From robin  Wed Jan  4 00:22:29 2012
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 14:22:29 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Doodle for January 2012 NCSG Open Policy Discussion
Message-ID: <37755705-6C0E-4DB5-B787-C69D5391F261@ipjustice.org>

Dear Members of NCSG Policy Comte:

Please mark your availability for the JANUARY 2012 NCSG Open Policy Discussion.
    http://www.doodle.com/pc6diagan2ekdayq

This monthly discussion is intended to facilitate direct interaction between the NCSG Policy Committee & the entire NCSG membership.  All NCSG Policy Comte & working group participants are expected to attend.

The call will be held from 16-18 January, just before the 19 January GNSO Council Meeting.

This poll closes on 6 January (EoB in CA), so please mark your availability asap. Thank you!

Robin


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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120103/32da70fa/attachment.html>


From k.komaitis  Fri Jan  6 13:45:07 2012
From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis)
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 11:45:07 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC Public Comment] Thick and Thin Whois
 Preliminary issues report -- draft comment
In-Reply-To: <04AE69FF-9408-4FBE-9AE0-441F56C80A5D@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CB2C8F1D.DF32%k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk>

Just back from holidays and picking up slowly emails ? thanks Wendy for doing this.

Happy new year all

KK

From: "Avri org>" <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:29:26 +0000
To: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC Public Comment] Thick and Thin Whois Preliminary issues report -- draft comment


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

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


Yeah, thanks Wendy.

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

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

avri


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




From k.komaitis  Sun Jan  8 16:17:30 2012
From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis)
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 14:17:30 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Doodle for January 2012 NCSG Open Policy Discussion
In-Reply-To: <37755705-6C0E-4DB5-B787-C69D5391F261@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CB2F55CA.DFCC%k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk>

Hi Robin and all and a happy new year,

For some reason I am not allowed to provide my option for this call. I think this might be because the poll is now closed ? can we re-open it?

Thanks

KK

From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 22:22:29 +0000
To: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Doodle for January 2012 NCSG Open Policy Discussion

Dear Members of NCSG Policy Comte:

Please mark your availability for the JANUARY 2012 NCSG Open Policy Discussion.
    http://www.doodle.com/pc6diagan2ekdayq

This monthly discussion is intended to facilitate direct interaction between the NCSG Policy Committee & the entire NCSG membership.  All NCSG Policy Comte & working group participants are expected to attend.

The call will be held from 16-18 January, just before the 19 January GNSO Council Meeting.

This poll closes on 6 January (EoB in CA), so please mark your availability asap. Thank you!

Robin


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






From robin  Sun Jan  8 18:57:57 2012
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2012 08:57:57 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Doodle for January 2012 NCSG Open Policy Discussion
In-Reply-To: <CB2F55CA.DFCC%k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk>
References: <CB2F55CA.DFCC%k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <5EE4A239-5BA2-4F80-93B4-FA6E77DF0AFD@ipjustice.org>

Hi KK,

I'm not sure why this doodle won't accept an entry from you.  Sorry for the inconvenience.  Can you instead send me your availability via email and I'll incorporate it into the doodle?

Thanks much,
Robin

On Jan 8, 2012, at 6:17 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:

> Hi Robin and all and a happy new year,
> 
> For some reason I am not allowed to provide my option for this call. I think this might be because the poll is now closed ? can we re-open it?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> KK
> 
> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
> Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2012 22:22:29 +0000
> To: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Doodle for January 2012 NCSG Open Policy Discussion
> 
> Dear Members of NCSG Policy Comte:
> 
> Please mark your availability for the JANUARY 2012 NCSG Open Policy Discussion.
>    http://www.doodle.com/pc6diagan2ekdayq
> 
> This monthly discussion is intended to facilitate direct interaction between the NCSG Policy Committee & the entire NCSG membership.  All NCSG Policy Comte & working group participants are expected to attend.
> 
> The call will be held from 16-18 January, just before the 19 January GNSO Council Meeting.
> 
> This poll closes on 6 January (EoB in CA), so please mark your availability asap. Thank you!
> 
> Robin
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
> 
> 
> 
> 




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






From robin  Fri Jan 13 22:40:16 2012
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 12:40:16 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Preliminary GNSO Issue
	Report on the RAA Amendments
In-Reply-To: <F3EA2382-8128-4B61-89CE-1B1A9C3EEDC7@acm.org>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD20741D1@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<F3EA2382-8128-4B61-89CE-1B1A9C3EEDC7@acm.org>
Message-ID: <82A50F89-372E-4ACB-8B76-62CB3182C8F5@ipjustice.org>

Yes, I also support this clear statement and request the NCSG-PC to consider endorsing the statement.

Thanks,
Robin



On Jan 13, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> i support this statement and support the PCs endorsing it as an NCSG or at least NCUC Statement
> 
> avri
> 
> On 13 Jan 2012, at 12:52, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
>> Comments of Dr. Milton Mueller on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments
>> 
>> As a member of the Executive Committee of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group, I am happy to see that the board has recognized that these demands for changes to the RAA are important policy issues. As such, they should be handled by the GNSO, not through bilateral negotiations between Registrars and ICANN, and not through unilateral dicta from the GAC and law-enforcement agencies.
>> 
>> However, the value of this exercise is diminished by our knowledge that private negotiations between registrars and ICANN are already underway, dealing with basically the same issues. This creates confusion and raises the danger of a lack of representation in the evolution of a solution. The issues report does not seem to clarify how these two processes intersect. It is our view that the conclusions of a PDP would override any private agreements made.
>> 
>> The way registrars handle the personal, financial and technical data of their customers, and the way they interact with law enforcement agencies, is a policy issue of the highest order. It involves privacy and freedom of expression issues, due process issues, as well as cyber-security and the effectiveness of legitimate law enforcement in a globalized environment. The issue is complicated by the fact that law enforcement from governments anywhere in the world would be involved, and some of them are not committed to due process, individual liberty or privacy. Even legitimate governments can engage in illegitimate, extra-territorial assertions of their authority or abuses of due process. LEAs have a long history of demanding access to information that makes their jobs easier, and this is a legitimate concern. However, in democratic countries the demands of law enforcement have always been constrained by the procedural and substantive rights of individuals. ICANN must take this into account.
>> 
>> The demands of LEAs to make registrars collect, maintain and validate data is reminiscent of what China and South Korea have called a "real names" policy, which makes all participation in Internet communication contingent upon giving government authorities sensitive personal identification information and a blanket authority to discontinue service should any wrongdoing be suspected. This not only raises civil liberties issues, but places potentially enormous cost burdens on registrars.
>> 
>> The concept of intermediary responsibility is being actively debated in a number of Internet policy making forums. (E.g., see the recent OECD report "The Role of Internet Intermediaries in Advancing Public Policy Objectives."*  A point of consensus in this controversial topic is that any attempt to load up Internet intermediaries (such as domain name registrars) with too many ancillary responsibilities can stifle the innovation and growth we have come to associate with the Internet economy. It can also unfairly distribute the costs and burdens involved. Registrars who are expected to react instantly to any demand that comes to them from anyone claiming to be law enforcement will reduce their risk and liability by acceding to what may be unjust demands and sacrificing the rights of their users. 
>> 
>> I and many others in the broader ICANN community were troubled by the way in which the Board seems to have been stampeded into RAA amendments by a few GAC members. It is important to keep in mind that the resolutions or "decisions" made by the GAC's governmental members are not subject to ratification by their national legislatures, or to review by their national courts. Thus, the GAC has no legitimacy as a policy making organ and no authority to demand changes to the RAA. As an Advisory Committee, they can and should make us aware of certain concerns, but they are in no position to bypass ICANN's own policy development processes. Furthermore, we continue to be troubled by the failure or refusal of the law enforcement agencies making these demands to liaise with noncommercial users or civil liberties groups. 
>> 
>> We therefore support the initiation of a legitimate, inclusive policy development process that includes all stakeholders, including governments and law enforcement agencies. This kind of balanced, multi-stakeholder process is not simply a matter of fairness, it is eminently practical when dealing with a globalized jurisdiction where no single government can claim to be a legitimate representative of all the people and businesses involved. Proposals that come from one stakeholder group are certain to be suboptimal or harmful to other stakeholder groups. ICANN was created to resolve these conflicts of interest in a balanced way that includes all affected groups.  
>> 
>> * http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,3746,en_2649_34223_48773090_1_1_1_1,00.html
>> 
>> Milton L. Mueller
>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>> Internet Governance Project
>> http://blog.internetgovernance.org 
>> 
> 




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






From william.drake  Sat Jan 14 12:01:10 2012
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 11:01:10 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Preliminary GNSO Issue
	Report on the RAA Amendments
In-Reply-To: <82A50F89-372E-4ACB-8B76-62CB3182C8F5@ipjustice.org>
References: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD20741D1@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<F3EA2382-8128-4B61-89CE-1B1A9C3EEDC7@acm.org>
	<82A50F89-372E-4ACB-8B76-62CB3182C8F5@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CCAB68EE-C059-4FB3-B563-1BE76AE05847@uzh.ch>

So I guess we need to hear an aye from each PC member?here's mine?.


