From robin Thu Feb 2 01:26:52 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 15:26:52 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica In-Reply-To: References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A95ECF9A5@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9D0BDFBA-8380-4EB0-9E3C-1FE5275D889A@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Thanks for the suggestions for discussion items, Bill. I especially like LEA/registrar/RAA & reserved names for IOs and the issues are in play at this time. Best, Robin On Jan 30, 2012, at 11:31 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Jan 31, 2012, at 12:45 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > >> I think the time proposed below however may conflict with the GNSO Council meeting, where most of our members will need to be at that time. > > The Council meeting is Wed. 14-18:00 as always. There's no publicly visible draft schedule yet but it's looking like Monday may be thick with workshops for some of us. Could Thursday morning work, stock-taking in post-Council context etc? >> >> We'll come up with a couple substantive policy issues to propose for the agenda in the coming days. > > Off the top of my head, one would think the menu should include some of the following, although history suggests that in an hour we probably would get through a few in an hour: > > Institutional/process stuff: Outreach, CCWG, Academy > > Substantive: LEA/registrar/RAA, reserved names for IOs, UDRP, applicant support, AoC RTs/WHOIS, gTLD stock taking, maybe IRTP? > > Conversely, anything of mutual interest in particular on ALAC's mind? > > Cheers > > BD > >> >> Thanks again! >> Robin >> >> >> On Jan 25, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Heidi Ullrich wrote: >> >>> Hi Robin, >>> >>> The ALAC Executive Committee (ExCom) and At-Large staff are developing the schedule and agendas for the At-Large meetings in Costa Rica. >>> >>> Following up on the ALAC meeting with the NCSG in Dakar, we have tentatively scheduled a meeting of the ALAC with the NCSG for Wednesday, 14 March between 14:00 ? 15:00. Could you please confirm that the NCSG would like to have a meeting with the ALAC during the Costa Rica Meeting? If so, is the current date and time convenient? Please note that as the ICANN Meeting schedule is still being developed, we currently don?t know which other meetings are scheduled for that time. >>> >>> Also, the ExCom has requested that you let them know of any specific agenda items that you would like to discuss with the ALAC. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Heidi >>> >>> Heidi Ullrich >>> Director for At-Large >>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>> Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 >>> Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 >>> Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis Thu Feb 2 11:42:02 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 09:42:02 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica In-Reply-To: References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A95ECF9A5@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9D0BDFBA-8380-4EB0-9E3C-1FE5275D889A@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: +1 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 From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: ???????, 1 ??????????? 2012 11:27 ?? To: William Drake Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica Thanks for the suggestions for discussion items, Bill. I especially like LEA/registrar/RAA & reserved names for IOs and the issues are in play at this time. Best, Robin On Jan 30, 2012, at 11:31 PM, William Drake wrote: Hi On Jan 31, 2012, at 12:45 AM, Robin Gross wrote: I think the time proposed below however may conflict with the GNSO Council meeting, where most of our members will need to be at that time. The Council meeting is Wed. 14-18:00 as always. There's no publicly visible draft schedule yet but it's looking like Monday may be thick with workshops for some of us. Could Thursday morning work, stock-taking in post-Council context etc? We'll come up with a couple substantive policy issues to propose for the agenda in the coming days. Off the top of my head, one would think the menu should include some of the following, although history suggests that in an hour we probably would get through a few in an hour: Institutional/process stuff: Outreach, CCWG, Academy Substantive: LEA/registrar/RAA, reserved names for IOs, UDRP, applicant support, AoC RTs/WHOIS, gTLD stock taking, maybe IRTP? Conversely, anything of mutual interest in particular on ALAC's mind? Cheers BD Thanks again! Robin On Jan 25, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Heidi Ullrich wrote: Hi Robin, The ALAC Executive Committee (ExCom) and At-Large staff are developing the schedule and agendas for the At-Large meetings in Costa Rica. Following up on the ALAC meeting with the NCSG in Dakar, we have tentatively scheduled a meeting of the ALAC with the NCSG for Wednesday, 14 March between 14:00 - 15:00. Could you please confirm that the NCSG would like to have a meeting with the ALAC during the Costa Rica Meeting? If so, is the current date and time convenient? Please note that as the ICANN Meeting schedule is still being developed, we currently don't know which other meetings are scheduled for that time. Also, the ExCom has requested that you let them know of any specific agenda items that you would like to discuss with the ALAC. Kind regards, Heidi Heidi Ullrich Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter Thu Feb 2 12:21:39 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:21:39 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A95ECF9A5@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9D0BDFBA-8380-4EB0-9E3C-1FE5275D889A@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9D1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Bill and others 1. it is important to find a slot which does not overlap with other key meetings. Thursday is also the IGF Workshop where a lot of CS members are involved. 2. Bills liss of issues is already long. Nothing to add. Or should we discuss also NPOC? 3. An important objective (as a side effect is to create a construtive and friendly environment for future enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Konstantinos Komaitis Gesendet: Do 02.02.2012 10:42 An: 'Robin Gross'; William Drake Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica +1 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 From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: ???????, 1 ??????????? 2012 11:27 ?? To: William Drake Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica Thanks for the suggestions for discussion items, Bill. I especially like LEA/registrar/RAA & reserved names for IOs and the issues are in play at this time. Best, Robin On Jan 30, 2012, at 11:31 PM, William Drake wrote: Hi On Jan 31, 2012, at 12:45 AM, Robin Gross wrote: I think the time proposed below however may conflict with the GNSO Council meeting, where most of our members will need to be at that time. The Council meeting is Wed. 14-18:00 as always. There's no publicly visible draft schedule yet but it's looking like Monday may be thick with workshops for some of us. Could Thursday morning work, stock-taking in post-Council context etc? We'll come up with a couple substantive policy issues to propose for the agenda in the coming days. Off the top of my head, one would think the menu should include some of the following, although history suggests that in an hour we probably would get through a few in an hour: Institutional/process stuff: Outreach, CCWG, Academy Substantive: LEA/registrar/RAA, reserved names for IOs, UDRP, applicant support, AoC RTs/WHOIS, gTLD stock taking, maybe IRTP? Conversely, anything of mutual interest in particular on ALAC's mind? Cheers BD Thanks again! Robin On Jan 25, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Heidi Ullrich wrote: Hi Robin, The ALAC Executive Committee (ExCom) and At-Large staff are developing the schedule and agendas for the At-Large meetings in Costa Rica. Following up on the ALAC meeting with the NCSG in Dakar, we have tentatively scheduled a meeting of the ALAC with the NCSG for Wednesday, 14 March between 14:00 - 15:00. Could you please confirm that the NCSG would like to have a meeting with the ALAC during the Costa Rica Meeting? If so, is the current date and time convenient? Please note that as the ICANN Meeting schedule is still being developed, we currently don't know which other meetings are scheduled for that time. Also, the ExCom has requested that you let them know of any specific agenda items that you would like to discuss with the ALAC. Kind regards, Heidi Heidi Ullrich Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From william.drake Thu Feb 2 12:41:24 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:41:24 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9D1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A95ECF9A5@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9D0BDFBA-8380-4EB0-9E3C-1FE5275D889A@ipjustice.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9D1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi On Feb 2, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang wrote: > Hi Bill and others > > 1. it is important to find a slot which does not overlap with other key meetings. Thursday is also the IGF Workshop where a lot of CS members are involved. I've heard from others in the know that this would be on Monday. It would really help if staff or someone could provide some parameters, however tentative, as to what workshops may be Monday & Thursday, otherwise we're all just dancing in the dark trying to figure out possibilities. I know there will also be a ws on WCIT on Monday... > > 2. Bills liss of issues is already long. Nothing to add. Or should we discuss also NPOC? Again, it was intended as a menu, and as I said in reality we'd probably only get through @ 4 items with any degree of focus. > > 3. An important objective (as a side effect is to create a construtive and friendly environment for future enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration. and also for consultation, commingling, commiseration, cooperation, and cohabitation?Wolfgang, expand your acronym horizons, your C3's too limiting! :-) Bill > > > > > ________________________________ > > Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Konstantinos Komaitis > Gesendet: Do 02.02.2012 10:42 > An: 'Robin Gross'; William Drake > Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy > Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica > > > > +1 > > > > 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 > > > > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross > Sent: ???????, 1 ??????????? 2012 11:27 ?? > To: William Drake > Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica > > > > Thanks for the suggestions for discussion items, Bill. I especially like LEA/registrar/RAA & reserved names for IOs and the issues are in play at this time. > > > > Best, > > Robin > > > > On Jan 30, 2012, at 11:31 PM, William Drake wrote: > > > > > > Hi > > > > On Jan 31, 2012, at 12:45 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > > > > > > I think the time proposed below however may conflict with the GNSO Council meeting, where most of our members will need to be at that time. > > > > The Council meeting is Wed. 14-18:00 as always. There's no publicly visible draft schedule yet but it's looking like Monday may be thick with workshops for some of us. Could Thursday morning work, stock-taking in post-Council context etc? > > > > > > We'll come up with a couple substantive policy issues to propose for the agenda in the coming days. > > > > Off the top of my head, one would think the menu should include some of the following, although history suggests that in an hour we probably would get through a few in an hour: > > > > Institutional/process stuff: Outreach, CCWG, Academy > > > > Substantive: LEA/registrar/RAA, reserved names for IOs, UDRP, applicant support, AoC RTs/WHOIS, gTLD stock taking, maybe IRTP? > > > > Conversely, anything of mutual interest in particular on ALAC's mind? > > > > Cheers > > > > BD > > > > > > > > Thanks again! > > Robin > > > > > > On Jan 25, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Heidi Ullrich wrote: > > > > > > Hi Robin, > > > > The ALAC Executive Committee (ExCom) and At-Large staff are developing the schedule and agendas for the At-Large meetings in Costa Rica. > > > > Following up on the ALAC meeting with the NCSG in Dakar, we have tentatively scheduled a meeting of the ALAC with the NCSG for Wednesday, 14 March between 14:00 - 15:00. Could you please confirm that the NCSG would like to have a meeting with the ALAC during the Costa Rica Meeting? If so, is the current date and time convenient? Please note that as the ICANN Meeting schedule is still being developed, we currently don't know which other meetings are scheduled for that time. > > > > Also, the ExCom has requested that you let them know of any specific agenda items that you would like to discuss with the ALAC. > > > > Kind regards, > > Heidi > > > > Heidi Ullrich > > Director for At-Large > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 > > Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 > > Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > From william.drake Fri Feb 3 10:36:50 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 09:36:50 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica In-Reply-To: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A960645C9@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A95ECF9A5@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9D0BDFBA-8380-4EB0-9E3C-1FE5275D889A@ipjustice.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9D1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A960645C9@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <2F076612-76D1-483C-B0B1-3967764A02AF@uzh.ch> Hi Heidi The GNSO Council always does a wrap-up session Thursday 12:30-14:00. Per previous, we don't have GNSO activities that morning, but I don't know about ALAC. And it's unclear what workshops some of us might need to attend could be Thursday morning vs. Monday. Any chance you could consult with whoever on the staff has access to the draft agenda and let us know? Best, Bill On Feb 2, 2012, at 7:12 PM, Heidi Ullrich wrote: > Hi All, > > Would Thursday, 15 March between 12:00-13:00 be convenient for the ALAC/NCSG meeting? This timing would fit into the current At-Large schedule. > > Kind regards, > Heidi > > Heidi Ullrich > Director for At-Large > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 > Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 > Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:22 AM > To: Konstantinos Komaitis; Robin Gross; William Drake > Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy > Subject: AW: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica > > Hi Bill and others > > 1. it is important to find a slot which does not overlap with other key meetings. Thursday is also the IGF Workshop where a lot of CS members are involved. > > 2. Bills liss of issues is already long. Nothing to add. Or should we discuss also NPOC? > > 3. An important objective (as a side effect is to create a construtive and friendly environment for future enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration. > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Konstantinos Komaitis > Gesendet: Do 02.02.2012 10:42 > An: 'Robin Gross'; William Drake > Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy > Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica > > > > +1 > > > > 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 > > > > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross > Sent: ???????, 1 ??????????? 2012 11:27 ?? > To: William Drake > Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica > > > > Thanks for the suggestions for discussion items, Bill. I especially like LEA/registrar/RAA & reserved names for IOs and the issues are in play at this time. > > > > Best, > > Robin > > > > On Jan 30, 2012, at 11:31 PM, William Drake wrote: > > > > > > Hi > > > > On Jan 31, 2012, at 12:45 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > > > > > > I think the time proposed below however may conflict with the GNSO Council meeting, where most of our members will need to be at that time. > > > > The Council meeting is Wed. 14-18:00 as always. There's no publicly visible draft schedule yet but it's looking like Monday may be thick with workshops for some of us. Could Thursday morning work, stock-taking in post-Council context etc? > > > > > > We'll come up with a couple substantive policy issues to propose for the agenda in the coming days. > > > > Off the top of my head, one would think the menu should include some of the following, although history suggests that in an hour we probably would get through a few in an hour: > > > > Institutional/process stuff: Outreach, CCWG, Academy > > > > Substantive: LEA/registrar/RAA, reserved names for IOs, UDRP, applicant support, AoC RTs/WHOIS, gTLD stock taking, maybe IRTP? > > > > Conversely, anything of mutual interest in particular on ALAC's mind? > > > > Cheers > > > > BD > > > > > > > > Thanks again! > > Robin > > > > > > On Jan 25, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Heidi Ullrich wrote: > > > > > > Hi Robin, > > > > The ALAC Executive Committee (ExCom) and At-Large staff are developing the schedule and agendas for the At-Large meetings in Costa Rica. > > > > Following up on the ALAC meeting with the NCSG in Dakar, we have tentatively scheduled a meeting of the ALAC with the NCSG for Wednesday, 14 March between 14:00 - 15:00. Could you please confirm that the NCSG would like to have a meeting with the ALAC during the Costa Rica Meeting? If so, is the current date and time convenient? Please note that as the ICANN Meeting schedule is still being developed, we currently don't know which other meetings are scheduled for that time. > > > > Also, the ExCom has requested that you let them know of any specific agenda items that you would like to discuss with the ALAC. > > > > Kind regards, > > Heidi > > > > Heidi Ullrich > > Director for At-Large > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 > > Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 > > Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > From william.drake Sat Feb 4 10:00:20 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 09:00:20 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica In-Reply-To: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A9606481A@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A95ECF9A5@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9D0BDFBA-8380-4EB0-9E3C-1FE5275D889A@ipjustice.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9D1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A960645C9@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <2F076612-76D1-483C-B0B1-3967764A02AF@uzh.ch> <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A9606481A@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: Again, there's no way to know until someone on the staff who has access to the draft agenda is consulted. There's a lot of workshops Monday which varying people may need to be at and we don't have a clue as to which are when? Best Bill On Feb 3, 2012, at 9:54 PM, Heidi Ullrich wrote: > Hi All, > > Bill, thank you for letting me know of this scheduling conflict. > > Currently, it looks as if Monday, 12 March between 11:00-12:00 might work. This time-slot is after the Welcome Ceremony and prior to the joint ccNSO/GNSO Council Monday lunch. > > Do you see any conflicts with this time? > > Kind regards, > Heidi > > Heidi Ullrich > Director for At-Large > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 > Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 > Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:37 AM > To: Heidi Ullrich > Cc: "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang"; Konstantinos Komaitis; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Robin Gross; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica > > Hi Heidi > > The GNSO Council always does a wrap-up session Thursday 12:30-14:00. Per previous, we don't have GNSO activities that morning, but I don't know about ALAC. And it's unclear what workshops some of us might need to attend could be Thursday morning vs. Monday. Any chance you could consult with whoever on the staff has access to the draft agenda and let us know? > > Best, > > Bill > > On Feb 2, 2012, at 7:12 PM, Heidi Ullrich wrote: > >> Hi All, >> >> Would Thursday, 15 March between 12:00-13:00 be convenient for the ALAC/NCSG meeting? This timing would fit into the current At-Large schedule. >> >> Kind regards, >> Heidi >> >> Heidi Ullrich >> Director for At-Large >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 >> Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 >> Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:22 AM >> To: Konstantinos Komaitis; Robin Gross; William Drake >> Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy >> Subject: AW: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica >> >> Hi Bill and others >> >> 1. it is important to find a slot which does not overlap with other key meetings. Thursday is also the IGF Workshop where a lot of CS members are involved. >> >> 2. Bills liss of issues is already long. Nothing to add. Or should we discuss also NPOC? >> >> 3. An important objective (as a side effect is to create a construtive and friendly environment for future enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration. >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Konstantinos Komaitis >> Gesendet: Do 02.02.2012 10:42 >> An: 'Robin Gross'; William Drake >> Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy >> Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross >> Sent: ???????, 1 ??????????? 2012 11:27 ?? >> To: William Drake >> Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy >> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica >> >> >> >> Thanks for the suggestions for discussion items, Bill. I especially like LEA/registrar/RAA & reserved names for IOs and the issues are in play at this time. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Robin >> >> >> >> On Jan 30, 2012, at 11:31 PM, William Drake wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi >> >> >> >> On Jan 31, 2012, at 12:45 AM, Robin Gross wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I think the time proposed below however may conflict with the GNSO Council meeting, where most of our members will need to be at that time. >> >> >> >> The Council meeting is Wed. 14-18:00 as always. There's no publicly visible draft schedule yet but it's looking like Monday may be thick with workshops for some of us. Could Thursday morning work, stock-taking in post-Council context etc? >> >> >> >> >> >> We'll come up with a couple substantive policy issues to propose for the agenda in the coming days. >> >> >> >> Off the top of my head, one would think the menu should include some of the following, although history suggests that in an hour we probably would get through a few in an hour: >> >> >> >> Institutional/process stuff: Outreach, CCWG, Academy >> >> >> >> Substantive: LEA/registrar/RAA, reserved names for IOs, UDRP, applicant support, AoC RTs/WHOIS, gTLD stock taking, maybe IRTP? >> >> >> >> Conversely, anything of mutual interest in particular on ALAC's mind? >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> BD >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks again! >> >> Robin >> >> >> >> >> >> On Jan 25, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Heidi Ullrich wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Robin, >> >> >> >> The ALAC Executive Committee (ExCom) and At-Large staff are developing the schedule and agendas for the At-Large meetings in Costa Rica. >> >> >> >> Following up on the ALAC meeting with the NCSG in Dakar, we have tentatively scheduled a meeting of the ALAC with the NCSG for Wednesday, 14 March between 14:00 - 15:00. Could you please confirm that the NCSG would like to have a meeting with the ALAC during the Costa Rica Meeting? If so, is the current date and time convenient? Please note that as the ICANN Meeting schedule is still being developed, we currently don't know which other meetings are scheduled for that time. >> >> >> >> Also, the ExCom has requested that you let them know of any specific agenda items that you would like to discuss with the ALAC. >> >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Heidi >> >> >> >> Heidi Ullrich >> >> Director for At-Large >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 >> >> Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 >> >> Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> >> > From robin Tue Feb 7 21:19:40 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:19:40 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] please mark availability for Feb NCSG Open Policy Call Message-ID: Dear NCSG Policy Cmte: Please mark your availability from 13-15 February for the February NCSG Open Policy Call: http://www.doodle.com/r3t7qgs3zemyrkr5 The corresponding GNSO Council meeting is 16 Feb (Thursday). This doodle poll closes on 9 February (Thur) EoB in California. Thank you! Robin From robin Tue Feb 7 21:26:59 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:26:59 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] please mark availability for Feb NCSG Open Policy Call In-Reply-To: <4F317987.2010503@seltzer.org> References: <4F317987.2010503@seltzer.org> Message-ID: <2FE30538-8FAE-4A0C-A83D-8212DADAAAEE@ipjustice.org> Apologies. The previous doodle poll was not time-zone enabled. Please fill out this doodle instead: http://www.doodle.com/b77nnqr7h9gy2fgh with time-zones. Sorry for the confusion, Robin On Feb 7, 2012, at 11:20 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > What timezone? > > --Wendy > > On 02/07/2012 02:19 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >> Dear NCSG Policy Cmte: >> >> Please mark your availability from 13-15 February for the February NCSG Open Policy Call: >> http://www.doodle.com/r3t7qgs3zemyrkr5 >> >> The corresponding GNSO Council meeting is 16 Feb (Thursday). >> >> This doodle poll closes on 9 February (Thur) EoB in California. >> >> Thank you! >> Robin >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 > 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/ > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Tue Feb 14 00:43:15 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:43:15 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft agenda for Wed 15 Feb NCSG Open Policy Call Message-ID: <76D7BA0B-B6F8-4482-AB31-02920F1E5FB5@ipjustice.org> Please let me know if you have comments or suggestions for Wednesday's NCSG Open Policy Call. Thank you! Robin Draft Discussion Agenda - NCSG February Open Policy Call Wednesday 15 February 2012 ~ 19:00 - 21:00 UTC I. GNSO Council Policy Issues - Status Updates & Pending Votes A. New GNSO Council Mtg agenda item "consent agenda": "... Item 2: Consent agenda (5 minutes) A consent agenda item is being added as a standard agenda item to provide for a simplified process to obtain Council approval on specific tasks. ? Approval of the Recommendations Report http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-council-report-irtp-part-b-recommendation-9part2-06feb12-en.pdf on IRTP B Rec 9 part 2 that Staff is proposing be sent to the Board. ? Approval of the proposal to end the work on Whois access at this time. ? Approval of the termination of the Open Council DT. ? Approval of new calls for volunteers for the JIG..." B. Thick-Whois Final Issue Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf GNSO Council vote on whether or not to initiate a PDP C. IRTP Part B Rec. #8 Q for council: Need process for urgent resolution / return of domain names, undoing inappropriate transfers, registrar lock status, related domain name hijacking issues? GNSO Council will vote (motion #2) on whether to adopt and implement IRTP Part B recommendation #8 and the related ICANN Staff updated proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-council-report-irtp-part-b-recommendation-9part2-06feb12-en.pdf ). D. Red Cross / Olympic Committee Special Privileges GNSO Drafting Team established E. RAA Update: Law Enforcement & Registrars Negotiation Over Your Rights F. JIG Letter to Board G. Staff-Initiated Public Comment Periods Staff calls for public comment on trademark protections & new gtlds: what's up with that? II. What's Open for Public Comment Now? see: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/ III. Planning for Costa Rica A. Local civil society mixer? B. Discussion with At-Large C. Session on SOPA / ACTA? D. What else? IV. AOB ___________________________________________________________________ https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+16+February+2012 Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting ? 