AE5DD5BDDB0@uzh.ch>


On Dec 30, 2011, at 5:14 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Better that, then to find ourselves in a situation where it gets submitted from NCSG and then we end up in a kerfuffle over not having had agreement and have people disputing its legitimacy.

It's rather unhelpful that we don't hear back on requests for support, but it is what it is so I agree with Avri.

BD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111230/8ab788f7/attachment.html>


From bkuerbis  Sat Dec 31 00:36:33 2011
From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis)
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:36:33 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC Public Comment] Thick and Thin Whois
 Preliminary issues report -- draft comment
In-Reply-To: <4EFD6E43.5010500@seltzer.com>
References: <4EFD6E43.5010500@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <CANwsP3C_u1PwfcpGfN2ikp_supWMCMeW39413Rk7hdzZ-QQ2Gw@mail.gmail.com>

I feel this statement represents NCUC positions well, and it has my
support. Thanks to Wendy for drafting it.  I hope to see it submitted by
the SG as well.

B
On Dec 30, 2011 2:54 AM, "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:

> This is due today, Dec. 30, to thick-whois-preliminary-report at icann.org
> On whose behalf shall I submit it?  NCSG or NCUC?
> Current draft as circulated included below.
>
> If it's acceptable, I'd like to add a bit more meat to the privacy
> section, "Individual registrants in particular may be concerned that the
> aggregation of data in a thick WHOIS makes it more attractive to data
> miners and harder to confirm compliance with their local privacy laws."
>
> Thanks,
> --Wendy
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [NCUC Public Comment] Thick and Thin Whois
> Preliminary issues report -- draft comment
> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 11:19:37 +0000
> From: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK>
> Reply-To: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK>
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>
> Hi Wendy,
>
> this is a great statement - thanks for taking the time to draft this. I
> fully support it. I would hope that this would become an NCSG statement
> - can I ask whether NPOC would be willing to support it?
>
> Thanks
>
> KK
>
> PS: going back to eating now....
>
> ---statement---
> NCSG offers this comment on the Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick' Whois.
>
> As an initial matter, we question the impetus for this
> policy-making.  It is not clear that changing the thickness of
> WHOIS responds to the IRTP working groups' concerns about secure
> data exchange in a transfer, as neither the security properties
> nor alternatives are described in any detail.
>
> The items in the Applicant Guidebook, in particular the
> requirement that all new gTLD applicants provide thick WHOIS, do
> not reflect a GNSO or community consensus. It would therefore
> reverse the policy-making process to assert consistency with new
> gTLDs as a rationale for creating a policy that required existing
> registries to change their WHOIS model.  The issue report
> correctly notes that no policy currently exists as to WHOIS
> model. We do not believe this PDP is the time or way to make such
> policy.
>
> Further we question the timing and sequence of this proposed
> PDP. A drafting team is currently developing a survey of WHOIS
> technical requirements, to gauge community needs from the WHOIS
> system. Policy requiring thick WHOIS appears to offer a solution
> without before the problem is defined -- and so risks "solving"
> the wrong problem, while in the process reducing flexibility to
> solve actual problems that the community identifies. We also have
> ongoing WHOIS studies. As the GNSO Council frequently hears about
> the overload on staff resources, and community members themselves
> face numerous competing demands on their time, we believe these
> resources could be better optimized by rejecting this PDP or
> postponing it until the prior WHOIS work gave definite objectives
> that required changes to the WHOIS model such as a thick WHOIS.
>
> If there is any consideration of a PDP on Thick Whois, it should
> include the issue of the legitimacy of the current Applicant
> Guidebook requirement on new gTLD applicants to use the Thick
> Whois model. It is quite clear that this subject is within the
> scope of the GNSO, a scope that should not have been preempted by
> the New gTLD application process.  The Issues report should cover
> this topic before any discussion on the appropriateness of
> extending the model to the incumbent registries.
>
> Within the report itself, we would like to see more consideration
> of alternative models, such as standards that could streamline
> the distributed database of thin WHOIS, or a centralized
> database.  Many of the format and accessibility concerns, for
> example, would appear to be better served by agreement on a
> standardized format for WHOIS data responses than by requirements
> on where the data must be kept. A new policy meant to address
> these concerns should look at their root causes, and explore the
> range of available options, not simply pick thick WHOIS because
> it's common.
>
>
> As this preliminary issue report was completed before the
> adoption of the new PDP process, it does not contain the impact
> analysis recommended there. NCSG has particular interest in the
> impact on privacy rights. Moving all data to the registry could
> facilitate invasion of privacy and decrease the jurisdictional
> control registrants have through their choice of registrar.
>
> For these reasons, NCSG opposes commencement of a PDP and recommends
> constriction, not expansion of the thick WHOIS mandate.
>
> ---/statement---
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111230/3a5137f6/attachment.html>