On Jan 13, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> Yes, I also support this clear statement and request the NCSG-PC to consider endorsing the statement.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 13, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> i support this statement and support the PCs endorsing it as an NCSG or at least NCUC Statement
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 13 Jan 2012, at 12:52, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> 
>>> Comments of Dr. Milton Mueller on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments
>>> 
>>> As a member of the Executive Committee of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group, I am happy to see that the board has recognized that these demands for changes to the RAA are important policy issues. As such, they should be handled by the GNSO, not through bilateral negotiations between Registrars and ICANN, and not through unilateral dicta from the GAC and law-enforcement agencies.
>>> 
>>> However, the value of this exercise is diminished by our knowledge that private negotiations between registrars and ICANN are already underway, dealing with basically the same issues. This creates confusion and raises the danger of a lack of representation in the evolution of a solution. The issues report does not seem to clarify how these two processes intersect. It is our view that the conclusions of a PDP would override any private agreements made.
>>> 
>>> The way registrars handle the personal, financial and technical data of their customers, and the way they interact with law enforcement agencies, is a policy issue of the highest order. It involves privacy and freedom of expression issues, due process issues, as well as cyber-security and the effectiveness of legitimate law enforcement in a globalized environment. The issue is complicated by the fact that law enforcement from governments anywhere in the world would be involved, and some of them are not committed to due process, individual liberty or privacy. Even legitimate governments can engage in illegitimate, extra-territorial assertions of their authority or abuses of due process. LEAs have a long history of demanding access to information that makes their jobs easier, and this is a legitimate concern. However, in democratic countries the demands of law enforcement have always been constrained by the procedural and substantive rights of individuals. ICANN must take t!
> his into account.
>>> 
>>> The demands of LEAs to make registrars collect, maintain and validate data is reminiscent of what China and South Korea have called a "real names" policy, which makes all participation in Internet communication contingent upon giving government authorities sensitive personal identification information and a blanket authority to discontinue service should any wrongdoing be suspected. This not only raises civil liberties issues, but places potentially enormous cost burdens on registrars.
>>> 
>>> The concept of intermediary responsibility is being actively debated in a number of Internet policy making forums. (E.g., see the recent OECD report "The Role of Internet Intermediaries in Advancing Public Policy Objectives."*  A point of consensus in this controversial topic is that any attempt to load up Internet intermediaries (such as domain name registrars) with too many ancillary responsibilities can stifle the innovation and growth we have come to associate with the Internet economy. It can also unfairly distribute the costs and burdens involved. Registrars who are expected to react instantly to any demand that comes to them from anyone claiming to be law enforcement will reduce their risk and liability by acceding to what may be unjust demands and sacrificing the rights of their users. 
>>> 
>>> I and many others in the broader ICANN community were troubled by the way in which the Board seems to have been stampeded into RAA amendments by a few GAC members. It is important to keep in mind that the resolutions or "decisions" made by the GAC's governmental members are not subject to ratification by their national legislatures, or to review by their national courts. Thus, the GAC has no legitimacy as a policy making organ and no authority to demand changes to the RAA. As an Advisory Committee, they can and should make us aware of certain concerns, but they are in no position to bypass ICANN's own policy development processes. Furthermore, we continue to be troubled by the failure or refusal of the law enforcement agencies making these demands to liaise with noncommercial users or civil liberties groups. 
>>> 
>>> We therefore support the initiation of a legitimate, inclusive policy development process that includes all stakeholders, including governments and law enforcement agencies. This kind of balanced, multi-stakeholder process is not simply a matter of fairness, it is eminently practical when dealing with a globalized jurisdiction where no single government can claim to be a legitimate representative of all the people and businesses involved. Proposals that come from one stakeholder group are certain to be suboptimal or harmful to other stakeholder groups. ICANN was created to resolve these conflicts of interest in a balanced way that includes all affected groups.  
>>> 
>>> * http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,3746,en_2649_34223_48773090_1_1_1_1,00.html
>>> 
>>> Milton L. Mueller
>>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>>> Internet Governance Project
>>> http://blog.internetgovernance.org 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From k.komaitis  Sat Jan 14 12:31:30 2012
From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis)
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:31:30 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Preliminary GNSO Issue
 Report on the RAA Amendments
In-Reply-To: <CCAB68EE-C059-4FB3-B563-1BE76AE05847@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <CB3709FA.E28F%k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk>

+1

KK

From: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:01:10 +0000
To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
Cc: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the RAA Amendments

So I guess we need to hear an aye from each PC member?here's mine?.


On Jan 13, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

Yes, I also support this clear statement and request the NCSG-PC to consider endorsing the statement.
Thanks,
Robin
On Jan 13, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
i support this statement and support the PCs endorsing it as an NCSG or at least NCUC Statement
avri
On 13 Jan 2012, at 12:52, Milton L Mueller wrote:
Comments of Dr. Milton Mueller on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments
As a member of the Executive Committee of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group, I am happy to see that the board has recognized that these demands for changes to the RAA are important policy issues. As such, they should be handled by the GNSO, not through bilateral negotiations between Registrars and ICANN, and not through unilateral dicta from the GAC and law-enforcement agencies.
However, the value of this exercise is diminished by our knowledge that private negotiations between registrars and ICANN are already underway, dealing with basically the same issues. This creates confusion and raises the danger of a lack of representation in the evolution of a solution. The issues report does not seem to clarify how these two processes intersect. It is our view that the conclusions of a PDP would override any private agreements made.
The way registrars handle the personal, financial and technical data of their customers, and the way they interact with law enforcement agencies, is a policy issue of the highest order. It involves privacy and freedom of expression issues, due process issues, as well as cyber-security and the effectiveness of legitimate law enforcement in a globalized environment. The issue is complicated by the fact that law enforcement from governments anywhere in the world would be involved, and some of them are not committed to due process, individual liberty or privacy. Even legitimate governments can engage in illegitimate, extra-territorial assertions of their authority or abuses of due process. LEAs have a long history of demanding access to information that makes their jobs easier, and this is a legitimate concern. However, in democratic countries the demands of law enforcement have always been constrained by the procedural and substantive rights of individuals. ICANN must take t!
his into account.
The demands of LEAs to make registrars collect, maintain and validate data is reminiscent of what China and South Korea have called a "real names" policy, which makes all participation in Internet communication contingent upon giving government authorities sensitive personal identification information and a blanket authority to discontinue service should any wrongdoing be suspected. This not only raises civil liberties issues, but places potentially enormous cost burdens on registrars.
The concept of intermediary responsibility is being actively debated in a number of Internet policy making forums. (E.g., see the recent OECD report "The Role of Internet Intermediaries in Advancing Public Policy Objectives."*  A point of consensus in this controversial topic is that any attempt to load up Internet intermediaries (such as domain name registrars) with too many ancillary responsibilities can stifle the innovation and growth we have come to associate with the Internet economy. It can also unfairly distribute the costs and burdens involved. Registrars who are expected to react instantly to any demand that comes to them from anyone claiming to be law enforcement will reduce their risk and liability by acceding to what may be unjust demands and sacrificing the rights of their users.
I and many others in the broader ICANN community were troubled by the way in which the Board seems to have been stampeded into RAA amendments by a few GAC members. It is important to keep in mind that the resolutions or "decisions" made by the GAC's governmental members are not subject to ratification by their national legislatures, or to review by their national courts. Thus, the GAC has no legitimacy as a policy making organ and no authority to demand changes to the RAA. As an Advisory Committee, they can and should make us aware of certain concerns, but they are in no position to bypass ICANN's own policy development processes. Furthermore, we continue to be troubled by the failure or refusal of the law enforcement agencies making these demands to liaise with noncommercial users or civil liberties groups.
We therefore support the initiation of a legitimate, inclusive policy development process that includes all stakeholders, including governments and law enforcement agencies. This kind of balanced, multi-stakeholder process is not simply a matter of fairness, it is eminently practical when dealing with a globalized jurisdiction where no single government can claim to be a legitimate representative of all the people and businesses involved. Proposals that come from one stakeholder group are certain to be suboptimal or harmful to other stakeholder groups. ICANN was created to resolve these conflicts of interest in a balanced way that includes all affected groups.
* http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,3746,en_2649_34223_48773090_1_1_1_1,00.html
Milton L. Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
Internet Governance Project
http://blog.internetgovernance.org
IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