16 February 2012 This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 22 September 2011 for the GNSO Council and updated.http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-16dec11-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 15:00 UTChttp://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=GNSO+Council+meeting&iso=20120216T15&ah=2 Coordinated Universal Time: 15:00 UTC 07:00 Los Angeles; 10:00 Washington DC; 15:00 London; 16:00 Paris; 00:00 Tokyo; 17 February 2012 04:00 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 audiocasthttp://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures: ? 19 January 2012 GNSO Council minutes --approved on 16 February 2012. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12612.html 1.5. GNSO Pending Projects List http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf ? Comments and/or questions. Item 2: Consent agenda (5 minutes) A consent agenda item is being added as a standard agenda item to provide for a simplified process to obtain Council approval on specific tasks. ? Approval of the Recommendations Report http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-council-report-irtp-part-b-recommendation-9part2-06feb12-en.pdfon IRTP B Rec 9 part 2 that Staff is proposing be sent to the Board. ? Approval of the proposal to end the work on Whois access at this time. ? Approval of the termination of the Open Council DT. ? Approval of new calls for volunteers for the JIG Item 3: 'thick' Whois Final Issue Report (10 minutes) As recommended by the IRTP Part B Working Group, the GNSO Council requested ICANN Staff to prepare an Issue Report on the requirement of ?thick? WHOIS for all incumbent gTLDs. The Preliminary Issue Report was published for public comment (seehttp://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm). Staff has now submitted the Final Issue Report,http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf which includes the report of comments received and additional updates as a result of the comments made. The GNSO Council will now consider the Final Issue Report and decide whether or not to initiate a PDP. 3.1 Presentation of Final Issue Report (Marika Konings)http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf Refer to motion:https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+16+February+2012 3.2 Reading of the motion (St?phane Van Gelder) 3.3 Discussion 3.3 Vote Item 4: IRTP B Rec 8 (15 minutes) As adopted by the Council on 22 June 2011 http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions#201106-1 the Council requested Staff to provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed to meet the following recommendation "prior to the consideration of approval of the recommendation regarding the standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages regarding Registrar Lock status". Staff submitted its recommendation on January 3, 2012http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html A motion was presented at the Jan 19, 2012 meeting, but was withdrawn to give Staff and Council more time to fine tune. A new motion is presented today. Refer to motionhttps://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+16+February+2012 4.1 Reading of the motion (Yoav Keren). 4.2 Discussion 4.3 Vote Item 5: JIG letter to the Board (10 minutes) The ccNSO has not approved the joint letter the GNSO suggested sending to the Board on the JIG. As a way forward, the ccNSO is proposing two options: 1. Sending their proposed letterhttps://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+16+February+2012 as a joint letter to the Board. 2. If the GNSO does not approve option 1, the ccNSO will send a letter on its own. In that case, the GNSO must decide on what it wants to do, as we had approved sending a joint letter beforehttp://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112 5.1 Update by Edmon Chung - JIG Co-chair 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Next steps Item 6: Costa Rica Weekend agenda (20 minutes) At the Jan 19 Council meeting, it was suggested that our weekend sessions need to be focussed more on preparation work for the Council's week and less on updates. This is a discussion item on the proposed agenda. 6.1 Update and presentation of agenda (Wolf Ulrich Knoben) 6.2 Agenda for GNSO Council meeting with the Board 6.3 Agenda for GNSO Council meeting with the GAC 6.4 Agenda for GNSO Council lunch with the ccNSO 6.5 Discussion Item 7: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names (20 minutes) A GNSO Drafting Team is working on a charter to determine how to handle the protection of RC and IOC names under the new gTLD program. This agenda item is to provide the Council with an update on that work. 7.1 Update by Jeff Neuman - Drafting Team Chair 7.2 Discussion Item 8: GNSO liaison to the ccNSO (5 minutes) Olga Cavalli had served as GNSO Council liaison to the ccNSO, but has now left the GNSO Council. Therefore the GNSO Council must now appoint a new liaison to the ccNSO. 8.1 Call for volunteers 8.2 Discussion Item 9: Any Other Business (5 minutes) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Tue Feb 14 03:33:25 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 17:33:25 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] 2 volunteers to help keep track of NCSG policy development participation Message-ID: <887FB580-F0D3-4085-B7BA-8CB126B10FEF@ipjustice.org> We need 2 volunteers from the NCSG Policy Committee members to help keep track of (i) who is drafting comments for NCSG, and (ii) who is participating from NCSG in the various GNSO working groups and drafting teams. If we had 1 policy committee member who could keep track of each of those 2 items, I think NCSG would be a lot more effective in policy development. It would entail updating the NCSG wiki every few weeks as needed. Do we have any volunteers? We need 2. Please let me know. Thank you. :-) Best, Robin From wendy Fri Feb 17 00:02:25 2012 From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:02:25 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed public comment on .CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes In-Reply-To: <4F3D7565.4040208@seltzer.com> References: <4F3D7565.4040208@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <4F3D7CF1.5090408@seltzer.com> What's our process to [see if we can] make this an NCSG comment? --Wendy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed public comment on .CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:30:13 -0500 From: Wendy Seltzer Reply-To: Wendy Seltzer To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU As we discussed on the NCSG call Wednesday, we had begun drafting a statement for the punctCAT public comment. On the call, we heard support for finalizing that statement and sending it in, despite being shortly past the comment period's closing. Below, the statement for your review and approval. Thanks to Avri for coordinating a draft from which this draws: --- The NCSG wishes to express its support for punctCAT's proposed amendment to allow natural persons an opt-out measure by which some WHOIS data would be withheld from public view. At the same time, we do not believe the request offers the opt-out opportunity broadly enough to satisfy all legitimate privacy needs. The NCSG believes there are several types of institution that require similar opportunities to opt out from public display of their identity and address details. Among those institutional types are organizations that: * protect natural persons * deal with political freedoms, * deal with religious freedoms, * deal with sexual preference and expression, * deal with political minorities, * deal with religious minorities, and parents' groups that deal with children's activities such as sports teams, home-schooling and other childcare issues. As the privacy of natural persons is protected within the EU Data Protection Directive, political parties and minority speech are protected within the privacy rules in other national laws. Given that gTLDs are global, it will be important to take all national laws into account. The NCSG further expresses concern that law enforcement and third party access to the data should be consistent with due process protections. We urge development of these disclosure procedures in conjunction with the Community. From robin Fri Feb 17 00:11:27 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:11:27 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed public comment on .CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes In-Reply-To: <4F3D7CF1.5090408@seltzer.com> References: <4F3D7565.4040208@seltzer.com> <4F3D7CF1.5090408@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <7C9B8D19-D2BD-4787-91AA-F5C9710AF629@ipjustice.org> Thanks, Wendy. We put it out on this list as the draft consensus position (as has been done) and if no PC members object in the next day, we can send it in as our comment. Thank you! Robin On Feb 16, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > What's our process to [see if we can] make this an NCSG comment? > > --Wendy > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed public comment on .CAT WHOIS Proposed > Changes > Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:30:13 -0500 > From: Wendy Seltzer > Reply-To: Wendy Seltzer > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > > As we discussed on the NCSG call Wednesday, we had begun drafting a > statement for the punctCAT public comment. On the call, we heard support > for finalizing that statement and sending it in, despite being shortly > past the comment period's closing. Below, the statement for your review > and approval. Thanks to Avri for coordinating a draft from which this draws: > > --- > > The NCSG wishes to express its support for punctCAT's proposed amendment > to allow natural persons an opt-out measure by which some WHOIS data > would be withheld from public view. > > At the same time, we do not believe the request offers the opt-out > opportunity broadly enough to satisfy all legitimate privacy needs. The > NCSG believes there are several types of institution that require > similar opportunities to opt out from public display of their identity > and address details. Among those institutional types are organizations > that: > > * protect natural persons > * deal with political freedoms, > * deal with religious freedoms, > * deal with sexual preference and expression, > * deal with political minorities, > * deal with religious minorities, > and parents' groups that deal with children's activities such as sports > teams, home-schooling and other childcare issues. > > As the privacy of natural persons is protected within the EU Data > Protection Directive, political parties and minority speech are > protected within the privacy rules in other national laws. Given that > gTLDs are global, it will be important to take all national laws > into account. > > The NCSG further expresses concern that law enforcement and third party > access to the data should be consistent with due process protections. We > urge development of these disclosure procedures in conjunction with the > Community. > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From avri Fri Feb 17 01:55:30 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 00:55:30 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed public comment on .CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes In-Reply-To: <7C9B8D19-D2BD-4787-91AA-F5C9710AF629@ipjustice.org> References: <4F3D7565.4040208@seltzer.com> <4F3D7CF1.5090408@seltzer.com> <7C9B8D19-D2BD-4787-91AA-F5C9710AF629@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <664D4D9F-8E98-4CC4-BE28-E27DF5238308@acm.org> Hi, In the NCSG PC you only need rough consensus. so as i see it, even if 1-2 person objects and you all fully discuss the issue and understand the other postion and try to work the language for full approval, then you can proceed as long as true effort was made. Ot at least that is how I understand the NCSG-PC. cheers, avri On 16 Feb 2012, at 23:11, Robin Gross wrote: > Thanks, Wendy. We put it out on this list as the draft consensus position (as has been done) and if no PC members object in the next day, we can send it in as our comment. > > Thank you! > Robin > > > On Feb 16, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > >> What's our process to [see if we can] make this an NCSG comment? >> >> --Wendy >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed public comment on .CAT WHOIS Proposed >> Changes >> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:30:13 -0500 >> From: Wendy Seltzer >> Reply-To: Wendy Seltzer >> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> >> As we discussed on the NCSG call Wednesday, we had begun drafting a >> statement for the punctCAT public comment. On the call, we heard support >> for finalizing that statement and sending it in, despite being shortly >> past the comment period's closing. Below, the statement for your review >> and approval. Thanks to Avri for coordinating a draft from which this draws: >> >> --- >> >> The NCSG wishes to express its support for punctCAT's proposed amendment >> to allow natural persons an opt-out measure by which some WHOIS data >> would be withheld from public view. >> >> At the same time, we do not believe the request offers the opt-out >> opportunity broadly enough to satisfy all legitimate privacy needs. The >> NCSG believes there are several types of institution that require >> similar opportunities to opt out from public display of their identity >> and address details. Among those institutional types are organizations >> that: >> >> * protect natural persons >> * deal with political freedoms, >> * deal with religious freedoms, >> * deal with sexual preference and expression, >> * deal with political minorities, >> * deal with religious minorities, >> and parents' groups that deal with children's activities such as sports >> teams, home-schooling and other childcare issues. >> >> As the privacy of natural persons is protected within the EU Data >> Protection Directive, political parties and minority speech are >> protected within the privacy rules in other national laws. Given that >> gTLDs are global, it will be important to take all national laws >> into account. >> >> The NCSG further expresses concern that law enforcement and third party >> access to the data should be consistent with due process protections. We >> urge development of these disclosure procedures in conjunction with the >> Community. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From robin Fri Feb 17 02:00:07 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:00:07 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed public comment on .CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes In-Reply-To: <664D4D9F-8E98-4CC4-BE28-E27DF5238308@acm.org> References: <4F3D7565.4040208@seltzer.com> <4F3D7CF1.5090408@seltzer.com> <7C9B8D19-D2BD-4787-91AA-F5C9710AF629@ipjustice.org> <664D4D9F-8E98-4CC4-BE28-E27DF5238308@acm.org> Message-ID: <359F302F-53DB-4332-92A8-82D4A85E7568@ipjustice.org> Yes! This is correct - it is only ROUGH consensus that must be achieved by the NCSG-PC- thanks for that key clarification! On Feb 16, 2012, at 3:55 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > In the NCSG PC you only need rough consensus. > so as i see it, even if 1-2 person objects and you all fully discuss the issue and understand the other postion and try to work the language for full approval, then you can proceed as long as true effort was made. Ot at least that is how I understand the NCSG-PC. > > cheers, > avri > > On 16 Feb 2012, at 23:11, Robin Gross wrote: > >> Thanks, Wendy. We put it out on this list as the draft consensus position (as has been done) and if no PC members object in the next day, we can send it in as our comment. >> >> Thank you! >> Robin >> >> >> On Feb 16, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >> >>> What's our process to [see if we can] make this an NCSG comment? >>> >>> --Wendy >>> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed public comment on .CAT WHOIS Proposed >>> Changes >>> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:30:13 -0500 >>> From: Wendy Seltzer >>> Reply-To: Wendy Seltzer >>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >>> >>> As we discussed on the NCSG call Wednesday, we had begun drafting a >>> statement for the punctCAT public comment. On the call, we heard support >>> for finalizing that statement and sending it in, despite being shortly >>> past the comment period's closing. Below, the statement for your review >>> and approval. Thanks to Avri for coordinating a draft from which this draws: >>> >>> --- >>> >>> The NCSG wishes to express its support for punctCAT's proposed amendment >>> to allow natural persons an opt-out measure by which some WHOIS data >>> would be withheld from public view. >>> >>> At the same time, we do not believe the request offers the opt-out >>> opportunity broadly enough to satisfy all legitimate privacy needs. The >>> NCSG believes there are several types of institution that require >>> similar opportunities to opt out from public display of their identity >>> and address details. Among those institutional types are organizations >>> that: >>> >>> * protect natural persons >>> * deal with political freedoms, >>> * deal with religious freedoms, >>> * deal with sexual preference and expression, >>> * deal with political minorities, >>> * deal with religious minorities, >>> and parents' groups that deal with children's activities such as sports >>> teams, home-schooling and other childcare issues. >>> >>> As the privacy of natural persons is protected within the EU Data >>> Protection Directive, political parties and minority speech are >>> protected within the privacy rules in other national laws. Given that >>> gTLDs are global, it will be important to take all national laws >>> into account. >>> >>> The NCSG further expresses concern that law enforcement and third party >>> access to the data should be consistent with due process protections. We >>> urge development of these disclosure procedures in conjunction with the >>> Community. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From robin Fri Feb 17 02:04:53 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:04:53 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG participation in ICANN public comments Message-ID: <1480AF2C-7414-4B1B-A0C5-1BFE70C014AF@ipjustice.org> FYI: The list of ICANN open public comment periods and who from NCSG is working on them is available here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments I'm still looking for a volunteer for the NCSG-PC to keep track of this. Thanks! Robin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Fri Feb 17 22:47:59 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:47:59 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed public comment on .CAT WHOIS Proposed Changes In-Reply-To: <359F302F-53DB-4332-92A8-82D4A85E7568@ipjustice.org> References: <4F3D7565.4040208@seltzer.com> <4F3D7CF1.5090408@seltzer.com> <7C9B8D19-D2BD-4787-91AA-F5C9710AF629@ipjustice.org> <664D4D9F-8E98-4CC4-BE28-E27DF5238308@acm.org> <359F302F-53DB-4332-92A8-82D4A85E7568@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Since there has been no further discussion of this issue or an objections raised, I am going to send in this comment now to ICANN as the NCSG position on .cat proceedings. Thank you! Robin On Feb 16, 2012, at 4:00 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > Yes! This is correct - it is only ROUGH consensus that must be achieved by the NCSG-PC- thanks for that key clarification! > > On Feb 16, 2012, at 3:55 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> In the NCSG PC you only need rough consensus. >> so as i see it, even if 1-2 person objects and you all fully discuss the issue and understand the other postion and try to work the language for full approval, then you can proceed as long as true effort was made. Ot at least that is how I understand the NCSG-PC. >> >> cheers, >> avri >> >> On 16 Feb 2012, at 23:11, Robin Gross wrote: >> >>> Thanks, Wendy. We put it out on this list as the draft consensus position (as has been done) and if no PC members object in the next day, we can send it in as our comment. >>> >>> Thank you! >>> Robin >>> >>> >>> On Feb 16, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >>> >>>> What's our process to [see if we can] make this an NCSG comment? >>>> >>>> --Wendy >>>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Proposed public comment on .CAT WHOIS Proposed >>>> Changes >>>> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:30:13 -0500 >>>> From: Wendy Seltzer >>>> Reply-To: Wendy Seltzer >>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >>>> >>>> As we discussed on the NCSG call Wednesday, we had begun drafting a >>>> statement for the punctCAT public comment. On the call, we heard support >>>> for finalizing that statement and sending it in, despite being shortly >>>> past the comment period's closing. Below, the statement for your review >>>> and approval. Thanks to Avri for coordinating a draft from which this draws: >>>> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> The NCSG wishes to express its support for punctCAT's proposed amendment >>>> to allow natural persons an opt-out measure by which some WHOIS data >>>> would be withheld from public view. >>>> >>>> At the same time, we do not believe the request offers the opt-out >>>> opportunity broadly enough to satisfy all legitimate privacy needs. The >>>> NCSG believes there are several types of institution that require >>>> similar opportunities to opt out from public display of their identity >>>> and address details. Among those institutional types are organizations >>>> that: >>>> >>>> * protect natural persons >>>> * deal with political freedoms, >>>> * deal with religious freedoms, >>>> * deal with sexual preference and expression, >>>> * deal with political minorities, >>>> * deal with religious minorities, >>>> and parents' groups that deal with children's activities such as sports >>>> teams, home-schooling and other childcare issues. >>>> >>>> As the privacy of natural persons is protected within the EU Data >>>> Protection Directive, political parties and minority speech are >>>> protected within the privacy rules in other national laws. Given that >>>> gTLDs are global, it will be important to take all national laws >>>> into account. >>>> >>>> The NCSG further expresses concern that law enforcement and third party >>>> access to the data should be consistent with due process protections. We >>>> urge development of these disclosure procedures in conjunction with the >>>> Community. >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From robin Fri Feb 17 23:31:29 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:31:29 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Statement on .cat proceeding Message-ID: The NCSG wishes to express its support for punctCAT's proposed amendment to allow natural persons an opt-out measure by which some WHOIS data would be withheld from public view. At the same time, we do not believe the request offers the opt-out opportunity broadly enough to satisfy all legitimate privacy needs. The NCSG believes there are several types of institution that require similar opportunities to opt out from public display of their identity and address details. Among those institutional types are organizations that: * protect natural persons, * deal with political freedoms, * deal with religious freedoms, * deal with sexual preference and expression, * deal with political minorities, * deal with religious minorities, and parents' groups that deal with children's activities such as sports teams, home-schooling and other childcare issues. As the privacy of natural persons is protected within the EU Data Protection Directive, political parties and minority speech are protected within the privacy rules in other national laws. Given that gTLDs are global, it will be important to take all national laws into account. The NCSG further expresses concern that law enforcement and third party access to the data should be consistent with due process protections. We urge development of these disclosure procedures in conjunction with the Community. - Robin Gross, NCSG Chair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Sun Feb 19 19:48:58 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 09:48:58 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Olympic mark References: Message-ID: <239A61EA-D446-4B34-8787-4423D0D5426C@ipjustice.org> Begin forwarded message: > > From: Konstantinos Komaitis > > Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:44:00 +0000 > Subject: Olympic mark > > Hello all, > > A quick question: am I correct in thinking that there is a uniform NCSG policy on the issue regarding the special protection sought by IOC and the Red Cross, re that they should not receive this type of protection? If, so I would like to present it as NCSG view rather than NCUC. > > I recall Klaus agreeing with this view on the policy call last week, but I am not that certain and don't have the time to go through the MP3 recording. > > Thanks > > KK > > > -- > Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, > Senior Lecturer in Law, > Director of LLM in Information Technology and Telems. Law, > Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses, > ICANN NCUC Chair > University of Strathclyde, > Graham Hills Bld. > 50 George Street, > Glasgow, G1 1BA, > UK > tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 > email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake Sun Feb 19 20:14:04 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:14:04 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Olympic mark In-Reply-To: <239A61EA-D446-4B34-8787-4423D0D5426C@ipjustice.org> References: <239A61EA-D446-4B34-8787-4423D0D5426C@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <318CC6ED-8F4F-4ADD-89B7-C99B78EE88EA@uzh.ch> Hi On Feb 19, 2012, at 6:48 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > Begin forwarded message: >> >> From: Konstantinos Komaitis > >> Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:44:00 +0000 >> Subject: Olympic mark >> >> Hello all, >> >> A quick question: am I correct in thinking that there is a uniform NCSG policy on the issue regarding the special protection sought by IOC and the Red Cross, re that they should not receive this type of protection? If, so I would like to present it as NCSG view rather than NCUC. >> >> I recall Klaus agreeing with this view on the policy call last week, but I am not that certain and don't have the time to go through the MP3 recording. So here we are again. The matter has been discussed at some length for weeks now on the NCSG members list, and I don't recall that anyone has argued for special protections. And previously (below) we were informed by its VC that for NPOC silence is assent, and there has been no subsequent statement to the contrary in response to my request for clarification. It would seem to follow then that the largely uniform views expressed on the members list demonstrate consensus. Bill On Jan 16, 2012, at 4:24 PM, William Drake wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2012, at 11:51 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Since I have seen so much support in the list, I have just sent a statement on behalf of NCUC supporting the comments on the RAA submitted by Milton and Wendy. I would like to thank them both for drafting these. > > > Thanks KK. One wishes though that it could have been a NCSG statement, since no opposition was raised on the members list or within the PC. > > This exercise really does underscore the need for some clear understanding of how we're going to proceed with policy statements going forward. > > On Dec 28, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Alain Berranger wrote: > >> In general and personally, I would say that if NPOC members stay silent or do not have an argued position, then any NCSG policy that meets consensus by active and knowledgeable NCSG members is obviously endorsed by both constituencies. > > > Alain, could you please clarify whether your personal view on this is shared by the rest of the NPOC members and/or leadership? While some of us are not entirely comfortable with the silence is assent model, if we had a clear mandate and didn't have to worry about the risk of post hoc objections to or distancing from SG positions we would then be in a position to participate in ICANN more effectively. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alain.berranger Mon Feb 20 19:05:41 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:05:41 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Olympic mark In-Reply-To: <239A61EA-D446-4B34-8787-4423D0D5426C@ipjustice.org> References: <239A61EA-D446-4B34-8787-4423D0D5426C@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Klaus does not have access to the list... so it is hard for him to express his opinion... Alain On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Konstantinos Komaitis mailto:k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk >> > Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:44:00 +0000 > Subject: Olympic mark > > Hello all, > > A quick question: am I correct in thinking that there is a uniform NCSG > policy on the issue regarding the special protection sought by IOC and the > Red Cross, re that they should not receive this type of protection? If, so > I would like to present it as NCSG view rather than NCUC. > > I recall Klaus agreeing with this view on the policy call last week, but I > am not that certain and don't have the time to go through the MP3 recording. > > Thanks > > KK > > > -- > Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, > Senior Lecturer in Law, > Director of LLM in Information Technology and Telems. Law, > Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses, > ICANN NCUC Chair > University of Strathclyde, > Graham Hills Bld. > 50 George Street, > Glasgow, G1 1BA, > UK > tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 > email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Membership Committee 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: From k.komaitis Mon Feb 20 19:08:49 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:08:49 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Olympic mark In-Reply-To: References: <239A61EA-D446-4B34-8787-4423D0D5426C@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Thanks Alain - can someone however from NPOC confirm what Klaus suggested at the policy call last week as I would like to know before Wednesday whether this is a NCUC or NCSG position? Many thanks for taking care of this. 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 From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Alain Berranger Sent: ???????, 20 ??????????? 2012 5:06 ?? To: Robin Gross Cc: NCSG-Policy Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Olympic mark Klaus does not have access to the list... so it is hard for him to express his opinion... Alain On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Robin Gross > wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Konstantinos Komaitis > Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:44:00 +0000 Subject: Olympic mark Hello all, A quick question: am I correct in thinking that there is a uniform NCSG policy on the issue regarding the special protection sought by IOC and the Red Cross, re that they should not receive this type of protection? If, so I would like to present it as NCSG view rather than NCUC. I recall Klaus agreeing with this view on the policy call last week, but I am not that certain and don't have the time to go through the MP3 recording. Thanks KK -- Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Senior Lecturer in Law, Director of LLM in Information Technology and Telems. Law, Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses, ICANN NCUC Chair University of Strathclyde, Graham Hills Bld. 50 George Street, Glasgow, G1 1BA, UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk _______________________________________________ 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 Membership Committee 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: From robin Mon Feb 20 19:58:11 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:58:11 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Olympic mark In-Reply-To: References: <239A61EA-D446-4B34-8787-4423D0D5426C@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <743A9DBB-BAE9-4FB5-A754-8762CB86849D@ipjustice.org> Thank you for getting the ball rolling on this, Konstantinos. As per the NCSG Charter, NCSG policy is determined by a rough consensus of the members of the NCSG Policy Committee (unanimity among all NCSG members is not required). Thanks, Robin On Feb 20, 2012, at 9:08 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > Thanks Alain ? can someone however from NPOC confirm what Klaus suggested at the policy call last week as I would like to know before Wednesday whether this is a NCUC or NCSG position? > > Many thanks for taking care of this. > > 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 > > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Alain Berranger > Sent: ???????, 20 ??????????? 2012 5:06 ?? > To: Robin Gross > Cc: NCSG-Policy > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Olympic mark > > Klaus does not have access to the list... so it is hard for him to express his opinion... Alain > > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Konstantinos Komaitis > > Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:44:00 +0000 > Subject: Olympic mark > > Hello all, > > A quick question: am I correct in thinking that there is a uniform NCSG policy on the issue regarding the special protection sought by IOC and the Red Cross, re that they should not receive this type of protection? If, so I would like to present it as NCSG view rather than NCUC. > > I recall Klaus agreeing with this view on the policy call last week, but I am not that certain and don't have the time to go through the MP3 recording. > > Thanks > > KK > > > -- > Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, > Senior Lecturer in Law, > Director of LLM in Information Technology and Telems. Law, > Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses, > ICANN NCUC Chair > University of Strathclyde, > Graham Hills Bld. > 50 George Street, > Glasgow, G1 1BA, > UK > tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 > email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Membership Committee 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: From alain.berranger Mon Feb 20 20:55:56 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 13:55:56 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Olympic mark In-Reply-To: References: <239A61EA-D446-4B34-8787-4423D0D5426C@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Hi Konstantinos, Here is what Klaus has to say: *" From:* klaus.stoll *Sent:* Monday, February 20, 2012 5:24 PM *To:* pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org *Subject:* Fw: Fwd: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Olympic mark ** Dear Friends Greetings. In response to Konstantinos. My statement regarding the special protection sought by the IOC and the Red Cross was a private statement and not the official position of NPOC. I am sorry about that. After much deliberation I have come to the conclusion that the special protection sought by the IOC and the RED Cross is very dangerous as it creates the precedence on which many many other applications can and will request similar protection. Yours, Klaus" Konstantinos, as to official NPOC policy statements of any kind, and as I explained to Joy not long ago, please understand that we are in the process of organizing/funding NPOC as well as undergoing elections. Therefore, we are not in the position to be very active nor effective in policy issues right now. In due course, this will change and meanwhile I ask for your understanding and patience. To summarize, better stick to a NCUC position. You can certainly state that NPOC has not consulted its membership for reasons stated above (organization of new NPOC Constituency and first full fledged NPOC Constituency elections - or maybe use wording such as transition in leadership if you prefer). Best, Alain 2012/2/20 Konstantinos Komaitis > Thanks Alain - can someone however from NPOC confirm what Klaus suggested > at the policy call last week as I would like to know before Wednesday > whether this is a NCUC or NCSG position?**** > > ** ** > > Many thanks for taking care of this.**** > > ** ** > > 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**** > > ** ** > > *From:* pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto: > pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] *On Behalf Of *Alain Berranger > *Sent:* ???????, 20 ??????????? 2012 5:06 ?? > *To:* Robin Gross > *Cc:* NCSG-Policy > *Subject:* Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Olympic mark**** > > ** ** > > Klaus does not have access to the list... so it is hard for him to express > his opinion... Alain**** > > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > **** > > Begin forwarded message:**** > > > From: Konstantinos Komaitis mailto:k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk >> > Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:44:00 +0000 > Subject: Olympic mark > > Hello all, > > A quick question: am I correct in thinking that there is a uniform NCSG > policy on the issue regarding the special protection sought by IOC and the > Red Cross, re that they should not receive this type of protection? If, so > I would like to present it as NCSG view rather than NCUC. > > I recall Klaus agreeing with this view on the policy call last week, but I > am not that certain and don't have the time to go through the MP3 recording. > > Thanks > > KK > > > -- > Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, > Senior Lecturer in Law, > Director of LLM in Information Technology and Telems. Law, > Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses, > ICANN NCUC Chair > University of Strathclyde, > Graham Hills Bld. > 50 George Street, > Glasgow, G1 1BA, > UK > tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 > email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk**** > > ** ** > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger**** > > ** ** > -- 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 Membership Committee 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: From k.komaitis Mon Feb 20 21:01:43 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:01:43 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Olympic mark In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thank you very much Alain for forwarding this email to this list . According to the NCSG charter (and Robin's previous email) this will require rough consensus to be NCSG policy. can I therefore hear from the other members in this list about this issue? Thanks KK From: Alain Berranger > Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:55:56 +0000 To: Konstantinos Komaitis > Cc: Robin Gross >, "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" >, "Klaus.Stoll" >, Joy Liddicoat >, "amber at npoc.org" >, "Debbie at npoc.org" >, Lori Schulman >, "Branzelle, Judy" > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Olympic mark Hi Konstantinos, Here is what Klaus has to say: " From: klaus.stoll Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 5:24 PM To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Subject: Fw: Fwd: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Olympic mark Dear Friends Greetings. In response to Konstantinos. My statement regarding the special protection sought by the IOC and the Red Cross was a private statement and not the official position of NPOC. I am sorry about that. After much deliberation I have come to the conclusion that the special protection sought by the IOC and the RED Cross is very dangerous as it creates the precedence on which many many other applications can and will request similar protection. Yours, Klaus" Konstantinos, as to official NPOC policy statements of any kind, and as I explained to Joy not long ago, please understand that we are in the process of organizing/funding NPOC as well as undergoing elections. Therefore, we are not in the position to be very active nor effective in policy issues right now. In due course, this will change and meanwhile I ask for your understanding and patience. To summarize, better stick to a NCUC position. You can certainly state that NPOC has not consulted its membership for reasons stated above (organization of new NPOC Constituency and first full fledged NPOC Constituency elections - or maybe use wording such as transition in leadership if you prefer). Best, Alain 2012/2/20 Konstantinos Komaitis > Thanks Alain ? can someone however from NPOC confirm what Klaus suggested at the policy call last week as I would like to know before Wednesday whether this is a NCUC or NCSG position? Many thanks for taking care of this. 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 From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Alain Berranger Sent: ???????, 20 ??????????? 2012 5:06 ?? To: Robin Gross Cc: NCSG-Policy Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Olympic mark Klaus does not have access to the list... so it is hard for him to express his opinion... Alain On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Robin Gross > wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Konstantinos Komaitis > Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:44:00 +0000 Subject: Olympic mark Hello all, A quick question: am I correct in thinking that there is a uniform NCSG policy on the issue regarding the special protection sought by IOC and the Red Cross, re that they should not receive this type of protection? If, so I would like to present it as NCSG view rather than NCUC. I recall Klaus agreeing with this view on the policy call last week, but I am not that certain and don't have the time to go through the MP3 recording. Thanks KK -- Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Senior Lecturer in Law, Director of LLM in Information Technology and Telems. Law, Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses, ICANN NCUC Chair University of Strathclyde, Graham Hills Bld. 50 George Street, Glasgow, G1 1BA, UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk _______________________________________________ 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 Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -- 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 Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger From avri Mon Feb 20 21:05:52 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:05:52 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD solution recommended by ICANN staff? References: Message-ID: <986D31FF-6091-4982-B209-DD5C6CBA5B96@acm.org> fyi - this email bring up several things that are going on. esp: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/sac051-draft-roadmap-18feb12-en.htm i am also lightly participating in the IETF effort which is referred to below. it is called 'weirds,' which is not yet an IETF WG, but is applying to become one. speaking of IETF WGs, another interesting non WG discussion list is: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-privacy/current/threads.html avri Begin forwarded message: > From: Francisco Arias > Subject: Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD solution recommended by ICANN staff? > Date: 20 February 2012 12:59:29 EST > To: "Metalitz, Steven" , Dave Piscitello > Cc: "'ssac-gnso-irdwg at icann.org'" > > > Hello Steven, > > You beat us on sending the email to let everyone know about it :-) > > This draft roadmap is form implementing SSAC's SAC 051, which recommends > the replacement of the WHOIS protocol. The Board passed a resolution in > Dakar directing the production of this roadmap, which we just published in > draft (rough) form for community input. > > Note that we are planning a session in Costa Rica. We are envisioning the > evolution of the roadmap document throughout two public comment periods > and be ready for Board/Community action by Prague meeting in June. > > Your input is more than welcome: > > http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/sac051-draft-roadmap-18feb12-en.htm > > Regards, > > __ > > Francisco. > > > > > > > On 2/20/12 9:48 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" wrote: > >> >> Further to this topic, I note that the ICANN staff posted on Saturday a >> "Roadmap to a New Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocol (WHOIS)" >> and is asking for public comment on it. See >> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-18feb12-en.htm. >> >> Steve Metalitz >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Metalitz, Steven >> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 6:53 PM >> To: 'Dave Piscitello' >> Cc: ssac-gnso-irdwg at icann.org >> Subject: RE: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD solution recommended by ICANN staff? >> >> Thanks for this helpful response, Dave. I agree this work is very >> important and I have no reason at all to question your opinion that it >> has enormous merit. I am just having a hard time squaring your >> description with the CEO's statement that " ICANN staff members have >> developed and recommended a solution" and that this solution "is being >> considered for adoption as a standard" by the IETF. I hope you can help >> me gain a better understanding of the apparent discrepancy. >> >> I looked briefly at the IETF mailing list for which you provided a link. >> My sense is that this IETF group is discussing a charter for a working >> group that would try to develop something I would describe as a >> "solution." The draft charter I reviewed proposed the following >> milestones (and again it seems that the charter has not yet been >> approved, and I don't know the procedure for that): >> >> [start + 2 months] Draft WEIRDS requirements to IESG for >> publication as Informational RFC. >> >> [start + 6 months] Draft WEIRDS base specification to IESG for >> publication on the standards track >> >> This suggests to me that this process is many months away from producing >> a solution that would be considered for adoption as an IETF standard. I >> am sure I may be mistaken, but if so I hope someone will correct me. >> >> I also see on that mailing list some references to a document >> draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00.txt which I take it might be the >> "solution" that "ICANN staff members have recommended." What is the >> status of that document within the IETF process? >> >> While I am sure I might have missed it, was that document circulated to >> the IRDWG? If not, would it be possible to do so? >> >> Thanks for your patience as I try to find my way through these questions. >> >> >> Steve Metalitz >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Dave Piscitello [mailto:dave.piscitello at icann.org] >> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:09 PM >> To: Metalitz, Steven >> Cc: ssac-gnso-irdwg at icann.org >> Subject: Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD solution recommended by ICANN staff? >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Hi Steve, >> >> The solution Rod Beckstrom mentions is a technical body of work in >> progress. Staff is looking at ways to build capacity in the protocol to >> handle IRD. Many external parties are working on various aspects of this >> solution, including SSAC, interested registry and registrar technical >> staff (participating in IETF discussions), and other stakeholders from >> private companies (Google, eBay/PayPal and others participating in the >> IETF community discussions). >> >> The technical body of work encompasses or takes into consideration: >> >> 1- evolution of Whois in the RIR community towards a RESTful >> architecture, led by ARIN >> 2- experimentation by ICANN staff, members of the RIR community to >> further study ARIN's approach >> 3- presentation of (1) and (2) to the IETF for consideration >> 4- the recommendations from SSAC regarding a Whois Taxonomy (SAC051) >> 5- the report from the IRD WG >> 6- the Whois review team recommendations >> >> No formal written document is yet available, primarily because several >> components are still being studied or refined. While there are many >> people involved in two or more of the above activities, they are running >> in parallel but are not synchronized. >> >> The reading list for anyone who is interested in participating or >> learning more includes: >> >> - - RESTful WHOIS for American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN), >> >> >> - - A RESTful Web Service for Internet Names and Address Directory >> Services, USENIX login 2011; >> >> >> - - IETF WHOIS-based Extensible Internet Registration Data Service >> >> >> - - SSAC 051: Domain Name WHOIS Terminology and Structure >> >> >> - - IRD WG report: >> >> >> - - WHOIS Policy Review Team Draft Report: >> >> >> >> I'm happy to chat about this work because I think it has enormous merit. >> >> On Jan 22, 2012, at 5:50 PM, Metalitz, Steven wrote: >> >>> I note with interest the following from Rod Beckstrom's letter to NTIA >>> Administrator Strickling on January 11, 2012 >>> (http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/beckstrom-to-strickling-11jan12-e >>> n.pdf) : >>> >>> "ICANN staff members have developed and recommended a solution for >>> internationalized registration data (to ensure clarity of Whois >>> information using characters other than English). That proposal is >>> being considered for adoption as a standard by the Internet Engineering >>> Task Force." >>> >>> Could the proposal referred to be circulated with the IRD Working >>> Group? Thanks . >>> >>> Steve Metalitz >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin) >> Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org >> >> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPHvO4AAoJEGwWiPOSXEFNvuoIAJLwlyfs63D1oPksTb6qJfQa >> iEdvnJNBPlWUEZkrZ3bEfad44chZfoKdDuynzJWIdp/ytQWFJ4Fq/cvxrVtjMH+D >> Rq3xODD5lkw1DU5EqLZVf7dNbv3CTuuboRg0S0KhokQ/hGo2iH02zmnLH4o47SDn >> 9NH2+Anx8XtAmWhCSElY4fJ6Ej/2ZLb4dMx9mjeT7WQ4s1sWi+f8TUp0OXIpN5HN >> FXjcegllTre8AkKvl0OxR1jjaac7Km6GWwn3E1ItRHslfdk/ZouK278qQZaEmuy3 >> pHSTVO2DN+zcXP1Q4I48K+B0nsCZm99iC3cmHlRRFoL/QvCY8nySmQgGHr2hoRE= >> =C1Bu >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >> > > From avri Mon Feb 20 21:22:44 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:22:44 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Olympic mark In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <422247E7-5A99-4A3F-BCA8-D038A87A8757@acm.org> On 20 Feb 2012, at 14:01, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > Konstantinos, as to official NPOC policy statements of any kind, and as I explained to Joy not long ago, please understand that we are in the process of organizing/funding NPOC as well as undergoing elections. Therefore, we are not in the position to be very active nor effective in policy issues right now. In due course, this will change and meanwhile I ask for your understanding and patience. To summarize, better stick to a NCUC position. You can certainly state that NPOC has not consulted its membership for reasons stated above (organization of new NPOC Constituency and first full fledged NPOC Constituency elections - or maybe use wording such as transition in leadership if you prefer). Hi, I am having trouble understanding this. Is NPOC declaring itself out of the PC for the time it takes it to rearrange its house. Or is it declaring some sort of 2 vote veto on any and all possible NCSG Policy decisions until it finishes its reorganization and elections? As I understand the NCSG PC it is empowered to make Policy decisions for the NCSG. And since it operates under rough consensus rules it means that it can decide to go ahead even if some voting members of the group are against, as long as their point of view has been expressed, discussed and understood. I don't understand a modality that says, we are going to take a break from participating for a while, so you guys can't do anything as an NCSG PC. But maybe I misunderstood what you wrote. thanks avri From bkuerbis Mon Feb 20 21:27:34 2012 From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:27:34 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Olympic mark In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi KK, As Bill mentioned previously, discussion on the NCSG list has been fairly uniform against special protection sought by the IOC and the Red Cross. I have not seen convincing arguments otherwise. Therefore, I support the former. Brenden On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis < k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote: > Thank you very much Alain for forwarding this email to this list . > According to the NCSG charter (and Robin's previous email) this will > require rough consensus to be NCSG policy. can I therefore hear from the > other members in this list about this issue? > > Thanks > > KK > > > > From: Alain Berranger alain.berranger at gmail.com>> > Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 18:55:56 +0000 > To: Konstantinos Komaitis k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>> > Cc: Robin Gross >, " > pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" < > pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, "Klaus.Stoll" < > klaus.stoll at chasquinet.org>, Joy > Liddicoat >, "amber at npoc.org amber at npoc.org>" >, "Debbie at npoc.org > " >, Lori > Schulman >, > "Branzelle, Judy" Judy.Branzelle at goodwill.org>> > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Olympic mark > > Hi Konstantinos, > > Here is what Klaus has to say: > > " From: klaus.stoll > Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 5:24 PM > To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org > Subject: Fw: Fwd: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Olympic mark > > Dear Friends > > Greetings. In response to Konstantinos. My statement regarding the special > protection sought by the IOC and the Red Cross was a private statement and > not the official position of NPOC. I am sorry about that. After much > deliberation I have come to the conclusion that the special protection > sought by the IOC and the RED Cross is very dangerous as it creates the > precedence on which many many other applications can and will request > similar protection. > > Yours, Klaus" > > Konstantinos, as to official NPOC policy statements of any kind, and as I > explained to Joy not long ago, please understand that we are in the process > of organizing/funding NPOC as well as undergoing elections. Therefore, we > are not in the position to be very active nor effective in policy issues > right now. In due course, this will change and meanwhile I ask for your > understanding and patience. To summarize, better stick to a NCUC position. > You can certainly state that NPOC has not consulted its membership for > reasons stated above (organization of new NPOC Constituency and first full > fledged NPOC Constituency elections - or maybe use wording such as > transition in leadership if you prefer). > > Best, Alain > > 2012/2/20 Konstantinos Komaitis k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>> > Thanks Alain ? can someone however from NPOC confirm what Klaus suggested > at the policy call last week as I would like to know before Wednesday > whether this is a NCUC or NCSG position? > > Many thanks for taking care of this. > > 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 > > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org > [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] > On Behalf Of Alain Berranger > Sent: ???????, 20 ??????????? 