From wendy  Sat Dec 31 02:04:51 2011
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:04:51 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC Public Comment] Thick and Thin Whois
	Preliminary issues report -- draft comment
In-Reply-To: <CANwsP3C_u1PwfcpGfN2ikp_supWMCMeW39413Rk7hdzZ-QQ2Gw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4EFD6E43.5010500@seltzer.com>
	<CANwsP3C_u1PwfcpGfN2ikp_supWMCMeW39413Rk7hdzZ-QQ2Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <813a92cc-9098-4bf9-b6f3-63774112b9b0@email.android.com>

Thanks, I sent it as an NCUC statement, as that seemed to be our consensus in the time available. 
Next up on my plate, RAA amendments and WHOIS review team report. 

Happy New Year,
--Wendy

Brenden Kuerbis <bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org> wrote:

>I feel this statement represents NCUC positions well, and it has my
>support. Thanks to Wendy for drafting it.  I hope to see it submitted
>by
>the SG as well.
>
>B
>On Dec 30, 2011 2:54 AM, "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:
>
>> This is due today, Dec. 30, to
>thick-whois-preliminary-report at icann.org
>> On whose behalf shall I submit it?  NCSG or NCUC?
>> Current draft as circulated included below.
>>
>> If it's acceptable, I'd like to add a bit more meat to the privacy
>> section, "Individual registrants in particular may be concerned that
>the
>> aggregation of data in a thick WHOIS makes it more attractive to data
>> miners and harder to confirm compliance with their local privacy
>laws."
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --Wendy
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [NCUC Public Comment] Thick and Thin
>Whois
>> Preliminary issues report -- draft comment
>> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 11:19:37 +0000
>> From: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK>
>> Reply-To: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK>
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>
>> Hi Wendy,
>>
>> this is a great statement - thanks for taking the time to draft this.
>I
>> fully support it. I would hope that this would become an NCSG
>statement
>> - can I ask whether NPOC would be willing to support it?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> KK
>>
>> PS: going back to eating now....
>>
>> ---statement---
>> NCSG offers this comment on the Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick'
>Whois.
>>
>> As an initial matter, we question the impetus for this
>> policy-making.  It is not clear that changing the thickness of
>> WHOIS responds to the IRTP working groups' concerns about secure
>> data exchange in a transfer, as neither the security properties
>> nor alternatives are described in any detail.
>>
>> The items in the Applicant Guidebook, in particular the
>> requirement that all new gTLD applicants provide thick WHOIS, do
>> not reflect a GNSO or community consensus. It would therefore
>> reverse the policy-making process to assert consistency with new
>> gTLDs as a rationale for creating a policy that required existing
>> registries to change their WHOIS model.  The issue report
>> correctly notes that no policy currently exists as to WHOIS
>> model. We do not believe this PDP is the time or way to make such
>> policy.
>>
>> Further we question the timing and sequence of this proposed
>> PDP. A drafting team is currently developing a survey of WHOIS
>> technical requirements, to gauge community needs from the WHOIS
>> system. Policy requiring thick WHOIS appears to offer a solution
>> without before the problem is defined -- and so risks "solving"
>> the wrong problem, while in the process reducing flexibility to
>> solve actual problems that the community identifies. We also have
>> ongoing WHOIS studies. As the GNSO Council frequently hears about
>> the overload on staff resources, and community members themselves
>> face numerous competing demands on their time, we believe these
>> resources could be better optimized by rejecting this PDP or
>> postponing it until the prior WHOIS work gave definite objectives
>> that required changes to the WHOIS model such as a thick WHOIS.
>>
>> If there is any consideration of a PDP on Thick Whois, it should
>> include the issue of the legitimacy of the current Applicant
>> Guidebook requirement on new gTLD applicants to use the Thick
>> Whois model. It is quite clear that this subject is within the
>> scope of the GNSO, a scope that should not have been preempted by
>> the New gTLD application process.  The Issues report should cover
>> this topic before any discussion on the appropriateness of
>> extending the model to the incumbent registries.
>>
>> Within the report itself, we would like to see more consideration
>> of alternative models, such as standards that could streamline
>> the distributed database of thin WHOIS, or a centralized
>> database.  Many of the format and accessibility concerns, for
>> example, would appear to be better served by agreement on a
>> standardized format for WHOIS data responses than by requirements
>> on where the data must be kept. A new policy meant to address
>> these concerns should look at their root causes, and explore the
>> range of available options, not simply pick thick WHOIS because
>> it's common.
>>
>>
>> As this preliminary issue report was completed before the
>> adoption of the new PDP process, it does not contain the impact
>> analysis recommended there. NCSG has particular interest in the
>> impact on privacy rights. Moving all data to the registry could
>> facilitate invasion of privacy and decrease the jurisdictional
>> control registrants have through their choice of registrar.
>>
>> For these reasons, NCSG opposes commencement of a PDP and recommends
>> constriction, not expansion of the thick WHOIS mandate.
>>
>> ---/statement---
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>