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




From bkuerbis  Sun Jan 15 18:21:15 2012
From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis)
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:21:15 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Preliminary GNSO Issue
 Report on the RAA Amendments
In-Reply-To: <CB3709FA.E28F%k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk>
References: <CCAB68EE-C059-4FB3-B563-1BE76AE05847@uzh.ch>
	<CB3709FA.E28F%k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <CANwsP3B5Tvsx3+-fD9GLQuKDrJr4-ytQP-KPXxJdwVDSf7Xj6Q@mail.gmail.com>

As I expressed previously on the NCSG Discuss list, +1

---------------------------------------
Brenden Kuerbis
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org


On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis <
k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote:

> +1
>
> KK
>
> From: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
> Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:01:10 +0000
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
> Cc: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>" <
> pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Preliminary GNSO
> Issue Report on the RAA Amendments
>
> So I guess we need to hear an aye from each PC member?here's mine?.
>
>
> On Jan 13, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>
> Yes, I also support this clear statement and request the NCSG-PC to
> consider endorsing the statement.
> Thanks,
> Robin
> On Jan 13, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> i support this statement and support the PCs endorsing it as an NCSG or at
> least NCUC Statement
> avri
> On 13 Jan 2012, at 12:52, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Comments of Dr. Milton Mueller on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the
> Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments
> As a member of the Executive Committee of the Noncommercial Stakeholders
> Group, I am happy to see that the board has recognized that these demands
> for changes to the RAA are important policy issues. As such, they should be
> handled by the GNSO, not through bilateral negotiations between Registrars
> and ICANN, and not through unilateral dicta from the GAC and
> law-enforcement agencies.
> However, the value of this exercise is diminished by our knowledge that
> private negotiations between registrars and ICANN are already underway,
> dealing with basically the same issues. This creates confusion and raises
> the danger of a lack of representation in the evolution of a solution. The
> issues report does not seem to clarify how these two processes intersect.
> It is our view that the conclusions of a PDP would override any private
> agreements made.
> The way registrars handle the personal, financial and technical data of
> their customers, and the way they interact with law enforcement agencies,
> is a policy issue of the highest order. It involves privacy and freedom of
> expression issues, due process issues, as well as cyber-security and the
> effectiveness of legitimate law enforcement in a globalized environment.
> The issue is complicated by the fact that law enforcement from governments
> anywhere in the world would be involved, and some of them are not committed
> to due process, individual liberty or privacy. Even legitimate governments
> can engage in illegitimate, extra-territorial assertions of their authority
> or abuses of due process. LEAs have a long history of demanding access to
> information that makes their jobs easier, and this is a legitimate concern.
> However, in democratic countries the demands of law enforcement have always
> been constrained by the procedural and substantive rights of individuals.
> ICANN must take t!
> his into account.
> The demands of LEAs to make registrars collect, maintain and validate data
> is reminiscent of what China and South Korea have called a "real names"
> policy, which makes all participation in Internet communication contingent
> upon giving government authorities sensitive personal identification
> information and a blanket authority to discontinue service should any
> wrongdoing be suspected. This not only raises civil liberties issues, but
> places potentially enormous cost burdens on registrars.
> The concept of intermediary responsibility is being actively debated in a
> number of Internet policy making forums. (E.g., see the recent OECD report
> "The Role of Internet Intermediaries in Advancing Public Policy
> Objectives."*  A point of consensus in this controversial topic is that any
> attempt to load up Internet intermediaries (such as domain name registrars)
> with too many ancillary responsibilities can stifle the innovation and
> growth we have come to associate with the Internet economy. It can also
> unfairly distribute the costs and burdens involved. Registrars who are
> expected to react instantly to any demand that comes to them from anyone
> claiming to be law enforcement will reduce their risk and liability by
> acceding to what may be unjust demands and sacrificing the rights of their
> users.
> I and many others in the broader ICANN community were troubled by the way
> in which the Board seems to have been stampeded into RAA amendments by a
> few GAC members. It is important to keep in mind that the resolutions or
> "decisions" made by the GAC's governmental members are not subject to
> ratification by their national legislatures, or to review by their national
> courts. Thus, the GAC has no legitimacy as a policy making organ and no
> authority to demand changes to the RAA. As an Advisory Committee, they can
> and should make us aware of certain concerns, but they are in no position
> to bypass ICANN's own policy development processes. Furthermore, we
> continue to be troubled by the failure or refusal of the law enforcement
> agencies making these demands to liaise with noncommercial users or civil
> liberties groups.
> We therefore support the initiation of a legitimate, inclusive policy
> development process that includes all stakeholders, including governments
> and law enforcement agencies. This kind of balanced, multi-stakeholder
> process is not simply a matter of fairness, it is eminently practical when
> dealing with a globalized jurisdiction where no single government can claim
> to be a legitimate representative of all the people and businesses
> involved. Proposals that come from one stakeholder group are certain to be
> suboptimal or harmful to other stakeholder groups. ICANN was created to
> resolve these conflicts of interest in a balanced way that includes all
> affected groups.
> *
> http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,3746,en_2649_34223_48773090_1_1_1_1,00.html
> Milton L. Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> Internet Governance Project
> http://blog.internetgovernance.org
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:
> robin at ipjustice.org>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120115/c9719ef0/attachment.html>


From robin  Sun Jan 15 20:21:18 2012
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2012 10:21:18 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Preliminary GNSO Issue
	Report on the RAA Amendments
In-Reply-To: <CANwsP3B5Tvsx3+-fD9GLQuKDrJr4-ytQP-KPXxJdwVDSf7Xj6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CCAB68EE-C059-4FB3-B563-1BE76AE05847@uzh.ch>
	<CB3709FA.E28F%k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk>
	<CANwsP3B5Tvsx3+-fD9GLQuKDrJr4-ytQP-KPXxJdwVDSf7Xj6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E81F6627-4F36-4D58-A8CA-4DC6A35277FC@ipjustice.org>

Since we've only heard agreement on endorsing this statement in the last week, let's ask any PC members who object to the PC endorsing this statement to speak up in the next 24 hours.  Otherwise, let's send in a NCSG endorsement comment?