2012 5:06 ?? > To: Robin Gross > Cc: NCSG-Policy > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Olympic mark > > Klaus does not have access to the list... so it is hard for him to express > his opinion... Alain > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Robin Gross robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote: > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Konstantinos Komaitis k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>> > Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:44:00 +0000 > Subject: Olympic mark > > Hello all, > > A quick question: am I correct in thinking that there is a uniform NCSG > policy on the issue regarding the special protection sought by IOC and the > Red Cross, re that they should not receive this type of protection? If, so > I would like to present it as NCSG view rather than NCUC. > > I recall Klaus agreeing with this view on the policy call last week, but I > am not that certain and don't have the time to go through the MP3 recording. > > Thanks > > KK > > > -- > Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, > Senior Lecturer in Law, > Director of LLM in Information Technology and Telems. Law, > Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses, > ICANN NCUC Chair > University of Strathclyde, > Graham Hills Bld. > 50 George Street, > Glasgow, G1 1BA, > UK > tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 > email: k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk > > > _______________________________________________ > 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< > http://www.chasquinet.org> > interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > > Skype: alain.berranger > > > > > -- > 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< > http://www.chasquinet.org> > interim Membership Committee 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bkuerbis Mon Feb 20 21:50:00 2012 From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:50:00 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD solution recommended by ICANN staff? In-Reply-To: <986D31FF-6091-4982-B209-DD5C6CBA5B96@acm.org> References: <986D31FF-6091-4982-B209-DD5C6CBA5B96@acm.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:05 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > fyi - this email bring up several things that are going on. > > esp: > http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/sac051-draft-roadmap-18feb12-en.htm > > > i am also lightly participating in the IETF effort which is referred to > below. it is called 'weirds,' which is not yet an IETF WG, but is > applying to become one. > I agree Avri. If this group ever settles on a charter, it will be important for noncommercial interests to keep an eye on its work. For those who might not have the time to dig in (and Avri, feel free to supplement my brief description), the group is essentially considering developing a protocol to standardize access to Whois (IP Address and DNS) registry data. Similar efforts have been attempted in the past, but this time it seems to have support from key players including ICANN, RIRs, Internet security community, etc. and therefore may get off the ground. That ICANN and the RIRs are on board is important, because it provide some means for enforcing adoption if a protocol ever emerges (similar to how new gTLD registries must deploy DNSSEC). One key issue will be how such a protocol supports various jurisdictional requirements for data privacy, etc. > > speaking of IETF WGs, another interesting non WG discussion list is: > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-privacy/current/threads.html > Another interesting area to follow. Particularly as one can see the concept/terminology of Internet "identity" emerging and becoming consistent across various standards and policy making institutions. B > > avri > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Francisco Arias > > Subject: Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD solution recommended by ICANN staff? > > Date: 20 February 2012 12:59:29 EST > > To: "Metalitz, Steven" , Dave Piscitello < > dave.piscitello at icann.org> > > Cc: "'ssac-gnso-irdwg at icann.org'" > > > > > > Hello Steven, > > > > You beat us on sending the email to let everyone know about it :-) > > > > This draft roadmap is form implementing SSAC's SAC 051, which recommends > > the replacement of the WHOIS protocol. The Board passed a resolution in > > Dakar directing the production of this roadmap, which we just published > in > > draft (rough) form for community input. > > > > Note that we are planning a session in Costa Rica. We are envisioning the > > evolution of the roadmap document throughout two public comment periods > > and be ready for Board/Community action by Prague meeting in June. > > > > Your input is more than welcome: > > > > > http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/sac051-draft-roadmap-18feb12-en.htm > > > > Regards, > > > > __ > > > > Francisco. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/20/12 9:48 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" wrote: > > > >> > >> Further to this topic, I note that the ICANN staff posted on Saturday a > >> "Roadmap to a New Domain Name Registration Data Access Protocol (WHOIS)" > >> and is asking for public comment on it. See > >> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-18feb12-en.htm. > >> > >> Steve Metalitz > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Metalitz, Steven > >> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 6:53 PM > >> To: 'Dave Piscitello' > >> Cc: ssac-gnso-irdwg at icann.org > >> Subject: RE: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD solution recommended by ICANN staff? > >> > >> Thanks for this helpful response, Dave. I agree this work is very > >> important and I have no reason at all to question your opinion that it > >> has enormous merit. I am just having a hard time squaring your > >> description with the CEO's statement that " ICANN staff members have > >> developed and recommended a solution" and that this solution "is being > >> considered for adoption as a standard" by the IETF. I hope you can help > >> me gain a better understanding of the apparent discrepancy. > >> > >> I looked briefly at the IETF mailing list for which you provided a link. > >> My sense is that this IETF group is discussing a charter for a working > >> group that would try to develop something I would describe as a > >> "solution." The draft charter I reviewed proposed the following > >> milestones (and again it seems that the charter has not yet been > >> approved, and I don't know the procedure for that): > >> > >> [start + 2 months] Draft WEIRDS requirements to IESG for > >> publication as Informational RFC. > >> > >> [start + 6 months] Draft WEIRDS base specification to IESG for > >> publication on the standards track > >> > >> This suggests to me that this process is many months away from producing > >> a solution that would be considered for adoption as an IETF standard. I > >> am sure I may be mistaken, but if so I hope someone will correct me. > >> > >> I also see on that mailing list some references to a document > >> draft-sheng-weirds-icann-rws-dnrd-00.txt which I take it might be the > >> "solution" that "ICANN staff members have recommended." What is the > >> status of that document within the IETF process? > >> > >> While I am sure I might have missed it, was that document circulated to > >> the IRDWG? If not, would it be possible to do so? > >> > >> Thanks for your patience as I try to find my way through these > questions. > >> > >> > >> Steve Metalitz > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Dave Piscitello [mailto:dave.piscitello at icann.org] > >> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 1:09 PM > >> To: Metalitz, Steven > >> Cc: ssac-gnso-irdwg at icann.org > >> Subject: Re: [ssac-gnso-irdwg] IRD solution recommended by ICANN staff? > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake Tue Feb 21 09:46:42 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:46:42 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Olympic mark In-Reply-To: <422247E7-5A99-4A3F-BCA8-D038A87A8757@acm.org> References: <422247E7-5A99-4A3F-BCA8-D038A87A8757@acm.org> Message-ID: On Feb 20, 2012, at 8:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Is NPOC declaring itself out of the PC for the time it takes it to rearrange its house. Or is it declaring some sort of 2 vote veto on any and all possible NCSG Policy decisions until it finishes its reorganization and elections? > > But maybe I misunderstood what you wrote. NCSG had an election, a PC operating on rough consensus was formed accordingly, and the positions it takes after community consultation represent the SG. To say that no NCSG position can be adopted until some indeterminate future date when some invisible folks decide to join the polity would be undemocratic, and members would be unlikely to happily accept this disenfranchisement and disempowerment. I don't think the PC should attempt to arrogate to itself this power. BD -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis Tue Feb 21 11:24:02 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:24:02 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Olympic mark In-Reply-To: References: <422247E7-5A99-4A3F-BCA8-D038A87A8757@acm.org> Message-ID: Thank you all for responding. I will present the views on the special protection of the marks as NCSG policy then. 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 From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: ?????, 21 ??????????? 2012 7:47 ?? To: Avri Doria Cc: NCSG-Policy Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Olympic mark On Feb 20, 2012, at 8:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: Is NPOC declaring itself out of the PC for the time it takes it to rearrange its house. Or is it declaring some sort of 2 vote veto on any and all possible NCSG Policy decisions until it finishes its reorganization and elections? But maybe I misunderstood what you wrote. NCSG had an election, a PC operating on rough consensus was formed accordingly, and the positions it takes after community consultation represent the SG. To say that no NCSG position can be adopted until some indeterminate future date when some invisible folks decide to join the polity would be undemocratic, and members would be unlikely to happily accept this disenfranchisement and disempowerment. I don't think the PC should attempt to arrogate to itself this power. BD -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong Tue Feb 21 22:29:33 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:29:33 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Olympic mark In-Reply-To: References: <422247E7-5A99-4A3F-BCA8-D038A87A8757@acm.org> Message-ID: <4F43B85D0200005B00085999@smtp.law.unh.edu> I agree, but would also suggest that the PC consider including the following statement (or something similar) in all of our comments submitted on behalf of the SG: "Positions and comments of the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) are arrived at after discussion among the membership, and the NCSG Policy Committee determines through rough consensus that the relevant position or comment accurately reflects the outcome of the discussion process. The NCSG Policy Committee is made up of elected officers from all constituencies within the NCSG". 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: William Drake To:Avri Doria CC:NCSG-Policy Date: 2/21/2012 2:47 AM Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Olympic mark On Feb 20, 2012, at 8:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: Is NPOC declaring itself out of the PC for the time it takes it to rearrange its house. Or is it declaring some sort of 2 vote veto on any and all possible NCSG Policy decisions until it finishes its reorganization and elections? But maybe I misunderstood what you wrote. NCSG had an election, a PC operating on rough consensus was formed accordingly, and the positions it takes after community consultation represent the SG. To say that no NCSG position can be adopted until some indeterminate future date when some invisible folks decide to join the polity would be undemocratic, and members would be unlikely to happily accept this disenfranchisement and disempowerment. I don't think the PC should attempt to arrogate to itself this power. BD -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Tue Feb 21 22:58:07 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:58:07 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Olympic mark In-Reply-To: <4F43B85D0200005B00085999@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <422247E7-5A99-4A3F-BCA8-D038A87A8757@acm.org> <4F43B85D0200005B00085999@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: Hi, I think including such a statement is a good thing. avri On 21 Feb 2012, at 15:29, wrote: > I agree, but would also suggest that the PC consider including the following statement (or something similar) in all of our comments submitted on behalf of the SG: > > "Positions and comments of the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) are arrived at after discussion among the membership, and the NCSG Policy Committee determines through rough consensus that the relevant position or comment accurately reflects the outcome of the discussion process. The NCSG Policy Committee is made up of elected officers from all constituencies within the NCSG". > > 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 LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > >>> > From: William Drake > To: Avri Doria > CC: NCSG-Policy > Date: 2/21/2012 2:47 AM > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Olympic mark > > On Feb 20, 2012, at 8:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Is NPOC declaring itself out of the PC for the time it takes it to rearrange its house. Or is it declaring some sort of 2 vote veto on any and all possible NCSG Policy decisions until it finishes its reorganization and elections? >> >> But maybe I misunderstood what you wrote. > > NCSG had an election, a PC operating on rough consensus was formed accordingly, and the positions it takes after community consultation represent the SG. To say that no NCSG position can be adopted until some indeterminate future date when some invisible folks decide to join the polity would be undemocratic, and members would be unlikely to happily accept this disenfranchisement and disempowerment. I don't think the PC should attempt to arrogate to itself this power. > > BD > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From alain.berranger Tue Feb 21 23:15:33 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:15:33 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Olympic mark In-Reply-To: <422247E7-5A99-4A3F-BCA8-D038A87A8757@acm.org> References: <422247E7-5A99-4A3F-BCA8-D038A87A8757@acm.org> Message-ID: Avri, NPOC is new and it is hardly reasonable to talk about re-arranging house... we are laying the foundation... How can we be expected to contribute like old-timers. Yes, we are out of the policy making dialogue business because we don't have the capacity right now and we have other priorities... You can call it what you want, nobody will be mistaken... In practical terms, NCSG policy is currently NCUC policy... BTW, I think the statement suggested by Mary Wong is just fine... we can't wait to be full players and don't expect to hold back anybody meanwhile until we do... Alain On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 20 Feb 2012, at 14:01, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > > > Konstantinos, as to official NPOC policy statements of any kind, and as > I explained to Joy not long ago, please understand that we are in the > process of organizing/funding NPOC as well as undergoing elections. > Therefore, we are not in the position to be very active nor effective in > policy issues right now. In due course, this will change and meanwhile I > ask for your understanding and patience. To summarize, better stick to a > NCUC position. You can certainly state that NPOC has not consulted its > membership for reasons stated above (organization of new NPOC Constituency > and first full fledged NPOC Constituency elections - or maybe use wording > such as transition in leadership if you prefer). > > Hi, > > I am having trouble understanding this. > > Is NPOC declaring itself out of the PC for the time it takes it to > rearrange its house. Or is it declaring some sort of 2 vote veto on any > and all possible NCSG Policy decisions until it finishes its reorganization > and elections? > > As I understand the NCSG PC it is empowered to make Policy decisions for > the NCSG. And since it operates under rough consensus rules it means that > it can decide to go ahead even if some voting members of the group are > against, as long as their point of view has been expressed, discussed and > understood. I don't understand a modality that says, we are going to take > a break from participating for a while, so you guys can't do anything as an > NCSG PC. > > But maybe I misunderstood what you wrote. > > thanks > > avri > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Membership Committee 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: From bkuerbis Tue Feb 21 23:40:15 2012 From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:40:15 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Olympic mark In-Reply-To: References: <422247E7-5A99-4A3F-BCA8-D038A87A8757@acm.org> <4F43B85D0200005B00085999@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: +1 On Feb 21, 2012 3:58 PM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > Hi, > > I think including such a statement is a good thing. > > avri > > On 21 Feb 2012, at 15:29, > wrote: > > > I agree, but would also suggest that the PC consider including the > following statement (or something similar) in all of our comments submitted > on behalf of the SG: > > > > "Positions and comments of the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) > are arrived at after discussion among the membership, and the NCSG Policy > Committee determines through rough consensus that the relevant position or > comment accurately reflects the outcome of the discussion process. The NCSG > Policy Committee is made up of elected officers from all constituencies > within the NCSG". > > > > 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 LAW > > Two White Street > > Concord, NH 03301 > > USA > > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network > (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > >>> > > From: William Drake > > To: Avri Doria > > CC: NCSG-Policy > > Date: 2/21/2012 2:47 AM > > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Olympic mark > > > > On Feb 20, 2012, at 8:22 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > >> Is NPOC declaring itself out of the PC for the time it takes it to > rearrange its house. Or is it declaring some sort of 2 vote veto on any > and all possible NCSG Policy decisions until it finishes its reorganization > and elections? > >> > >> But maybe I misunderstood what you wrote. > > > > NCSG had an election, a PC operating on rough consensus was formed > accordingly, and the positions it takes after community consultation > represent the SG. To say that no NCSG position can be adopted until some > indeterminate future date when some invisible folks decide to join the > polity would be undemocratic, and members would be unlikely to happily > accept this disenfranchisement and disempowerment. I don't think the PC > should attempt to arrogate to itself this power. > > > > BD > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Wed Feb 22 01:53:44 2012 From: joy (Joy Liddicoat) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:53:44 +1300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] FW: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level References: <016201cceac0$451b01c0$cf510540$@apc.org> <011101ccef77$44ff9910$cefecb30$@apc.org> <9FBFFC2C-CC7D-487F-9D36-9E6480888F7F@ipjustice.org> <4F428C1D.4040508@churchofreality.org> Message-ID: <016e01ccf0f4$0dac8bc0$2905a340$@apc.org> Sincere apologies for any cross posting - but as there have also been discussions on this NSCG policy list, I am also posting this here (as well as the NCUC). Joy -----Original Message----- From: Joy Liddicoat [mailto:joy at apc.org] Sent: Wednesday, 22 February 2012 12:50 p.m. To: 'NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU' Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis (k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk) Subject: RE: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level Hi all - just returning to the options discussion again. I would like to propose a couple of other options to the working group. My reason is that the current 7 options go from a simple rejection of the GAC proposal to more nuanced reserved names options. I believe more options are possible for responding constructively to the GAC (ok - leaving aside whether you think we should do that or not). For example, the GNSO could recommend no change to the Guidebook but respond to the GAC proposal positively by suggesting a supplementary list of designated names of those proffered by the GAC. Provided the supplementary names fall within the designated names in the guidebook this might be more comfortably construed as implementation ? but others may feel quite differently about that. Further, there may be an option for some joint working group with GAC on this, as GAC has proposed, that we could also explore rather than simply ?outright rejection? or ?reserved or modified reserved names? (I say that with no disrespect to all the work that has been done in developing these options). Thus, a new Option 1A or 1B might look like this: Option 1A: Recommend no change to the Guidebook but respond to the GAC proposal positively by proposing supplementing the list of designated names within those recommended by GAC in September 2011. This means that the names set forth in 2.2.1.2.3: a) Are designated names b) Are not considered ?reserved names? c) Are implemented with a list of supplementary designated names as previously set out by the GAC d) Designated names, including supplementary, are reviewed after the initial round, as provided in the Guidebook e) This would not preclude the IOC/Red Cross from bringing a legal rights objection elsewhere in the initial round in accordance with the Guidebook. Option 1B: Option 1A and proposing a joint working group with GAC to support the Designated Names Review after the initial round, as provided in the Guidebook Interested in your thoughts - and these are just my personal views as which I would offer to the working group, not on behalf of NCUC Joy -----Original Message----- From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Marc Perkel Sent: Tuesday, 21 February 2012 7:08 a.m. To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level +1 On 2/20/2012 9:55 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > I agree with you, Konstantinos. These groups have not attempted to answer the question about how their existing protections are inadequate, which should be a threshold question that any responsible policy making body (GNSO?) would ask of a group seeking special rights. > > Thanks, > Robin > > On Feb 20, 2012, at 1:40 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > >> Thanks Joy - I am definitely in favour of the rejection of the whole >> thing, which in reality is not rejection as the latest version of the >> Guidebook does actually incorporate some provisions for these names. >> So, even if we go for option 1, the Board has already granted special >> privileges to these names - they really don't need more. As you can >> see from the list there is some sort of 'pressure' for option 7, >> which transforms these names into a reserved list category. But, I >> have two problems with these proposals: a) the group doesn't seem to >> understand that the protection for these names is only for commercial >> use and this is something we should insist on - it reflects the >> Nairobi Treaty that they quote. And, secondly, and more annoyingly, >> any such protections give these orgs power to become arbiter of who >> gets a place on the Internet - commercial, non commercial and >> communities. The idea that a Greek community wishing to register the >> term Olympiad will have to request permission from IOC gives me the >> chills :) >> >> 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: Joy Liddicoat [mailto:joy at apc.org] >> Sent: ???????, 20 ??????????? 2012 2:28 ?? >> To: Konstantinos Komaitis; NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> Subject: RE: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names >> at Top Level >> >> Hi Konstantinos - one follow up on this. I keep going first principles and the whole concept that it is inappropriate to talk of ownerships of a domain name (RFC 1591). My worry with giving the IOC and Red Cross this decision-making power (option 5 and 6) is that we are effectively creating a moderated space. I still think Option 1 is better (implement the guidebook as it is and if it is problematic, tell the Board so in a review of the first round of new gTLDs). >> Or maybe we should suggest a new moderated TLD space: .gac >> >> Joy >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk] >> Sent: Tuesday, 14 February 2012 10:36 p.m. >> To: 'Joy Liddicoat'; NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> Subject: RE: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names >> at Top Level >> >> Thanks Joy - the more I think about it the more I reject option 3 or any option for that matter that will require legitimate applicants (existing trademark owners, the Greek gov. etc) to ask for IOC's permission. What does this permission mean? Currently, in most of the cases, it comes with license fees. Does it mean that an applicant, even if they get permission by IOC, they will have to pay a license to do so? >> >> As there is a great possibility for IOC to charge for these 'permissions' -I am not sure how we can water this down. This is already an expensive process and 'permissions' have the tendency to come with 'costs', especially when we are talking about an entity that makes all its money through sponsorship deal and by taking advantage of the Olympic name. >> >> Originally, I found ridiculous the idea that legitimate rights' owners would have to ask for a permission to use a term that they lawfully hold; now, I find it both ridiculous and scary that they might even have to pay for it. >> >> I could work with option 7 :) >> >> 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- >> Regulat >> ion-isbn9780415477765 >> Selected publications: >> http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 >> Website: www.komaitis.org >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Joy Liddicoat [mailto:joy at apc.org] >> Sent: ?????, 14 ??????????? 