-- 
wendy at seltzer.com mobile +1.914.374.0613
-- 
wendy at seltzer.com mobile +1.914.374.0613



From avri  Sat Dec 31 03:29:26 2011
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 20:29:26 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC Public Comment] Thick and Thin Whois
	Preliminary issues report -- draft comment
In-Reply-To: <813a92cc-9098-4bf9-b6f3-63774112b9b0@email.android.com>
References: <4EFD6E43.5010500@seltzer.com>
	<CANwsP3C_u1PwfcpGfN2ikp_supWMCMeW39413Rk7hdzZ-QQ2Gw@mail.gmail.com>
	<813a92cc-9098-4bf9-b6f3-63774112b9b0@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <04AE69FF-9408-4FBE-9AE0-441F56C80A5D@acm.org>


On 30 Dec 2011, at 19:04, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> Thanks, I sent it as an NCUC statement, as that seemed to be our consensus in the time available. 
> Next up on my plate, RAA amendments and WHOIS review team report. 
> 
> Happy New Year,
> --Wendy


Yeah, thanks Wendy.

Speaking of next, is anyone taking the Constituency/SG position(s) on the IRTP-C call for comments due 6 Jan.

<https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1111&L=NCSG-DISCUSS&F=&S=&P=260237>

avri




From wendy  Sat Dec 31 01:23:01 2011
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 18:23:01 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC Public Comment] Thick and Thin Whois
	Preliminary issues report -- draft comment
In-Reply-To: <CANwsP3C_u1PwfcpGfN2ikp_supWMCMeW39413Rk7hdzZ-QQ2Gw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4EFD6E43.5010500@seltzer.com>
	<CANwsP3C_u1PwfcpGfN2ikp_supWMCMeW39413Rk7hdzZ-QQ2Gw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ebd31adc-cdb9-4e30-bd6d-dde5dd8e2407@email.android.com>

Thanks, I sent it as an NCUC statement, as that seemed to be our consensus in the time available. 
Next up on my plate, RAA amendments and WHOIS review team report. 