Thanks,
Robin


On Jan 15, 2012, at 8:21 AM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:

> As I expressed previously on the NCSG Discuss list, +1
> 
> ---------------------------------------
> Brenden Kuerbis
> Internet Governance Project
> http://internetgovernance.org
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote:
> +1
> 
> KK
> 
> From: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
> Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:01:10 +0000
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
> Cc: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the RAA Amendments
> 
> So I guess we need to hear an aye from each PC member?here's mine?.
> 
> 
> On Jan 13, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
> Yes, I also support this clear statement and request the NCSG-PC to consider endorsing the statement.
> Thanks,
> Robin
> On Jan 13, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> i support this statement and support the PCs endorsing it as an NCSG or at least NCUC Statement
> avri
> On 13 Jan 2012, at 12:52, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Comments of Dr. Milton Mueller on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments
> As a member of the Executive Committee of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group, I am happy to see that the board has recognized that these demands for changes to the RAA are important policy issues. As such, they should be handled by the GNSO, not through bilateral negotiations between Registrars and ICANN, and not through unilateral dicta from the GAC and law-enforcement agencies.
> However, the value of this exercise is diminished by our knowledge that private negotiations between registrars and ICANN are already underway, dealing with basically the same issues. This creates confusion and raises the danger of a lack of representation in the evolution of a solution. The issues report does not seem to clarify how these two processes intersect. It is our view that the conclusions of a PDP would override any private agreements made.
> The way registrars handle the personal, financial and technical data of their customers, and the way they interact with law enforcement agencies, is a policy issue of the highest order. It involves privacy and freedom of expression issues, due process issues, as well as cyber-security and the effectiveness of legitimate law enforcement in a globalized environment. The issue is complicated by the fact that law enforcement from governments anywhere in the world would be involved, and some of them are not committed to due process, individual liberty or privacy. Even legitimate governments can engage in illegitimate, extra-territorial assertions of their authority or abuses of due process. LEAs have a long history of demanding access to information that makes their jobs easier, and this is a legitimate concern. However, in democratic countries the demands of law enforcement have always been constrained by the procedural and substantive rights of individuals. ICANN must take t!
> his into account.
> The demands of LEAs to make registrars collect, maintain and validate data is reminiscent of what China and South Korea have called a "real names" policy, which makes all participation in Internet communication contingent upon giving government authorities sensitive personal identification information and a blanket authority to discontinue service should any wrongdoing be suspected. This not only raises civil liberties issues, but places potentially enormous cost burdens on registrars.
> The concept of intermediary responsibility is being actively debated in a number of Internet policy making forums. (E.g., see the recent OECD report "The Role of Internet Intermediaries in Advancing Public Policy Objectives."*  A point of consensus in this controversial topic is that any attempt to load up Internet intermediaries (such as domain name registrars) with too many ancillary responsibilities can stifle the innovation and growth we have come to associate with the Internet economy. It can also unfairly distribute the costs and burdens involved. Registrars who are expected to react instantly to any demand that comes to them from anyone claiming to be law enforcement will reduce their risk and liability by acceding to what may be unjust demands and sacrificing the rights of their users.
> I and many others in the broader ICANN community were troubled by the way in which the Board seems to have been stampeded into RAA amendments by a few GAC members. It is important to keep in mind that the resolutions or "decisions" made by the GAC's governmental members are not subject to ratification by their national legislatures, or to review by their national courts. Thus, the GAC has no legitimacy as a policy making organ and no authority to demand changes to the RAA. As an Advisory Committee, they can and should make us aware of certain concerns, but they are in no position to bypass ICANN's own policy development processes. Furthermore, we continue to be troubled by the failure or refusal of the law enforcement agencies making these demands to liaise with noncommercial users or civil liberties groups.
> We therefore support the initiation of a legitimate, inclusive policy development process that includes all stakeholders, including governments and law enforcement agencies. This kind of balanced, multi-stakeholder process is not simply a matter of fairness, it is eminently practical when dealing with a globalized jurisdiction where no single government can claim to be a legitimate representative of all the people and businesses involved. Proposals that come from one stakeholder group are certain to be suboptimal or harmful to other stakeholder groups. ICANN was created to resolve these conflicts of interest in a balanced way that includes all affected groups.
> * http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,3746,en_2649_34223_48773090_1_1_1_1,00.html
> Milton L. Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> Internet Governance Project
> http://blog.internetgovernance.org
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120115/4f975071/attachment-0001.html>


From Mary.Wong  Mon Jan 16 18:20:44 2012
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:20:44 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Preliminary GNSO
 IssueReport on the RAA Amendments
Message-ID: <4F1408050200005B00082C43@smtp.law.unh.edu>

Sorry this is late, add my yea vote to the others please. Thanks!

"Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>" <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:


Since we've only heard agreement on endorsing this statement in the last week, let's ask any PC members who object to the PC endorsing this statement to speak up in the next 24 hours.  Otherwise, let's send in a NCSG endorsement comment?

Thanks,
Robin


On Jan 15, 2012, at 8:21 AM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:

> As I expressed previously on the NCSG Discuss list, +1
> 
> ---------------------------------------
> Brenden Kuerbis
> Internet Governance Project
> http://internetgovernance.org
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote:
> +1
> 
> KK
> 
> From: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
> Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:01:10 +0000
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
> Cc: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the RAA Amendments
> 
> So I guess we need to hear an aye from each PC member?here's mine?.
> 
> 
> On Jan 13, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
> Yes, I also support this clear statement and request the NCSG-PC to consider endorsing the statement.
> Thanks,
> Robin
> On Jan 13, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> i support this statement and support the PCs endorsing it as an NCSG or at least NCUC Statement
> avri
> On 13 Jan 2012, at 12:52, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Comments of Dr. Milton Mueller on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments
> As a member of the Executive Committee of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group, I am happy to see that the board has recognized that these demands for changes to the RAA are important policy issues. As such, they should be handled by the GNSO, not through bilateral negotiations between Registrars and ICANN, and not through unilateral dicta from the GAC and law-enforcement agencies.
> However, the value of this exercise is diminished by our knowledge that private negotiations between registrars and ICANN are already underway, dealing with basically the same issues. This creates confusion and raises the danger of a lack of representation in the evolution of a solution. The issues report does not seem to clarify how these two processes intersect. It is our view that the conclusions of a PDP would override any private agreements made.
> The way registrars handle the personal, financial and technical data of their customers, and the way they interact with law enforcement agencies, is a policy issue of the highest order. It involves privacy and freedom of expression issues, due process issues, as well as cyber-security and the effectiveness of legitimate law enforcement in a globalized environment. The issue is complicated by the fact that law enforcement from governments anywhere in the world would be involved, and some of them are not committed to due process, individual liberty or privacy. Even legitimate governments can engage in illegitimate, extra-territorial assertions of their authority or abuses of due process. LEAs have a long history of demanding access to information that makes their jobs easier, and this is a legitimate concern. However, in democratic countries the demands of law enforcement have always been constrained by the procedural and substantive rights of individuals. ICANN must take t!
> his into account.
> The demands of LEAs to make registrars collect, maintain and validate data is reminiscent of what China and South Korea have called a "real names" policy, which makes all participation in Internet communication contingent upon giving government authorities sensitive personal identification information and a blanket authority to discontinue service should any wrongdoing be suspected. This not only raises civil liberties issues, but places potentially enormous cost burdens on registrars.
> The concept of intermediary responsibility is being actively debated in a number of Internet policy making forums. (E.g., see the recent OECD report "The Role of Internet Intermediaries in Advancing Public Policy Objectives."*  A point of consensus in this controversial topic is that any attempt to load up Internet intermediaries (such as domain name registrars) with too many ancillary responsibilities can stifle the innovation and growth we have come to associate with the Internet economy. It can also unfairly distribute the costs and burdens involved. Registrars who are expected to react instantly to any demand that comes to them from anyone claiming to be law enforcement will reduce their risk and liability by acceding to what may be unjust demands and sacrificing the rights of their users.
> I and many others in the broader ICANN community were troubled by the way in which the Board seems to have been stampeded into RAA amendments by a few GAC members. It is important to keep in mind that the resolutions or "decisions" made by the GAC's governmental members are not subject to ratification by their national legislatures, or to review by their national courts. Thus, the GAC has no legitimacy as a policy making organ and no authority to demand changes to the RAA. As an Advisory Committee, they can and should make us aware of certain concerns, but they are in no position to bypass ICANN's own policy development processes. Furthermore, we continue to be troubled by the failure or refusal of the law enforcement agencies making these demands to liaise with noncommercial users or civil liberties groups.
> We therefore support the initiation of a legitimate, inclusive policy development process that includes all stakeholders, including governments and law enforcement agencies. This kind of balanced, multi-stakeholder process is not simply a matter of fairness, it is eminently practical when dealing with a globalized jurisdiction where no single government can claim to be a legitimate representative of all the people and businesses involved. Proposals that come from one stakeholder group are certain to be suboptimal or harmful to other stakeholder groups. ICANN was created to resolve these conflicts of interest in a balanced way that includes all affected groups.
> * http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,3746,en_2649_34223_48773090_1_1_1_1,00.html
> Milton L. Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> Internet Governance Project
> http://blog.internetgovernance.org
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto: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  Mon Jan 16 18:30:19 2012
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:30:19 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Preliminary GNSO
 IssueReport on the RAA Amendments
Message-ID: <4F140A4B0200005B00082C47@smtp.law.unh.edu>


Btw I apologize but I'll be late for today's call.


Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone

----- Reply message -----
From: "<Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>" <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>
To: <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, <robin at ipjustice.org>
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Preliminary GNSO IssueReport on the RAA Amendments
Date: Mon, Jan 16, 2012 11:21




>>> "<Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>" <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> 2012-01-16T11:21:22.424239 >>>
Sorry this is late, add my yea vote to the others please. Thanks!

"Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>" <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:


Since we've only heard agreement on endorsing this statement in the last week, let's ask any PC members who object to the PC endorsing this statement to speak up in the next 24 hours.  Otherwise, let's send in a NCSG endorsement comment?

Thanks,
Robin


On Jan 15, 2012, at 8:21 AM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:

> As I expressed previously on the NCSG Discuss list, +1
> 
> ---------------------------------------
> Brenden Kuerbis
> Internet Governance Project
> http://internetgovernance.org
> 
> 
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote:
> +1
> 
> KK
> 
> From: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
> Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:01:10 +0000
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
> Cc: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the RAA Amendments
> 
> So I guess we need to hear an aye from each PC member?here's mine?.
> 
> 
> On Jan 13, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
> Yes, I also support this clear statement and request the NCSG-PC to consider endorsing the statement.
> Thanks,
> Robin
> On Jan 13, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> i support this statement and support the PCs endorsing it as an NCSG or at least NCUC Statement
> avri
> On 13 Jan 2012, at 12:52, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Comments of Dr. Milton Mueller on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments
> As a member of the Executive Committee of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group, I am happy to see that the board has recognized that these demands for changes to the RAA are important policy issues. As such, they should be handled by the GNSO, not through bilateral negotiations between Registrars and ICANN, and not through unilateral dicta from the GAC and law-enforcement agencies.
> However, the value of this exercise is diminished by our knowledge that private negotiations between registrars and ICANN are already underway, dealing with basically the same issues. This creates confusion and raises the danger of a lack of representation in the evolution of a solution. The issues report does not seem to clarify how these two processes intersect. It is our view that the conclusions of a PDP would override any private agreements made.
> The way registrars handle the personal, financial and technical data of their customers, and the way they interact with law enforcement agencies, is a policy issue of the highest order. It involves privacy and freedom of expression issues, due process issues, as well as cyber-security and the effectiveness of legitimate law enforcement in a globalized environment. The issue is complicated by the fact that law enforcement from governments anywhere in the world would be involved, and some of them are not committed to due process, individual liberty or privacy. Even legitimate governments can engage in illegitimate, extra-territorial assertions of their authority or abuses of due process. LEAs have a long history of demanding access to information that makes their jobs easier, and this is a legitimate concern. However, in democratic countries the demands of law enforcement have always been constrained by the procedural and substantive rights of individuals. ICANN must take t!
> his into account.
> The demands of LEAs to make registrars collect, maintain and validate data is reminiscent of what China and South Korea have called a "real names" policy, which makes all participation in Internet communication contingent upon giving government authorities sensitive personal identification information and a blanket authority to discontinue service should any wrongdoing be suspected. This not only raises civil liberties issues, but places potentially enormous cost burdens on registrars.
> The concept of intermediary responsibility is being actively debated in a number of Internet policy making forums. (E.g., see the recent OECD report "The Role of Internet Intermediaries in Advancing Public Policy Objectives."*  A point of consensus in this controversial topic is that any attempt to load up Internet intermediaries (such as domain name registrars) with too many ancillary responsibilities can stifle the innovation and growth we have come to associate with the Internet economy. It can also unfairly distribute the costs and burdens involved. Registrars who are expected to react instantly to any demand that comes to them from anyone claiming to be law enforcement will reduce their risk and liability by acceding to what may be unjust demands and sacrificing the rights of their users.
> I and many others in the broader ICANN community were troubled by the way in which the Board seems to have been stampeded into RAA amendments by a few GAC members. It is important to keep in mind that the resolutions or "decisions" made by the GAC's governmental members are not subject to ratification by their national legislatures, or to review by their national courts. Thus, the GAC has no legitimacy as a policy making organ and no authority to demand changes to the RAA. As an Advisory Committee, they can and should make us aware of certain concerns, but they are in no position to bypass ICANN's own policy development processes. Furthermore, we continue to be troubled by the failure or refusal of the law enforcement agencies making these demands to liaise with noncommercial users or civil liberties groups.
> We therefore support the initiation of a legitimate, inclusive policy development process that includes all stakeholders, including governments and law enforcement agencies. This kind of balanced, multi-stakeholder process is not simply a matter of fairness, it is eminently practical when dealing with a globalized jurisdiction where no single government can claim to be a legitimate representative of all the people and businesses involved. Proposals that come from one stakeholder group are certain to be suboptimal or harmful to other stakeholder groups. ICANN was created to resolve these conflicts of interest in a balanced way that includes all affected groups.
> * http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,3746,en_2649_34223_48773090_1_1_1_1,00.html
> Milton L. Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> Internet Governance Project
> http://blog.internetgovernance.org
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto: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  Mon Jan 16 20:36:44 2012
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:36:44 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Preliminary GNSO Issue
	Report on the RAA Amendments
In-Reply-To: <E81F6627-4F36-4D58-A8CA-4DC6A35277FC@ipjustice.org>
References: <CCAB68EE-C059-4FB3-B563-1BE76AE05847@uzh.ch>
	<CB3709FA.E28F%k.komaitis@strath.ac.uk>
	<CANwsP3B5Tvsx3+-fD9GLQuKDrJr4-ytQP-KPXxJdwVDSf7Xj6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<E81F6627-4F36-4D58-A8CA-4DC6A35277FC@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <AA868E0C-A517-4A95-B9B5-27179A226B6D@ipjustice.org>

Not hearing any objections to the statement being endorsed as a NCSG position by any members of the NCSG Policy Committee, a comment will be sent to indicate our SG's support of the position articulated by Milton in the comment forum.

Thank you to all the members of the NCSG-PC who participated in this discussion and added their support and also big thanks to Milton for drafting the comment!!

Best,
Robin


On Jan 15, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Robin Gross wrote:

> Since we've only heard agreement on endorsing this statement in the last week, let's ask any PC members who object to the PC endorsing this statement to speak up in the next 24 hours.  Otherwise, let's send in a NCSG endorsement comment?
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Jan 15, 2012, at 8:21 AM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:
> 
>> As I expressed previously on the NCSG Discuss list, +1
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------
>> Brenden Kuerbis
>> Internet Governance Project
>> http://internetgovernance.org
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote:
>> +1
>> 
>> KK
>> 
>> From: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
>> Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:01:10 +0000
>> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
>> Cc: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
>> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the RAA Amendments
>> 
>> So I guess we need to hear an aye from each PC member?here's mine?.
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 13, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> 
>> Yes, I also support this clear statement and request the NCSG-PC to consider endorsing the statement.
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> On Jan 13, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> i support this statement and support the PCs endorsing it as an NCSG or at least NCUC Statement
>> avri
>> On 13 Jan 2012, at 12:52, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> Comments of Dr. Milton Mueller on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments
>> As a member of the Executive Committee of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group, I am happy to see that the board has recognized that these demands for changes to the RAA are important policy issues. As such, they should be handled by the GNSO, not through bilateral negotiations between Registrars and ICANN, and not through unilateral dicta from the GAC and law-enforcement agencies.
>> However, the value of this exercise is diminished by our knowledge that private negotiations between registrars and ICANN are already underway, dealing with basically the same issues. This creates confusion and raises the danger of a lack of representation in the evolution of a solution. The issues report does not seem to clarify how these two processes intersect. It is our view that the conclusions of a PDP would override any private agreements made.
>> The way registrars handle the personal, financial and technical data of their customers, and the way they interact with law enforcement agencies, is a policy issue of the highest order. It involves privacy and freedom of expression issues, due process issues, as well as cyber-security and the effectiveness of legitimate law enforcement in a globalized environment. The issue is complicated by the fact that law enforcement from governments anywhere in the world would be involved, and some of them are not committed to due process, individual liberty or privacy. Even legitimate governments can engage in illegitimate, extra-territorial assertions of their authority or abuses of due process. LEAs have a long history of demanding access to information that makes their jobs easier, and this is a legitimate concern. However, in democratic countries the demands of law enforcement have always been constrained by the procedural and substantive rights of individuals. ICANN must take t!
>> his into account.
>> The demands of LEAs to make registrars collect, maintain and validate data is reminiscent of what China and South Korea have called a "real names" policy, which makes all participation in Internet communication contingent upon giving government authorities sensitive personal identification information and a blanket authority to discontinue service should any wrongdoing be suspected. This not only raises civil liberties issues, but places potentially enormous cost burdens on registrars.
>> The concept of intermediary responsibility is being actively debated in a number of Internet policy making forums. (E.g., see the recent OECD report "The Role of Internet Intermediaries in Advancing Public Policy Objectives."*  A point of consensus in this controversial topic is that any attempt to load up Internet intermediaries (such as domain name registrars) with too many ancillary responsibilities can stifle the innovation and growth we have come to associate with the Internet economy. It can also unfairly distribute the costs and burdens involved. Registrars who are expected to react instantly to any demand that comes to them from anyone claiming to be law enforcement will reduce their risk and liability by acceding to what may be unjust demands and sacrificing the rights of their users.
>> I and many others in the broader ICANN community were troubled by the way in which the Board seems to have been stampeded into RAA amendments by a few GAC members. It is important to keep in mind that the resolutions or "decisions" made by the GAC's governmental members are not subject to ratification by their national legislatures, or to review by their national courts. Thus, the GAC has no legitimacy as a policy making organ and no authority to demand changes to the RAA. As an Advisory Committee, they can and should make us aware of certain concerns, but they are in no position to bypass ICANN's own policy development processes. Furthermore, we continue to be troubled by the failure or refusal of the law enforcement agencies making these demands to liaise with noncommercial users or civil liberties groups.
>> We therefore support the initiation of a legitimate, inclusive policy development process that includes all stakeholders, including governments and law enforcement agencies. This kind of balanced, multi-stakeholder process is not simply a matter of fairness, it is eminently practical when dealing with a globalized jurisdiction where no single government can claim to be a legitimate representative of all the people and businesses involved. Proposals that come from one stakeholder group are certain to be suboptimal or harmful to other stakeholder groups. ICANN was created to resolve these conflicts of interest in a balanced way that includes all affected groups.
>> * http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,3746,en_2649_34223_48773090_1_1_1_1,00.html
>> Milton L. Mueller
>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>> Internet Governance Project
>> http://blog.internetgovernance.org
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120116/9472e8f1/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Mon Jan 16 21:30:28 2012
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:30:28 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?windows-1252?q?Updated_draft__agenda_for_GNSO_Council?=
 =?windows-1252?q?_Meeting_=96_19_January_2012_at_11=3A00UTC=2E?=
References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A95ECEF09@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <56FACA90-25F4-4E0E-AE4A-1E31221C33F4@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: January 16, 2012 11:24:48 AM PST
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] Updated draft agenda for GNSO Council Meeting ? 19 January 2012 at 11:00UTC.
> 
>  
> Dear All,
>  
> Please find the updated draft  agenda for GNSO Council Meeting ? 19 January 2012 at 11:00UTC
>  
> The updates relate to:
>  
> Added Items:
> Item 3: Update Whois Review Team (RT) (10 minutes)
> Item 8: Outreach Task Force Charter (20 minutes)
> Item 9: Whois Accessibility (20 minutes)
> 
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
> 
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
> 
> Glen
> 
> Draft Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting ? 19 January 2012
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-19jan12-en.htm
> 
> Wiki Agenda
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+19+January+2012
> 
> GNSO Council motions
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+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 11:00 UTC
> Coordinated Universal Time: 11:00 UTC
> 
> 03:00 Los Angeles; 06:00 Washington DC; 11:00 London; 12:00 Paris; 20:00 Tokyo;
> 
> 20 January 2012
> 00:00 Wellington
> 
> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed.
> 
> GNSO Council meeting audiocast
> 
> http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
> 
> Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
> 
> 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:
> 
> ?         15  December  GNSO Council minutes ?approved on 3 January 2012. 
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-council-15dec11-en.htm
> .
> 
> Item 2: GNSO Pending Projects List (5 minutes)
> Standard agenda item looking at changes made to the GNSO's Pending Projects list since the previous meeting.
> Refer to Pending Projects list 
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf
> 2.1 Changes to Pending Projects List since last Council meeting (St?phane Van Gelder)
> 
> ? GNSO activities: 9 (9 - No change).
> ? Other activities:  10 (10 ? No Change) 
> ? Joint SO/AC WGs: 7 (7 - no change).
> ? Outstanding recommendations: 2 (2 - no change).
> 
> Item 3: Update Whois Review Team (RT) (10 minutes)
> 
> Recent events like the recent National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) letter
> http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/strickling-to-crocker-03jan12-en.pdf
> show that Whois remains very much in the spotlight. It therefore appears useful for the Council to have an update from the Whois RT so that the Council has a clearer idea of what potential policy development it might be called to work on in the near future.
>  
> The Chair of the Whois RT has kindly agreed to participate in this meeting and provide an update.
>  
> Update from Whois RT Chair (Emily Taylor)
> Discussion
>  
> Item 4: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (IRTP B) Rec 9 part 2 (10 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 for replacing denial reason #7 by adding a new provision in a different section of the IRTP on when and how domains may be locked or unlocked, taking into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report - (Recommendation #9 - part 2).
> 
> Staff submitted its recommendation on January 3, 2012
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html
> 
> ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #8
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-8-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf
> ICANN Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 part 2 [
> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/irtp-b-9-part-2-staff-proposal-22nov11-en.pdf
> 
> Council must now consider whether to approve it.
> 
> Refer to motion :
> 
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+2012
> 
>  
> 
> 4.1 Reading of the motion (Mason Cole).
> 4.2 Discussion
> 4.3 Vote
> 
> Item 5: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (IRTP B) Rec 8 (10 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, 2012 
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html
> 
> Council must now consider whether to approve it.
> 
> Refer to motion 
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+2012
> 
> 5.1 Reading of the motion (Mason Cole).
> 5.2 Discussion
> 5.3 Vote
> 
> Item 6: Cross Community Working Group  Drafting Team (CCWG DT) (10 minutes)
> 
> On January 4, 2012, the CCWG Drafting Team sent the Council Chair its final recommendations with regard to the GNSO's approach on Community Working Groups.
> 
> Refer to:
> Draft Principles for Cross?Community Working Groups (CWGs)
> http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf
> 
> Council must now consider whether to approve these recommendations.
> 
> Refer to motion 
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html
> 
> 6.1 Reading of the motion (Jonathan Robinson).
> 6.2 Discussion
> 6.3 Vote
> 
> Item 7: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B (IRTP B) Rec 7 (10 minutes)
> 
> A resolution was passed by the Council at its Dec 15, 2011 meeting to address recommendation 7 of the IRTP part B WG on the requirement to lock a domain subject to UDRP proceedings.
> 
> Refer to Dec 15 resolution : http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201112
> 
> The new GNSO PDP rules state that a group of volunteers should be convened to draft a WG charter, which should then be approved by the Council.
> 
> This is an information item on the state of the DT.
> 
> 7.1 Update by Staff (Marika Konings).
> 7.2 Discussion
> 7.3 Next steps
> 
> Item 8: Outreach Task Force Charter (20 minutes)
> 
> As part of the GNSO improvements, the Operations Steering Committee (OSC)'s Constituency and Stakeholder Group Operations Work Team worked on a set of recommendations on a global outreach program
> 
> The Council has considered motions on this recently been no agreement has been found. As the original request came from the ICANN Board, the Council leadership feels an answer should be provided. That answer may be not to approve, to approve, or to determine that the Council as a body does not want to voice an opinion, although specific GNSO SGs and Cs are obviously still free to.
> 
> The Council ledareship suggests that is that this topic be discussed at the GNSO week-end sessions in the forthcoming ICANN International Meeting in March 2012. To set the scene for these discussions, this agenda item is to provide some historical context into this topic.
> 
> 8.1 Update and presentation from staff (Liz Gasster)
> 8.2 Discussion
>  
> Item 9: Whois Accessibility (20 minutes)
>  
> The GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 6 October to request the Whois Survey Drafting Team to consider including the issue of WHOIS Access as recommended by the RAP WG as part of the survey it has been tasked to develop. The Whois Survey Drafting Team provided its response to the GNSO Council on 10 January (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12559.html) noting that 'the WSWG determined inclusion of the RAPWG?s recommendation aligned more with policy and thus the WSWG considered it to be out of scope'. In addition, the WSWG provided the GNSO Council in its response with additional information 'so that it may make a better informed decision about the access recommendation'.
> 9.1   Response of WGWS (Wendy Seltzer, Council Liaison to WSWG
> 
> 9.2    Discussion
> 9.3 Next steps
>  
> Item 10: Any Other Business (5 minutes)
>  
>  
> 
> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3)
> 
> 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions:
> 
> 1. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than 25% vote of each House or majority of one House;
> 2. Initiate a Policy Development Process (?PDP?) Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than 33% of each House or more than 66% of one House;
> 3. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than 75% of one House and a majority of the other House (?GNSO Supermajority?);
> 4. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation;
> 5. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority; and
> 6. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that ?a two-thirds vote of the council? demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded with respect to any contracting party affected by such contract provision.
> 
> Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4)
> 
> 4.4.1 Applicability
> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures.
> a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
> b. Approve a PDP recommendation;
> c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws;
> d. Fill a Council position open for election.
> 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting?s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances,announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present.
> 
> 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available.
> 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> Local time between October & March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> California, USA (PST) UTC-8+0DST 03:00 
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 06:00
> Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 08:00 
> Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 09:00
> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 11:00 
> Abuja,Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 12:00
> Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 
> Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 
> Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 12:00 
> Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+0DST 13:00
> Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 16:00 
> Beijing, China (CST ) UTC+8+0DST 19:00 
> Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9+0DST 20:00 
> Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 00:00 next day 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2012, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com
>  
>  
>  
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120116/430af909/attachment-0001.html>


From william.drake  Tue Jan 17 14:05:51 2012
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:05:51 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proxy for Thursday
Message-ID: <2F7842B5-AB1B-42F3-8C4A-DAF7DE8CA7EF@uzh.ch>

Hi

Wolfgang is going into the hospital for knee surgery and will be offline so I'm passing this along.  He will unavailable for the council call, and I already am proxy for Joy, so we need another Councilor to take his.  Could someone coordinate with Robin and Glen to do that?

Thanks,

Bill


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120117/04b08bed/attachment.html>


From wendy  Tue Jan 17 17:45:10 2012
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:45:10 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proxy for Thursday
In-Reply-To: <2F7842B5-AB1B-42F3-8C4A-DAF7DE8CA7EF@uzh.ch>
References: <2F7842B5-AB1B-42F3-8C4A-DAF7DE8CA7EF@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <4F159786.7070906@seltzer.com>

The call is 6 am for me.  I can take the proxy, but don't guarantee I'll
be volubly talking for both of us.

--Wendy

On 01/17/2012 07:05 AM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
> 
> Wolfgang is going into the hospital for knee surgery and will be offline so I'm passing this along.  He will unavailable for the council call, and I already am proxy for Joy, so we need another Councilor to take his.  Could someone coordinate with Robin and Glen to do that?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

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





From wolfgang.kleinwaechter  Tue Jan 17 18:14:48 2012
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:14:48 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proxy for Thursday
References: <2F7842B5-AB1B-42F3-8C4A-DAF7DE8CA7EF@uzh.ch>
	<4F159786.7070906@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C93E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Thanks Wendy
 
this would be helpful. 
 
w
 
 

________________________________

Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Wendy Seltzer
Gesendet: Di 17.01.2012 16:45
Cc: NCSG-Policy
Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Proxy for Thursday



The call is 6 am for me.  I can take the proxy, but don't guarantee I'll
be volubly talking for both of us.

--Wendy

On 01/17/2012 07:05 AM, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Wolfgang is going into the hospital for knee surgery and will be offline so I'm passing this along.  He will unavailable for the council call, and I already am proxy for Joy, so we need another Councilor to take his.  Could someone coordinate with Robin and Glen to do that?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613
Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
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 robin  Tue Jan 17 19:57:08 2012
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:57:08 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proxy for Thursday
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C93E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <2F7842B5-AB1B-42F3-8C4A-DAF7DE8CA7EF@uzh.ch>
	<4F159786.7070906@seltzer.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8D2C93E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <00FDCF6D-52BA-4806-AA24-5D75EC7623CC@ipjustice.org>

I've sent in the form notifying the GNSO that Wolfgang has given his voting proxy to Wendy for the GNSO Council Meeting on the 19th.

Thanks,
Robin


On Jan 17, 2012, at 8:14 AM, Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang wrote:

> Thanks Wendy
> 
> this would be helpful. 
> 
> w
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Wendy Seltzer
> Gesendet: Di 17.01.2012 16:45
> Cc: NCSG-Policy
> Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Proxy for Thursday
> 
> 
> 
> The call is 6 am for me.  I can take the proxy, but don't guarantee I'll
> be volubly talking for both of us.
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> On 01/17/2012 07:05 AM, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> Wolfgang is going into the hospital for knee surgery and will be offline so I'm passing this along.  He will unavailable for the council call, and I already am proxy for Joy, so we need another Councilor to take his.  Could someone coordinate with Robin and Glen to do that?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613
> Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
> 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  Wed Jan 18 02:48:40 2012
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:48:40 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Information Request - GNSO Toolkit Checklist Survey
	For FY13 -- Deadline 20 February 2012
References: <CB364F3F.2C1A3%robert.hoggarth@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CF53E1F7-A261-474B-B301-4B038D0DD913@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>
> Date: January 13, 2012 6:14:40 PM PST
> To: "David W. Maher" <dmaher at pir.org>, Graham Chynoweth <gchynoweth at dyn.com>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>, Konstantine Komaitis <k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>, Amber Sterling <asterling at aamc.org>
> Cc: Glen de Saint G?ry <gnso-secretariat at gnso.icann.org>, David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>, Liz Gasster <liz.gasster at icann.org>, Chris at Andalucia <chris at andalucia.com>
> Subject: Information Request - GNSO Toolkit Checklist Survey For FY13 -- Deadline 20 February 2012
> 
> Dear David, Graham, Marilyn, Tony, Steve, Robin, Amber and Konstantinos;
> 
> I hope you are all enjoying a productive start to the new year.  As previously promised, attached please find a new checklist survey designed to gauge your GNSO Stakeholder Group (SG) or Constituency?s interest in receiving the various available GNSO Toolkit menu services for the ICANN 2013 Fiscal Year (FY13)(starting 1 July 2012). 
>  
> The purpose of the checklist survey is to help build a data set that will allow Policy Staff to contribute to the ICANN FY13 budget development process and otherwise develop staff resource plans for FY13.  It will also help us to organize any necessary follow-up planning discussions for those potentially challenging menu service items (e.g., web presence support, organizational record-keeping and membership contact lists which have been delayed by the longer implementation time of the GNSO web site effort)that will require further community/staff discussions and collaboration.
>  
> The GNSO Toolkit menu is a separate activity from the other budget framework discussions you may be having with the ICANN Finance Team. While some are still under development, the GNSO Toolkit menu services reflect core budget categories that the Policy Staff has taken ownership of and that we plan for in the budget effort as continuing services from year to year.
>  
> Glen needs to have each SG and Constituency?s completed form in hand by COB on 20 February to confirm each community?s desire for specific services in the upcoming fiscal year.  This mid-February date will give Policy Staff the opportunity to fold all the requests into the FY13 budget planning process and to specifically identify or designate potential resources where appropriate.
>  
> The checklist template has been created to provide for a consistent response format, but please feel free to provide expanded comments or additional thoughts for specific menu items when you transmit your completed responses to Glen.
>  
> We have also provided space in the survey for you to comment on the Staff provision/implementation of the various service menu items that you are currently receiving.  This will help us to assess and improve the effectiveness of the existing services.
>  
> This process may be new for some of you, and Glen and I are happy to give you background information. Please send a note to Glen and me if you have questions about any specific part of the checklist. We are also happy to join you for a telephone discussion as well. I have also attached a copy of the original GNSO Toolkit Implementation Plan/Report for your review and background information.
>  
> Finally, there is always room for improvement in the checklist template, so any comments or suggestions you have for improving the information collection process are also most welcomed.
>  
> Best regards,
>  
> Rob Hoggarth
> +1 424 558 4805    

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120117/f7e25105/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GNSO Toolkit Services Checklist (Jan'12).doc
Type: application/x-msword
Size: 93696 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120117/f7e25105/attachment-0002.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120117/f7e25105/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ToolKit Implem Report-Nov 2010.pdf
Type: application/x-msword
Size: 226602 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120117/f7e25105/attachment-0003.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120117/f7e25105/attachment-0005.html>


From william.drake  Thu Jan 19 12:18:59 2012
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:18:59 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Today's motions?
Message-ID: <18B4D764-4EB0-4AC2-8034-D2FBAEF30114@uzh.ch>

I'm very spread thin and multitasked so I've lost track.  Did we decide yes on the two IRTP motions?  Is someone from NC proposing amendments?

Motion on the Adoption of the Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #8
Made by: Mason Cole (as amended)
Seconded by: Jeff Neuman

Motion on the Adoption of the Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #8

WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions:
a. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report (http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf); see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm);
b. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar;
c. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases;
d. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);
e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.

WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011;

WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above;

WHEREAS in relation to recommendation #8, the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to request ?ICANN staff to provide a proposal designed to ensure a technically feasible approach can be developed to meet this recommendation. Staff should take into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report). (IRTP Part B Recommendation #8). The goal of these changes is to clarify why the Lock has been applied and how it can be changed. Upon review of the proposed plan, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation?;

WHEREAS ICANN staff developed the proposal in consultation with the IRTP Part B Working Group which was put out for public comment (seehttp://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-staff-proposals-22nov11-en.htm);

WHEREAS comments were received from the Intellectual Property Constituency, and though received after the comment deadline were nonetheless considered by the GNSO Council, and and the proposal was submitted to the GNSO Council;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the ICANN Staff proposal in relation to IRTP Part B recommendation #8.

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that it adopts and implements IRTP Part B recommendation #8 and the related ICANN Staff proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf andhttp://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html). 

==============
 

Motion on the Adoption of the Staff Proposal on IRTP Part B Recommendation #9 part 2
Made by: Mason Cole (as amended)
Seconded by: Jeff Neuman

WHEREAS on 24 June 2009, the GNSO Council launched a Policy Development Process (PDP) on IRTP Part B addressing the following five charter questions:
a. Whether a process for urgent return/resolution of a domain name should be developed, as discussed within the SSAC hijacking report?(http://www.icann.org/announcements/hijacking-report-12jul05.pdf); see also (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cole-to-tonkin-14mar05.htm);
b. Whether additional provisions on undoing inappropriate transfers are needed, especially with regard to disputes between a Registrant and Admin Contact (AC). The policy is clear that the Registrant can overrule the AC, but how this is implemented is currently at the discretion of the registrar;
c. Whether special provisions are needed for a change of registrant when it occurs near the time of a change of registrar. The policy does not currently deal with change of registrant, which often figures in hijacking cases;
d. Whether standards or best practices should be implemented regarding use of a Registrar Lock status (e.g. when it may/may not, should/should not be applied);?e. Whether, and if so, how best to clarify denial reason #7: A domain name was already in 'lock status' provided that the Registrar provides a readily?accessible and reasonable means for the Registered Name Holder to remove the lock status.

WHEREAS this PDP has followed the prescribed PDP steps as stated in the Bylaws, resulting in a Final Report delivered on 30 May 2011;

WHEREAS the IRTP Part B WG has reached full consensus on the recommendations in relation to each of the five issues outlined above;

WHEREAS in relation to recommendation #9 part b, the GNSO Council resolved at its meeting on 22 June to request ICANN Staff to provide a proposal for a new provision on locking / unlocking of a domain name, taking into account the IRTP Part B WG deliberations in relation to this issue (see IRTP Part B Final Report - (Recommendation #9 - part 2). Upon review of the proposal, the GNSO Council will consider whether to approve the recommendation;

WHEREAS ICANN staff developed the proposal in consultation with the IRTP Part B Working Group which was put out for public comment (seehttp://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-staff-proposals-22nov11-en.htm);

WHEREAS comments were received from the Intellectual Property Constituency, and though received after the comment deadline were nonetheless considered by the GNSO Council, and and the proposal was submitted to the GNSO Council;

WHEREAS the GNSO Council has reviewed and discussed the ICANN Staff proposal in relation to IRTP Part B recommendation #9 part 2.

RESOLVED, the GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that it adopts and implements IRTP Part B recommendation #9 part 2 and the related ICANN Staff proposal (as described in http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-b-final-report-30may11-en.pdf andhttp://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg12545.html). 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120119/f09696a4/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Wed Jan 25 00:53:19 2012
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:53:19 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B
	Policy Development Process - Recommendation 9,
	Part 2 Concerning a New Provision to Lock and Unlock Domain Names
	-call for comments
References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A95ECF7E9@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <CEE052A6-F4E3-48DF-BE75-64C7E25B2C06@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: January 24, 2012 2:23:24 PM PST
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Policy Development Process - Recommendation 9, Part 2 Concerning a New Provision to Lock and Unlock Domain Names -call for comments
> 
>  
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-23jan12-en.htm
> Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part B Policy Development Process - Recommendation 9, Part 2 Concerning a New Provision to Lock and Unlock Domain Names
>  
> Forum Announcement: Comment Period Opens on Date: 23 January 2012 Categories/Tags:
> Policy Processes
> ICANN Board/Bylaws
> Contracted Party Agreements
> Purpose (Brief): Public notice is hereby provided of the proposed change to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy to address the locking and unlocking of domain names that is considered for adoption as well as an opportunity to comment on the adoption of the proposed policy change, prior to ICANN Board consideration.
>  
> Public Comment Box Link: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/irtp-b-rec9-part2-23jan12-en.htm
>  
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120124/ba321e95/attachment.html>


From robin  Tue Jan 31 01:45:38 2012
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:45:38 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica
In-Reply-To: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A95ECF9A5@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A95ECF9A5@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <9D0BDFBA-8380-4EB0-9E3C-1FE5275D889A@ipjustice.org>

Hello Heidi,

Thanks for the email.  Yes, NCSG would like to have a discussion with At-Large in Costa Rica.  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.  Perhaps we could try an alternative time-slot?  

We'll come up with a couple substantive policy issues to propose for the agenda in the coming days.  

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
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120130/97889621/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Tue Jan 31 09:31:59 2012
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:31:59 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Request for ALAC/NCSG meeting in Costa Rica
In-Reply-To: <9D0BDFBA-8380-4EB0-9E3C-1FE5275D889A@ipjustice.org>
References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184A95ECF9A5@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<9D0BDFBA-8380-4EB0-9E3C-1FE5275D889A@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <ED1FEDCA-95BE-4AB2-BF59-281CD865E33C@uzh.ch>

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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120131/fb968426/attachment.html>