2012 2:28 ?? >> To: Konstantinos Komaitis; NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> Subject: RE: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names >> at Top Level >> >> Hi KK and thanks for your mammoth efforts on this, especially as I missed the last call. >> I remain convinced Option 1 is preferable - Option 3 is clearly a modification of existing policy and not a simple matter of "implementation". >> If Option 3 requires some modification I would suggest and amendment making it clear that any string similarity review must be conducted in an impartial manner and therefore not by any party connected to the IOC or RC. >> In relation to the other questions, I favour only applying the proposal to the languages set out in the GuideBook and also only in this round (it can be reviewed after the first round - we are, after all, in new territory as these discussions over the last 4 months show). >> Perhaps, if there is no agreement there is an option 7: The specific >> names are locked and no-one can have them ;) Joy >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf >> Of Konstantinos Komaitis >> Sent: Thursday, 9 February 2012 10:56 p.m. >> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> Subject: Re: Questions/Options for Protection of IOC/Red Cross Names >> at Top Level >> >> Hi all, >> >> A quick update on what happened at last night's call concerning the IOC and the Red Cross protections. >> >> I communicated the position of the NCUC - mainly that an overwhelming majority of this group is against any sort of special protections (Option 1) for any of these marks, despite the fact that many members felt more sympathetic towards the Red Cross rather than the IOC. As expected, we were the only group that went for that option and there was a lot of discussion about that. I raised the point of the precedent this would set, a point that was shared by the Registry SG, only they felt that the GAC letter made it clear that no such precedent would be set. I disagreed. Both the IOC and the Red Cross have appeared to be pushing for Jeff's option number 3 - what Jeff termed as 'modified reserved names' ,which essentially means to elevate these two marks (and their variations) to the status that currently is enjoyed by ICANN's reserved names list, i.e the words 'example, 'ICANN' etc. >> >> It appears that the majority of the group will try to work out language for this option 3 and also push for more languages to be included in the list of the existing 8 languages that the AG currently suggests. and, also they would like to see this kind of protection extending beyond this round. >> >> So, where are we right now? no decision has been taken of course, but >> NCUC is the only group totally against this kind of protection. Alan >> Greenberg was there as well and he stated that the ALAC position has >> not managed to reach a consensus but he sounded as if he was also >> going for option 3. (not sure if he was speaking on behalf of ALAC or >> in his personal capacity) >> >> For me option 3 is really problematic and needs to be watered down >> significantly. Option 3 means, for instance, that if the Greek >> Government wished to apply for .Olympiad (the location where it all >> started - the >> Olympics) they will have to get permission from the IOC. This is a >> point I raised and Gregory S. Shatan, who is with the IPC said that >> he thought it was highly unlikely for a small village of 7000 people >> to apply for a gTLD - a point which pissed me off so I engaged in a >> quick history lesson about the Olympic games and where they were >> originally born :) >> >> The other issue that was discussed was whether the recommendations of this group would have to be reviewed. This was a point that Alan, the IOC, the Red Cross and some others found to be quite burdensome and bureaucratic. >> However, I made very clear that this group is asked to come up with interpretations of international law and create 'new rules' - and mistakes are inevitable. So, the discussion was left that it would be ideal if a review were to be conducted but this should not be mandatory. Again, I disagreed and I will insist on making it mandatory, just like we made it mandatory for the URS to be reviewed after a year. >> >> I would like this group to start thinking of other options rather than rejecting these protections. With or without NCUC, I think the group will come up with some recommendations. I know that we don't agree (and certainly I believe that this whole issue is going to backfire and neither of these entities should get special protection on the basis that there is no solid argument for this kind of protection) but I also think we need to engage if we wish to water down any of the proposals that come out of this group. >> >> Looking forward for your input on this. >> >> 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- >> Regulat >> ion-isbn9780415477765 >> Selected publications: >> http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 >> Website: www.komaitis.org >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf >> Of Konstantinos Komaitis >> Sent: ???????, 5 ??????????? 2012 10:35 ?? >> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for Protection of >> IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level >> >> This has been a great discussion and thank you all for your contributions. >> Great points have been raised by all of you and, in particular, I think that the most crucial one is the kind of precedent this whole process will set, both from an institutional and substantive point of view. Both issues have been raised by myself and others, but the majority doesn't seem to think this as a problem either due to the fact that they are focused on this issue alone or because they don't see the GAC involvement as a 'tangible' threat to multistakeholder governance. >> >> I will convey that the majority (NCUC) of this group is against any special treatment - my fear is, that we - NCUC - will be the only group going towards this. So, the question becomes: if consensus is achieved towards some sort of protection (which I suspect it will), do we engage in trying to water down these protections or not? >> >> @Evan: I think NCUC (and certainly myself) would like to see an ALAC and NCUC collaboration on this front. I think that a joint statement might be of value to begin with and we can put this as an agenda item when we meet in Costa Rica. >> >> Thanks >> >> KK >> >> From: Dan Krimm> >> Reply-To: Dan >> Krimm> >> Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2012 19:02:06 +0000 >> To: "NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" >> > >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Questions/Options for Protection of >> IOC/Red Cross Names at Top Level >> >> At 9:38 AM +0100 2/4/12, William Drake wrote: >> >> So returning to KK's original message, I am for Option 1: Recommend no changes to Guidebook and reject GAC Proposal, with an objection on process and precedent grounds complimenting the substantive case. >> >> I've not been counting, but this seems consistent with a clear majority of views expressed here to date. >> >> On Feb 3, 2012, at 8:20 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >> >> If there is interest in joint NC / AtLarge pushback I'll certainly help advance the idea. >> >> >> My guess is that NCUC would be willing to pursue this. Anyone disagree? >> >> >> I concur with both of these. >> >> Dan >> >> PS: Is it worth expressing a "second choice" in the case that Option 1 is rejected by the policy group? Anybody for full ranked-choice voting here? >> >> Not to confuse things... ;-) >> >> >> -- >> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. >> From william.drake Wed Feb 22 09:51:06 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:51:06 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Olympic mark In-Reply-To: <4F43B85D0200005B00085999@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <422247E7-5A99-4A3F-BCA8-D038A87A8757@acm.org> <4F43B85D0200005B00085999@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <980C5C63-AB67-4941-879C-C1BD6A0F1EB5@uzh.ch> Hi I'm not opposed if people think this is a good idea, but have a couple questions: We'd basically be saying that oh BTW we follow our charter. Shouldn't people assume that anyway, in which case why are we restating it? Doesn't it just call external attention to the possibility of internal issues? Do any other SGs do this? On Feb 21, 2012, at 9:29 PM, wrote: > I agree, but would also suggest that the PC consider including the following statement (or something similar) in all of our comments submitted on behalf of the SG: > > "Positions and comments of the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) are arrived at after discussion among the membership, and the NCSG Policy Committee determines through rough consensus that the relevant position or comment accurately reflects the outcome of the discussion process. The NCSG Policy Committee is made up of elected officers from all constituencies within the NCSG". "Accurately reflects the outcome of the discussion process" could be understood by someone to mean that PC members are bound to vote in line with the (rough consensus?) "outcome" on the list. The charter says the PC is responsible for discussing its positions on the list, and that councilors should seek input from members on Council matters, but not that it is bound by member sentiments. Moreover, member discussions may not yield an identifiable outcome. To avoid misunderstanding, might it be better to say something like "the relevant position or comment takes into account any outcomes of the discussion process"? Just wondering, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis Wed Feb 22 11:46:02 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:46:02 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Olympic mark In-Reply-To: <980C5C63-AB67-4941-879C-C1BD6A0F1EB5@uzh.ch> References: <422247E7-5A99-4A3F-BCA8-D038A87A8757@acm.org> <4F43B85D0200005B00085999@smtp.law.unh.edu> <980C5C63-AB67-4941-879C-C1BD6A0F1EB5@uzh.ch> Message-ID: I would agree and share the same questions with Bill here. 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 From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: ???????, 22 ??????????? 2012 7:51 ?? To: Cc: NCSG-Policy Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Olympic mark Hi I'm not opposed if people think this is a good idea, but have a couple questions: We'd basically be saying that oh BTW we follow our charter. Shouldn't people assume that anyway, in which case why are we restating it? Doesn't it just call external attention to the possibility of internal issues? Do any other SGs do this? On Feb 21, 2012, at 9:29 PM, > > wrote: I agree, but would also suggest that the PC consider including the following statement (or something similar) in all of our comments submitted on behalf of the SG: "Positions and comments of the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) are arrived at after discussion among the membership, and the NCSG Policy Committee determines through rough consensus that the relevant position or comment accurately reflects the outcome of the discussion process. The NCSG Policy Committee is made up of elected officers from all constituencies within the NCSG". "Accurately reflects the outcome of the discussion process" could be understood by someone to mean that PC members are bound to vote in line with the (rough consensus?) "outcome" on the list. The charter says the PC is responsible for discussing its positions on the list, and that councilors should seek input from members on Council matters, but not that it is bound by member sentiments. Moreover, member discussions may not yield an identifiable outcome. To avoid misunderstanding, might it be better to say something like "the relevant position or comment takes into account any outcomes of the discussion process"? Just wondering, Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Wed Feb 22 15:34:30 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 08:34:30 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Olympic mark In-Reply-To: <980C5C63-AB67-4941-879C-C1BD6A0F1EB5@uzh.ch> References: <422247E7-5A99-4A3F-BCA8-D038A87A8757@acm.org> <4F43B85D0200005B00085999@smtp.law.unh.edu> <980C5C63-AB67-4941-879C-C1BD6A0F1EB5@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <8A901E28-E167-45B6-B313-0FD688C677A3@acm.org> Hi, In making comments, most SGs indicate the process by which they arrived at the comments. Registries often list a vote, e.g.. So yes, indicating the piece of our charter that we follow is indeed appropriate. And in a world where even most of us, where 'us' == 'members of the NCSG', don't know what our charter says, we can't really expect others to know how we do things. avri On 22 Feb 2012, at 02:51, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > I'm not opposed if people think this is a good idea, but have a couple questions: > > We'd basically be saying that oh BTW we follow our charter. Shouldn't people assume that anyway, in which case why are we restating it? Doesn't it just call external attention to the possibility of internal issues? Do any other SGs do this? > > On Feb 21, 2012, at 9:29 PM, wrote: > >> I agree, but would also suggest that the PC consider including the following statement (or something similar) in all of our comments submitted on behalf of the SG: >> >> "Positions and comments of the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) are arrived at after discussion among the membership, and the NCSG Policy Committee determines through rough consensus that the relevant position or comment accurately reflects the outcome of the discussion process. The NCSG Policy Committee is made up of elected officers from all constituencies within the NCSG". > > "Accurately reflects the outcome of the discussion process" could be understood by someone to mean that PC members are bound to vote in line with the (rough consensus?) "outcome" on the list. The charter says the PC is responsible for discussing its positions on the list, and that councilors should seek input from members on Council matters, but not that it is bound by member sentiments. Moreover, member discussions may not yield an identifiable outcome. To avoid misunderstanding, might it be better to say something like "the relevant position or comment takes into account any outcomes of the discussion process"? > > Just wondering, > > Bill > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From william.drake Wed Feb 22 16:19:58 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:19:58 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Olympic mark In-Reply-To: <8A901E28-E167-45B6-B313-0FD688C677A3@acm.org> References: <422247E7-5A99-4A3F-BCA8-D038A87A8757@acm.org> <4F43B85D0200005B00085999@smtp.law.unh.edu> <980C5C63-AB67-4941-879C-C1BD6A0F1EB5@uzh.ch> <8A901E28-E167-45B6-B313-0FD688C677A3@acm.org> Message-ID: <9C149C4D-0533-4839-A044-F27AF961F9E6@uzh.ch> a, Thanks, I guess that never really struck me in looking at comments since I wasn't looking for it. Language tweak make sense? B On Feb 22, 2012, at 2:34 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > In making comments, most SGs indicate the process by which they arrived at the comments. Registries often list a vote, e.g.. > > So yes, indicating the piece of our charter that we follow is indeed appropriate. And in a world where even most of us, where 'us' == 'members of the NCSG', don't know what our charter says, we can't really expect others to know how we do things. > > avri > > On 22 Feb 2012, at 02:51, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I'm not opposed if people think this is a good idea, but have a couple questions: >> >> We'd basically be saying that oh BTW we follow our charter. Shouldn't people assume that anyway, in which case why are we restating it? Doesn't it just call external attention to the possibility of internal issues? Do any other SGs do this? >> >> On Feb 21, 2012, at 9:29 PM, wrote: >> >>> I agree, but would also suggest that the PC consider including the following statement (or something similar) in all of our comments submitted on behalf of the SG: >>> >>> "Positions and comments of the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) are arrived at after discussion among the membership, and the NCSG Policy Committee determines through rough consensus that the relevant position or comment accurately reflects the outcome of the discussion process. The NCSG Policy Committee is made up of elected officers from all constituencies within the NCSG". >> >> "Accurately reflects the outcome of the discussion process" could be understood by someone to mean that PC members are bound to vote in line with the (rough consensus?) "outcome" on the list. The charter says the PC is responsible for discussing its positions on the list, and that councilors should seek input from members on Council matters, but not that it is bound by member sentiments. Moreover, member discussions may not yield an identifiable outcome. To avoid misunderstanding, might it be better to say something like "the relevant position or comment takes into account any outcomes of the discussion process"? >> >> Just wondering, >> >> Bill >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From robin Wed Feb 22 19:19:13 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 09:19:13 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Olympic mark In-Reply-To: <9C149C4D-0533-4839-A044-F27AF961F9E6@uzh.ch> References: <422247E7-5A99-4A3F-BCA8-D038A87A8757@acm.org> <4F43B85D0200005B00085999@smtp.law.unh.edu> <980C5C63-AB67-4941-879C-C1BD6A0F1EB5@uzh.ch> <8A901E28-E167-45B6-B313-0FD688C677A3@acm.org> <9C149C4D-0533-4839-A044-F27AF961F9E6@uzh.ch> Message-ID: I agree that it is generally a good idea when issuing a policy statement on behalf of a large group to include a short bit about the process that was used to reach this position. It can help readers to understand who NCSG is and what is our process for issuing a statement, even if it is just a re-statement of what is in our charter, it is a good governance practice that we should adopt. It wouldn't be anything controversial, but would provide more understanding to the readers of our policy statements. My 2 cents, Robin On Feb 22, 2012, at 6:19 AM, William Drake wrote: > a, > > Thanks, I guess that never really struck me in looking at comments since I wasn't looking for it. > > Language tweak make sense? > > B > > On Feb 22, 2012, at 2:34 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> In making comments, most SGs indicate the process by which they arrived at the comments. Registries often list a vote, e.g.. >> >> So yes, indicating the piece of our charter that we follow is indeed appropriate. And in a world where even most of us, where 'us' == 'members of the NCSG', don't know what our charter says, we can't really expect others to know how we do things. >> >> avri >> >> On 22 Feb 2012, at 02:51, William Drake wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> I'm not opposed if people think this is a good idea, but have a couple questions: >>> >>> We'd basically be saying that oh BTW we follow our charter. Shouldn't people assume that anyway, in which case why are we restating it? Doesn't it just call external attention to the possibility of internal issues? Do any other SGs do this? >>> >>> On Feb 21, 2012, at 9:29 PM, wrote: >>> >>>> I agree, but would also suggest that the PC consider including the following statement (or something similar) in all of our comments submitted on behalf of the SG: >>>> >>>> "Positions and comments of the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) are arrived at after discussion among the membership, and the NCSG Policy Committee determines through rough consensus that the relevant position or comment accurately reflects the outcome of the discussion process. The NCSG Policy Committee is made up of elected officers from all constituencies within the NCSG". >>> >>> "Accurately reflects the outcome of the discussion process" could be understood by someone to mean that PC members are bound to vote in line with the (rough consensus?) "outcome" on the list. The charter says the PC is responsible for discussing its positions on the list, and that councilors should seek input from members on Council matters, but not that it is bound by member sentiments. Moreover, member discussions may not yield an identifiable outcome. To avoid misunderstanding, might it be better to say something like "the relevant position or comment takes into account any outcomes of the discussion process"? >>> >>> Just wondering, >>> >>> Bill >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From Mary.Wong Wed Feb 22 20:51:33 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:51:33 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Olympic mark In-Reply-To: References: <422247E7-5A99-4A3F-BCA8-D038A87A8757@acm.org> <4F43B85D0200005B00085999@smtp.law.unh.edu> <980C5C63-AB67-4941-879C-C1BD6A0F1EB5@uzh.ch> <8A901E28-E167-45B6-B313-0FD688C677A3@acm.org> <9C149C4D-0533-4839-A044-F27AF961F9E6@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4F44F2E50200005B00085ABD@smtp.law.unh.edu> Ditto as to Avri's and Robin's comments, those being the reasons I offered the draft language. 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: Robin Gross To:NCSG-Policy Date: 2/22/2012 12:19 PM Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Olympic mark I agree that it is generally a good idea when issuing a policy statement on behalf of a large group to include a short bit about the process that was used to reach this position. It can help readers to understand who NCSG is and what is our process for issuing a statement, even if it is just a re-statement of what is in our charter, it is a good governance practice that we should adopt. It wouldn't be anything controversial, but would provide more understanding to the readers of our policy statements. My 2 cents, Robin On Feb 22, 2012, at 6:19 AM, William Drake wrote: > a, > > Thanks, I guess that never really struck me in looking at comments since I wasn't looking for it. > > Language tweak make sense? > > B > > On Feb 22, 2012, at 2:34 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> In making comments, most SGs indicate the process by which they arrived at the comments. Registries often list a vote, e.g.. >> >> So yes, indicating the piece of our charter that we follow is indeed appropriate. And in a world where even most of us, where 'us' == 'members of the NCSG', don't know what our charter says, we can't really expect others to know how we do things. >> >> avri >> >> On 22 Feb 2012, at 02:51, William Drake wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> I'm not opposed if people think this is a good idea, but have a couple questions: >>> >>> We'd basically be saying that oh BTW we follow our charter. Shouldn't people assume that anyway, in which case why are we restating it? Doesn't it just call external attention to the possibility of internal issues? Do any other SGs do this? >>> >>> On Feb 21, 2012, at 9:29 PM, wrote: >>> >>>> I agree, but would also suggest that the PC consider including the following statement (or something similar) in all of our comments submitted on behalf of the SG: >>>> >>>> "Positions and comments of the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) are arrived at after discussion among the membership, and the NCSG Policy Committee determines through rough consensus that the relevant position or comment accurately reflects the outcome of the discussion process. The NCSG Policy Committee is made up of elected officers from all constituencies within the NCSG". >>> >>> "Accurately reflects the outcome of the discussion process" could be understood by someone to mean that PC members are bound to vote in line with the (rough consensus?) "outcome" on the list. The charter says the PC is responsible for discussing its positions on the list, and that councilors should seek input from members on Council matters, but not that it is bound by member sentiments. Moreover, member discussions may not yield an identifiable outcome. To avoid misunderstanding, might it be better to say something like "the relevant position or comment takes into account any outcomes of the discussion process"? >>> >>> Just wondering, >>> >>> Bill >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Wed Feb 22 22:04:19 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:04:19 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Discussion in Costa Rica on Monday morning Message-ID: Dear NCSG Policy Committee, Costa Rica is quickly approaching.... Since we have the Costa Rica ICANN meeting coming up next month and we will have all six of our GNSO Councilors in Costa Rica, I'd like to hold a meeting of the NCSG-PC opposite the Opening Ceremony on Monday morning in Costa Rica. The NCSG Open Meeting on Tuesday afternoon is far too short of a time frame to have any in-depth policy discussions. (We have a meeting with the board in the middle of it, and several room changes during our afternoon NCSG open mtg). There will be some policy discussions in the Tuesday morning constituency meetings and NCSG has about an hour for such on Tuesday afternoon - not enough for any in-depth discussion of policy issues on a SG level. So I'm thinking 90 -120 minutes or so on Monday morning for some long-term policy/strategy planning. Not having a draft schedule of the CR week's meetings, it has been very hard to plan anything for CR. But I think it is a safe bet to hold this discussion on Monday morning opposite the Opening Ceremony. Any other thoughts on this or suggestions for when this discussion might be best held? Thank you! Best, Robin From joy Thu Feb 23 00:36:12 2012 From: joy (Joy Liddicoat) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:36:12 +1300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Discussion in Costa Rica on Monday morning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <022901ccf1b2$645cae50$2d160af0$@apc.org> Thanks Robin - I am fine with that timing. Joy -----Original Message----- From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2012 9:04 a.m. To: NCSG-Policy Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Discussion in Costa Rica on Monday morning Dear NCSG Policy Committee, Costa Rica is quickly approaching.... Since we have the Costa Rica ICANN meeting coming up next month and we will have all six of our GNSO Councilors in Costa Rica, I'd like to hold a meeting of the NCSG-PC opposite the Opening Ceremony on Monday morning in Costa Rica. The NCSG Open Meeting on Tuesday afternoon is far too short of a time frame to have any in-depth policy discussions. (We have a meeting with the board in the middle of it, and several room changes during our afternoon NCSG open mtg). There will be some policy discussions in the Tuesday morning constituency meetings and NCSG has about an hour for such on Tuesday afternoon - not enough for any in-depth discussion of policy issues on a SG level. So I'm thinking 90 -120 minutes or so on Monday morning for some long-term policy/strategy planning. Not having a draft schedule of the CR week's meetings, it has been very hard to plan anything for CR. But I think it is a safe bet to hold this discussion on Monday morning opposite the Opening Ceremony. Any other thoughts on this or suggestions for when this discussion might be best held? Thank you! Best, Robin _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From k.komaitis Thu Feb 23 00:49:00 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 22:49:00 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Discussion in Costa Rica on Monday morning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2452B799-FE2E-4809-8441-2196B7A31BCD@strath.ac.uk> That's great Robin - works for me too. KK Sent from my iPad On 22 Feb 2012, at 20:05, "Robin Gross" wrote: > Dear NCSG Policy Committee, > > Costa Rica is quickly approaching.... > > Since we have the Costa Rica ICANN meeting coming up next month and we will have all six of our GNSO Councilors in Costa Rica, I'd like to hold a meeting of the NCSG-PC opposite the Opening Ceremony on Monday morning in Costa Rica. > > The NCSG Open Meeting on Tuesday afternoon is far too short of a time frame to have any in-depth policy discussions. (We have a meeting with the board in the middle of it, and several room changes during our afternoon NCSG open mtg). There will be some policy discussions in the Tuesday morning constituency meetings and NCSG has about an hour for such on Tuesday afternoon - not enough for any in-depth discussion of policy issues on a SG level. So I'm thinking 90 -120 minutes or so on Monday morning for some long-term policy/strategy planning. > > Not having a draft schedule of the CR week's meetings, it has been very hard to plan anything for CR. But I think it is a safe bet to hold this discussion on Monday morning opposite the Opening Ceremony. Any other thoughts on this or suggestions for when this discussion might be best held? Thank you! > > Best, > Robin > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From wendy Thu Feb 23 01:50:06 2012 From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 18:50:06 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Discussion in Costa Rica on Monday morning In-Reply-To: <2452B799-FE2E-4809-8441-2196B7A31BCD@strath.ac.uk> References: <2452B799-FE2E-4809-8441-2196B7A31BCD@strath.ac.uk> Message-ID: <4F457F2E.2050602@seltzer.com> Thanks, sounds good to me. --Wendy On 02/22/2012 05:49 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > That's great Robin - works for me too. > > KK > > Sent from my iPad > > On 22 Feb 2012, at 20:05, "Robin Gross" wrote: > >> Dear NCSG Policy Committee, >> >> Costa Rica is quickly approaching.... >> >> Since we have the Costa Rica ICANN meeting coming up next month and we will have all six of our GNSO Councilors in Costa Rica, I'd like to hold a meeting of the NCSG-PC opposite the Opening Ceremony on Monday morning in Costa Rica. >> >> The NCSG Open Meeting on Tuesday afternoon is far too short of a time frame to have any in-depth policy discussions. (We have a meeting with the board in the middle of it, and several room changes during our afternoon NCSG open mtg). There will be some policy discussions in the Tuesday morning constituency meetings and NCSG has about an hour for such on Tuesday afternoon - not enough for any in-depth discussion of policy issues on a SG level. So I'm thinking 90 -120 minutes or so on Monday morning for some long-term policy/strategy planning. >> >> Not having a draft schedule of the CR week's meetings, it has been very hard to plan anything for CR. But I think it is a safe bet to hold this discussion on Monday morning opposite the Opening Ceremony. Any other thoughts on this or suggestions for when this discussion might be best held? Thank you! >> >> Best, >> Robin -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 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 Mary.Wong Thu Feb 23 02:36:57 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 19:36:57 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Discussion in Costa Rica on Monday morning In-Reply-To: <4F457F2E.2050602@seltzer.com> References: <2452B799-FE2E-4809-8441-2196B7A31BCD@strath.ac.uk> <4F457F2E.2050602@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <4F4543D90200005B00085B8A@smtp.law.unh.edu> Works for me too, and yes, thanks Robin for organizing! 