Happy New Year,
--Wendy

Brenden Kuerbis <bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org> wrote:

>I feel this statement represents NCUC positions well, and it has my
>support. Thanks to Wendy for drafting it.  I hope to see it submitted
>by
>the SG as well.
>
>B
>On Dec 30, 2011 2:54 AM, "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:
>
>> This is due today, Dec. 30, to
>thick-whois-preliminary-report at icann.org
>> On whose behalf shall I submit it?  NCSG or NCUC?
>> Current draft as circulated included below.
>>
>> If it's acceptable, I'd like to add a bit more meat to the privacy
>> section, "Individual registrants in particular may be concerned that
>the
>> aggregation of data in a thick WHOIS makes it more attractive to data
>> miners and harder to confirm compliance with their local privacy
>laws."
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --Wendy
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] [NCUC Public Comment] Thick and Thin
>Whois
>> Preliminary issues report -- draft comment
>> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 11:19:37 +0000
>> From: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK>
>> Reply-To: Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at STRATH.AC.UK>
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>
>> Hi Wendy,
>>
>> this is a great statement - thanks for taking the time to draft this.
>I
>> fully support it. I would hope that this would become an NCSG
>statement
>> - can I ask whether NPOC would be willing to support it?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> KK
>>
>> PS: going back to eating now....
>>
>> ---statement---
>> NCSG offers this comment on the Preliminary Issue Report on 'Thick'
>Whois.
>>
>> As an initial matter, we question the impetus for this
>> policy-making.  It is not clear that changing the thickness of
>> WHOIS responds to the IRTP working groups' concerns about secure
>> data exchange in a transfer, as neither the security properties
>> nor alternatives are described in any detail.
>>
>> The items in the Applicant Guidebook, in particular the
>> requirement that all new gTLD applicants provide thick WHOIS, do
>> not reflect a GNSO or community consensus. It would therefore
>> reverse the policy-making process to assert consistency with new
>> gTLDs as a rationale for creating a policy that required existing
>> registries to change their WHOIS model.  The issue report
>> correctly notes that no policy currently exists as to WHOIS
>> model. We do not believe this PDP is the time or way to make such
>> policy.
>>
>> Further we question the timing and sequence of this proposed
>> PDP. A drafting team is currently developing a survey of WHOIS
>> technical requirements, to gauge community needs from the WHOIS
>> system. Policy requiring thick WHOIS appears to offer a solution
>> without before the problem is defined -- and so risks "solving"
>> the wrong problem, while in the process reducing flexibility to
>> solve actual problems that the community identifies. We also have
>> ongoing WHOIS studies. As the GNSO Council frequently hears about
>> the overload on staff resources, and community members themselves
>> face numerous competing demands on their time, we believe these
>> resources could be better optimized by rejecting this PDP or
>> postponing it until the prior WHOIS work gave definite objectives
>> that required changes to the WHOIS model such as a thick WHOIS.
>>
>> If there is any consideration of a PDP on Thick Whois, it should
>> include the issue of the legitimacy of the current Applicant
>> Guidebook requirement on new gTLD applicants to use the Thick
>> Whois model. It is quite clear that this subject is within the
>> scope of the GNSO, a scope that should not have been preempted by
>> the New gTLD application process.  The Issues report should cover
>> this topic before any discussion on the appropriateness of
>> extending the model to the incumbent registries.
>>
>> Within the report itself, we would like to see more consideration
>> of alternative models, such as standards that could streamline
>> the distributed database of thin WHOIS, or a centralized
>> database.  Many of the format and accessibility concerns, for
>> example, would appear to be better served by agreement on a
>> standardized format for WHOIS data responses than by requirements
>> on where the data must be kept. A new policy meant to address
>> these concerns should look at their root causes, and explore the
>> range of available options, not simply pick thick WHOIS because
>> it's common.
>>
>>
>> As this preliminary issue report was completed before the
>> adoption of the new PDP process, it does not contain the impact
>> analysis recommended there. NCSG has particular interest in the
>> impact on privacy rights. Moving all data to the registry could
>> facilitate invasion of privacy and decrease the jurisdictional
>> control registrants have through their choice of registrar.
>>
>> For these reasons, NCSG opposes commencement of a PDP and recommends
>> constriction, not expansion of the thick WHOIS mandate.
>>
>> ---/statement---
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>

-- 
wendy at seltzer.com mobile +1.914.374.0613
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20111230/4a98da98/attachment.html>