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: Wendy Seltzer To:Konstantinos Komaitis CC:NCSG-Policy Date: 2/22/2012 6:50 PM Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Discussion in Costa Rica on Monday morning Thanks, sounds good to me. --Wendy On 02/22/2012 05:49 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > That's great Robin - works for me too. > > KK > > Sent from my iPad > > On 22 Feb 2012, at 20:05, "Robin Gross" wrote: > >> Dear NCSG Policy Committee, >> >> Costa Rica is quickly approaching.... >> >> Since we have the Costa Rica ICANN meeting coming up next month and we will have all six of our GNSO Councilors in Costa Rica, I'd like to hold a meeting of the NCSG-PC opposite the Opening Ceremony on Monday morning in Costa Rica. >> >> The NCSG Open Meeting on Tuesday afternoon is far too short of a time frame to have any in-depth policy discussions. (We have a meeting with the board in the middle of it, and several room changes during our afternoon NCSG open mtg). There will be some policy discussions in the Tuesday morning constituency meetings and NCSG has about an hour for such on Tuesday afternoon - not enough for any in-depth discussion of policy issues on a SG level. So I'm thinking 90 -120 minutes or so on Monday morning for some long-term policy/strategy planning. >> >> Not having a draft schedule of the CR week's meetings, it has been very hard to plan anything for CR. But I think it is a safe bet to hold this discussion on Monday morning opposite the Opening Ceremony. Any other thoughts on this or suggestions for when this discussion might be best held? Thank you! >> >> Best, >> Robin -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter Thu Feb 23 08:50:53 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 07:50:53 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Discussion in Costa Rica on Monday morning References: <2452B799-FE2E-4809-8441-2196B7A31BCD@strath.ac.uk> <4F457F2E.2050602@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CC89A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Okay for me wolfgang -----Original Message----- From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org on behalf of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Thu 2/23/2012 12:50 AM To: Konstantinos Komaitis Cc: NCSG-Policy Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Discussion in Costa Rica on Monday morning Thanks, sounds good to me. --Wendy On 02/22/2012 05:49 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > That's great Robin - works for me too. > > KK > > Sent from my iPad > > On 22 Feb 2012, at 20:05, "Robin Gross" wrote: > >> Dear NCSG Policy Committee, >> >> Costa Rica is quickly approaching.... >> >> Since we have the Costa Rica ICANN meeting coming up next month and we will have all six of our GNSO Councilors in Costa Rica, I'd like to hold a meeting of the NCSG-PC opposite the Opening Ceremony on Monday morning in Costa Rica. >> >> The NCSG Open Meeting on Tuesday afternoon is far too short of a time frame to have any in-depth policy discussions. (We have a meeting with the board in the middle of it, and several room changes during our afternoon NCSG open mtg). There will be some policy discussions in the Tuesday morning constituency meetings and NCSG has about an hour for such on Tuesday afternoon - not enough for any in-depth discussion of policy issues on a SG level. So I'm thinking 90 -120 minutes or so on Monday morning for some long-term policy/strategy planning. >> >> Not having a draft schedule of the CR week's meetings, it has been very hard to plan anything for CR. But I think it is a safe bet to hold this discussion on Monday morning opposite the Opening Ceremony. Any other thoughts on this or suggestions for when this discussion might be best held? Thank you! >> >> Best, >> Robin -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 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 From william.drake Thu Feb 23 09:13:29 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 08:13:29 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Discussion in Costa Rica on Monday morning In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CC89A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2452B799-FE2E-4809-8441-2196B7A31BCD@strath.ac.uk> <4F457F2E.2050602@seltzer.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CC89A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <7F99F4C2-54D2-4BBD-86D4-CC1600A59C83@uzh.ch> Sure. I can't believe they're still refusing to share even a draft schedule two weeks before the event. Discussions with ALAC on trying to find a time sort of hit a wall because nobody knows what's scheduled for Monday. But our last guess was that maybe something in the hour before or after Monday lunch would work. If we're doing a PC in the morning, shall we propose something in the 13-14:00 range? BD On Feb 23, 2012, at 7:50 AM, Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang wrote: > > Okay for me > > wolfgang > > > -----Original Message----- > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org on behalf of Wendy Seltzer > Sent: Thu 2/23/2012 12:50 AM > To: Konstantinos Komaitis > Cc: NCSG-Policy > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Discussion in Costa Rica on Monday morning > > Thanks, sounds good to me. > > --Wendy > > On 02/22/2012 05:49 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: >> That's great Robin - works for me too. >> >> KK >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On 22 Feb 2012, at 20:05, "Robin Gross" wrote: >> >>> Dear NCSG Policy Committee, >>> >>> Costa Rica is quickly approaching.... >>> >>> Since we have the Costa Rica ICANN meeting coming up next month and we will have all six of our GNSO Councilors in Costa Rica, I'd like to hold a meeting of the NCSG-PC opposite the Opening Ceremony on Monday morning in Costa Rica. >>> >>> The NCSG Open Meeting on Tuesday afternoon is far too short of a time frame to have any in-depth policy discussions. (We have a meeting with the board in the middle of it, and several room changes during our afternoon NCSG open mtg). There will be some policy discussions in the Tuesday morning constituency meetings and NCSG has about an hour for such on Tuesday afternoon - not enough for any in-depth discussion of policy issues on a SG level. So I'm thinking 90 -120 minutes or so on Monday morning for some long-term policy/strategy planning. >>> >>> Not having a draft schedule of the CR week's meetings, it has been very hard to plan anything for CR. But I think it is a safe bet to hold this discussion on Monday morning opposite the Opening Ceremony. Any other thoughts on this or suggestions for when this discussion might be best held? Thank you! >>> >>> Best, >>> Robin > > > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From robin Thu Feb 23 21:09:45 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:09:45 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Discussion in Costa Rica on Monday morning In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CC89A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2452B799-FE2E-4809-8441-2196B7A31BCD@strath.ac.uk> <4F457F2E.2050602@seltzer.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CC89A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Terrific, thanks all! Glen can give us a room from 10:30am - 12:30pm on Monday and we will have a telephone dial-in bridge for PC members who cannot be in Costa Rica at this time. Let's try to use this time to focus our discussion on the big picture policy goals and strategy session that Wendy led with the membership a couple months ago. Thank you, Robin On Feb 22, 2012, at 10:50 PM, Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang wrote: > > Okay for me > > wolfgang > > > -----Original Message----- > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org on behalf of Wendy Seltzer > Sent: Thu 2/23/2012 12:50 AM > To: Konstantinos Komaitis > Cc: NCSG-Policy > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Discussion in Costa Rica on Monday morning > > Thanks, sounds good to me. > > --Wendy > > On 02/22/2012 05:49 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: >> That's great Robin - works for me too. >> >> KK >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On 22 Feb 2012, at 20:05, "Robin Gross" wrote: >> >>> Dear NCSG Policy Committee, >>> >>> Costa Rica is quickly approaching.... >>> >>> Since we have the Costa Rica ICANN meeting coming up next month and we will have all six of our GNSO Councilors in Costa Rica, I'd like to hold a meeting of the NCSG-PC opposite the Opening Ceremony on Monday morning in Costa Rica. >>> >>> The NCSG Open Meeting on Tuesday afternoon is far too short of a time frame to have any in-depth policy discussions. (We have a meeting with the board in the middle of it, and several room changes during our afternoon NCSG open mtg). There will be some policy discussions in the Tuesday morning constituency meetings and NCSG has about an hour for such on Tuesday afternoon - not enough for any in-depth discussion of policy issues on a SG level. So I'm thinking 90 -120 minutes or so on Monday morning for some long-term policy/strategy planning. >>> >>> Not having a draft schedule of the CR week's meetings, it has been very hard to plan anything for CR. But I think it is a safe bet to hold this discussion on Monday morning opposite the Opening Ceremony. Any other thoughts on this or suggestions for when this discussion might be best held? Thank you! >>> >>> Best, >>> Robin > > > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From rafik.dammak Fri Feb 24 02:10:08 2012 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 09:10:08 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Discussion in Costa Rica on Monday morning In-Reply-To: References: <2452B799-FE2E-4809-8441-2196B7A31BCD@strath.ac.uk> <4F457F2E.2050602@seltzer.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CC89A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: thanks Robin, usually we have the ccnso-gnso joint meeting in lunch time, maybe we will need to leave the meeting before 12:30? Best, Rafik Dammak @rafik "fight for the users" 2012/2/24 Robin Gross > Terrific, thanks all! > > Glen can give us a room from 10:30am - 12:30pm on Monday and we will have > a telephone dial-in bridge for PC members who cannot be in Costa Rica at > this time. > > Let's try to use this time to focus our discussion on the big picture > policy goals and strategy session that Wendy led with the membership a > couple months ago. > > Thank you, > Robin > > On Feb 22, 2012, at 10:50 PM, Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang wrote: > > > > > Okay for me > > > > wolfgang > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org on behalf of Wendy Seltzer > > Sent: Thu 2/23/2012 12:50 AM > > To: Konstantinos Komaitis > > Cc: NCSG-Policy > > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC Discussion in Costa Rica on Monday morning > > > > Thanks, sounds good to me. > > > > --Wendy > > > > On 02/22/2012 05:49 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > >> That's great Robin - works for me too. > >> > >> KK > >> > >> Sent from my iPad > >> > >> On 22 Feb 2012, at 20:05, "Robin Gross" wrote: > >> > >>> Dear NCSG Policy Committee, > >>> > >>> Costa Rica is quickly approaching.... > >>> > >>> Since we have the Costa Rica ICANN meeting coming up next month and we > will have all six of our GNSO Councilors in Costa Rica, I'd like to hold a > meeting of the NCSG-PC opposite the Opening Ceremony on Monday morning in > Costa Rica. > >>> > >>> The NCSG Open Meeting on Tuesday afternoon is far too short of a time > frame to have any in-depth policy discussions. (We have a meeting with the > board in the middle of it, and several room changes during our afternoon > NCSG open mtg). There will be some policy discussions in the Tuesday > morning constituency meetings and NCSG has about an hour for such on > Tuesday afternoon - not enough for any in-depth discussion of policy issues > on a SG level. So I'm thinking 90 -120 minutes or so on Monday morning for > some long-term policy/strategy planning. > >>> > >>> Not having a draft schedule of the CR week's meetings, it has been > very hard to plan anything for CR. But I think it is a safe bet to hold > this discussion on Monday morning opposite the Opening Ceremony. Any other > thoughts on this or suggestions for when this discussion might be best > held? Thank you! > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> Robin > > > > > > > > -- > > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake Sun Feb 26 16:05:23 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 15:05:23 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica In-Reply-To: <4F4A19DB.9030902@gih.com> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A95ECF9A5@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <9D0BDFBA-8380-4EB0-9E3C-1FE5275D889A@ipjustice.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C9D1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A960645C9@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <2F076612-76D1-483C-B0B1-3967764A02AF@uzh.ch> <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A9606481A@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A961FA9A9@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <4F4A19DB.9030902@gih.com> Message-ID: Irrespective of the below, I'd favor moving the PC to 9 or 9:30 (90 min. could be enough since we meet again the next day) and meeting ALAC at 11 as there are things worth talking about. But if liaising with others isn't a priority then fine I'll stop trying to arrange such things. EIther way, we should respond? BD On Feb 26, 2012, at 12:39 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Dear Bill, > > this is rather unfortunate. Our schedule is clear & posted at: > https://community.icann.org/x/hInbAQ > > Please be so kind to study this & find when you as a group would be able to meet. > > Since you appear to be saying that Monday's going to be impossible for NCSG, shall we free up the ALAC Meeting with the NCSG, Time: 11:00-12:00 , Meeting Room: Las Americas time slot? > > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > On 25/02/2012 12:23, William Drake wrotet : >> >> Hi >> >> Per previous, Monday's packed; NCSG has a policy committee meeting from 10:30am - 12:30pm, and then there's workshops in the afternoon. Given our collective lack of access to a schedule, continuing to go around on slots that invariably conflict doesn't seem useful. My suggestion would be that a) we coordinate asynchronously via email to taste on the issues where we've asked the council to defer to allow more ALAC/community input, and b) any members of the two tribes who are interested could just have a drink together in the hotel bar Tuesday after constituency day and before music night. Path of least resistance? >> >> Ok? >> >> Bill >> >> On Feb 25, 2012, at 4:31 AM, Heidi Ullrich wrote: >> >>> Dear All, >>> >>> The ALAC/NCSG Meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, 12 March 2012 between 11:00-12:00 in the Las Americas meeting room. >>> >>> We scheduled this date and time to hopefully avoid conflict with meetings that are of key interest to the two groups. >>> >>> This date and time has been confirmed by the ALAC. Could you please let me know if this slot will be good for the NCSG? >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> Heidi >>> >>> >>> Heidi Ullrich >>> Director for At-Large >>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>> Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 >>> Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 >>> Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] >>> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 11:39 PM >>> To: William Drake >>> Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Leibovitch, Evan; Greenberg, Alan; Robin Gross; Konstantinos Komaitis >>> Subject: ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> Well, so I've just discovered that Council is staying at the Ramada, so that's at least one shred of information. Still in the dark on the schedule though-apparently it's a national security secret. We'd talked about the possibility of trying to do a NCSG-ALAC thing on Monday, but in the meanwhile Monday's been getting pretty filled up at NC's end and I imagine ALAC's. In principle, it would be desirable to meet before the Wednesday Council meeting to coordinate but I don't know how, unless perhaps we were to try something Tuesday late afternoon after the ccNSO's workshop on SOPA and related. Failing that, maybe we could just have a drink before music night.? >>> >>> Irrespective of whether we are able to co-locate our atoms at any point, there's a couple items discussed previously on which we should at least have some asynchronous coordination: >>> >>> >>>>>> Institutional/process stuff: Outreach, CCWG, Academy >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Substantive: LEA/registrar/RAA, reserved names for IOs, UDRP, applicant support, AoC RTs/WHOIS, gTLD stock taking, maybe IRTP? >>> *CCWG: Council will take this up and presumably approve its preferred guidelines. With the JAS experience in mind, some of us in NC (Wendy disagrees) have argued for a flexible approach to inter-species cooperation and in particular for not requiring single uniform charters. In this we are pretty much alone and the DT language should pass, in which case it's not obvious there'd be a big point in being a tiny minority vote. Nevertheless, by holding the thing up until a F2F in SJ we have at least created a space for people to present any arguments they'd like to make on the point. So my suggestion would be that if ALAC wishes to argue against the DT language, some of you may wish to come to either the weekend or Wednesday Council meetings to amplify on whatever Alan will pass along. Otherwise people are going to wonder why we insisted on holding this up until SJ. >>> >>> *Outreach: I don't know where ALAC is on this, haven't had time to poke around your workspaces. But you know that we had a WG that came up with a draft plan for an Outreach Task Force at the SO level, and that CSG unexpectedly shot it down. We asked that discussion of what if anything to do next be held until F2F in SJ, in part on the hope that by then there'd be more clarity about what's being considered at an ICANN-wide level in the context of the staff and SO/AC chair discussions, so anything GNSO might do consider would fit into any larger framework. But nobody at our end though seems to know what's really being considered in those discussions, so we're dancing in the dark and probably council will pass over this item quickly and do nothing. If in fact ALAC has any particular aspirations on this point and more of a clue on what's happening at the wider level, we could coordinate and again make use of the space to pass any ideas into the Council deliberations. Or not. I belie >>> ve there's also a board outreach thing Thursday. >>> >>> On most other points we've discussed, I imagine there will be the usual points of convergence/divergence and don't know whether people feel some coordination would be useful. But on the two process points above we held discussions up with this in mind, so it'd be good to decide what if anything we want to do. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Feb 4, 2012, at 9:00 AM, William Drake wrote: >>> >>>> Again, there's no way to know until someone on the staff who has access to the draft agenda is consulted. There's a lot of workshops Monday which varying people may need to be at and we don't have a clue as to which are when. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> On Feb 3, 2012, at 9:54 PM, Heidi Ullrich wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> Bill, thank you for letting me know of this scheduling conflict. >>>>> >>>>> Currently, it looks as if Monday, 12 March between 11:00-12:00 might work. This time-slot is after the Welcome Ceremony and prior to the joint ccNSO/GNSO Council Monday lunch. >>>>> >>>>> Do you see any conflicts with this time? >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards, >>>>> Heidi >>>>> >>>>> Heidi Ullrich >>>>> Director for At-Large >>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>>> Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 >>>>> Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 >>>>> Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] >>>>> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:37 AM >>>>> To: Heidi Ullrich >>>>> Cc: "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang"; Konstantinos Komaitis; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Robin Gross; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy >>>>> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica >>>>> >>>>> Hi Heidi >>>>> >>>>> The GNSO Council always does a wrap-up session Thursday 12:30-14:00. Per previous, we don't have GNSO activities that morning, but I don't know about ALAC. And it's unclear what workshops some of us might need to attend could be Thursday morning vs. Monday. Any chance you could consult with whoever on the staff has access to the draft agenda and let us know? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Bill >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 2, 2012, at 7:12 PM, Heidi Ullrich wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>> >>>>>> Would Thursday, 15 March between 12:00-13:00 be convenient for the ALAC/NCSG meeting? This timing would fit into the current At-Large schedule. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>> Heidi >>>>>> >>>>>> Heidi Ullrich >>>>>> Director for At-Large >>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>>>> Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 >>>>>> Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 >>>>>> Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:22 AM >>>>>> To: Konstantinos Komaitis; Robin Gross; William Drake >>>>>> Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy >>>>>> Subject: AW: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Bill and others >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. it is important to find a slot which does not overlap with other key meetings. Thursday is also the IGF Workshop where a lot of CS members are involved. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Bills liss of issues is already long. Nothing to add. Or should we discuss also NPOC? >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. An important objective (as a side effect is to create a construtive and friendly environment for future enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration. >>>>>> >>>>>> wolfgang >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ________________________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Konstantinos Komaitis >>>>>> Gesendet: Do 02.02.2012 10:42 >>>>>> An: 'Robin Gross'; William Drake >>>>>> Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy >>>>>> Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> +1 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross >>>>>> Sent: ???????, 1 ??????????? 2012 11:27 ?? >>>>>> To: William Drake >>>>>> Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy >>>>>> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for the suggestions for discussion items, Bill. I especially like LEA/registrar/RAA & reserved names for IOs and the issues are in play at this time. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Robin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 30, 2012, at 11:31 PM, William Drake wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 31, 2012, at 12:45 AM, Robin Gross wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the time proposed below however may conflict with the GNSO Council meeting, where most of our members will need to be at that time. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The Council meeting is Wed. 14-18:00 as always. There's no publicly visible draft schedule yet but it's looking like Monday may be thick with workshops for some of us. Could Thursday morning work, stock-taking in post-Council context etc? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We'll come up with a couple substantive policy issues to propose for the agenda in the coming days. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Off the top of my head, one would think the menu should include some of the following, although history suggests that in an hour we probably would get through a few in an hour: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Institutional/process stuff: Outreach, CCWG, Academy >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Substantive: LEA/registrar/RAA, reserved names for IOs, UDRP, applicant support, AoC RTs/WHOIS, gTLD stock taking, maybe IRTP? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Conversely, anything of mutual interest in particular on ALAC's mind? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> BD >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks again! >>>>>> >>>>>> Robin >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 25, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Heidi Ullrich wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Robin, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The ALAC Executive Committee (ExCom) and At-Large staff are developing the schedule and agendas for the At-Large meetings in Costa Rica. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Following up on the ALAC meeting with the NCSG in Dakar, we have tentatively scheduled a meeting of the ALAC with the NCSG for Wednesday, 14 March between 14:00 - 15:00. Could you please confirm that the NCSG would like to have a meeting with the ALAC during the Costa Rica Meeting? If so, is the current date and time convenient? Please note that as the ICANN Meeting schedule is still being developed, we currently don't know which other meetings are scheduled for that time. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, the ExCom has requested that you let them know of any specific agenda items that you would like to discuss with the ALAC. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Heidi >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Heidi Ullrich >>>>>> >>>>>> Director for At-Large >>>>>> >>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>>>>> >>>>>> Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 >>>>>> >>>>>> Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 >>>>>> >>>>>> Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >> > > -- > Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis Sun Feb 26 16:09:19 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 14:09:19 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I fine with moving the PC earlier. KK From: William Drake > Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 14:05:23 +0000 To: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica Irrespective of the below, I'd favor moving the PC to 9 or 9:30 (90 min. could be enough since we meet again the next day) and meeting ALAC at 11 as there are things worth talking about. But if liaising with others isn't a priority then fine I'll stop trying to arrange such things. EIther way, we should respond? BD On Feb 26, 2012, at 12:39 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: Dear Bill, this is rather unfortunate. Our schedule is clear & posted at: https://community.icann.org/x/hInbAQ Please be so kind to study this & find when you as a group would be able to meet. Since you appear to be saying that Monday's going to be impossible for NCSG, shall we free up the ALAC Meeting with the NCSG, Time: 11:00-12:00 , Meeting Room: Las Americas time slot? Kind regards, Olivier On 25/02/2012 12:23, William Drake wrotet : Hi Per previous, Monday's packed; NCSG has a policy committee meeting from 10:30am - 12:30pm, and then there's workshops in the afternoon. Given our collective lack of access to a schedule, continuing to go around on slots that invariably conflict doesn't seem useful. My suggestion would be that a) we coordinate asynchronously via email to taste on the issues where we've asked the council to defer to allow more ALAC/community input, and b) any members of the two tribes who are interested could just have a drink together in the hotel bar Tuesday after constituency day and before music night. Path of least resistance? Ok? Bill On Feb 25, 2012, at 4:31 AM, Heidi Ullrich wrote: Dear All, The ALAC/NCSG Meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, 12 March 2012 between 11:00-12:00 in the Las Americas meeting room. We scheduled this date and time to hopefully avoid conflict with meetings that are of key interest to the two groups. This date and time has been confirmed by the ALAC. Could you please let me know if this slot will be good for the NCSG? Kind regards, Heidi Heidi Ullrich Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 11:39 PM To: William Drake Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Leibovitch, Evan; Greenberg, Alan; Robin Gross; Konstantinos Komaitis Subject: ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica Hi Well, so I've just discovered that Council is staying at the Ramada, so that's at least one shred of information. Still in the dark on the schedule though-apparently it's a national security secret. We'd talked about the possibility of trying to do a NCSG-ALAC thing on Monday, but in the meanwhile Monday's been getting pretty filled up at NC's end and I imagine ALAC's. In principle, it would be desirable to meet before the Wednesday Council meeting to coordinate but I don't know how, unless perhaps we were to try something Tuesday late afternoon after the ccNSO's workshop on SOPA and related. Failing that, maybe we could just have a drink before music night.? Irrespective of whether we are able to co-locate our atoms at any point, there's a couple items discussed previously on which we should at least have some asynchronous coordination: Institutional/process stuff: Outreach, CCWG, Academy Substantive: LEA/registrar/RAA, reserved names for IOs, UDRP, applicant support, AoC RTs/WHOIS, gTLD stock taking, maybe IRTP? *CCWG: Council will take this up and presumably approve its preferred guidelines. With the JAS experience in mind, some of us in NC (Wendy disagrees) have argued for a flexible approach to inter-species cooperation and in particular for not requiring single uniform charters. In this we are pretty much alone and the DT language should pass, in which case it's not obvious there'd be a big point in being a tiny minority vote. Nevertheless, by holding the thing up until a F2F in SJ we have at least created a space for people to present any arguments they'd like to make on the point. So my suggestion would be that if ALAC wishes to argue against the DT language, some of you may wish to come to either the weekend or Wednesday Council meetings to amplify on whatever Alan will pass along. Otherwise people are going to wonder why we insisted on holding this up until SJ. *Outreach: I don't know where ALAC is on this, haven't had time to poke around your workspaces. But you know that we had a WG that came up with a draft plan for an Outreach Task Force at the SO level, and that CSG unexpectedly shot it down. We asked that discussion of what if anything to do next be held until F2F in SJ, in part on the hope that by then there'd be more clarity about what's being considered at an ICANN-wide level in the context of the staff and SO/AC chair discussions, so anything GNSO might do consider would fit into any larger framework. But nobody at our end though seems to know what's really being considered in those discussions, so we're dancing in the dark and probably council will pass over this item quickly and do nothing. If in fact ALAC has any particular aspirations on this point and more of a clue on what's happening at the wider level, we could coordinate and again make use of the space to pass any ideas into the Council deliberations. Or not. I belie ve there's also a board outreach thing Thursday. On most other points we've discussed, I imagine there will be the usual points of convergence/divergence and don't know whether people feel some coordination would be useful. But on the two process points above we held discussions up with this in mind, so it'd be good to decide what if anything we want to do. Best, Bill On Feb 4, 2012, at 9:00 AM, William Drake wrote: Again, there's no way to know until someone on the staff who has access to the draft agenda is consulted. There's a lot of workshops Monday which varying people may need to be at and we don't have a clue as to which are when. Best Bill On Feb 3, 2012, at 9:54 PM, Heidi Ullrich wrote: Hi All, Bill, thank you for letting me know of this scheduling conflict. Currently, it looks as if Monday, 12 March between 11:00-12:00 might work. This time-slot is after the Welcome Ceremony and prior to the joint ccNSO/GNSO Council Monday lunch. Do you see any conflicts with this time? Kind regards, Heidi Heidi Ullrich Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:37 AM To: Heidi Ullrich Cc: "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang"; Konstantinos Komaitis; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Robin Gross; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica Hi Heidi The GNSO Council always does a wrap-up session Thursday 12:30-14:00. Per previous, we don't have GNSO activities that morning, but I don't know about ALAC. And it's unclear what workshops some of us might need to attend could be Thursday morning vs. Monday. Any chance you could consult with whoever on the staff has access to the draft agenda and let us know? Best, Bill On Feb 2, 2012, at 7:12 PM, Heidi Ullrich wrote: Hi All, Would Thursday, 15 March between 12:00-13:00 be convenient for the ALAC/NCSG meeting? This timing would fit into the current At-Large schedule. Kind regards, Heidi Heidi Ullrich Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:22 AM To: Konstantinos Komaitis; Robin Gross; William Drake Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy Subject: AW: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica Hi Bill and others 1. it is important to find a slot which does not overlap with other key meetings. Thursday is also the IGF Workshop where a lot of CS members are involved. 2. Bills liss of issues is already long. Nothing to add. Or should we discuss also NPOC? 3. An important objective (as a side effect is to create a construtive and friendly environment for future enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Konstantinos Komaitis Gesendet: Do 02.02.2012 10:42 An: 'Robin Gross'; William Drake Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica +1 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 From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: ???????, 1 ??????????? 2012 11:27 ?? To: William Drake Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica Thanks for the suggestions for discussion items, Bill. I especially like LEA/registrar/RAA & reserved names for IOs and the issues are in play at this time. Best, Robin On Jan 30, 2012, at 11:31 PM, William Drake wrote: Hi On Jan 31, 2012, at 12:45 AM, Robin Gross wrote: I think the time proposed below however may conflict with the GNSO Council meeting, where most of our members will need to be at that time. The Council meeting is Wed. 14-18:00 as always. There's no publicly visible draft schedule yet but it's looking like Monday may be thick with workshops for some of us. Could Thursday morning work, stock-taking in post-Council context etc? We'll come up with a couple substantive policy issues to propose for the agenda in the coming days. Off the top of my head, one would think the menu should include some of the following, although history suggests that in an hour we probably would get through a few in an hour: Institutional/process stuff: Outreach, CCWG, Academy Substantive: LEA/registrar/RAA, reserved names for IOs, UDRP, applicant support, AoC RTs/WHOIS, gTLD stock taking, maybe IRTP? Conversely, anything of mutual interest in particular on ALAC's mind? Cheers BD Thanks again! Robin On Jan 25, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Heidi Ullrich wrote: Hi Robin, The ALAC Executive Committee (ExCom) and At-Large staff are developing the schedule and agendas for the At-Large meetings in Costa Rica. Following up on the ALAC meeting with the NCSG in Dakar, we have tentatively scheduled a meeting of the ALAC with the NCSG for Wednesday, 14 March between 14:00 - 15:00. Could you please confirm that the NCSG would like to have a meeting with the ALAC during the Costa Rica Meeting? If so, is the current date and time convenient? Please note that as the ICANN Meeting schedule is still being developed, we currently don't know which other meetings are scheduled for that time. Also, the ExCom has requested that you let them know of any specific agenda items that you would like to discuss with the ALAC. Kind regards, Heidi Heidi Ullrich Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html From robin Sun Feb 26 21:53:28 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 11:53:28 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <79C4EC39-A82B-4BF6-B788-02D1BBED57AA@ipjustice.org> I've told ALAC that we'll move our NCSG-PC meeting to earlier on Monday in order to accommodate their proposal that NCSG & ALAC meet from 11-12 on Monday in San Jose. So, let's do the NCSG-PC meeting on (12 March) Monday from 9:15 - 10:45am. Then break for 15 minutes, and then meet with ALAC from 11-12 on Monday. And we'll be off to a running start! Thanks, Robin On Feb 26, 2012, at 6:09 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > I fine with moving the PC earlier. > > KK > > From: William Drake > > Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 14:05:23 +0000 > To: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" > > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica > > Irrespective of the below, I'd favor moving the PC to 9 or 9:30 (90 min. could be enough since we meet again the next day) and meeting ALAC at 11 as there are things worth talking about. But if liaising with others isn't a priority then fine I'll stop trying to arrange such things. EIther way, we should respond? > > BD > > On Feb 26, 2012, at 12:39 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > Dear Bill, > > this is rather unfortunate. Our schedule is clear & posted at: > https://community.icann.org/x/hInbAQ > > Please be so kind to study this & find when you as a group would be able to meet. > > Since you appear to be saying that Monday's going to be impossible for NCSG, shall we free up the ALAC Meeting with the NCSG, Time: 11:00-12:00 , Meeting Room: Las Americas time slot? > > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > On 25/02/2012 12:23, William Drake wrotet : > > Hi > > Per previous, Monday's packed; NCSG has a policy committee meeting from 10:30am - 12:30pm, and then there's workshops in the afternoon. Given our collective lack of access to a schedule, continuing to go around on slots that invariably conflict doesn't seem useful. My suggestion would be that a) we coordinate asynchronously via email to taste on the issues where we've asked the council to defer to allow more ALAC/community input, and b) any members of the two tribes who are interested could just have a drink together in the hotel bar Tuesday after constituency day and before music night. Path of least resistance? > > Ok? > > Bill > > On Feb 25, 2012, at 4:31 AM, Heidi Ullrich wrote: > > > > Dear All, > > The ALAC/NCSG Meeting is currently scheduled for Monday, 12 March 2012 between 11:00-12:00 in the Las Americas meeting room. > > We scheduled this date and time to hopefully avoid conflict with meetings that are of key interest to the two groups. > > This date and time has been confirmed by the ALAC. Could you please let me know if this slot will be good for the NCSG? > > Kind regards, > Heidi > > > Heidi Ullrich > Director for At-Large > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 > Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 > Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 11:39 PM > To: William Drake > Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Leibovitch, Evan; Greenberg, Alan; Robin Gross; Konstantinos Komaitis > Subject: ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica > > Hi > > Well, so I've just discovered that Council is staying at the Ramada, so that's at least one shred of information. Still in the dark on the schedule though-apparently it's a national security secret. We'd talked about the possibility of trying to do a NCSG-ALAC thing on Monday, but in the meanwhile Monday's been getting pretty filled up at NC's end and I imagine ALAC's. In principle, it would be desirable to meet before the Wednesday Council meeting to coordinate but I don't know how, unless perhaps we were to try something Tuesday late afternoon after the ccNSO's workshop on SOPA and related. Failing that, maybe we could just have a drink before music night.? > > Irrespective of whether we are able to co-locate our atoms at any point, there's a couple items discussed previously on which we should at least have some asynchronous coordination: > > > > > Institutional/process stuff: Outreach, CCWG, Academy > > > Substantive: LEA/registrar/RAA, reserved names for IOs, UDRP, applicant support, AoC RTs/WHOIS, gTLD stock taking, maybe IRTP? > > > *CCWG: Council will take this up and presumably approve its preferred guidelines. With the JAS experience in mind, some of us in NC (Wendy disagrees) have argued for a flexible approach to inter-species cooperation and in particular for not requiring single uniform charters. In this we are pretty much alone and the DT language should pass, in which case it's not obvious there'd be a big point in being a tiny minority vote. Nevertheless, by holding the thing up until a F2F in SJ we have at least created a space for people to present any arguments they'd like to make on the point. So my suggestion would be that if ALAC wishes to argue against the DT language, some of you may wish to come to either the weekend or Wednesday Council meetings to amplify on whatever Alan will pass along. Otherwise people are going to wonder why we insisted on holding this up until SJ. > > *Outreach: I don't know where ALAC is on this, haven't had time to poke around your workspaces. But you know that we had a WG that came up with a draft plan for an Outreach Task Force at the SO level, and that CSG unexpectedly shot it down. We asked that discussion of what if anything to do next be held until F2F in SJ, in part on the hope that by then there'd be more clarity about what's being considered at an ICANN-wide level in the context of the staff and SO/AC chair discussions, so anything GNSO might do consider would fit into any larger framework. But nobody at our end though seems to know what's really being considered in those discussions, so we're dancing in the dark and probably council will pass over this item quickly and do nothing. If in fact ALAC has any particular aspirations on this point and more of a clue on what's happening at the wider level, we could coordinate and again make use of the space to pass any ideas into the Council deliberations. Or not. I belie > ve there's also a board outreach thing Thursday. > > On most other points we've discussed, I imagine there will be the usual points of convergence/divergence and don't know whether people feel some coordination would be useful. But on the two process points above we held discussions up with this in mind, so it'd be good to decide what if anything we want to do. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 2012, at 9:00 AM, William Drake wrote: > > > > Again, there's no way to know until someone on the staff who has access to the draft agenda is consulted. There's a lot of workshops Monday which varying people may need to be at and we don't have a clue as to which are when. > > Best > > Bill > > On Feb 3, 2012, at 9:54 PM, Heidi Ullrich wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > Bill, thank you for letting me know of this scheduling conflict. > > Currently, it looks as if Monday, 12 March between 11:00-12:00 might work. This time-slot is after the Welcome Ceremony and prior to the joint ccNSO/GNSO Council Monday lunch. > > Do you see any conflicts with this time? > > Kind regards, > Heidi > > Heidi Ullrich > Director for At-Large > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 > Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 > Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch] > Sent: Friday, February 03, 2012 12:37 AM > To: Heidi Ullrich > Cc: "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang"; Konstantinos Komaitis; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Robin Gross; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica > > Hi Heidi > > The GNSO Council always does a wrap-up session Thursday 12:30-14:00. Per previous, we don't have GNSO activities that morning, but I don't know about ALAC. And it's unclear what workshops some of us might need to attend could be Thursday morning vs. Monday. Any chance you could consult with whoever on the staff has access to the draft agenda and let us know? > > Best, > > Bill > > On Feb 2, 2012, at 7:12 PM, Heidi Ullrich wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > Would Thursday, 15 March between 12:00-13:00 be convenient for the ALAC/NCSG meeting? This timing would fit into the current At-Large schedule. > > Kind regards, > Heidi > > Heidi Ullrich > Director for At-Large > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 > Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 > Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:22 AM > To: Konstantinos Komaitis; Robin Gross; William Drake > Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy > Subject: AW: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica > > Hi Bill and others > > 1. it is important to find a slot which does not overlap with other key meetings. Thursday is also the IGF Workshop where a lot of CS members are involved. > > 2. Bills liss of issues is already long. Nothing to add. Or should we discuss also NPOC? > > 3. An important objective (as a side effect is to create a construtive and friendly environment for future enhanced communication, coordination and collaboration. > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Konstantinos Komaitis > Gesendet: Do 02.02.2012 10:42 > An: 'Robin Gross'; William Drake > Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy > Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica > > > > +1 > > > > 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 > > > > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross > Sent: ???????, 1 ??????????? 2012 11:27 ?? > To: William Drake > Cc: Heidi Ullrich; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; ICANN At-Large Staff; NCSG-Policy > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica > > > > Thanks for the suggestions for discussion items, Bill. I especially like LEA/registrar/RAA & reserved names for IOs and the issues are in play at this time. > > > > Best, > > Robin > > > > On Jan 30, 2012, at 11:31 PM, William Drake wrote: > > > > > > Hi > > > > On Jan 31, 2012, at 12:45 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > > > > > > I think the time proposed below however may conflict with the GNSO Council meeting, where most of our members will need to be at that time. > > > > The Council meeting is Wed. 14-18:00 as always. There's no publicly visible draft schedule yet but it's looking like Monday may be thick with workshops for some of us. Could Thursday morning work, stock-taking in post-Council context etc? > > > > > > We'll come up with a couple substantive policy issues to propose for the agenda in the coming days. > > > > Off the top of my head, one would think the menu should include some of the following, although history suggests that in an hour we probably would get through a few in an hour: > > > > Institutional/process stuff: Outreach, CCWG, Academy > > > > Substantive: LEA/registrar/RAA, reserved names for IOs, UDRP, applicant support, AoC RTs/WHOIS, gTLD stock taking, maybe IRTP? > > > > Conversely, anything of mutual interest in particular on ALAC's mind? > > > > Cheers > > > > BD > > > > > > > > Thanks again! > > Robin > > > > > > On Jan 25, 2012, at 4:16 PM, Heidi Ullrich wrote: > > > > > > Hi Robin, > > > > The ALAC Executive Committee (ExCom) and At-Large staff are developing the schedule and agendas for the At-Large meetings in Costa Rica. > > > > Following up on the ALAC meeting with the NCSG in Dakar, we have tentatively scheduled a meeting of the ALAC with the NCSG for Wednesday, 14 March between 14:00 - 15:00. Could you please confirm that the NCSG would like to have a meeting with the ALAC during the Costa Rica Meeting? If so, is the current date and time convenient? Please note that as the ICANN Meeting schedule is still being developed, we currently don't know which other meetings are scheduled for that time. > > > > Also, the ExCom has requested that you let them know of any specific agenda items that you would like to discuss with the ALAC. > > > > Kind regards, > > Heidi > > > > Heidi Ullrich > > Director for At-Large > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 > > Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 > > Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > -- > Olivier MJ Cr?pin-Leblond, PhD > http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From robin Sun Feb 26 22:53:45 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 12:53:45 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft schedule for 13 March (Tuesday) afternoon - NCSG Meetings in Costa Rica Message-ID: Dear All, Please note the below draft meeting and discussion schedule for the afternoon of Tuesday 13 March 2012. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions on these plans. More detailed agenda listing topical issues to be sent shortly. (Note: Constituencies meet in the morning on Tuesday). Thanks, Robin Schedule for afternoon of TUESDAY 13 March 2012 in Costa Rica 13:30 - 17:30 --> NCSG Meetings Schedule 13:30 : Welcome & introductions 13:45 : Reports from constituencies on their morning discussions 14:00 : NCSG Policy Issues 15:00 : Prepare for mtg with Board 15:20 : BREAK to meet with Board (room change) 15:30 : NCSG with Board of Directors 16:30 : BREAK (room change) 16:45 : NCSG Meeting reconvene NCSG prep for GNSO Meeting on Wed. & Public Forum 17:30 : BREAK: Head for cocktails and don't look back Later : MUSIC NIGHT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Mon Feb 27 04:57:10 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2012 18:57:10 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Costa Rica Planning : Monday 12 March - NCSG draft schedule Message-ID: <76136B21-BB2D-4497-B354-C981FB079695@ipjustice.org> FYI: We still don't have a GNSO meetings or ICANN meetings schedule for the week in Costa Rica from ICANN. So planning has been more difficult than usual. However, here is a draft schedule for Monday 12 March 2012 in Costa Rica (key NCSG / GNSO Mtgs). Please let me know if I'm missing anything. Thanks! - Robin Monday 12 March 2012 - NCSG Draft Schedule 9:15 - 10:45 : NCSG Policy Committee Meeting Open to participation of members of the NCSG Policy Committee. Open to observation to NCSG membership and the general public. Room: TBD 11:00 - 12:00 : NCSG with At-Large Open to participation of members of NCSG and At-Large Open to observation by general public Room: TBD 12:30 - 14:00 : Joint ccNSO / GNSO Council Meeting Lunch Open to participation by members of GNSO & ccNSO Councils. Open to observation by members of NGSG and the general public. Room: TBD 17:30 - 19:00 : Workshop on Internet Governance Open to observation by members of NCSG & general public. Room: TBD 19:00 - 20:00 : Board & GNSO Council Cocktail Hour Open to participation by members of GNSO Council & Board of Directors. Room: TBD -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis Mon Feb 27 14:28:52 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:28:52 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY Message-ID: Dear all, The deadline for the public comment period of the defensive registrations of domain names is today. I have drafted a short comment on it - unfortunately, I don't have any time to devote on this. The comments are drafted as NCUC ones and I am asking the NCUC EC to review them and inform me whether they can be send on behalf of the whole constituency (there is simply no time for this to get on the list). I am cc'ing here also the NCSG PC to see whether this can acquire rough consensus so the comments can be send on behalf of NCSG instead. Please send me any comments/amendments or just your OK as soon as possible as the deadline is today. In any case and if you don't agree with these I will amend and send them on my personal capacity. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Defensive Registrations.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 16755 bytes Desc: Defensive Registrations.docx URL: From k.komaitis Mon Feb 27 17:09:13 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:09:13 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft schedule for 13 March (Tuesday) afternoon - NCSG Meetings in Costa Rica In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Robin - can you please add another issue on the agenda: whether there should be one policy list or each constituency should have its own policy lists and have a NCSG announcement list only? This item has been requested by Alain in a conversation we have been having between us concerning the interaction of the two constituencies. Cheers 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 From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: ???????, 26 ??????????? 2012 8:54 ?? To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org; ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org Subject: [PC-NCSG] draft schedule for 13 March (Tuesday) afternoon - NCSG Meetings in Costa Rica Dear All, Please note the below draft meeting and discussion schedule for the afternoon of Tuesday 13 March 2012. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions on these plans. More detailed agenda listing topical issues to be sent shortly. (Note: Constituencies meet in the morning on Tuesday). Thanks, Robin Schedule for afternoon of TUESDAY 13 March 2012 in Costa Rica 13:30 - 17:30 --> NCSG Meetings Schedule 13:30 : Welcome & introductions 13:45 : Reports from constituencies on their morning discussions 14:00 : NCSG Policy Issues 15:00 : Prepare for mtg with Board 15:20 : BREAK to meet with Board (room change) 15:30 : NCSG with Board of Directors 16:30 : BREAK (room change) 16:45 : NCSG Meeting reconvene NCSG prep for GNSO Meeting on Wed. & Public Forum 17:30 : BREAK: Head for cocktails and don't look back Later : MUSIC NIGHT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bkuerbis Mon Feb 27 18:02:30 2012 From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 11:02:30 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: KK, Thank you for drafting these comments, which I support being sent on behalf of the NCUC. I would also encourage that they be sent on behalf of the NCSG-PC. --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis < k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote: > Dear all,**** > > ** ** > > The deadline for the public comment period of the defensive registrations > of domain names is today. I have drafted a short comment on it ? > unfortunately, I don?t have any time to devote on this. **** > > ** ** > > The comments are drafted as NCUC ones and I am asking the NCUC EC to > review them and inform me whether they can be send on behalf of the whole > constituency (there is simply no time for this to get on the list). **** > > ** ** > > I am cc?ing here also the NCSG PC to see whether this can acquire rough > consensus so the comments can be send on behalf of NCSG instead.**** > > ** ** > > Please send me any comments/amendments or just your OK as soon as possible > as the deadline is today. In any case and if you don?t agree with these I > will amend and send them on my personal capacity.**** > > ** ** > > 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**** > > ** ** > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis Mon Feb 27 18:12:21 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 16:12:21 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD20A6A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD20A6A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Thanks Milton - please use this version as the latest one that will be sent. I will hold on to it until late tonight and then will send it. I am still waiting to hear from NCSG and the rest of the NCUC EC. Best 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 From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: ???????, 27 ??????????? 2012 4:08 ?? To: Konstantinos Komaitis; EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org; pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Cc: Robin Gross (robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG) Subject: RE: URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY KK: Excellent comments, I have edited them. In particular, I think your point is stronger by pointing out all the existing mechanisms first, and then explaining why we don't need more. See attached for revised doc, To save you time I did not use the track function. From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 7:29 AM To: EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org; pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Cc: Milton L Mueller; Robin Gross (robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG) Subject: URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY Importance: High Dear all, The deadline for the public comment period of the defensive registrations of domain names is today. I have drafted a short comment on it - unfortunately, I don't have any time to devote on this. The comments are drafted as NCUC ones and I am asking the NCUC EC to review them and inform me whether they can be send on behalf of the whole constituency (there is simply no time for this to get on the list). I am cc'ing here also the NCSG PC to see whether this can acquire rough consensus so the comments can be send on behalf of NCSG instead. Please send me any comments/amendments or just your OK as soon as possible as the deadline is today. In any case and if you don't agree with these I will amend and send them on my personal capacity. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Defensive Registrations.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 17135 bytes Desc: Defensive Registrations.docx URL: From avri Mon Feb 27 19:09:27 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:09:27 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD20A6A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: As an observer to the NCSG-PC, I believe that it is a very fine statement and recommend endorsing it as an NCSG Stmt. Also, > We all have witness the recent Congressional and Senate Hearings on ICANN?s should probably be: We all have witnessed the recent Congressional and Senate Hearings on ICANN?s avri On 27 Feb 2012, at 11:12, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > Thanks Milton ? please use this version as the latest one that will be sent. I will hold on to it until late tonight and then will send it. I am still waiting to hear from NCSG and the rest of the NCUC EC. > > Best > > KK From k.komaitis Mon Feb 27 19:12:49 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:12:49 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD20A6A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: thanks Avri - noted and corrected. Here is the new version. 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 Avri Doria Sent: ???????, 27 ??????????? 2012 5:09 ?? To: NCSG-Policy Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY As an observer to the NCSG-PC, I believe that it is a very fine statement and recommend endorsing it as an NCSG Stmt. Also, > We all have witness the recent Congressional and Senate Hearings on ICANN's should probably be: We all have witnessed the recent Congressional and Senate Hearings on ICANN's avri On 27 Feb 2012, at 11:12, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > Thanks Milton - please use this version as the latest one that will be sent. I will hold on to it until late tonight and then will send it. I am still waiting to hear from NCSG and the rest of the NCUC EC. > > Best > > KK _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Defensive Registrations.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 16855 bytes Desc: Defensive Registrations.docx URL: From william.drake Mon Feb 27 20:50:49 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:50:49 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD20A6A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi, Nice statement, thanks for doing, support as NCSG. BD On Feb 27, 2012, at 6:12 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > thanks Avri - noted and corrected. > > Here is the new version. > > 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 Avri Doria > Sent: ???????, 27 ??????????? 2012 5:09 ?? > To: NCSG-Policy > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY > > > > As an observer to the NCSG-PC, I believe that it is a very fine statement and recommend endorsing it as an NCSG Stmt. > > Also, > >> We all have witness the recent Congressional and Senate Hearings on ICANN's > > should probably be: > > We all have witnessed the recent Congressional and Senate Hearings on ICANN's > > avri > > > On 27 Feb 2012, at 11:12, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > >> Thanks Milton - please use this version as the latest one that will be sent. I will hold on to it until late tonight and then will send it. I am still waiting to hear from NCSG and the rest of the NCUC EC. >> >> Best >> >> KK > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From k.komaitis Mon Feb 27 21:21:28 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:21:28 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Ec-ncuc] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear all, Thanks for your feedback. Given the lateness in time here , I have submitted the comments on behalf of NCUC, having a unanimous vote from the NCUC EC. Should the NCSG PC decide to endorse these comments, I suggest someone sends an email endorsing them ? this will be sufficient. Many thanks for those who have responded. Best KK From: Carlos Afonso > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:09:36 +0000 To: Brenden Kuerbis > Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis >, "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" >, "EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org" > Subject: Re: [Ec-ncuc] [PC-NCSG] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY KK, I agree with Brenden and with the latest version as revised by MM. frt rgds --c.a. sent from a dumbphone On 27/02/2012, at 13:02, Brenden Kuerbis > wrote: KK, Thank you for drafting these comments, which I support being sent on behalf of the NCUC. I would also encourage that they be sent on behalf of the NCSG-PC. --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis > wrote: Dear all, The deadline for the public comment period of the defensive registrations of domain names is today. I have drafted a short comment on it ? unfortunately, I don?t have any time to devote on this. The comments are drafted as NCUC ones and I am asking the NCUC EC to review them and inform me whether they can be send on behalf of the whole constituency (there is simply no time for this to get on the list). I am cc?ing here also the NCSG PC to see whether this can acquire rough consensus so the comments can be send on behalf of NCSG instead. Please send me any comments/amendments or just your OK as soon as possible as the deadline is today. In any case and if you don?t agree with these I will amend and send them on my personal capacity. 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 _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ Ec-ncuc mailing list Ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/ec-ncuc From asterling Mon Feb 27 22:00:01 2012 From: asterling (Amber Sterling) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:00:01 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Ec-ncuc] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5C2ED0B08B6C4642BE29890FA61411E49CAD67C9@ADL4-EXMB-01.adm.aamc.org> The NPOC respects the opinion of the NCUC and the comments drafted by Konstantinos, however requests that they not be endorsed as a NCSG statement. Kind regards, Amber Amber Sterling Senior Intellectual Property Specialist Association of American Medical Colleges -----Original Message----- From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 2:21 PM To: Carlos A. Afonso; Brenden Kuerbis Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org; EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [Ec-ncuc] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY Dear all, Thanks for your feedback. Given the lateness in time here , I have submitted the comments on behalf of NCUC, having a unanimous vote from the NCUC EC. Should the NCSG PC decide to endorse these comments, I suggest someone sends an email endorsing them - this will be sufficient. Many thanks for those who have responded. Best KK From: Carlos Afonso > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:09:36 +0000 To: Brenden Kuerbis > Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis >, "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" >, "EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org" > Subject: Re: [Ec-ncuc] [PC-NCSG] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY KK, I agree with Brenden and with the latest version as revised by MM. frt rgds --c.a. sent from a dumbphone On 27/02/2012, at 13:02, Brenden Kuerbis > wrote: KK, Thank you for drafting these comments, which I support being sent on behalf of the NCUC. I would also encourage that they be sent on behalf of the NCSG-PC. --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis > wrote: Dear all, The deadline for the public comment period of the defensive registrations of domain names is today. I have drafted a short comment on it - unfortunately, I don't have any time to devote on this. The comments are drafted as NCUC ones and I am asking the NCUC EC to review them and inform me whether they can be send on behalf of the whole constituency (there is simply no time for this to get on the list). I am cc'ing here also the NCSG PC to see whether this can acquire rough consensus so the comments can be send on behalf of NCSG instead. Please send me any comments/amendments or just your OK as soon as possible as the deadline is today. In any case and if you don't agree with these I will amend and send them on my personal capacity. 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 _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ Ec-ncuc mailing list Ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/ec-ncuc _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From robin Mon Feb 27 22:19:24 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:19:24 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Ec-ncuc] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY In-Reply-To: <5C2ED0B08B6C4642BE29890FA61411E49CAD67C9@ADL4-EXMB-01.adm.aamc.org> References: <5C2ED0B08B6C4642BE29890FA61411E49CAD67C9@ADL4-EXMB-01.adm.aamc.org> Message-ID: <336B1929-DDDF-41D9-A3AA-BBD2819E4734@ipjustice.org> According to the NCSG Charter, decisions of the NCSG-PC are made by rough consensus of the NCSG-PC Members. So if there are individual members of the NCSG-PC who have disagreements with the statement, they should express what their concerns are, so there is an opportunity to hear and consider all views before the PC makes its decision. So please explain rationales for positions so we can move forward with the decision making process as laid out in our process. Thanks. Best, Robin NCSG Charter: 2.5.2. NCSG?PC Decision making By default NCSG?PC decisions are made by rough consensus of full NCSG?PC members. Rough consensus means that while all members do not need to agree and that no single member can veto a decision, all views must be heard and considered. Any minority views must be recorded along with the rough consensus position. On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Amber Sterling wrote: > The NPOC respects the opinion of the NCUC and the comments drafted by Konstantinos, however requests that they not be endorsed as a NCSG statement. > > Kind regards, > Amber > > Amber Sterling > Senior Intellectual Property Specialist > Association of American Medical Colleges > > -----Original Message----- > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 2:21 PM > To: Carlos A. Afonso; Brenden Kuerbis > Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org; EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [Ec-ncuc] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY > > Dear all, > > Thanks for your feedback. Given the lateness in time here , I have submitted the comments on behalf of NCUC, having a unanimous vote from the NCUC EC. > > Should the NCSG PC decide to endorse these comments, I suggest someone sends an email endorsing them - this will be sufficient. > > Many thanks for those who have responded. > > Best > > KK > > From: Carlos Afonso > > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:09:36 +0000 > To: Brenden Kuerbis > > Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis >, "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" >, "EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org" > > Subject: Re: [Ec-ncuc] [PC-NCSG] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY > > KK, I agree with Brenden and with the latest version as revised by MM. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > sent from a dumbphone > > On 27/02/2012, at 13:02, Brenden Kuerbis > wrote: > > KK, > > Thank you for drafting these comments, which I support being sent on behalf of the NCUC. I would also encourage that they be sent on behalf of the NCSG-PC. > > > --------------------------------------- > Brenden Kuerbis > Internet Governance Project > http://internetgovernance.org > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis > wrote: > Dear all, > > The deadline for the public comment period of the defensive registrations of domain names is today. I have drafted a short comment on it - unfortunately, I don't have any time to devote on this. > > The comments are drafted as NCUC ones and I am asking the NCUC EC to review them and inform me whether they can be send on behalf of the whole constituency (there is simply no time for this to get on the list). > > I am cc'ing here also the NCSG PC to see whether this can acquire rough consensus so the comments can be send on behalf of NCSG instead. > > Please send me any comments/amendments or just your OK as soon as possible as the deadline is today. In any case and if you don't agree with these I will amend and send them on my personal capacity. > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > Ec-ncuc mailing list > Ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/ec-ncuc > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From asterling Mon Feb 27 22:30:39 2012 From: asterling (Amber Sterling) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:30:39 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Ec-ncuc] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY In-Reply-To: <336B1929-DDDF-41D9-A3AA-BBD2819E4734@ipjustice.org> References: <5C2ED0B08B6C4642BE29890FA61411E49CAD67C9@ADL4-EXMB-01.adm.aamc.org> <336B1929-DDDF-41D9-A3AA-BBD2819E4734@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <5C2ED0B08B6C4642BE29890FA61411E49CAD6894@ADL4-EXMB-01.adm.aamc.org> My understanding is that these comments were posted for consideration and review this morning with a tight turnaround time of today. I unfortunately do not have today to make a fully reasoned and articulate argument. On the NPOC conference call on February 14th, many of our members still feel like that the new gTLD program will cause a rise in the need of defensive registrations; other members feel that the new gTLD program has been co-opted by numerous special interest groups. This is why NPOC is not making a statement itself as we would be unable to come up with a single response that addresses the various viewpoints. To this end, NPOC does not wish to endorse or have the appearance of endorsing any other comments made. Amber Sterling Senior Intellectual Property Specialist Association of American Medical Colleges From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 3:19 PM To: Amber Sterling Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis; Carlos A. Afonso; Brenden Kuerbis; pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org; EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [Ec-ncuc] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY According to the NCSG Charter, decisions of the NCSG-PC are made by rough consensus of the NCSG-PC Members. So if there are individual members of the NCSG-PC who have disagreements with the statement, they should express what their concerns are, so there is an opportunity to hear and consider all views before the PC makes its decision. So please explain rationales for positions so we can move forward with the decision making process as laid out in our process. Thanks. Best, Robin NCSG Charter: 2.5.2. NCSG?PC Decision making * By default NCSG?PC decisions are made by rough consensus of full NCSG?PC members. Rough consensus means that while all members do not need to agree and that no single member can veto a decision, all views must be heard and considered. Any minority views must be recorded along with the rough consensus position. On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Amber Sterling wrote: The NPOC respects the opinion of the NCUC and the comments drafted by Konstantinos, however requests that they not be endorsed as a NCSG statement. Kind regards, Amber Amber Sterling Senior Intellectual Property Specialist Association of American Medical Colleges -----Original Message----- From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 2:21 PM To: Carlos A. Afonso; Brenden Kuerbis Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org; EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [Ec-ncuc] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY Dear all, Thanks for your feedback. Given the lateness in time here , I have submitted the comments on behalf of NCUC, having a unanimous vote from the NCUC EC. Should the NCSG PC decide to endorse these comments, I suggest someone sends an email endorsing them - this will be sufficient. Many thanks for those who have responded. Best KK From: Carlos Afonso > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:09:36 +0000 To: Brenden Kuerbis > Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis >, "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" >, "EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org" > Subject: Re: [Ec-ncuc] [PC-NCSG] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY KK, I agree with Brenden and with the latest version as revised by MM. frt rgds --c.a. sent from a dumbphone On 27/02/2012, at 13:02, Brenden Kuerbis > wrote: KK, Thank you for drafting these comments, which I support being sent on behalf of the NCUC. I would also encourage that they be sent on behalf of the NCSG-PC. --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis >> wrote: Dear all, The deadline for the public comment period of the defensive registrations of domain names is today. I have drafted a short comment on it - unfortunately, I don't have any time to devote on this. The comments are drafted as NCUC ones and I am asking the NCUC EC to review them and inform me whether they can be send on behalf of the whole constituency (there is simply no time for this to get on the list). I am cc'ing here also the NCSG PC to see whether this can acquire rough consensus so the comments can be send on behalf of NCSG instead. Please send me any comments/amendments or just your OK as soon as possible as the deadline is today. In any case and if you don't agree with these I will amend and send them on my personal capacity. 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> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ Ec-ncuc mailing list Ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org> http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/ec-ncuc _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Tue Feb 28 01:10:47 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:10:47 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Ec-ncuc] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY In-Reply-To: <5C2ED0B08B6C4642BE29890FA61411E49CAD6894@ADL4-EXMB-01.adm.aamc.org> References: <5C2ED0B08B6C4642BE29890FA61411E49CAD67C9@ADL4-EXMB-01.adm.aamc.org> <336B1929-DDDF-41D9-A3AA-BBD2819E4734@ipjustice.org> <5C2ED0B08B6C4642BE29890FA61411E49CAD6894@ADL4-EXMB-01.adm.aamc.org> Message-ID: <39ADF1E9-C57E-4425-8D4C-95949783EDA9@ipjustice.org> Dear Amber, Thanks for making a statement to indicate that NPOC has looked at the issue of new gtlds. Where can we find on the web a transcript or recording of the NPOC calls so the community can learn what the specific views expressed were and can begin to address them? NCSG posts transcripts & .mp3 recordings of all the Policy & EC calls here: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Meetings Where do we look for NPOC's information? Thank you, Robin On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:30 PM, Amber Sterling wrote: > My understanding is that these comments were posted for consideration and review this morning with a tight turnaround time of today. I unfortunately do not have today to make a fully reasoned and articulate argument. > > On the NPOC conference call on February 14th, many of our members still feel like that the new gTLD program will cause a rise in the need of defensive registrations; other members feel that the new gTLD program has been co-opted by numerous special interest groups. This is why NPOC is not making a statement itself as we would be unable to come up with a single response that addresses the various viewpoints. To this end, NPOC does not wish to endorse or have the appearance of endorsing any other comments made. > > Amber Sterling > Senior Intellectual Property Specialist > Association of American Medical Colleges > > From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 3:19 PM > To: Amber Sterling > Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis; Carlos A. Afonso; Brenden Kuerbis; pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org; EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [Ec-ncuc] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY > > According to the NCSG Charter, decisions of the NCSG-PC are made by rough consensus of the NCSG-PC Members. So if there are individual members of the NCSG-PC who have disagreements with the statement, they should express what their concerns are, so there is an opportunity to hear and consider all views before the PC makes its decision. So please explain rationales for positions so we can move forward with the decision making process as laid out in our process. Thanks. > > Best, > Robin > > NCSG Charter: 2.5.2. NCSG?PC Decision making > By default NCSG?PC decisions are made by rough consensus of full NCSG?PC members. Rough consensus means that while all members do not need to agree and that no single member can veto a decision, all views must be heard and considered. Any minority views must be recorded along with the rough consensus position. > > > On Feb 27, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Amber Sterling wrote: > > > The NPOC respects the opinion of the NCUC and the comments drafted by Konstantinos, however requests that they not be endorsed as a NCSG statement. > > Kind regards, > Amber > > Amber Sterling > Senior Intellectual Property Specialist > Association of American Medical Colleges > > -----Original Message----- > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 2:21 PM > To: Carlos A. Afonso; Brenden Kuerbis > Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org; EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [Ec-ncuc] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY > > Dear all, > > Thanks for your feedback. Given the lateness in time here , I have submitted the comments on behalf of NCUC, having a unanimous vote from the NCUC EC. > > Should the NCSG PC decide to endorse these comments, I suggest someone sends an email endorsing them - this will be sufficient. > > Many thanks for those who have responded. > > Best > > KK > > From: Carlos Afonso > > Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 19:09:36 +0000 > To: Brenden Kuerbis > > Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis >, "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" >, "EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org" > > Subject: Re: [Ec-ncuc] [PC-NCSG] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY > > KK, I agree with Brenden and with the latest version as revised by MM. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > sent from a dumbphone > > On 27/02/2012, at 13:02, Brenden Kuerbis > wrote: > > KK, > > Thank you for drafting these comments, which I support being sent on behalf of the NCUC. I would also encourage that they be sent on behalf of the NCSG-PC. > > > --------------------------------------- > Brenden Kuerbis > Internet Governance Project > http://internetgovernance.org > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis > wrote: > Dear all, > > The deadline for the public comment period of the defensive registrations of domain names is today. I have drafted a short comment on it - unfortunately, I don't have any time to devote on this. > > The comments are drafted as NCUC ones and I am asking the NCUC EC to review them and inform me whether they can be send on behalf of the whole constituency (there is simply no time for this to get on the list). > > I am cc'ing here also the NCSG PC to see whether this can acquire rough consensus so the comments can be send on behalf of NCSG instead. > > Please send me any comments/amendments or just your OK as soon as possible as the deadline is today. In any case and if you don't agree with these I will amend and send them on my personal capacity. > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > Ec-ncuc mailing list > Ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/ec-ncuc > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong Wed Feb 29 22:04:32 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 15:04:32 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY In-Reply-To: References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD20A6A5B@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4F4E3E800200005B00086351@smtp.law.unh.edu> Sorry I missed the deadline on this one - been buried in a bunch of day job deadlines and emergencies :( Thanks, KK and everyone, for taking care of it! 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 >>> From: Konstantinos Komaitis To: "'Avri Doria'" , NCSG-Policy CC: "Milton Mueller (Mueller at syr.edu)" , "EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org" Date: 2/27/2012 12:13 PM Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY thanks Avri- noted and corrected. Here is the new version. 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 Avri Doria Sent: ???????, 27 ??????????? 2012 5:09 ?? To: NCSG-Policy Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] URGENT! Comments on defensive registrations of domain names- DEADLINE TODAY As an observer to the NCSG-PC, I believe that it is a very fine statement and recommend endorsing it as an NCSG Stmt. Also, > We all have witness the recent Congressional and Senate Hearings on ICANN's should probably be: We all have witnessed the recent Congressional and Senate Hearings on ICANN's avri On 27 Feb 2012, at 11:12, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > Thanks Milton - please use this version as the latest one that will be sent. I will hold on to it until late tonight and then will send it. I am still waiting to hear from NCSG and the rest of the NCUC EC. > > Best > > KK _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: