From robin Sat Mar 3 22:25:51 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 12:25:51 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] schedule & draft agenda for Monday 12 March - NCSG Policy Comte Meeting & At-Large Message-ID: <88492080-F2B2-48E5-A95E-7C9C70CB0563@ipjustice.org> Dear all, Below is the schedule and draft discussion agenda for the NCSG Policy Committee Meeting on 12 March (Monday) in Costa Rica. The meeting starts at 9:15am, but the meeting room is available to us from 9:00 -11:00 so folks can come in a little early and get settled before we begin. We have remote participation (telephone bridge) available for PC members who cannot be in Costa Rica in person. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions on this agenda for Monday's PC mtg. I'll send around the other day's schedules separately. Thank you, Robin Monday 12 March 2012 NCSG Policy Committee Meeting 09:15 - 10:45 in La Paz B 09:00 : Room available to NCSG 09:15 : Meeting Begins: Review of Agenda 09: 20 : NCSG Policy Issues: 1. Reserved names in new gtlds (RC / IOC) 2. Law enforcement negotiations with registrars 3. Whois privacy concerns 4. SOPA / PIPA Domain Name Take-Downs & DNS Filtering Issues 5. New gtld applicant support 10:30 : Review of NCSG Policy Objectives for ICANN #43 10:40 : Open Public Comments? 10:45 : Meeting Ends (we have room until 11:00) BREAK & room change 11:00 : NCSG & At-Large Meeting in Las Americas Room from 11am - 12pm Discussion Agenda: 1. Substantive Issues: a. Objections to the IOC/RedCross exemptions b. Ensuring SOPA/ACTA gets on ICANN's radar c. LEA/registrar/RAA 2. Institutional/Process Issues: a. Outreach b. At-Large ICANN Academy 12:00 : BREAK 12:30 - 14:00 : Joint GNSO / ccNSO Councils Lunch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Sat Mar 3 23:17:35 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2012 13:17:35 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG schedule & draft agenda for TUESDAY 13 March NCSG Meeting 13:30-17:30 Message-ID: <14F16851-108C-40AB-895B-CE7129FE5341@ipjustice.org> Dear All, Below is NCSG's schedule and draft agenda for the afternoon of Tuesday 13 March in Costa Rica. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions on it so it may be finalized in the next couple of days. Tiffany's is the name of our main meeting room at the venue (Ramada). There will be a telephone bridge to enable remote participation throughout the day. NPOC & NCUC each have a meeting Tuesday morning also. ICANN has finally posted the week's full schedule on the web: http://costarica43.icann.org/full-schedule Thanks, Robin NCSG Schedule for afternoon of TUESDAY 13 March 2012 in Costa Rica 13:30 - 17:30 --> NCSG Meetings 13:30 : Welcome & Introductions (Room: Tiffany's) 13:45 : Reports from constituencies on their morning discussions 14:00 : NCSG Policy Discussion 1. Reserved names in new gtlds (RC / IOC) 2. Law enforcement negotiations with registrars / RAA 3. Whois privacy concerns 4. SOPA / PIPA Domain Name Take-Downs & DNS Filtering Issues 5. New gtld applicant support 15:00 : Prepare for discussion with Board 15:20 : BREAK to meet with Board (room change) 15:30 : NCSG with Board of Directors (La Paz C) 16:30 : BREAK (room change) 16:45 : NCSG Meeting Reconvene (in Tiffany's) 1. NCSG prep for GNSO Meeting on 14th 2. NCSG Email Discussion List 17:30 : BREAK: Head for cocktails and don't look back (or catch the last 45 minutes of the GAC/Board Mtg). 20:30 : MUSIC NIGHT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong Mon Mar 5 22:15:38 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:15:38 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG schedule & draft agenda for TUESDAY 13 March NCSG Meeting 13:30-17:30 In-Reply-To: <14F16851-108C-40AB-895B-CE7129FE5341@ipjustice.org> References: <14F16851-108C-40AB-895B-CE7129FE5341@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <4F54D89A0200005B0008675C@smtp.law.unh.edu> Hi and thanks, Robin. In view of the recent listserv discussions, I'm concerned that the 1 hour currently allocated for NCSG-wide policy discussion (before the Board meeting) will not be enough. While all the issues are important, would it be possible to focus on those most imminent? That would mean the IOC/RC protections and the RAA negotiations would be primary topics, given their timing. We may need to prioritize the rest, depending on how much updating/discussion/work the SG as a whole needs to undertake on each. Thanks, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Robin Gross To:, Date: 3/3/2012 4:18 PM Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG schedule & draft agenda for TUESDAY 13 March NCSG Meeting 13:30-17:30 Dear All, Below is NCSG's schedule and draft agenda for the afternoon of Tuesday 13 March in Costa Rica. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions on it so it may be finalized in the next couple of days. Tiffany's is the name of our main meeting room at the venue (Ramada). There will be a telephone bridge to enable remote participation throughout the day. NPOC & NCUC each have a meeting Tuesday morning also. ICANN has finally posted the week's full schedule on the web: http://costarica43.icann.org/full-schedule Thanks, Robin NCSG Schedule for afternoon of TUESDAY 13 March 2012 in Costa Rica 13:30 - 17:30 --> NCSG Meetings 13:30 : Welcome & Introductions (Room: Tiffany's) 13:45 : Reports from constituencies on their morning discussions 14:00 : NCSG Policy Discussion 1. Reserved names in new gtlds (RC / IOC) 2. Law enforcement negotiations with registrars / RAA 3. Whois privacy concerns 4. SOPA / PIPA Domain Name Take-Downs & DNS Filtering Issues 5. New gtld applicant support 15:00 : Prepare for discussion with Board 15:20 : BREAK to meet with Board (room change) 15:30 : NCSG with Board of Directors (La Paz C) 16:30 : BREAK (room change) 16:45 : NCSG Meeting Reconvene (in Tiffany's) 1. NCSG prep for GNSO Meeting on 14th 2. NCSG Email Discussion List 17:30 : BREAK: Head for cocktails and don't look back (or catch the last 45 minutes of the GAC/Board Mtg). 20:30 : MUSIC NIGHT -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wendy Mon Mar 5 22:23:53 2012 From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:23:53 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG schedule & draft agenda for TUESDAY 13 March NCSG Meeting 13:30-17:30 In-Reply-To: <4F54D89A0200005B0008675C@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <14F16851-108C-40AB-895B-CE7129FE5341@ipjustice.org> <4F54D89A0200005B0008675C@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <4F5520D9.3080404@seltzer.com> I would recommend against prioritizing IOC/RC. While I understand it's an issue of great interest, I don't think there's much more that prolonged discussion can add to it. It feels to me as though we're bikeshedding on this one (a technical term, see ). It may be important as a matter of principle, but not more so than the other things on the agenda. I'd suggest we keep to a strict schedule. 15 minutes per topic, 1 min/speaker, with a clear pathway for further discussion and development of the issues on-list afterwards. (And I volunteer to be merciless timekeeper, if so delegated.) Thanks, --Wendy On 03/05/2012 03:15 PM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote: > Hi and thanks, Robin. In view of the recent listserv discussions, I'm concerned that the 1 hour currently allocated for NCSG-wide policy discussion (before the Board meeting) will not be enough. While all the issues are important, would it be possible to focus on those most imminent? That would mean the IOC/RC protections and the RAA negotiations would be primary topics, given their timing. We may need to prioritize the rest, depending on how much updating/discussion/work the SG as a whole needs to undertake on each. > > Thanks, > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> > > > From: Robin Gross > To:, > Date: 3/3/2012 4:18 PM > Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG schedule & draft agenda for TUESDAY 13 March NCSG Meeting 13:30-17:30 > Dear All, > > Below is NCSG's schedule and draft agenda for the afternoon of Tuesday 13 March in Costa Rica. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions on it so it may be finalized in the next couple of days. > > Tiffany's is the name of our main meeting room at the venue (Ramada). There will be a telephone bridge to enable remote participation throughout the day. NPOC & NCUC each have a meeting Tuesday morning also. > > ICANN has finally posted the week's full schedule on the web: http://costarica43.icann.org/full-schedule > > Thanks, > Robin > > > NCSG Schedule for afternoon of TUESDAY 13 March 2012 in Costa Rica > > 13:30 - 17:30 --> NCSG Meetings > > 13:30 : Welcome & Introductions (Room: Tiffany's) > > 13:45 : Reports from constituencies on their morning discussions > > 14:00 : NCSG Policy Discussion > 1. Reserved names in new gtlds (RC / IOC) > 2. Law enforcement negotiations with registrars / RAA > 3. Whois privacy concerns > 4. SOPA / PIPA Domain Name Take-Downs & DNS Filtering Issues > 5. New gtld applicant support > > 15:00 : Prepare for discussion with Board > > 15:20 : BREAK to meet with Board (room change) > > 15:30 : NCSG with Board of Directors (La Paz C) > > 16:30 : BREAK (room change) > > 16:45 : NCSG Meeting Reconvene (in Tiffany's) > 1. NCSG prep for GNSO Meeting on 14th > 2. NCSG Email Discussion List > > 17:30 : BREAK: Head for cocktails and don't look back (or catch the last 45 minutes of the GAC/Board Mtg). > > 20:30 : MUSIC NIGHT > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ From robin Thu Mar 8 20:07:36 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 10:07:36 -0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Dial in details for NCSG Policy Cmte Meeting (12 March) in Costa Rica References: Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Nathalie Peregrine > Date: March 6, 2012 1:00:05 PM PST > To: "robin at ipjustice.org" > Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" > Subject: Dial in details for remote participation for the NCSG meetings ICANN Meeting Costa Rica > > Dear all, > > Please find below the dial in details for the NCSG meetings during the ICANN meeting in San Jose. > > Monday 12 March 2012 > 09:00 ? 10:00 NCSG Policy Committee. Password: NCSG > http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?iso=20120312T09&p1=225 > > Country > > Toll Numbers > Freephone/ > Toll Free Number > ARGENTINA > > > > > > 0800-777-0519 > > AUSTRALIA > > ADELAIDE: > > 61-8-8121-4842 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > BRISBANE: > > 61-7-3102-0944 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > CANBERRA: > > 61-2-6100-1944 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > MELBOURNE: > > 61-3-9010-7713 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > PERTH: > > 61-8-9467-5223 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > SYDNEY: > > 61-2-8205-8129 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRIA > > > > 43-1-92-81-113 > > 0800-005-259 > > BELGIUM > > > > 32-2-400-9861 > > 0800-3-8795 > > BRAZIL > > > > > > 0800-7610651 > > CHILE > > > > > > 1230-020-2863 > > CHINA > > CHINA A: > > 86-400-810-4789 > > 10800-712-1670 > > CHINA > > CHINA B: > > 86-400-810-4789 > > 10800-120-1670 > > COLOMBIA > > > > > > 01800-9-156474 > > CZECH REPUBLIC > > > > 420-2-25-98-56-64 > > 800-700-177 > > DENMARK > > > > 45-7014-0284 > > 8088-8324 > > ESTONIA > > > > > > 800-011-1093 > > FINLAND > > Land Line: > > 106-33-203 > > 0-800-9-14610 > > FINLAND > > Mobile: > > 09-106-33-203 > > 0-800-9-14610 > > FRANCE > > LYON: > > 33-4-26-69-12-85 > > 080-511-1496 > > FRANCE > > MARSEILLE: > > 33-4-86-06-00-85 > > 080-511-1496 > > FRANCE > > PARIS: > > 33-1-70-70-60-72 > > 080-511-1496 > > GERMANY > > > > 49-69-2222-20362 > > 0800-664-4247 > > GREECE > > > > 30-80-1-100-0687 > > 00800-12-7312 > > HONG KONG > > > > 852-3001-3863 > > 800-962-856 > > HUNGARY > > > > > > 06-800-12755 > > INDIA > > INDIA A: > > > > 000-800-852-1268 > > INDIA > > INDIA B: > > > > 000-800-001-6305 > > INDIA > > INDIA C: > > > > 1800-300-00491 > > INDONESIA > > > > > > 001-803-011-3982 > > IRELAND > > > > 353-1-246-7646 > > 1800-992-368 > > ISRAEL > > > > > > 1-80-9216162 > > ITALY > > > > 39-02-3600-6007 > > 800-986-383 > > JAPAN > > OSAKA: > > 81-6-7739-4799 > > 0066-33-132439 > > JAPAN > > TOKYO: > > 81-3-5539-5191 > > 0066-33-132439 > > LATVIA > > > > > > 8000-3185 > > LUXEMBOURG > > > > 352-27-000-1364 > > MALAYSIA > > > > > > 1-800-81-3065 > > MEXICO > > > > > > 001-866-376-9696 > > NETHERLANDS > > > > 31-20-718-8588 > > 0800-023-4378 > > NEW ZEALAND > > > > 64-9-970-4771 > > 0800-447-722 > > NORWAY > > > > 47-21-590-062 > > 800-15157 > > PANAMA > > > > > > 011-001-800-5072065 > > PERU > > > > > > 0800-53713 > > PHILIPPINES > > > > 63-2-858-3716 > > POLAND > > > > > > 00-800-1212572 > > PORTUGAL > > > > > > 8008-14052 > > RUSSIA > > > > > > 8-10-8002-0144011 > > SAUDI ARABIA > > > > > > 800-8-110087 > > SINGAPORE > > > > 65-6883-9230 > > 800-120-4663 > > SLOVAK REPUBLIC > > > > 421-2-322-422-25 > > SOUTH AFRICA > > > > > > 080-09-80414 > > SOUTH KOREA > > > > 82-2-6744-1083 > > 00798-14800-7352 > > SPAIN > > > > 34-91-414-25-33 > > 800-300-053 > > SWEDEN > > > > 46-8-566-19-348 > > 0200-884-622 > > SWITZERLAND > > > > 41-44-580-6398 > > 0800-120-032 > > TAIWAN > > > > 886-2-2795-7379 > > 00801-137-797 > > THAILAND > > > > > > 001-800-1206-66056 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > BIRMINGHAM: > > 44-121-210-9025 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > GLASGOW: > > 44-141-202-3225 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > LEEDS: > > 44-113-301-2125 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > LONDON: > > 44-20-7108-6370 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > MANCHESTER: > > 44-161-601-1425 > > 0808-238-6029 > > URUGUAY > > > > > > 000-413-598-3421 > > USA > > > > 1-517-345-9004 > > 866-692-5726 > > VENEZUELA > > > > > > 0800-1-00-3702 > > > Kind regards > > Nathalie > GNSO Secretariat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Mon Mar 12 17:25:08 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:25:08 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC mtg is happening in La Paz B now Message-ID: ....but it is pointless if our NCSG-PC members are not here. From bkuerbis Mon Mar 12 17:44:09 2012 From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:44:09 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC mtg is happening in La Paz B now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Robin, I'm online listening, and appreciate you running the meeting as well as updates from KK and Joy. There are no colleagues from NPOC present? Unfortunately, I'll only be able to stay another 15 minutes, as I have to catch a flight. B On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > ....but it is pointless if our NCSG-PC members are not here. > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis Mon Mar 12 17:53:26 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:53:26 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC mtg is happening in La Paz B now In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Brenden, Thanks for listening in. there has been a mix up with the room but we are all in now ? NPOC and NCUC. KK From: Brenden Kuerbis > Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:44:09 +0000 To: Robin Gross > Cc: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC mtg is happening in La Paz B now Hi Robin, I'm online listening, and appreciate you running the meeting as well as updates from KK and Joy. There are no colleagues from NPOC present? Unfortunately, I'll only be able to stay another 15 minutes, as I have to catch a flight. B On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Robin Gross > wrote: ....but it is pointless if our NCSG-PC members are not here. _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From alain.berranger Mon Mar 12 23:53:45 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:53:45 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC mtg is happening in La Paz B now In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Robin, ...I was on a conflicting meeting with Board members at their request (like NCUC execs just before us)... I know Klaus was planning to be at NCSG-PC there for NPOC... When finished, it was too late to join NCSG-PC. I ran to NCSG-ALAC meeting in progress where Klaus participated and intervened. Brenden, sorry not to meet your expectations - I'm dancing as fast as I can! Alain On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Robin Gross wrote: > ....but it is pointless if our NCSG-PC members are not here. > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis Tue Mar 13 00:41:53 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 22:41:53 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] FW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Proposed Revised Motion In-Reply-To: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3EB90DC5D2@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> Message-ID: Dear all, Please find attached the latest version of the motion regarding the IOC and Red Cross names that we will be discussing tomorrow. Thanks KK From: Jeff Neuman > Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:16:20 +0000 To: Chuck Gomes >, Konstantinos Komaitis > Cc: "gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org" > Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Proposed Revised Motion Here is the latest version with the duplicative language removed. This is still a redline to the original motion. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 1:47 PM To: Neuman, Jeff; Konstantinos Komaitis Cc: > Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Proposed Revised Motion I assume you will send the redline version Jeff? I think that would be helpful to make it clear what the amendments would be. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc- dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 3:38 PM To: Konstantinos Komaitis Cc: > Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Proposed Revised Motion Ok. That is fine. I will then send this motion out as the latest one so that all constituencies have it. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -----Original Message----- From: Konstantinos Komaitis [mailto:k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 12:44 PM To: Neuman, Jeff Cc: > Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Proposed Revised Motion Thanks Jeff-it would be difficult to come back to you by tonight. Considering that tomorrow is dedicated to constituency day I would suggest we send to this group our views by tomorrow lunch time so we have time to discuss this with our members. Thanks KK Sent from my iPhone - excuse any typos On 12 Mar 2012, at 12:11, "Neuman, Jeff" > wrote: All, Sorry for the delay, but enclosed please find a revised motion on the IOC / RCRC as we discussed this morning. Please provide your input today so that tonight I can send out the ?final one? to the Council for everyone to consider during constituency day. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IOC RC MOtion.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 17865 bytes Desc: IOC RC MOtion.docx URL: From Mary.Wong Tue Mar 13 01:12:45 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 19:12:45 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Alternative batching proposal Message-ID: <4F5E4AC50200005B000872FE@smtp.law.unh.edu> Attached is the IPC's alternative batching proposal for discussion tomorrow. Cheers Mary -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: new gTLD batching alternative (4420790-4).DOC Type: application/msword Size: 121344 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri Tue Mar 13 01:39:20 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 17:39:20 -0600 Subject: [PC-NCSG] FW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Proposed Revised Motion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <74edcacd-44d7-41c5-953b-3eaf311efabe@email.android.com> Thanks for posting this. I again recommend: Remember IOC & RC are already protected. Maximally protected. They do not need further protection. Defer the motion because it is illegitimate for the g-council to vote before the end of a comment period. Amend the motion to indicate that a change can only occur if the Board agrees to restart the application clock. To make such a substantive change to an ongoing process at this late date is fundamentally unfair to applicants, especially noncommercial applicants or community applicants. Support the idea brought up by both Portugal and NPOC that giving preferential treatment to these two without full consideration being given to the UN + 9 is prejudicial. If this its a serious concern for ICANN and the GNSO, then initiate a PDP process on reserved names. avri Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: >Dear all, > >Please find attached the latest version of the motion regarding the IOC >and Red Cross names that we will be discussing tomorrow. > >Thanks > >KK > > From robin Tue Mar 13 01:46:48 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:46:48 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] FW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Proposed Revised Motion In-Reply-To: <74edcacd-44d7-41c5-953b-3eaf311efabe@email.android.com> References: <74edcacd-44d7-41c5-953b-3eaf311efabe@email.android.com> Message-ID: +1. If the community does not require ICANN to follow its stated processes and honor the so-called 'bottom-up' process, then who will? Robin On Mar 12, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Thanks for posting this. > > I again recommend: > > Remember IOC & RC are already protected. Maximally protected. They do not need further protection. > > Defer the motion because it is illegitimate for the g-council to vote before the end of a comment period. > > Amend the motion to indicate that a change can only occur if the Board agrees to restart the application clock. To make such a substantive change to an ongoing process at this late date is fundamentally unfair to applicants, especially noncommercial applicants or community applicants. > > Support the idea brought up by both Portugal and NPOC that giving preferential treatment to these two without full consideration being given to the UN + 9 is prejudicial. If this its a serious concern for ICANN and the GNSO, then initiate a PDP process on reserved names. > > > avri > > Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> Please find attached the latest version of the motion regarding the IOC >> and Red Cross names that we will be discussing tomorrow. >> >> Thanks >> >> KK >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From k.komaitis Tue Mar 13 01:50:05 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 23:50:05 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] FW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Proposed Revised Motion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The point is that we need to follow the process in this case as in every other case?.I don't understand why we need to bypass established processes only in this case. KK From: Robin Gross > Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 23:46:48 +0000 To: "Avri org>" > Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis >, "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" >, "EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org" >, Milton L Mueller > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] FW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Proposed Revised Motion +1. If the community does not require ICANN to follow its stated processes and honor the so-called 'bottom-up' process, then who will? Robin On Mar 12, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: Thanks for posting this. I again recommend: Remember IOC & RC are already protected. Maximally protected. They do not need further protection. Defer the motion because it is illegitimate for the g-council to vote before the end of a comment period. Amend the motion to indicate that a change can only occur if the Board agrees to restart the application clock. To make such a substantive change to an ongoing process at this late date is fundamentally unfair to applicants, especially noncommercial applicants or community applicants. Support the idea brought up by both Portugal and NPOC that giving preferential treatment to these two without full consideration being given to the UN + 9 is prejudicial. If this its a serious concern for ICANN and the GNSO, then initiate a PDP process on reserved names. avri Konstantinos Komaitis > wrote: Dear all, Please find attached the latest version of the motion regarding the IOC and Red Cross names that we will be discussing tomorrow. Thanks KK _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From alain.berranger Tue Mar 13 06:50:09 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 00:50:09 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] FW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Proposed Revised Motion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It is a good sign that Avri finds the second part of the NPOC proposal of relevance. Did not know Portugal had made a similar proposal. Avri, when did that happen? Can you share the circumstance and/or more details, time permitting? Thanks, Alain On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis < k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote: > The point is that we need to follow the process in this case as in every > other case?.I don't understand why we need to bypass established processes > only in this case. > > KK > > From: Robin Gross > > Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 23:46:48 +0000 > To: "Avri org>" > > Cc: Konstantinos Komaitis k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>>, "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>" pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>, "EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org EC-NCUC at ipjustice.org>" ec-ncuc at ipjustice.org>>, Milton L Mueller mueller at SYR.EDU>> > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] FW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Proposed Revised Motion > > +1. If the community does not require ICANN to follow its stated > processes and honor the so-called 'bottom-up' process, then who will? > > Robin > > > On Mar 12, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Thanks for posting this. > I again recommend: > Remember IOC & RC are already protected. Maximally protected. They do not > need further protection. > Defer the motion because it is illegitimate for the g-council to vote > before the end of a comment period. > Amend the motion to indicate that a change can only occur if the Board > agrees to restart the application clock. To make such a substantive change > to an ongoing process at this late date is fundamentally unfair to > applicants, especially noncommercial applicants or community applicants. > Support the idea brought up by both Portugal and NPOC that giving > preferential treatment to these two without full consideration being given > to the UN + 9 is prejudicial. If this its a serious concern for ICANN and > the GNSO, then initiate a PDP process on reserved names. > avri > Konstantinos Komaitis k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk>> wrote: > Dear all, > Please find attached the latest version of the motion regarding the IOC > and Red Cross names that we will be discussing tomorrow. > Thanks > KK > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wendy Tue Mar 13 22:21:03 2012 From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:21:03 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Report from Meeting with Registrars Message-ID: <4F5FAC2F.4020801@seltzer.com> I met with the Registrars constituency for a brief discussion of NCSG's work. We talked about issues on the NCSG plate, including RAA/LEA/WHOIS, and before Council (RCRC/IOC), and identified some shared interests between the constituencies. They were very interested in the human rights framework, and suggested we also work on the issue of when registrant disclosure is appropriate from a privacy or proxy provider. I proposed that we might form an informal Registrar-NCSG working group to work on registrant-disclosure best practices (obligations and procedures), to go beyond "due process" and "national law." They suggested looking at tests for disclosure used among law enforcement agencies. On WHOIS validation, we can be particularly helpful in raising concerns with higher price-barriers to domain registration and concerns with the global impact of those rules -- what if validation makes whole sections of the world go dark? What if a points-system for validation is used to censor speakers? Can we separate privacy from access? --Wendy -- 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 Mar 13 23:00:35 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 22:00:35 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Report from Meeting with Registrars References: <4F5FAC2F.4020801@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CC9CC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Wendy. 1+ w ________________________________ Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Wendy Seltzer Gesendet: Di 13.03.2012 21:21 An: NCSG-Policy Betreff: [PC-NCSG] Report from Meeting with Registrars I met with the Registrars constituency for a brief discussion of NCSG's work. We talked about issues on the NCSG plate, including RAA/LEA/WHOIS, and before Council (RCRC/IOC), and identified some shared interests between the constituencies. They were very interested in the human rights framework, and suggested we also work on the issue of when registrant disclosure is appropriate from a privacy or proxy provider. I proposed that we might form an informal Registrar-NCSG working group to work on registrant-disclosure best practices (obligations and procedures), to go beyond "due process" and "national law." They suggested looking at tests for disclosure used among law enforcement agencies. On WHOIS validation, we can be particularly helpful in raising concerns with higher price-barriers to domain registration and concerns with the global impact of those rules -- what if validation makes whole sections of the world go dark? What if a points-system for validation is used to censor speakers? Can we separate privacy from access? --Wendy -- 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 Mar 13 23:14:52 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:14:52 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Board Mtg Discussion Agenda Message-ID: <71FDB725-E56F-4DDC-9CC8-838097F40ECB@ipjustice.org> Board Mtg Discussion Agenda Issues proposed by NCSG: 1. How to protect ICANN's multi-stakeholder bottom-up policy development process? How to know what is policy and what is implementation of policy? How to protect appropriate balance among various competing stakeholders for influence in policy development? How to ensure proper ICANN process is followed to develop policy? What is appropriate role of governments and law enforcement in ICANN policy development? 2. "Internationalize" ICANN. How to increase participation of developing country actors, the composition and outlook of board/staff, appropriate legal framework, considering the geopolitical sensitivity and the broader relationship between the US government, ICANN, and the root. Issues proposed by ICANN Board of Directors: Specific to the NCSG: 1. Resolution of conflict with NPOC. 2. Views on the RAA. 3. A suggested question from the Board for all Community Groups from the Board:"What will be in your view the medium-term impact of the new gTLD program on the structure of ICANN in general, and challenges it brings to the gNSO, its constituencies and policy development process. What are the potential issues and how to anticipate them?" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis Tue Mar 13 23:38:12 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:38:12 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] FW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Revised Redline of Motion In-Reply-To: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3EB90DC75A@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> Message-ID: Please find attached the amended version that the Council will be asked to vote on, on Wednesday. Thanks KK From: Jeff Neuman > Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:22:26 +0000 To: "gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Revised Redline of Motion All, Based on the e-mails of the Drafting Team, please find enclosed the revised version of the motion. Once we are all ok, we will need someone at the council to make these friendly amendments (after someone seconds the motion). Have you had discussions with your groups. Best regards, Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IOC RC MOtion.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 17759 bytes Desc: IOC RC MOtion.docx URL: From wendy Wed Mar 14 02:43:35 2012 From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 20:43:35 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed amendment to motion on Thick WHOIS Message-ID: <4F5FE9B7.3040304@seltzer.com> Here's my proposed amendment, I'd start by asking Stephane whether it's friendly: I propose to amend the motion to make it clear that the consideration of 'thick' WHOIS for all gTLDs can also consider 'thin' WHOIS for all gTLDs. > Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on ?thick? Whois > > deferred from the Council meeting on 16 February 2012 > Made by: St?phane van Gelder > Seconded by: Yoav Keren > Amended by David Taylor (in bold > > Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); > > Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm); > > Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf); > > Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. ADD: Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends "that further investigation of ?thick? Whois for all gTLDs would be beneficial to the community generally, as it would allow for an informed decision by the GNSO Council as to whether ?thick? Whois for all gTLDs should be required or not." > > [Whereas nothing in this motion is intended to prejudice migration to thick Whois through contractual means] > > THEREFORE BE IT: > Resolved, the GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois ADD: specifically directing consideration of 'thin' WHOIS for all gTLDs as well as 'thick'; > (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf) > > Resolved, a DT will be formed to create a charter for a Working Group, which will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its approval. > > Resolved, following the approval of the charter, a Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP. ......................................................... -- 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 joy Wed Mar 14 03:19:20 2012 From: joy (Joy Liddicoat) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 14:19:20 +1300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed amendment to motion on Thick WHOIS In-Reply-To: <4F5FE9B7.3040304@seltzer.com> References: <4F5FE9B7.3040304@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <066101cd0180$7d54e610$77feb230$@apc.org> Thanks Wendy, that looks good Joy -----Original Message----- From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer Sent: Wednesday, 14 March 2012 1:44 p.m. To: NCSG-Policy Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed amendment to motion on Thick WHOIS Here's my proposed amendment, I'd start by asking Stephane whether it's friendly: I propose to amend the motion to make it clear that the consideration of 'thick' WHOIS for all gTLDs can also consider 'thin' WHOIS for all gTLDs. > Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on > ?thick? Whois > > deferred from the Council meeting on 16 February 2012 Made by: > St?phane van Gelder Seconded by: Yoav Keren Amended by David Taylor > (in bold > > Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at > its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see > http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); > > Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was posted on 21 > November 2011 for public comment (see > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm); > > Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2 > February 2012 (see > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en > .pdf); > > Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. ADD: Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends "that further investigation of ?thick? Whois for all gTLDs would be beneficial to the community generally, as it would allow for an informed decision by the GNSO Council as to whether ?thick? Whois for all gTLDs should be required or not." > > [Whereas nothing in this motion is intended to prejudice migration to > thick Whois through contractual means] > > THEREFORE BE IT: > Resolved, the GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the > Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois ADD: specifically directing consideration of 'thin' WHOIS for all gTLDs as well as 'thick'; > (see > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en > .pdf) > > Resolved, a DT will be formed to create a charter for a Working Group, which will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its approval. > > Resolved, following the approval of the charter, a Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP. ......................................................... -- 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 Wed Mar 14 04:15:46 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 19:15:46 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council Message-ID: <41F70C42-FBD0-439E-8733-E33891CED124@ipjustice.org> Dear NCSG-PC, As per our discussion in the NCSG policy meeting today, here is NCSG's stmnt on why we will defer tomorrow. Thanks, Robin ______ NCSG finds it impossible to acquiesce in yet another circumvention of ICANN?s bottom up policy development process. At a time when multistakeholder processes on the internet are being challenged, this proposal is both questionable on the merits, and contrary to ICANN?s processes. Therefore, the NCSG has no option at this stage but to defer a vote at least until the public comment period is closed. Here are the reasons for our deferral. One of the most important parts of the ICANN process is the public comment period, which allows public engagement and permits those affected by policies to express their views. Public comments constitute a quintessential part of iCANN?s ecosystem. How can ICANN depend on public comments when it makes a decision before they have all been received? The council should not hold a vote on something as important as the implicit creation of a new form of reserved names, especially one that singles out some international organisations for special consideration while ignoring others without full comment. The critical importance of public comments was recognized by our colleague Mr. Steve Metalitz, chair of the IPC in a recent comment. Mr Metalitz said: ?In trying to make the decision before the public comment period has closed, ICANN has failed to fulfill its pledge, in the Affirmation of Commitments, to employ ?responsive consultation procedures that provide detailed explanations of the basis for decisions, including how comments have influenced the development of policy consideration,? and to ?continually assess[] and improv[e] the processes by which ICANN receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions taken and the rationale thereof).?[1] We could not agree more with this statement by our fellow stakeholder group ? the IPC. The NCSG-Policy Committee believes that this is a critical policy issue and needs the full guidance of the public comments before it can properly decide how to vote, and thus requests a deferral of this vote. [1] http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm, paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis Wed Mar 14 04:16:28 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:16:28 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed amendment to motion on Thick WHOIS In-Reply-To: <066101cd0180$7d54e610$77feb230$@apc.org> References: <4F5FE9B7.3040304@seltzer.com> <066101cd0180$7d54e610$77feb230$@apc.org> Message-ID: +1 KK Sent from my iPhone - excuse any typos On 13 Mar 2012, at 19:21, "Joy Liddicoat" wrote: > Thanks Wendy, that looks good > Joy > > -----Original Message----- > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] > On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer > Sent: Wednesday, 14 March 2012 1:44 p.m. > To: NCSG-Policy > Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed amendment to motion on Thick WHOIS > > Here's my proposed amendment, I'd start by asking Stephane whether it's > friendly: > > I propose to amend the motion to make it clear that the consideration of > 'thick' WHOIS for all gTLDs can also consider 'thin' WHOIS for all gTLDs. > >> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on >> ?thick? Whois >> >> deferred from the Council meeting on 16 February 2012 Made by: >> St?phane van Gelder Seconded by: Yoav Keren Amended by David Taylor >> (in bold >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at >> its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see >> http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >> >> Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was posted on 21 >> November 2011 for public comment (see >> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm); >> >> Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2 >> February 2012 (see >> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en >> .pdf); >> >> Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed > with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues > discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the > topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within > the scope of the GNSO. > > ADD: Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends "that further investigation > of ?thick? Whois for all gTLDs would be beneficial to the community > generally, as it would allow for an informed decision by the GNSO Council as > to whether ?thick? Whois for all gTLDs should be required or not." > >> >> [Whereas nothing in this motion is intended to prejudice migration to >> thick Whois through contractual means] >> >> THEREFORE BE IT: >> Resolved, the GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the >> Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois > > ADD: specifically directing consideration of 'thin' WHOIS for all gTLDs as > well as 'thick'; > >> (see >> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en >> .pdf) >> >> Resolved, a DT will be formed to create a charter for a Working Group, > which will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its approval. >> >> Resolved, following the approval of the charter, a Working Group will be > created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP. > > ......................................................... > > -- > 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 avri Wed Mar 14 05:00:20 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 21:00:20 -0600 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed amendment to motion on Thick WHOIS In-Reply-To: <4F5FE9B7.3040304@seltzer.com> References: <4F5FE9B7.3040304@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <11821983-88CA-4FCE-B979-DB4A4DF48041@acm.org> i like it. avri On 13 Mar 2012, at 18:43, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > Here's my proposed amendment, I'd start by asking Stephane whether it's > friendly: > > I propose to amend the motion to make it clear that the consideration of > 'thick' WHOIS for all gTLDs can also consider 'thin' WHOIS for all gTLDs. > >> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on ?thick? Whois >> >> deferred from the Council meeting on 16 February 2012 >> Made by: St?phane van Gelder >> Seconded by: Yoav Keren >> Amended by David Taylor (in bold >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >> >> Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm); >> >> Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf); >> >> Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. > > ADD: Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends "that further > investigation of ?thick? Whois for all gTLDs would be beneficial to the > community generally, as it would allow for an informed decision by the > GNSO Council as to whether ?thick? Whois for all gTLDs should be > required or not." > >> >> [Whereas nothing in this motion is intended to prejudice migration to thick Whois through contractual means] >> >> THEREFORE BE IT: >> Resolved, the GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois > > ADD: specifically directing consideration of 'thin' WHOIS for all gTLDs > as well as 'thick'; > >> (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf) >> >> Resolved, a DT will be formed to create a charter for a Working Group, which will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its approval. >> >> Resolved, following the approval of the charter, a Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP. > > ......................................................... > > -- > 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 william.drake Wed Mar 14 07:48:14 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 23:48:14 -0600 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed amendment to motion on Thick WHOIS In-Reply-To: <4F5FE9B7.3040304@seltzer.com> References: <4F5FE9B7.3040304@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <898DCA5D-01F0-49F6-8748-A430028E520F@uzh.ch> Si Sent from my iPhone On Mar 13, 2012, at 18:43, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > Here's my proposed amendment, I'd start by asking Stephane whether it's > friendly: > > I propose to amend the motion to make it clear that the consideration of > 'thick' WHOIS for all gTLDs can also consider 'thin' WHOIS for all gTLDs. > >> Motion on the Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on ?thick? Whois >> >> deferred from the Council meeting on 16 February 2012 >> Made by: St?phane van Gelder >> Seconded by: Yoav Keren >> Amended by David Taylor (in bold >> >> Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on ?thick? Whois at its meeting on 22 September 2011 (see http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109); >> >> Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm); >> >> Whereas a Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois was published on 2 February 2012 (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf); >> >> Whereas, the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO. > > ADD: Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends "that further > investigation of ?thick? Whois for all gTLDs would be beneficial to the > community generally, as it would allow for an informed decision by the > GNSO Council as to whether ?thick? Whois for all gTLDs should be > required or not." > >> >> [Whereas nothing in this motion is intended to prejudice migration to thick Whois through contractual means] >> >> THEREFORE BE IT: >> Resolved, the GNSO will initiate a PDP on the issues defined in the Final Issue Report on ?thick? Whois > > ADD: specifically directing consideration of 'thin' WHOIS for all gTLDs > as well as 'thick'; > >> (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf) >> >> Resolved, a DT will be formed to create a charter for a Working Group, which will be submitted to the GNSO Council for its approval. >> >> Resolved, following the approval of the charter, a Working Group will be created for the purpose of fulfilling the requirements of the PDP. > > ......................................................... > > -- > 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 alain.berranger Wed Mar 14 08:16:33 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:16:33 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council In-Reply-To: <41F70C42-FBD0-439E-8733-E33891CED124@ipjustice.org> References: <41F70C42-FBD0-439E-8733-E33891CED124@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Dear Robin, We spoke at the NPOC Cocktail tonight. You wanted my views. On principle, I am OK with deferring for some of the reasons mentioned but not for all. The language could be improved and be less irritating to some (*..yet another circumvention...*true perhaps but why irritate those you want to rallye?). Let me add that I would prefer a solution-based approach other than we need more time because process was not respected. I think the NPOC proposal and the Portugal proposal at GAC meeting yesterday are such solutions (In fact they are very similar - except that NPOC's is much shorter :). So maybe you could say defer in order to look at solutions like our own NPOC or Portugal proposals? PS - There is a typo in the subject title. Alain On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > Dear NCSG-PC, > > As per our discussion in the NCSG policy meeting today, here is NCSG's > stmnt on why we will defer tomorrow. > > Thanks, > Robin > ______ > > NCSG finds it impossible to acquiesce in yet another circumvention of > ICANN?s bottom up policy development process. At a time when > multistakeholder processes on the internet are being challenged, this > proposal is both questionable on the merits, and contrary to ICANN?s > processes. Therefore, the NCSG has no option at this stage but to defer a > vote at least until the public comment period is closed.**** > > **** > > Here are the reasons for our deferral.**** > > **** > > One of the most important parts of the ICANN process is the public comment > period, which allows public engagement and permits those affected by > policies to express their views. Public comments constitute a > quintessential part of iCANN?s ecosystem. How can ICANN depend on public > comments when it makes a decision before they have all been received? The > council should not hold a vote on something as important as the implicit > creation of a new form of reserved names, especially one that singles out > some international organisations for special consideration while ignoring > others without full comment. The critical importance of public comments was > recognized by our colleague Mr. Steve Metalitz, chair of the IPC in a > recent comment. Mr Metalitz said:**** > > **** > > ?In trying to make the decision before the public comment period has > closed, ICANN has failed to fulfill its pledge, in the Affirmation of > Commitments, to employ ?responsive consultation procedures that provide > detailed explanations of the basis for decisions, including how comments > have influenced the development of policy consideration,? and to > ?continually assess[] and improv[e] the processes by which ICANN receives > public input (including adequate explanation of decisions taken and the > rationale thereof).?[1] <#1360efd6b3d42267__ftn1> **** > > **** > > We could not agree more with this statement by our fellow stakeholder > group ? the IPC.**** > > **** > > The NCSG-Policy Committee believes that this is a critical policy issue > and needs the full guidance of the public comments before it can properly > decide how to vote, and thus requests a deferral of this vote.**** > **** > > ------------------------------ > [1] <#1360efd6b3d42267__ftnref1> > http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm, > paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c. > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mary.Wong Wed Mar 14 08:53:58 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 02:53:58 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council Message-ID: <4F6008560200005B000874C5@smtp.law.unh.edu> Hello, just a couple of updates from discussions with various people earlier tonight - If we are to defer, we should add something about the NPOC proposal. As for updates - First, Jeff has confirmed he will call for a special Council meeting to vote on this, which may counter the main point our current draftstatement is making. Second, the IPC may support breaking up the motion as between the IOC and RC, if it means we will vote yes for the RC though not the IOC. Third, the GAC may react by forcing the Boar to reopen the NCSG charter and constituency issue if we defer. Thoughts? Mary "Robin Gross " wrote: Dear NCSG-PC, As per our discussion in the NCSG policy meeting today, here is NCSG's stmnt on why we will defer tomorrow. Thanks, Robin ______ NCSG finds it impossible to acquiesce in yet another circumvention of ICANN?s bottom up policy development process. At a time when multistakeholder processes on the internet are being challenged, this proposal is both questionable on the merits, and contrary to ICANN?s processes. Therefore, the NCSG has no option at this stage but to defer a vote at least until the public comment period is closed. Here are the reasons for our deferral. One of the most important parts of the ICANN process is the public comment period, which allows public engagement and permits those affected by policies to express their views. Public comments constitute a quintessential part of iCANN?s ecosystem. How can ICANN depend on public comments when it makes a decision before they have all been received? The council should not hold a vote on something as important as the implicit creation of a new form of reserved names, especially one that singles out some international organisations for special consideration while ignoring others without full comment. The critical importance of public comments was recognized by our colleague Mr. Steve Metalitz, chair of the IPC in a recent comment. Mr Metalitz said: ?In trying to make the decision before the public comment period has closed, ICANN has failed to fulfill its pledge, in the Affirmation of Commitments, to employ ?responsive consultation procedures that provide detailed explanations of the basis for decisions, including how comments have influenced the development of policy consideration,? and to ?continually assess[] and improv[e] the processes by which ICANN receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions taken and the rationale thereof).?[1] We could not agree more with this statement by our fellow stakeholder group ? the IPC. The NCSG-Policy Committee believes that this is a critical policy issue and needs the full guidance of the public comments before it can properly decide how to vote, and thus requests a deferral of this vote. [1] http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm, paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c. From director-general Wed Mar 14 12:14:11 2012 From: director-general (Dorothy K. Gordon) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:14:11 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <30239192.61401331720051032.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh> PROCESS, is extremely important when we have this kind of multi-stakeholder engagement. I think it is important to remind everyone that this is yet another instance where process is not being followed. Please share with us the NPOC statement, did I miss it? best Dorothy K. Gordon Director-General Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT Mobile: 233 265005712 Direct Line: 233 302 683579 Website: www.aiti-kace.com.gh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alain Berranger" To: "Robin Gross" , "Klaus.Stoll" , "Eduardo Monge" Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Sent: Wednesday, 14 March, 2012 6:16:33 AM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / Monrovia Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council Dear Robin, We spoke at the NPOC Cocktail tonight. You wanted my views. On principle, I am OK with deferring for some of the reasons mentioned but not for all. The language could be improved and be less irritating to some ( ..yet another circumvention... true perhaps but why irritate those you want to rallye?). Let me add that I would prefer a solution-based approach other than we need more time because process was not respected. I think the NPOC proposal and the Portugal proposal at GAC meeting yesterday are such solutions (In fact they are very similar - except that NPOC's is much shorter :). So maybe you could say defer in order to look at solutions like our own NPOC or Portugal proposals? PS - There is a typo in the subject title. Alain On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Robin Gross < robin at ipjustice.org > wrote: Dear NCSG-PC, As per our discussion in the NCSG policy meeting today, here is NCSG's stmnt on why we will defer tomorrow. Thanks, Robin ______ NCSG finds it impossible to acquiesce in yet another circumvention of ICANN?s bottom up policy development process. At a time when multistakeholder processes on the internet are being challenged, this proposal is both questionable on the merits, and contrary to ICANN?s processes. Therefore, the NCSG has no option at this stage but to defer a vote at least until the public comment period is closed. Here are the reasons for our deferral. One of the most important parts of the ICANN process is the public comment period, which allows public engagement and permits those affected by policies to express their views. Public comments constitute a quintessential part of iCANN?s ecosystem. How can ICANN depend on public comments when it makes a decision before they have all been received? The council should not hold a vote on something as important as the implicit creation of a new form of reserved names, especially one that singles out some international organisations for special consideration while ignoring others without full comment. The critical importance of public comments was recognized by our colleague Mr. Steve Metalitz, chair of the IPC in a recent comment. Mr Metalitz said: ?In trying to make the decision before the public comment period has closed, ICANN has failed to fulfill its pledge, in the Affirmation of Commitments, to employ ?responsive consultation procedures that provide detailed explanations of the basis for decisions, including how comments have influenced the development of policy consideration,? and to ?continually assess[] and improv[e] the processes by which ICANN receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions taken and the rationale thereof).? [1] We could not agree more with this statement by our fellow stakeholder group ? the IPC. The NCSG-Policy Committee believes that this is a critical policy issue and needs the full guidance of the public comments before it can properly decide how to vote, and thus requests a deferral of this vote. [1] http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm , paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c. _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From alain.berranger Wed Mar 14 14:23:20 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 08:23:20 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council In-Reply-To: <4F6008560200005B000874C5@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <4F6008560200005B000874C5@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: Two points as an interim observer to NCSG-PC: 1) I obviously agree with Mary about referring to the NPOC proposal; In my opinion, it can only reflect well on NCSG's ability to adapt to new circumstances in the environment and also shows that NCUC and NPOC are "walking the talk" early in our recent joint statement. 2) I suspect that NPOC members would be comfortable with a motion that would separate RC and IOC, since IOC has no NCSG-approved membership link to NPOC; 3) Just sharing that I had assumed, a bit naively I guess, that only NCSG can initiate a re-opening of its Charter, for reasons such as adapting to new threaths or opportunities in the internet environment or ICANN institutional culture... Alain On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:53 AM, wrote: > Hello, just a couple of updates from discussions with various people > earlier tonight - > > If we are to defer, we should add something about the NPOC proposal. > As for updates - > > First, Jeff has confirmed he will call for a special Council meeting to > vote on this, which may counter the main point our current draftstatement > is making. > > Second, the IPC may support breaking up the motion as between the IOC and > RC, if it means we will vote yes for the RC though not the IOC. > > Third, the GAC may react by forcing the Boar to reopen the NCSG charter > and constituency issue if we defer. > > Thoughts? > > Mary > > "Robin Gross " wrote: > > > Dear NCSG-PC, > > As per our discussion in the NCSG policy meeting today, here is NCSG's > stmnt on why we will defer tomorrow. > > Thanks, > Robin > ______ > NCSG finds it impossible to acquiesce in yet another circumvention of > ICANN?s bottom up policy development process. At a time when > multistakeholder processes on the internet are being challenged, this > proposal is both questionable on the merits, and contrary to ICANN?s > processes. Therefore, the NCSG has no option at this stage but to defer a > vote at least until the public comment period is closed. > > > > Here are the reasons for our deferral. > > > > One of the most important parts of the ICANN process is the public comment > period, which allows public engagement and permits those affected by > policies to express their views. Public comments constitute a > quintessential part of iCANN?s ecosystem. How can ICANN depend on public > comments when it makes a decision before they have all been received? The > council should not hold a vote on something as important as the implicit > creation of a new form of reserved names, especially one that singles out > some international organisations for special consideration while ignoring > others without full comment. The critical importance of public comments was > recognized by our colleague Mr. Steve Metalitz, chair of the IPC in a > recent comment. Mr Metalitz said: > > > > ?In trying to make the decision before the public comment period has > closed, ICANN has failed to fulfill its pledge, in the Affirmation of > Commitments, to employ ?responsive consultation procedures that provide > detailed explanations of the basis for decisions, including how comments > have influenced the development of policy consideration,? and to > ?continually assess[] and improv[e] the processes by which ICANN receives > public input (including adequate explanation of decisions taken and the > rationale thereof).?[1] > > > > We could not agree more with this statement by our fellow stakeholder > group ? the IPC. > > > > The NCSG-Policy Committee believes that this is a critical policy issue > and needs the full guidance of the public comments before it can properly > decide how to vote, and thus requests a deferral of this vote. > > > > [1] > http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm, > paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c. > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Wed Mar 14 15:25:38 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 06:25:38 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] 12:00 lunch w/ Board at Girasol Pool Message-ID: Reminder: NCSG Luncheon with ICANN Board of Directors today. All NCSG members are welcome. 12:00 - 13:00 today at Ramada - Girasol Pool (where the NPOC reception was held last night). Thanks! Robin From avri Wed Mar 14 17:58:50 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:58:50 -0600 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council In-Reply-To: <4F6008560200005B000874C5@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <4F6008560200005B000874C5@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <182fb356-bcdf-49cd-a185-5e4482295a68@email.android.com> Hi, Gee so many threats. First Jeff obliquely threatens my employment. Then the GAC threatens a SG. I think meeting circumvention is red meat and perhaps could be toned down. But in such an environment of threats it is hard to find the drive to convince anyone they should do so. As for mentioning the NPOC proposal, as you know I support including it in the discussions, but that is not the reason for the deferral. What could work its to insert a caution against rushing to make policy without having investigated all the issues, for example the thoughts of NPOC and Portugal. As for RC and ioc, in all the discussions on the NCSG discuss list, a list the RC its on as members, they have not presented their position. Also remember the RC is a member of NCUC. Avri Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote: >Hello, just a couple of updates from discussions with various people >earlier tonight - > >If we are to defer, we should add something about the NPOC proposal. > >As for updates - > >First, Jeff has confirmed he will call for a special Council meeting to >vote on this, which may counter the main point our current >draftstatement is making. > >Second, the IPC may support breaking up the motion as between the IOC >and RC, if it means we will vote yes for the RC though not the IOC. > >Third, the GAC may react by forcing the Boar to reopen the NCSG charter >and constituency issue if we defer. > >Thoughts? > >Mary > >"Robin Gross " wrote: > > >Dear NCSG-PC, > >As per our discussion in the NCSG policy meeting today, here is NCSG's >stmnt on why we will defer tomorrow. > >Thanks, >Robin >______ >NCSG finds it impossible to acquiesce in yet another circumvention of >ICANN?s bottom up policy development process. At a time when >multistakeholder processes on the internet are being challenged, this >proposal is both questionable on the merits, and contrary to ICANN?s >processes. Therefore, the NCSG has no option at this stage but to defer >a vote at least until the public comment period is closed. > > > >Here are the reasons for our deferral. > > > >One of the most important parts of the ICANN process is the public >comment period, which allows public engagement and permits those >affected by policies to express their views. Public comments constitute >a quintessential part of iCANN?s ecosystem. How can ICANN depend on >public comments when it makes a decision before they have all been >received? The council should not hold a vote on something as important >as the implicit creation of a new form of reserved names, especially >one that singles out some international organisations for special >consideration while ignoring others without full comment. The critical >importance of public comments was recognized by our colleague Mr. Steve >Metalitz, chair of the IPC in a recent comment. Mr Metalitz said: > > > >?In trying to make the decision before the public comment period has >closed, ICANN has failed to fulfill its pledge, in the Affirmation of >Commitments, to employ ?responsive consultation procedures that provide >detailed explanations of the basis for decisions, including how >comments have influenced the development of policy consideration,? and >to ?continually assess[] and improv[e] the processes by which ICANN >receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions >taken and the rationale thereof).?[1] > > > >We could not agree more with this statement by our fellow stakeholder >group ? the IPC. > > > >The NCSG-Policy Committee believes that this is a critical policy issue >and needs the full guidance of the public comments before it can >properly decide how to vote, and thus requests a deferral of this vote. > > > >[1] >http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm, >paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c. > >_______________________________________________ >PC-NCSG mailing list >PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From Mary.Wong Wed Mar 14 18:06:14 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:06:14 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council Message-ID: <4F6089BF0200005B000875E1@smtp.law.unh.edu> Let's separate the threats and Jeff from the rest of the discussion. I don't know how credible the GAC threat is - frankly, only the US and UK care about this issue and have been the ones pushing seriously hard for this; my impression is that most of the other GAC members are indifferent. Then again, GAC consensus only needs 1 country to insist and no one else to object, so although I don't think the GAC communique will be drafted in time to take our vote today into account, it is likely there will be a further GAC communication - spearheaded by the US - on this if the vote is deferred. On the merits of deferral in light of the NPOC proposal and the possibility of separating out the IOC from the RC: - Avri's point is what I had in mind. In fact, I think that is a stronger argument than the process point (which can be solved by having a special Council meeting right after the comment period closes, assuming the Council does NOT decide to vote against granting a deferral request today). - Would the PC at least discuss/consider voting yes for the RC and no to the IOC, assuming a friendly amendment to change "may"" to "shall" in Rec 3 is accepted? Mary "Avri Doria " wrote: Hi, Gee so many threats. First Jeff obliquely threatens my employment. Then the GAC threatens a SG. I think meeting circumvention is red meat and perhaps could be toned down. But in such an environment of threats it is hard to find the drive to convince anyone they should do so. As for mentioning the NPOC proposal, as you know I support including it in the discussions, but that is not the reason for the deferral. What could work its to insert a caution against rushing to make policy without having investigated all the issues, for example the thoughts of NPOC and Portugal. As for RC and ioc, in all the discussions on the NCSG discuss list, a list the RC its on as members, they have not presented their position. Also remember the RC is a member of NCUC. Avri Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote: >Hello, just a couple of updates from discussions with various people >earlier tonight - > >If we are to defer, we should add something about the NPOC proposal. > >As for updates - > >First, Jeff has confirmed he will call for a special Council meeting to >vote on this, which may counter the main point our current >draftstatement is making. > >Second, the IPC may support breaking up the motion as between the IOC >and RC, if it means we will vote yes for the RC though not the IOC. > >Third, the GAC may react by forcing the Boar to reopen the NCSG charter >and constituency issue if we defer. > >Thoughts? > >Mary > >"Robin Gross " wrote: > > >Dear NCSG-PC, > >As per our discussion in the NCSG policy meeting today, here is NCSG's >stmnt on why we will defer tomorrow. > >Thanks, >Robin >______ >NCSG finds it impossible to acquiesce in yet another circumvention of >ICANN?s bottom up policy development process. At a time when >multistakeholder processes on the internet are being challenged, this >proposal is both questionable on the merits, and contrary to ICANN?s >processes. Therefore, the NCSG has no option at this stage but to defer >a vote at least until the public comment period is closed. > > > >Here are the reasons for our deferral. > > > >One of the most important parts of the ICANN process is the public >comment period, which allows public engagement and permits those >affected by policies to express their views. Public comments constitute >a quintessential part of iCANN?s ecosystem. How can ICANN depend on >public comments when it makes a decision before they have all been >received? The council should not hold a vote on something as important >as the implicit creation of a new form of reserved names, especially >one that singles out some international organisations for special >consideration while ignoring others without full comment. The critical >importance of public comments was recognized by our colleague Mr. Steve >Metalitz, chair of the IPC in a recent comment. Mr Metalitz said: > > > >?In trying to make the decision before the public comment period has >closed, ICANN has failed to fulfill its pledge, in the Affirmation of >Commitments, to employ ?responsive consultation procedures that provide >detailed explanations of the basis for decisions, including how >comments have influenced the development of policy consideration,? and >to ?continually assess[] and improv[e] the processes by which ICANN >receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions >taken and the rationale thereof).?[1] > > > >We could not agree more with this statement by our fellow stakeholder >group ? the IPC. > > > >The NCSG-Policy Committee believes that this is a critical policy issue >and needs the full guidance of the public comments before it can >properly decide how to vote, and thus requests a deferral of this vote. > > > >[1] >http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm, >paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c. > >_______________________________________________ >PC-NCSG mailing list >PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From robin Wed Mar 14 18:10:55 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:10:55 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council In-Reply-To: <182fb356-bcdf-49cd-a185-5e4482295a68@email.android.com> References: <4F6008560200005B000874C5@smtp.law.unh.edu> <182fb356-bcdf-49cd-a185-5e4482295a68@email.android.com> Message-ID: Jeff should know by now that his intimidation is not going to work with most of us in NCSG. I also found it concerning that during the NCSG meeting yesterday, when a representative from the RedCross was asked to sign the attendance sheet, he flat-out refused to disclose he was there. Of course his name badge said he was with the RedCross and he was sitting with Debbie Hughes, but he was unwilling to disclose to the NCSG membership that he was in the policy meeting. Robin On Mar 14, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Gee so many threats. > > First Jeff obliquely threatens my employment. > Then the GAC threatens a SG. > > I think meeting circumvention is red meat and perhaps could be toned down. But in such an environment of threats it is hard to find the drive to convince anyone they should do so. > > As for mentioning the NPOC proposal, as you know I support including it in the discussions, but that is not the reason for the deferral. What could work its to insert a caution against rushing to make policy without having investigated all the issues, for example the thoughts of NPOC and Portugal. > > As for RC and ioc, in all the discussions on the NCSG discuss list, a list the RC its on as members, they have not presented their position. Also remember the RC is a member of NCUC. > > Avri > > Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote: > >> Hello, just a couple of updates from discussions with various people >> earlier tonight - >> >> If we are to defer, we should add something about the NPOC proposal. >> >> As for updates - >> >> First, Jeff has confirmed he will call for a special Council meeting to >> vote on this, which may counter the main point our current >> draftstatement is making. >> >> Second, the IPC may support breaking up the motion as between the IOC >> and RC, if it means we will vote yes for the RC though not the IOC. >> >> Third, the GAC may react by forcing the Boar to reopen the NCSG charter >> and constituency issue if we defer. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Mary >> >> "Robin Gross " wrote: >> >> >> Dear NCSG-PC, >> >> As per our discussion in the NCSG policy meeting today, here is NCSG's >> stmnt on why we will defer tomorrow. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> ______ >> NCSG finds it impossible to acquiesce in yet another circumvention of >> ICANN?s bottom up policy development process. At a time when >> multistakeholder processes on the internet are being challenged, this >> proposal is both questionable on the merits, and contrary to ICANN?s >> processes. Therefore, the NCSG has no option at this stage but to defer >> a vote at least until the public comment period is closed. >> >> >> >> Here are the reasons for our deferral. >> >> >> >> One of the most important parts of the ICANN process is the public >> comment period, which allows public engagement and permits those >> affected by policies to express their views. Public comments constitute >> a quintessential part of iCANN?s ecosystem. How can ICANN depend on >> public comments when it makes a decision before they have all been >> received? The council should not hold a vote on something as important >> as the implicit creation of a new form of reserved names, especially >> one that singles out some international organisations for special >> consideration while ignoring others without full comment. The critical >> importance of public comments was recognized by our colleague Mr. Steve >> Metalitz, chair of the IPC in a recent comment. Mr Metalitz said: >> >> >> >> ?In trying to make the decision before the public comment period has >> closed, ICANN has failed to fulfill its pledge, in the Affirmation of >> Commitments, to employ ?responsive consultation procedures that provide >> detailed explanations of the basis for decisions, including how >> comments have influenced the development of policy consideration,? and >> to ?continually assess[] and improv[e] the processes by which ICANN >> receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions >> taken and the rationale thereof).?[1] >> >> >> >> We could not agree more with this statement by our fellow stakeholder >> group ? the IPC. >> >> >> >> The NCSG-Policy Committee believes that this is a critical policy issue >> and needs the full guidance of the public comments before it can >> properly decide how to vote, and thus requests a deferral of this vote. >> >> >> >> [1] >> http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm, >> paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > From robin Wed Mar 14 18:11:55 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 09:11:55 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council In-Reply-To: <4F6089BF0200005B000875E1@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <4F6089BF0200005B000875E1@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <8DA95652-F00A-4A28-82B3-0FC35F01DCFB@ipjustice.org> No. Robin On Mar 14, 2012, at 9:06 AM, wrote: > Let's separate the threats and Jeff from the rest of the discussion. I don't know how credible the GAC threat is - frankly, only the US and UK care about this issue and have been the ones pushing seriously hard for this; my impression is that most of the other GAC members are indifferent. Then again, GAC consensus only needs 1 country to insist and no one else to object, so although I don't think the GAC communique will be drafted in time to take our vote today into account, it is likely there will be a further GAC communication - spearheaded by the US - on this if the vote is deferred. > > On the merits of deferral in light of the NPOC proposal and the possibility of separating out the IOC from the RC: > > - Avri's point is what I had in mind. In fact, I think that is a stronger argument than the process point (which can be solved by having a special Council meeting right after the comment period closes, assuming the Council does NOT decide to vote against granting a deferral request today). > > - Would the PC at least discuss/consider voting yes for the RC and no to the IOC, assuming a friendly amendment to change "may"" to "shall" in Rec 3 is accepted? > > Mary > > "Avri Doria " wrote: > > > Hi, > > Gee so many threats. > > First Jeff obliquely threatens my employment. > Then the GAC threatens a SG. > > I think meeting circumvention is red meat and perhaps could be toned down. But in such an environment of threats it is hard to find the drive to convince anyone they should do so. > > As for mentioning the NPOC proposal, as you know I support including it in the discussions, but that is not the reason for the deferral. What could work its to insert a caution against rushing to make policy without having investigated all the issues, for example the thoughts of NPOC and Portugal. > > As for RC and ioc, in all the discussions on the NCSG discuss list, a list the RC its on as members, they have not presented their position. Also remember the RC is a member of NCUC. > > Avri > > Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote: > >> Hello, just a couple of updates from discussions with various people >> earlier tonight - >> >> If we are to defer, we should add something about the NPOC proposal. >> >> As for updates - >> >> First, Jeff has confirmed he will call for a special Council meeting to >> vote on this, which may counter the main point our current >> draftstatement is making. >> >> Second, the IPC may support breaking up the motion as between the IOC >> and RC, if it means we will vote yes for the RC though not the IOC. >> >> Third, the GAC may react by forcing the Boar to reopen the NCSG charter >> and constituency issue if we defer. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Mary >> >> "Robin Gross " wrote: >> >> >> Dear NCSG-PC, >> >> As per our discussion in the NCSG policy meeting today, here is NCSG's >> stmnt on why we will defer tomorrow. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> ______ >> NCSG finds it impossible to acquiesce in yet another circumvention of >> ICANN?s bottom up policy development process. At a time when >> multistakeholder processes on the internet are being challenged, this >> proposal is both questionable on the merits, and contrary to ICANN?s >> processes. Therefore, the NCSG has no option at this stage but to defer >> a vote at least until the public comment period is closed. >> >> >> >> Here are the reasons for our deferral. >> >> >> >> One of the most important parts of the ICANN process is the public >> comment period, which allows public engagement and permits those >> affected by policies to express their views. Public comments constitute >> a quintessential part of iCANN?s ecosystem. How can ICANN depend on >> public comments when it makes a decision before they have all been >> received? The council should not hold a vote on something as important >> as the implicit creation of a new form of reserved names, especially >> one that singles out some international organisations for special >> consideration while ignoring others without full comment. The critical >> importance of public comments was recognized by our colleague Mr. Steve >> Metalitz, chair of the IPC in a recent comment. Mr Metalitz said: >> >> >> >> ?In trying to make the decision before the public comment period has >> closed, ICANN has failed to fulfill its pledge, in the Affirmation of >> Commitments, to employ ?responsive consultation procedures that provide >> detailed explanations of the basis for decisions, including how >> comments have influenced the development of policy consideration,? and >> to ?continually assess[] and improv[e] the processes by which ICANN >> receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions >> taken and the rationale thereof).?[1] >> >> >> >> We could not agree more with this statement by our fellow stakeholder >> group ? the IPC. >> >> >> >> The NCSG-Policy Committee believes that this is a critical policy issue >> and needs the full guidance of the public comments before it can >> properly decide how to vote, and thus requests a deferral of this vote. >> >> >> >> [1] >> http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm, >> paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > From william.drake Wed Mar 14 18:48:55 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:48:55 -0600 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council In-Reply-To: <4F6008560200005B000874C5@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <4F6008560200005B000874C5@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <66FE8841-56A8-456F-B452-E0D6097B1A65@uzh.ch> says who? on behalf of whom, exactly? on what grounds, via what mechanisms? how?hard wire council seats? npoc agrees with us! what could any of this "solve"? Bully tactics from Suzanne. On Mar 14, 2012, at 12:53 AM, wrote: > Third, the GAC may react by forcing the Boar to reopen the NCSG charter and constituency issue if we defer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake Wed Mar 14 18:51:45 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 10:51:45 -0600 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council In-Reply-To: <4F6089BF0200005B000875E1@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <4F6089BF0200005B000875E1@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: Not me On Mar 14, 2012, at 10:06 AM, wrote: > Would the PC at least discuss/consider voting yes for the RC and no to the IOC, assuming a friendly amendment to change "may"" to "shall" in Rec 3 is accepted? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis Wed Mar 14 18:58:13 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:58:13 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council In-Reply-To: <4F6089BF0200005B000875E1@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: No Mary ? this was a suggestion that I put on the table back in December 2011 and the DT did not accept it. The fact that now suddenly they are willing to do this now (FYI-this did not make it to the list) just because they don't want us to defer is ridiculous. And, of course we need to pay attention to the threats ? this is bullying in its worst form! KK From: "Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU" > Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 16:06:14 +0000 To: "Avri org>" >, "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" >, Robin Gross > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council Let's separate the threats and Jeff from the rest of the discussion. I don't know how credible the GAC threat is - frankly, only the US and UK care about this issue and have been the ones pushing seriously hard for this; my impression is that most of the other GAC members are indifferent. Then again, GAC consensus only needs 1 country to insist and no one else to object, so although I don't think the GAC communique will be drafted in time to take our vote today into account, it is likely there will be a further GAC communication - spearheaded by the US - on this if the vote is deferred. On the merits of deferral in light of the NPOC proposal and the possibility of separating out the IOC from the RC: - Avri's point is what I had in mind. In fact, I think that is a stronger argument than the process point (which can be solved by having a special Council meeting right after the comment period closes, assuming the Council does NOT decide to vote against granting a deferral request today). - Would the PC at least discuss/consider voting yes for the RC and no to the IOC, assuming a friendly amendment to change "may"" to "shall" in Rec 3 is accepted? Mary "Avri Doria >" > wrote: Hi, Gee so many threats. First Jeff obliquely threatens my employment. Then the GAC threatens a SG. I think meeting circumvention is red meat and perhaps could be toned down. But in such an environment of threats it is hard to find the drive to convince anyone they should do so. As for mentioning the NPOC proposal, as you know I support including it in the discussions, but that is not the reason for the deferral. What could work its to insert a caution against rushing to make policy without having investigated all the issues, for example the thoughts of NPOC and Portugal. As for RC and ioc, in all the discussions on the NCSG discuss list, a list the RC its on as members, they have not presented their position. Also remember the RC is a member of NCUC. Avri Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote: Hello, just a couple of updates from discussions with various people earlier tonight - If we are to defer, we should add something about the NPOC proposal. As for updates - First, Jeff has confirmed he will call for a special Council meeting to vote on this, which may counter the main point our current draftstatement is making. Second, the IPC may support breaking up the motion as between the IOC and RC, if it means we will vote yes for the RC though not the IOC. Third, the GAC may react by forcing the Boar to reopen the NCSG charter and constituency issue if we defer. Thoughts? Mary "Robin Gross >" > wrote: Dear NCSG-PC, As per our discussion in the NCSG policy meeting today, here is NCSG's stmnt on why we will defer tomorrow. Thanks, Robin ______ NCSG finds it impossible to acquiesce in yet another circumvention of ICANN?s bottom up policy development process. At a time when multistakeholder processes on the internet are being challenged, this proposal is both questionable on the merits, and contrary to ICANN?s processes. Therefore, the NCSG has no option at this stage but to defer a vote at least until the public comment period is closed. Here are the reasons for our deferral. One of the most important parts of the ICANN process is the public comment period, which allows public engagement and permits those affected by policies to express their views. Public comments constitute a quintessential part of iCANN?s ecosystem. How can ICANN depend on public comments when it makes a decision before they have all been received? The council should not hold a vote on something as important as the implicit creation of a new form of reserved names, especially one that singles out some international organisations for special consideration while ignoring others without full comment. The critical importance of public comments was recognized by our colleague Mr. Steve Metalitz, chair of the IPC in a recent comment. Mr Metalitz said: ?In trying to make the decision before the public comment period has closed, ICANN has failed to fulfill its pledge, in the Affirmation of Commitments, to employ ?responsive consultation procedures that provide detailed explanations of the basis for decisions, including how comments have influenced the development of policy consideration,? and to ?continually assess[] and improv[e] the processes by which ICANN receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions taken and the rationale thereof).?[1] We could not agree more with this statement by our fellow stakeholder group ? the IPC. The NCSG-Policy Committee believes that this is a critical policy issue and needs the full guidance of the public comments before it can properly decide how to vote, and thus requests a deferral of this vote. [1] http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm, paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c. _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From alain.berranger Wed Mar 14 19:28:19 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:28:19 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council In-Reply-To: <8DA95652-F00A-4A28-82B3-0FC35F01DCFB@ipjustice.org> References: <4F6089BF0200005B000875E1@smtp.law.unh.edu> <8DA95652-F00A-4A28-82B3-0FC35F01DCFB@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Chiming in... Focusing on generic framework solutions (whatever we end up with) and its future application will serve us well because the floodgates of exception requests (based on precedance) will be locked down permanently... Let's stop criticizing the RC and their reps... we are forgetting the RC proposed generic solutions early and they were pushed back... Now, an UN+/- 10 is something many can live with. So, in conclusion I agree with Mary' suggestions. Alain On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > No. > > Robin > > On Mar 14, 2012, at 9:06 AM, wrote: > > > Let's separate the threats and Jeff from the rest of the discussion. I > don't know how credible the GAC threat is - frankly, only the US and UK > care about this issue and have been the ones pushing seriously hard for > this; my impression is that most of the other GAC members are indifferent. > Then again, GAC consensus only needs 1 country to insist and no one else to > object, so although I don't think the GAC communique will be drafted in > time to take our vote today into account, it is likely there will be a > further GAC communication - spearheaded by the US - on this if the vote is > deferred. > > > > On the merits of deferral in light of the NPOC proposal and the > possibility of separating out the IOC from the RC: > > > > - Avri's point is what I had in mind. In fact, I think that is a > stronger argument than the process point (which can be solved by having a > special Council meeting right after the comment period closes, assuming the > Council does NOT decide to vote against granting a deferral request today). > > > > - Would the PC at least discuss/consider voting yes for the RC and no to > the IOC, assuming a friendly amendment to change "may"" to "shall" in Rec > 3 is accepted? > > > > Mary > > > > "Avri Doria " wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Gee so many threats. > > > > First Jeff obliquely threatens my employment. > > Then the GAC threatens a SG. > > > > I think meeting circumvention is red meat and perhaps could be toned > down. But in such an environment of threats it is hard to find the drive to > convince anyone they should do so. > > > > As for mentioning the NPOC proposal, as you know I support including it > in the discussions, but that is not the reason for the deferral. What > could work its to insert a caution against rushing to make policy without > having investigated all the issues, for example the thoughts of NPOC and > Portugal. > > > > As for RC and ioc, in all the discussions on the NCSG discuss list, a > list the RC its on as members, they have not presented their position. Also > remember the RC is a member of NCUC. > > > > Avri > > > > Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote: > > > >> Hello, just a couple of updates from discussions with various people > >> earlier tonight - > >> > >> If we are to defer, we should add something about the NPOC proposal. > >> > >> As for updates - > >> > >> First, Jeff has confirmed he will call for a special Council meeting to > >> vote on this, which may counter the main point our current > >> draftstatement is making. > >> > >> Second, the IPC may support breaking up the motion as between the IOC > >> and RC, if it means we will vote yes for the RC though not the IOC. > >> > >> Third, the GAC may react by forcing the Boar to reopen the NCSG charter > >> and constituency issue if we defer. > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> Mary > >> > >> "Robin Gross " wrote: > >> > >> > >> Dear NCSG-PC, > >> > >> As per our discussion in the NCSG policy meeting today, here is NCSG's > >> stmnt on why we will defer tomorrow. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Robin > >> ______ > >> NCSG finds it impossible to acquiesce in yet another circumvention of > >> ICANN?s bottom up policy development process. At a time when > >> multistakeholder processes on the internet are being challenged, this > >> proposal is both questionable on the merits, and contrary to ICANN?s > >> processes. Therefore, the NCSG has no option at this stage but to defer > >> a vote at least until the public comment period is closed. > >> > >> > >> > >> Here are the reasons for our deferral. > >> > >> > >> > >> One of the most important parts of the ICANN process is the public > >> comment period, which allows public engagement and permits those > >> affected by policies to express their views. Public comments constitute > >> a quintessential part of iCANN?s ecosystem. How can ICANN depend on > >> public comments when it makes a decision before they have all been > >> received? The council should not hold a vote on something as important > >> as the implicit creation of a new form of reserved names, especially > >> one that singles out some international organisations for special > >> consideration while ignoring others without full comment. The critical > >> importance of public comments was recognized by our colleague Mr. Steve > >> Metalitz, chair of the IPC in a recent comment. Mr Metalitz said: > >> > >> > >> > >> ?In trying to make the decision before the public comment period has > >> closed, ICANN has failed to fulfill its pledge, in the Affirmation of > >> Commitments, to employ ?responsive consultation procedures that provide > >> detailed explanations of the basis for decisions, including how > >> comments have influenced the development of policy consideration,? and > >> to ?continually assess[] and improv[e] the processes by which ICANN > >> receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions > >> taken and the rationale thereof).?[1] > >> > >> > >> > >> We could not agree more with this statement by our fellow stakeholder > >> group ? the IPC. > >> > >> > >> > >> The NCSG-Policy Committee believes that this is a critical policy issue > >> and needs the full guidance of the public comments before it can > >> properly decide how to vote, and thus requests a deferral of this vote. > >> > >> > >> > >> [1] > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm > , > >> paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis Wed Mar 14 19:34:45 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:34:45 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council In-Reply-To: References: <4F6089BF0200005B000875E1@smtp.law.unh.edu> <8DA95652-F00A-4A28-82B3-0FC35F01DCFB@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Thanks Alain This was originally proposed to the DT but was not accepted at the time. So all recommendations were created on the basis that they apply for both orgs. If the now wish to separate them, then I suggest we go back and reopen the discussions. KK Sent from my iPhone - excuse any typos On 14 Mar 2012, at 11:29, "Alain Berranger" > wrote: Chiming in... Focusing on generic framework solutions (whatever we end up with) and its future application will serve us well because the floodgates of exception requests (based on precedance) will be locked down permanently... Let's stop criticizing the RC and their reps... we are forgetting the RC proposed generic solutions early and they were pushed back... Now, an UN+/- 10 is something many can live with. So, in conclusion I agree with Mary' suggestions. Alain On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Robin Gross > wrote: No. Robin On Mar 14, 2012, at 9:06 AM, > wrote: > Let's separate the threats and Jeff from the rest of the discussion. I don't know how credible the GAC threat is - frankly, only the US and UK care about this issue and have been the ones pushing seriously hard for this; my impression is that most of the other GAC members are indifferent. Then again, GAC consensus only needs 1 country to insist and no one else to object, so although I don't think the GAC communique will be drafted in time to take our vote today into account, it is likely there will be a further GAC communication - spearheaded by the US - on this if the vote is deferred. > > On the merits of deferral in light of the NPOC proposal and the possibility of separating out the IOC from the RC: > > - Avri's point is what I had in mind. In fact, I think that is a stronger argument than the process point (which can be solved by having a special Council meeting right after the comment period closes, assuming the Council does NOT decide to vote against granting a deferral request today). > > - Would the PC at least discuss/consider voting yes for the RC and no to the IOC, assuming a friendly amendment to change "may"" to "shall" in Rec 3 is accepted? > > Mary > > "Avri Doria >" > wrote: > > > Hi, > > Gee so many threats. > > First Jeff obliquely threatens my employment. > Then the GAC threatens a SG. > > I think meeting circumvention is red meat and perhaps could be toned down. But in such an environment of threats it is hard to find the drive to convince anyone they should do so. > > As for mentioning the NPOC proposal, as you know I support including it in the discussions, but that is not the reason for the deferral. What could work its to insert a caution against rushing to make policy without having investigated all the issues, for example the thoughts of NPOC and Portugal. > > As for RC and ioc, in all the discussions on the NCSG discuss list, a list the RC its on as members, they have not presented their position. Also remember the RC is a member of NCUC. > > Avri > > Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote: > >> Hello, just a couple of updates from discussions with various people >> earlier tonight - >> >> If we are to defer, we should add something about the NPOC proposal. >> >> As for updates - >> >> First, Jeff has confirmed he will call for a special Council meeting to >> vote on this, which may counter the main point our current >> draftstatement is making. >> >> Second, the IPC may support breaking up the motion as between the IOC >> and RC, if it means we will vote yes for the RC though not the IOC. >> >> Third, the GAC may react by forcing the Boar to reopen the NCSG charter >> and constituency issue if we defer. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Mary >> >> "Robin Gross >" > wrote: >> >> >> Dear NCSG-PC, >> >> As per our discussion in the NCSG policy meeting today, here is NCSG's >> stmnt on why we will defer tomorrow. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> ______ >> NCSG finds it impossible to acquiesce in yet another circumvention of >> ICANN?s bottom up policy development process. At a time when >> multistakeholder processes on the internet are being challenged, this >> proposal is both questionable on the merits, and contrary to ICANN?s >> processes. Therefore, the NCSG has no option at this stage but to defer >> a vote at least until the public comment period is closed. >> >> >> >> Here are the reasons for our deferral. >> >> >> >> One of the most important parts of the ICANN process is the public >> comment period, which allows public engagement and permits those >> affected by policies to express their views. Public comments constitute >> a quintessential part of iCANN?s ecosystem. How can ICANN depend on >> public comments when it makes a decision before they have all been >> received? The council should not hold a vote on something as important >> as the implicit creation of a new form of reserved names, especially >> one that singles out some international organisations for special >> consideration while ignoring others without full comment. The critical >> importance of public comments was recognized by our colleague Mr. Steve >> Metalitz, chair of the IPC in a recent comment. Mr Metalitz said: >> >> >> >> ?In trying to make the decision before the public comment period has >> closed, ICANN has failed to fulfill its pledge, in the Affirmation of >> Commitments, to employ ?responsive consultation procedures that provide >> detailed explanations of the basis for decisions, including how >> comments have influenced the development of policy consideration,? and >> to ?continually assess[] and improv[e] the processes by which ICANN >> receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions >> taken and the rationale thereof).?[1] >> >> >> >> We could not agree more with this statement by our fellow stakeholder >> group ? the IPC. >> >> >> >> The NCSG-Policy Committee believes that this is a critical policy issue >> and needs the full guidance of the public comments before it can >> properly decide how to vote, and thus requests a deferral of this vote. >> >> >> >> [1] >> http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm, >> paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From alain.berranger Wed Mar 14 19:43:27 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 13:43:27 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council In-Reply-To: References: <4F6089BF0200005B000875E1@smtp.law.unh.edu> <8DA95652-F00A-4A28-82B3-0FC35F01DCFB@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Thanks Konstantinos. Did not know that about the DT. Time is running out for more discussions - just an hunch mind you... Alain On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis < k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote: > Thanks Alain > > This was originally proposed to the DT but was not accepted at the time. > So all recommendations were created on the basis that they apply for both > orgs. If the now wish to separate them, then I suggest we go back and > reopen the discussions. > > KK > > Sent from my iPhone - excuse any typos > > On 14 Mar 2012, at 11:29, "Alain Berranger" > wrote: > > Chiming in... > > Focusing on generic framework solutions (whatever we end up with) and its > future application will serve us well because the floodgates of exception > requests (based on precedance) will be locked down permanently... Let's > stop criticizing the RC and their reps... we are forgetting the RC proposed > generic solutions early and they were pushed back... Now, an UN+/- 10 is > something many can live with. So, in conclusion I agree with Mary' > suggestions. > > Alain > > On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Robin Gross robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote: > No. > > Robin > > On Mar 14, 2012, at 9:06 AM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu>> wrote: > > > Let's separate the threats and Jeff from the rest of the discussion. I > don't know how credible the GAC threat is - frankly, only the US and UK > care about this issue and have been the ones pushing seriously hard for > this; my impression is that most of the other GAC members are indifferent. > Then again, GAC consensus only needs 1 country to insist and no one else to > object, so although I don't think the GAC communique will be drafted in > time to take our vote today into account, it is likely there will be a > further GAC communication - spearheaded by the US - on this if the vote is > deferred. > > > > On the merits of deferral in light of the NPOC proposal and the > possibility of separating out the IOC from the RC: > > > > - Avri's point is what I had in mind. In fact, I think that is a > stronger argument than the process point (which can be solved by having a > special Council meeting right after the comment period closes, assuming the > Council does NOT decide to vote against granting a deferral request today). > > > > - Would the PC at least discuss/consider voting yes for the RC and no to > the IOC, assuming a friendly amendment to change "may"" to "shall" in Rec > 3 is accepted? > > > > Mary > > > > "Avri Doria >" avri at acm.org>> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > Gee so many threats. > > > > First Jeff obliquely threatens my employment. > > Then the GAC threatens a SG. > > > > I think meeting circumvention is red meat and perhaps could be toned > down. But in such an environment of threats it is hard to find the drive to > convince anyone they should do so. > > > > As for mentioning the NPOC proposal, as you know I support including it > in the discussions, but that is not the reason for the deferral. What > could work its to insert a caution against rushing to make policy without > having investigated all the issues, for example the thoughts of NPOC and > Portugal. > > > > As for RC and ioc, in all the discussions on the NCSG discuss list, a > list the RC its on as members, they have not presented their position. Also > remember the RC is a member of NCUC. > > > > Avri > > > > Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote: > > > >> Hello, just a couple of updates from discussions with various people > >> earlier tonight - > >> > >> If we are to defer, we should add something about the NPOC proposal. > >> > >> As for updates - > >> > >> First, Jeff has confirmed he will call for a special Council meeting to > >> vote on this, which may counter the main point our current > >> draftstatement is making. > >> > >> Second, the IPC may support breaking up the motion as between the IOC > >> and RC, if it means we will vote yes for the RC though not the IOC. > >> > >> Third, the GAC may react by forcing the Boar to reopen the NCSG charter > >> and constituency issue if we defer. > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> Mary > >> > >> "Robin Gross >" < > robin at ipjustice.org> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Dear NCSG-PC, > >> > >> As per our discussion in the NCSG policy meeting today, here is NCSG's > >> stmnt on why we will defer tomorrow. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Robin > >> ______ > >> NCSG finds it impossible to acquiesce in yet another circumvention of > >> ICANN?s bottom up policy development process. At a time when > >> multistakeholder processes on the internet are being challenged, this > >> proposal is both questionable on the merits, and contrary to ICANN?s > >> processes. Therefore, the NCSG has no option at this stage but to defer > >> a vote at least until the public comment period is closed. > >> > >> > >> > >> Here are the reasons for our deferral. > >> > >> > >> > >> One of the most important parts of the ICANN process is the public > >> comment period, which allows public engagement and permits those > >> affected by policies to express their views. Public comments constitute > >> a quintessential part of iCANN?s ecosystem. How can ICANN depend on > >> public comments when it makes a decision before they have all been > >> received? The council should not hold a vote on something as important > >> as the implicit creation of a new form of reserved names, especially > >> one that singles out some international organisations for special > >> consideration while ignoring others without full comment. The critical > >> importance of public comments was recognized by our colleague Mr. Steve > >> Metalitz, chair of the IPC in a recent comment. Mr Metalitz said: > >> > >> > >> > >> ?In trying to make the decision before the public comment period has > >> closed, ICANN has failed to fulfill its pledge, in the Affirmation of > >> Commitments, to employ ?responsive consultation procedures that provide > >> detailed explanations of the basis for decisions, including how > >> comments have influenced the development of policy consideration,? and > >> to ?continually assess[] and improv[e] the processes by which ICANN > >> receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions > >> taken and the rationale thereof).?[1] > >> > >> > >> > >> We could not agree more with this statement by our fellow stakeholder > >> group ? the IPC. > >> > >> > >> > >> The NCSG-Policy Committee believes that this is a critical policy issue > >> and needs the full guidance of the public comments before it can > >> properly decide how to vote, and thus requests a deferral of this vote. > >> > >> > >> > >> [1] > >> > http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm > , > >> paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > -- > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca< > http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/> > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca > > Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org< > http://www.gkpfoundation.org> > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org< > http://www.chasquinet.org> > interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter Wed Mar 14 20:30:08 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:30:08 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council References: <4F6089BF0200005B000875E1@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CC9D5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> I am with Bill wolfgang ________________________________ Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von William Drake Gesendet: Mi 14.03.2012 17:51 An: Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council Not me On Mar 14, 2012, at 10:06 AM, wrote: Would the PC at least discuss/consider voting yes for the RC and no to the IOC, assuming a friendly amendment to change "may"" to "shall" in Rec 3 is accepted? From robin Wed Mar 14 21:05:51 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:05:51 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Statement Explaining Our Deferral of the Vote Message-ID: NCSG finds it impossible to bypass ICANN?s bottom-up policy development process in this way. At a time when multi-stakeholder processes on the Internet are being challenged, this proposal is both questionable on the merits, and contrary to ICANN?s processes. Therefore, the NCSG has no option at this stage but to defer the vote at least until the public comment period is closed. Here are the reasons for our deferral. One of the most important parts of the ICANN process is the public comment period, which allows public engagement and permits those affected by policies to express their views. Public comments constitute a quintessential part of iCANN?s ecosystem. How can ICANN depend on public comments when it makes a decision before they have all been received? The council should not hold a vote on something as important as the implicit creation of a new form of reserved names, especially one that singles out some international organisations for special consideration while ignoring others without full comment. The critical importance of public comments was recognized by our colleague Mr. Steve Metalitz, chair of the IPC in a recent comment. Mr Metalitz said: ?In trying to make the decision before the public comment period has closed, ICANN has failed to fulfill its pledge, in the Affirmation of Commitments, to employ ?responsive consultation procedures that provide detailed explanations of the basis for decisions, including how comments have influenced the development of policy consideration,? and to ?continually assess[] and improv[e] the processes by which ICANN receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions taken and the rationale thereof).? [1] We could not agree more with this statement by our fellow stakeholder group ? the IPC. The community should take the necessary time to hear all the views on this issue and examine other proposals, such as those from Portugal earlier this week as well as the proposal from the Not-for-profit Operations Constituency that are intended to create a more fair and less arbitrary standard for reserved names. The NCSG-Policy Committee believes that this is a critical policy issue and needs the full guidance of the public comments before it can properly decide how to vote, and thus requests a deferral of this vote. [1] http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm, paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis Wed Mar 14 23:16:59 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:16:59 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] FW: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Final IOC / RCRC Motion In-Reply-To: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3EB90DC7A6@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> Message-ID: FYI From: Jeff Neuman > Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 05:54:28 +0000 To: ">" > Cc: "gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org" > Subject: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Final IOC / RCRC Motion All, Please find enclosed the final draft (and redline) of the motion for the Council meeting concerning the protection of IOC and RCRC Motions at the Top Level. I want to thank the drafting team, including members from virtually every constituency, stakeholder group, the ALAC, the IOC and RCRC for working so diligently through the week with the expectation that the Council would be voting on this motion. The GAC has been truly appreciative of the efforts of this group and of the council for handling this so expeditiously with an eye towards implementation in the current round. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs 21575 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 Office: +1.571.434.5772 Mobile: +1.202.549.5079 Fax: +1.703.738.7965 / jeff.neuman at neustar.biz / www.neustar.biz ________________________________ The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IOC RC Motion (Redline).docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 17740 bytes Desc: IOC RC Motion (Redline).docx URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IOC RC MOtion.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 16940 bytes Desc: IOC RC MOtion.docx URL: From k.komaitis Thu Mar 15 00:40:54 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 22:40:54 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] FW: NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Alain, I am quite baffled by your statement that NPOC doesn't support the deferral on the issue of the IOC and the Red Cross? please see your email below and can you please explain to me why the change on this? Thanks KK From: Alain Berranger > Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 06:16:33 +0000 To: Robin Gross >, "Klaus.Stoll" >, Eduardo Monge > Cc: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG stmt on AC / IOC request & vote at GNSO Council Dear Robin, We spoke at the NPOC Cocktail tonight. You wanted my views. On principle, I am OK with deferring for some of the reasons mentioned but not for all. The language could be improved and be less irritating to some (..yet another circumvention...true perhaps but why irritate those you want to rallye?). Let me add that I would prefer a solution-based approach other than we need more time because process was not respected. I think the NPOC proposal and the Portugal proposal at GAC meeting yesterday are such solutions (In fact they are very similar - except that NPOC's is much shorter :). So maybe you could say defer in order to look at solutions like our own NPOC or Portugal proposals? PS - There is a typo in the subject title. Alain On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Robin Gross > wrote: Dear NCSG-PC, As per our discussion in the NCSG policy meeting today, here is NCSG's stmnt on why we will defer tomorrow. Thanks, Robin ______ NCSG finds it impossible to acquiesce in yet another circumvention of ICANN?s bottom up policy development process. At a time when multistakeholder processes on the internet are being challenged, this proposal is both questionable on the merits, and contrary to ICANN?s processes. Therefore, the NCSG has no option at this stage but to defer a vote at least until the public comment period is closed. Here are the reasons for our deferral. One of the most important parts of the ICANN process is the public comment period, which allows public engagement and permits those affected by policies to express their views. Public comments constitute a quintessential part of iCANN?s ecosystem. How can ICANN depend on public comments when it makes a decision before they have all been received? The council should not hold a vote on something as important as the implicit creation of a newform of reserved names, especially one that singles out some international organisations for special consideration while ignoring others without full comment. The critical importance of public comments was recognized by our colleague Mr. Steve Metalitz, chair of the IPC in a recent comment. Mr Metalitz said: ?In trying to make the decision before the public comment period has closed, ICANN has failed to fulfill its pledge, in the Affirmation of Commitments, to employ ?responsive consultation procedures that provide detailed explanations of the basis for decisions, including how comments have influenced the development of policy consideration,? and to ?continually assess[] and improv[e] the processes by which ICANN receives public input (including adequate explanation of decisions taken and the rationale thereof).?[1] We could not agree more with this statement by our fellow stakeholder group ? the IPC. The NCSG-Policy Committee believes that this is a critical policy issue and needs the full guidance of the public comments before it can properly decide how to vote, and thus requests a deferral of this vote. ________________________________ [1] http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm, paragraphs 7 and 9.1.c. _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Trustee, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: ATT00001..txt URL: From wendy Fri Mar 16 02:36:09 2012 From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:36:09 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Proposed comments for the WHOIS RT In-Reply-To: <4F6289FD.70907@seltzer.com> References: <4F6289FD.70907@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <4F628AF9.6010609@seltzer.com> Can we try to get approval for sending this before we leave CR? Thanks! --Wendy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Proposed comments for the WHOIS RT Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:31:57 -0400 From: Wendy Seltzer To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Thanks very much to Maria and Joy for contributions to this, proposed comments for the WHOIS RT. Comments are due March 18, but I'd like to send them before leaving tomorrow, if possible. We would like to commend the general readability of the report. WHOIS has become a very complex issue, and presenting it so clearly and accessibly facilitates participation in both this consultation process and participation more generally. We particularly appreciate the hard work of collecting the WHOIS policies from the various places where they reside. High-level recommendations: The report should explicitly recommend that WHOIS policy recognize that registrants, both individual and organizations, commercial and non-commercial, have a legitimate interest in, *and in many jurisdictions the legal right to, the privacy of their personal data*. In the normative discussion, privacy should be given equivalent emphasis to accuracy. *It would be instructive in this regard to reference the OECD privacy guidelines, agreed to by all OECD member countries with input from business and civil society. Data accuracy (or 'quality') is considered by OECD members to be of equal importance to purpose specification, use limitation and security safeguards, none of which factors are supported by Whois as it currently operates. (OECD Guideline reference: http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_34255_1815186_1_1_1_1,00.html ) * It is as important that registrants have privacy as that their data be accurately recorded. At the moment, the report appears, from its emphasis on access and accuracy, to discount those privacy concerns *that are accepted by all OECD member states and participating business and civil society actors as having equal importance.* Section F. Findings The brief ?tour de table? provides useful background reading, but *should* include reference to the fact that ICANN?s Whois policies are incompatible with the OECD privacy guidelines and also applicable national laws in many countries, including member states of the European Union.*The European Union's Article 29 Working Party of national data protection officers provided specific input to ICANN's 2003 Montreal meeting regarding the many ways gTLD Whois breaches EU law. These included the lack of definition of a purpose of Whois, lack of use limitation, misuse of Whois data by third parties and the disproportionality of the publication of personal data. The Article 29 Working Party concluded that "there is no legal ground justifying the mandatory publication of personal data referring to this person. (the registrant)". * *(Article 29 WP reference: Opinion 2/2003 on the application of the data protection principles* *to the Whois directories * http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2003/wp76_en.pdf) *It is very concerning that the findings of the Whois Review Team do not consider the glaring fact of the illegality of gTLD Whois requirements in many jurisdictions, and the incompatibility of Whois as it currently stands with the only internationally accepted guidelines on data privacy. * Section G. Recommendations 1. Single Whois Policy - "The Board should oversee the creation of a single Whois policy document." We welcome the call for a single Whois policy that sets out the requirements, globally and facilitates registrants who wish to consult those requirements. Whois ?policy? is currently inferred from registry and registrar contracts.* A single Whois policy should be compatible with the internationally accepted OECD privacy guidelines, in respect of a statement of purpose for the use of data, use limitation, data accuracy and appropriate security safeguards for personal data.* However, gTLD policy development is the responsibility of the GNSO, not the Board (until the final stages), and needs to be developed through the bottom up process, with the cooperation of the multiple stakeholders affected. 3 - "Make Whois a Strategic Priority" Change "Strategic Priority" to "Strategic Consideration." As the review team was focused only on WHOIS, it was in no position to analyze the tradeoffs involved in setting global priorities. Many items on ICANN's policy agenda *may be considered* more worthy of the community's limited time and attention. *The appropriate process for the community to prioritize issues such as Whois is via the Strategic Plan.* No evidence is offered in this report to support prioritizing WHOIS o*ver other issues of importance to the community as a whole.* 5 - Data Accuracy - As many law enforcement comments in the report suggest, contactability is more important than "accuracy." Separation of the contact details from the public display could enhance the accuracy of the contact details available to appropriately qualified requesters. 10-16. "Data Access: Privacy and Proxy Services." The recommendations should explicitly acknowledge the importance of privacy and proxy services in providing options to legitimate Internet users to preserve their privacy. National laws in the United States, for example, recognize privacy interests not only for individuals, but for associations. The report further documents the legitimate interests of even commercial Internet users in private domain name registrations. * In relation to the references to national legislation: it is important to note that this reference may be problematic if national legislation violates international human rights standards, for example, relating to freedom of expression (see the citation of this report below). * Freedom of association: proxy registration services can support the rights of human rights defenders to carry out lawful activity without persecution. Threats to registrants include surveillance of registrants through use of information which is accessed via WHOIS data - continuing to expand the nature of information held in WHOIS will only heighten the safety concerns of human rights defenders. In addition, just in time attacks on websites of civil society organisations have been used to disrupt lawful activity and democratic participation in a number of countries: see Deibert, R., Palfrey, J., Rohozinski, R. & Zittrain, J. (Eds.) (2011). Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace. MIT Press. * Governments whose legislation is in violation of these rights should not be able to rely on such laws when requesting WHOIS data access and proxy information. It would be unreasonable to require Registrars to carry out an additional analysis. Other options include: (1) Provide that LEA WHOIS data requests may be refused where there are reasonable grounds to believe that such requests may violate *registrants' * rights of freedom of expression or freedom of association (2) Require LEA to verify that national laws comply with human rights standards (3) Require LEA to verify that WHOIS requests do not violate international human rights standards > 17 - Data access - "ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual interface website to provide thick Whois data for" COM and NET, who have thin whois. This is subject to existing policy and policy-making by the GNSO. It is inappropriate for the Review Team to intervene at this level of detail into the GNSO policy process, *and in a way that privileges certain substantive outcomes over others.* Section E. Work of this RT A factual point. There is only one Chatham House rule, so the statement referring to it should use the singular. Freedom of Expression References: As noted by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression in his annual report of 2011: 23. The vast potential and benefits of the Internet are rooted in its unique characteristics, such as its speed, worldwide reach and relative anonymity. At the same time, these distinctive features of the Internet that enable individuals to disseminate information in "real time" and to mobilize people has also created fear amongst Governments and the powerful. This has led to increased restrictions on the Internet through the use of increasingly sophisticated technologies to block content, monitor and identify activists and critics, criminalization of legitimate expression, and adoption of restrictive legislation to justify such measures. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur also emphasizes that the existing international human rights standards, in particular article 19, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, remain pertinent in determining the types of restrictions that are in breach of States' obligations to guarantee the right to freedom of expression. 24. As set out in article 19, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, there are certain, exceptional types of expression which may be legitimately restricted under international human rights law, essentially to safeguard the rights of others. This issue has been examined in the previous annual report of the Special Rapporteur. However, the Special Rapporteur deems it appropriate to reiterate that any limitation to the right to freedom of expression must pass the following three-part, cumulative test: (1) it must be provided by law, which is clear and accessible to everyone (principles of predictability and transparency); and (2) it must pursue one of the purposes set out in article 19, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, namely (i) to protect the rights or reputations of others, or (ii) to protect national security or of public order, or of public health or morals (principle of legitimacy); and (3) it must be proven as necessary and the least restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim (principles of necessity and proportionality). Moreover, any legislation restricting the right to freedom of expression must be applied by a body which is independent of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, and with adequate safeguards against abuse, including the possibility of challenge and remedy against its abusive application. And further: 26 However, in many instances, States restrict, control, manipulate and censor content disseminated via the Internet without any legal basis, or on the basis of broad and ambiguous laws; without justifying the purpose of such actions; and/or in a manner that is clearly unnecessary and/or disproportionate to achieve the intended aim, as explored in the following sections. Such actions are clearly incompatible with States' obligations under international human rights law, and often create a broader chilling effect on the right to freedom of opinion and expression. (full reference: Frank La Rue "Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression" (26 April 2011, A/HRC/17/27) also available at: http://scr.bi/z6lZ8N ) From k.komaitis Fri Mar 16 02:59:56 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:59:56 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Proposed comments for the WHOIS RT In-Reply-To: <4F628AF9.6010609@seltzer.com> Message-ID: Thanks Wendy, Joy and Maria for drafting this. I am very happy to sign this off and fully support the comments. Thanks again for all your work. KK From: Wendy Seltzer > Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:36:09 +0000 To: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" > Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Proposed comments for the WHOIS RT Can we try to get approval for sending this before we leave CR? Thanks! --Wendy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Proposed comments for the WHOIS RT Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:31:57 -0400 From: Wendy Seltzer > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Thanks very much to Maria and Joy for contributions to this, proposed comments for the WHOIS RT. Comments are due March 18, but I'd like to send them before leaving tomorrow, if possible. We would like to commend the general readability of the report. WHOIS has become a very complex issue, and presenting it so clearly and accessibly facilitates participation in both this consultation process and participation more generally. We particularly appreciate the hard work of collecting the WHOIS policies from the various places where they reside. High-level recommendations: The report should explicitly recommend that WHOIS policy recognize that registrants, both individual and organizations, commercial and non-commercial, have a legitimate interest in, *and in many jurisdictions the legal right to, the privacy of their personal data*. In the normative discussion, privacy should be given equivalent emphasis to accuracy. *It would be instructive in this regard to reference the OECD privacy guidelines, agreed to by all OECD member countries with input from business and civil society. Data accuracy (or 'quality') is considered by OECD members to be of equal importance to purpose specification, use limitation and security safeguards, none of which factors are supported by Whois as it currently operates. (OECD Guideline reference: http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_34255_1815186_1_1_1_1,00.html ) * It is as important that registrants have privacy as that their data be accurately recorded. At the moment, the report appears, from its emphasis on access and accuracy, to discount those privacy concerns *that are accepted by all OECD member states and participating business and civil society actors as having equal importance.* Section F. Findings The brief ?tour de table? provides useful background reading, but *should* include reference to the fact that ICANN?s Whois policies are incompatible with the OECD privacy guidelines and also applicable national laws in many countries, including member states of the European Union.*The European Union's Article 29 Working Party of national data protection officers provided specific input to ICANN's 2003 Montreal meeting regarding the many ways gTLD Whois breaches EU law. These included the lack of definition of a purpose of Whois, lack of use limitation, misuse of Whois data by third parties and the disproportionality of the publication of personal data. The Article 29 Working Party concluded that "there is no legal ground justifying the mandatory publication of personal data referring to this person. (the registrant)". * *(Article 29 WP reference: Opinion 2/2003 on the application of the data protection principles* *to the Whois directories * http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2003/wp76_en.pdf) *It is very concerning that the findings of the Whois Review Team do not consider the glaring fact of the illegality of gTLD Whois requirements in many jurisdictions, and the incompatibility of Whois as it currently stands with the only internationally accepted guidelines on data privacy. * Section G. Recommendations 1. Single Whois Policy - "The Board should oversee the creation of a single Whois policy document." We welcome the call for a single Whois policy that sets out the requirements, globally and facilitates registrants who wish to consult those requirements. Whois ?policy? is currently inferred from registry and registrar contracts.* A single Whois policy should be compatible with the internationally accepted OECD privacy guidelines, in respect of a statement of purpose for the use of data, use limitation, data accuracy and appropriate security safeguards for personal data.* However, gTLD policy development is the responsibility of the GNSO, not the Board (until the final stages), and needs to be developed through the bottom up process, with the cooperation of the multiple stakeholders affected. 3 - "Make Whois a Strategic Priority" Change "Strategic Priority" to "Strategic Consideration." As the review team was focused only on WHOIS, it was in no position to analyze the tradeoffs involved in setting global priorities. Many items on ICANN's policy agenda *may be considered* more worthy of the community's limited time and attention. *The appropriate process for the community to prioritize issues such as Whois is via the Strategic Plan.* No evidence is offered in this report to support prioritizing WHOIS o*ver other issues of importance to the community as a whole.* 5 - Data Accuracy - As many law enforcement comments in the report suggest, contactability is more important than "accuracy." Separation of the contact details from the public display could enhance the accuracy of the contact details available to appropriately qualified requesters. 10-16. "Data Access: Privacy and Proxy Services." The recommendations should explicitly acknowledge the importance of privacy and proxy services in providing options to legitimate Internet users to preserve their privacy. National laws in the United States, for example, recognize privacy interests not only for individuals, but for associations. The report further documents the legitimate interests of even commercial Internet users in private domain name registrations. * In relation to the references to national legislation: it is important to note that this reference may be problematic if national legislation violates international human rights standards, for example, relating to freedom of expression (see the citation of this report below). * Freedom of association: proxy registration services can support the rights of human rights defenders to carry out lawful activity without persecution. Threats to registrants include surveillance of registrants through use of information which is accessed via WHOIS data - continuing to expand the nature of information held in WHOIS will only heighten the safety concerns of human rights defenders. In addition, just in time attacks on websites of civil society organisations have been used to disrupt lawful activity and democratic participation in a number of countries: see Deibert, R., Palfrey, J., Rohozinski, R. & Zittrain, J. (Eds.) (2011). Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace. MIT Press. * Governments whose legislation is in violation of these rights should not be able to rely on such laws when requesting WHOIS data access and proxy information. It would be unreasonable to require Registrars to carry out an additional analysis. Other options include: (1) Provide that LEA WHOIS data requests may be refused where there are reasonable grounds to believe that such requests may violate *registrants' * rights of freedom of expression or freedom of association (2) Require LEA to verify that national laws comply with human rights standards (3) Require LEA to verify that WHOIS requests do not violate international human rights standards 17 - Data access - "ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual interface website to provide thick Whois data for" COM and NET, who have thin whois. This is subject to existing policy and policy-making by the GNSO. It is inappropriate for the Review Team to intervene at this level of detail into the GNSO policy process, *and in a way that privileges certain substantive outcomes over others.* Section E. Work of this RT A factual point. There is only one Chatham House rule, so the statement referring to it should use the singular. Freedom of Expression References: As noted by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression in his annual report of 2011: 23. The vast potential and benefits of the Internet are rooted in its unique characteristics, such as its speed, worldwide reach and relative anonymity. At the same time, these distinctive features of the Internet that enable individuals to disseminate information in "real time" and to mobilize people has also created fear amongst Governments and the powerful. This has led to increased restrictions on the Internet through the use of increasingly sophisticated technologies to block content, monitor and identify activists and critics, criminalization of legitimate expression, and adoption of restrictive legislation to justify such measures. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur also emphasizes that the existing international human rights standards, in particular article 19, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, remain pertinent in determining the types of restrictions that are in breach of States' obligations to guarantee the right to freedom of expression. 24. As set out in article 19, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, there are certain, exceptional types of expression which may be legitimately restricted under international human rights law, essentially to safeguard the rights of others. This issue has been examined in the previous annual report of the Special Rapporteur. However, the Special Rapporteur deems it appropriate to reiterate that any limitation to the right to freedom of expression must pass the following three-part, cumulative test: (1) it must be provided by law, which is clear and accessible to everyone (principles of predictability and transparency); and (2) it must pursue one of the purposes set out in article 19, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, namely (i) to protect the rights or reputations of others, or (ii) to protect national security or of public order, or of public health or morals (principle of legitimacy); and (3) it must be proven as necessary and the least restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim (principles of necessity and proportionality). Moreover, any legislation restricting the right to freedom of expression must be applied by a body which is independent of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, and with adequate safeguards against abuse, including the possibility of challenge and remedy against its abusive application. And further: 26 However, in many instances, States restrict, control, manipulate and censor content disseminated via the Internet without any legal basis, or on the basis of broad and ambiguous laws; without justifying the purpose of such actions; and/or in a manner that is clearly unnecessary and/or disproportionate to achieve the intended aim, as explored in the following sections. Such actions are clearly incompatible with States' obligations under international human rights law, and often create a broader chilling effect on the right to freedom of opinion and expression. (full reference: Frank La Rue "Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression" (26 April 2011, A/HRC/17/27) also available at: http://scr.bi/z6lZ8N ) _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From Mary.Wong Fri Mar 16 08:43:34 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:43:34 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Proposed comments for the WHOIS RT Message-ID: <4F62A8DC0200005B0008790F@smtp.law.unh.edu> Yes, I agree and support. Thanks so much, Wendy, Joy and Maria. Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or typographical errors. "Konstantinos Komaitis " wrote: Thanks Wendy, Joy and Maria for drafting this. I am very happy to sign this off and fully support the comments. Thanks again for all your work. KK From: Wendy Seltzer > Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:36:09 +0000 To: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" > Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Proposed comments for the WHOIS RT Can we try to get approval for sending this before we leave CR? Thanks! --Wendy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Proposed comments for the WHOIS RT Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:31:57 -0400 From: Wendy Seltzer > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Thanks very much to Maria and Joy for contributions to this, proposed comments for the WHOIS RT. Comments are due March 18, but I'd like to send them before leaving tomorrow, if possible. We would like to commend the general readability of the report. WHOIS has become a very complex issue, and presenting it so clearly and accessibly facilitates participation in both this consultation process and participation more generally. We particularly appreciate the hard work of collecting the WHOIS policies from the various places where they reside. High-level recommendations: The report should explicitly recommend that WHOIS policy recognize that registrants, both individual and organizations, commercial and non-commercial, have a legitimate interest in, *and in many jurisdictions the legal right to, the privacy of their personal data*. In the normative discussion, privacy should be given equivalent emphasis to accuracy. *It would be instructive in this regard to reference the OECD privacy guidelines, agreed to by all OECD member countries with input from business and civil society. Data accuracy (or 'quality') is considered by OECD members to be of equal importance to purpose specification, use limitation and security safeguards, none of which factors are supported by Whois as it currently operates. (OECD Guideline reference: http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_34255_1815186_1_1_1_1,00.html ) * It is as important that registrants have privacy as that their data be accurately recorded. At the moment, the report appears, from its emphasis on access and accuracy, to discount those privacy concerns *that are accepted by all OECD member states and participating business and civil society actors as having equal importance.* Section F. Findings The brief ?tour de table? provides useful background reading, but *should* include reference to the fact that ICANN?s Whois policies are incompatible with the OECD privacy guidelines and also applicable national laws in many countries, including member states of the European Union.*The European Union's Article 29 Working Party of national data protection officers provided specific input to ICANN's 2003 Montreal meeting regarding the many ways gTLD Whois breaches EU law. These included the lack of definition of a purpose of Whois, lack of use limitation, misuse of Whois data by third parties and the disproportionality of the publication of personal data. The Article 29 Working Party concluded that "there is no legal ground justifying the mandatory publication of personal data referring to this person. (the registrant)". * *(Article 29 WP reference: Opinion 2/2003 on the application of the data protection principles* *to the Whois directories * http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2003/wp76_en.pdf) *It is very concerning that the findings of the Whois Review Team do not consider the glaring fact of the illegality of gTLD Whois requirements in many jurisdictions, and the incompatibility of Whois as it currently stands with the only internationally accepted guidelines on data privacy. * Section G. Recommendations 1. Single Whois Policy - "The Board should oversee the creation of a single Whois policy document." We welcome the call for a single Whois policy that sets out the requirements, globally and facilitates registrants who wish to consult those requirements. Whois ?policy? is currently inferred from registry and registrar contracts.* A single Whois policy should be compatible with the internationally accepted OECD privacy guidelines, in respect of a statement of purpose for the use of data, use limitation, data accuracy and appropriate security safeguards for personal data.* However, gTLD policy development is the responsibility of the GNSO, not the Board (until the final stages), and needs to be developed through the bottom up process, with the cooperation of the multiple stakeholders affected. 3 - "Make Whois a Strategic Priority" Change "Strategic Priority" to "Strategic Consideration." As the review team was focused only on WHOIS, it was in no position to analyze the tradeoffs involved in setting global priorities. Many items on ICANN's policy agenda *may be considered* more worthy of the community's limited time and attention. *The appropriate process for the community to prioritize issues such as Whois is via the Strategic Plan.* No evidence is offered in this report to support prioritizing WHOIS o*ver other issues of importance to the community as a whole.* 5 - Data Accuracy - As many law enforcement comments in the report suggest, contactability is more important than "accuracy." Separation of the contact details from the public display could enhance the accuracy of the contact details available to appropriately qualified requesters. 10-16. "Data Access: Privacy and Proxy Services." The recommendations should explicitly acknowledge the importance of privacy and proxy services in providing options to legitimate Internet users to preserve their privacy. National laws in the United States, for example, recognize privacy interests not only for individuals, but for associations. The report further documents the legitimate interests of even commercial Internet users in private domain name registrations. * In relation to the references to national legislation: it is important to note that this reference may be problematic if national legislation violates international human rights standards, for example, relating to freedom of expression (see the citation of this report below). * Freedom of association: proxy registration services can support the rights of human rights defenders to carry out lawful activity without persecution. Threats to registrants include surveillance of registrants through use of information which is accessed via WHOIS data - continuing to expand the nature of information held in WHOIS will only heighten the safety concerns of human rights defenders. In addition, just in time attacks on websites of civil society organisations have been used to disrupt lawful activity and democratic participation in a number of countries: see Deibert, R., Palfrey, J., Rohozinski, R. & Zittrain, J. (Eds.) (2011). Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace. MIT Press. * Governments whose legislation is in violation of these rights should not be able to rely on such laws when requesting WHOIS data access and proxy information. It would be unreasonable to require Registrars to carry out an additional analysis. Other options include: (1) Provide that LEA WHOIS data requests may be refused where there are reasonable grounds to believe that such requests may violate *registrants' * rights of freedom of expression or freedom of association (2) Require LEA to verify that national laws comply with human rights standards (3) Require LEA to verify that WHOIS requests do not violate international human rights standards 17 - Data access - "ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual interface website to provide thick Whois data for" COM and NET, who have thin whois. This is subject to existing policy and policy-making by the GNSO. It is inappropriate for the Review Team to intervene at this level of detail into the GNSO policy process, *and in a way that privileges certain substantive outcomes over others.* Section E. Work of this RT A factual point. There is only one Chatham House rule, so the statement referring to it should use the singular. Freedom of Expression References: As noted by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression in his annual report of 2011: 23. The vast potential and benefits of the Internet are rooted in its unique characteristics, such as its speed, worldwide reach and relative anonymity. At the same time, these distinctive features of the Internet that enable individuals to disseminate information in "real time" and to mobilize people has also created fear amongst Governments and the powerful. This has led to increased restrictions on the Internet through the use of increasingly sophisticated technologies to block content, monitor and identify activists and critics, criminalization of legitimate expression, and adoption of restrictive legislation to justify such measures. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur also emphasizes that the existing international human rights standards, in particular article 19, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, remain pertinent in determining the types of restrictions that are in breach of States' obligations to guarantee the right to freedom of expression. 24. As set out in article 19, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, there are certain, exceptional types of expression which may be legitimately restricted under international human rights law, essentially to safeguard the rights of others. This issue has been examined in the previous annual report of the Special Rapporteur. However, the Special Rapporteur deems it appropriate to reiterate that any limitation to the right to freedom of expression must pass the following three-part, cumulative test: (1) it must be provided by law, which is clear and accessible to everyone (principles of predictability and transparency); and (2) it must pursue one of the purposes set out in article 19, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, namely (i) to protect the rights or reputations of others, or (ii) to protect national security or of public order, or of public health or morals (principle of legitimacy); and (3) it must be proven as necessary and the least restrictive means required to achieve the purported aim (principles of necessity and proportionality). Moreover, any legislation restricting the right to freedom of expression must be applied by a body which is independent of any political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, and with adequate safeguards against abuse, including the possibility of challenge and remedy against its abusive application. And further: 26 However, in many instances, States restrict, control, manipulate and censor content disseminated via the Internet without any legal basis, or on the basis of broad and ambiguous laws; without justifying the purpose of such actions; and/or in a manner that is clearly unnecessary and/or disproportionate to achieve the intended aim, as explored in the following sections. Such actions are clearly incompatible with States' obligations under international human rights law, and often create a broader chilling effect on the right to freedom of opinion and expression. (full reference: Frank La Rue "Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression" (26 April 2011, A/HRC/17/27) also available at: http://scr.bi/z6lZ8N ) _______________________________________________ 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 bkuerbis Fri Mar 16 15:23:02 2012 From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 09:23:02 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Proposed comments for the WHOIS RT In-Reply-To: <4F62A8DC0200005B0008790F@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <4F62A8DC0200005B0008790F@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: +1, thank you Wendy, Joy and Maria. On Mar 16, 2012 2:43 AM, wrote: > Yes, I agree and support. Thanks so much, Wendy, Joy and Maria. > > Sent from a mobile device; please excuse brevity and any grammatical or > typographical errors. > > "Konstantinos Komaitis " > wrote: > > > Thanks Wendy, Joy and Maria for drafting this. I am very happy to sign > this off and fully support the comments. > > Thanks again for all your work. > > KK > > From: Wendy Seltzer > > Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:36:09 +0000 > To: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" < > pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org> > Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Proposed comments for the WHOIS RT > > Can we try to get approval for sending this before we leave CR? > > Thanks! > --Wendy > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Proposed comments for the WHOIS RT > Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:31:57 -0400 > From: Wendy Seltzer > > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > > Thanks very much to Maria and Joy for contributions to this, proposed > comments for the WHOIS RT. Comments are due March 18, but I'd like to > send them before leaving tomorrow, if possible. > > > We would like to commend the general readability of the report. WHOIS > has become a very complex issue, and presenting it so clearly and > accessibly facilitates participation in both this consultation process > and participation more generally. We particularly appreciate the hard > work of collecting the WHOIS policies from the various places where > they reside. > > High-level recommendations: > > The report should explicitly recommend that WHOIS policy recognize > that registrants, both individual and organizations, commercial and > non-commercial, have a legitimate interest in, *and in many jurisdictions > the legal right to, the privacy of their personal data*. > > In the normative discussion, privacy should be given equivalent emphasis > to accuracy. *It would be instructive in this regard to reference the > OECD privacy guidelines, agreed to by all OECD member countries with input > from business and civil society. Data accuracy (or 'quality') is considered > by OECD members to be of equal importance to purpose specification, use > limitation and security safeguards, none of which factors are supported by > Whois as it currently operates. (OECD Guideline reference: > > http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_34255_1815186_1_1_1_1,00.html > ) * > > It is as important that registrants have privacy as that > their data be accurately recorded. At the moment, the report appears, > from its emphasis on access and accuracy, to discount those privacy > concerns *that are accepted by all OECD member states and participating > business and civil society actors as having equal importance.* > > > Section F. Findings > > The brief ?tour de table? provides useful background reading, but > *should* include > reference to the fact that ICANN?s Whois policies are > incompatible with the OECD privacy guidelines and also applicable national > laws in many countries, including > member states of the European Union.*The European Union's Article 29 > Working Party of national data protection officers provided specific input > to ICANN's 2003 Montreal meeting regarding the many ways gTLD Whois > breaches EU law. These included the lack of definition of a purpose of > Whois, lack of use limitation, misuse of Whois data by third parties and > the disproportionality of the publication of personal data. The Article 29 > Working Party concluded that "there is no legal ground justifying the > mandatory publication of personal data referring to this person. (the > registrant)". * > > *(Article 29 WP reference: Opinion 2/2003 on the application of the data > protection principles* > > *to the Whois directories * > http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2003/wp76_en.pdf) > > *It is very concerning that the findings of the Whois Review Team do not > consider the glaring fact of the illegality of gTLD Whois requirements in > many jurisdictions, and the incompatibility of Whois as it currently stands > with the only internationally accepted guidelines on data privacy. * > > > Section G. Recommendations > > 1. Single Whois Policy - "The Board should oversee the creation of a > single Whois policy document." > > We welcome the call for a single Whois policy that sets out the > requirements, globally and facilitates registrants who wish to consult > those requirements. Whois ?policy? is currently inferred from registry > and registrar contracts.* A single Whois policy should be compatible with > the internationally accepted OECD privacy guidelines, in respect of a > statement of purpose for the use of data, use limitation, data accuracy and > appropriate security safeguards for personal data.* However, gTLD policy > development is the > responsibility of the GNSO, not the Board (until the final stages), > and needs to be developed through the bottom up process, with the > cooperation of the multiple stakeholders affected. > > 3 - "Make Whois a Strategic Priority" > > Change "Strategic Priority" to "Strategic Consideration." As the > review team was focused only on WHOIS, it was in no position to > analyze the tradeoffs involved in setting global priorities. Many > items on ICANN's policy agenda *may be considered* more worthy of the > community's > limited time and attention. *The appropriate process for the community to > prioritize issues such as Whois is via the Strategic Plan.* No evidence > is offered in this report to support prioritizing > WHOIS o*ver other issues of importance to the community as a whole.* > > 5 - Data Accuracy - As many law enforcement comments in the report > suggest, contactability is more important than "accuracy." Separation > of the contact details from the public display could enhance the > accuracy of the contact details available to appropriately qualified > requesters. > > 10-16. "Data Access: Privacy and Proxy Services." > > The recommendations should explicitly acknowledge the importance of > privacy and proxy services in providing options to legitimate Internet > users to preserve their privacy. National laws in the United States, > for example, recognize privacy interests not only for individuals, but > for associations. The report further documents the legitimate > interests of even commercial Internet users in private domain name > registrations. > * In relation to the references to national legislation: it is > important to note that this reference may be problematic if national > legislation violates international human rights standards, for example, > relating to freedom of expression (see the citation of this report below). > * Freedom of association: proxy registration services can support the > rights of human rights defenders to carry out lawful activity without > persecution. Threats to registrants include surveillance of registrants > through use of information which is accessed via WHOIS data - continuing to > expand the nature of information held in WHOIS will only heighten the > safety > concerns of human rights defenders. In addition, just in time attacks on > websites of civil society organisations have been used to disrupt lawful > activity and democratic participation in a number of countries: see > Deibert, > R., Palfrey, J., Rohozinski, R. & Zittrain, J. (Eds.) (2011). Access > Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace. MIT > Press. > * Governments whose legislation is in violation of these rights > should > not be able to rely on such laws when requesting WHOIS data access and > proxy > information. It would be unreasonable to require Registrars to carry out an > additional analysis. Other options include: > (1) Provide that LEA WHOIS data requests may be refused where there are > reasonable grounds to believe that such requests may violate *registrants' > * > rights of freedom of expression or freedom of association > (2) Require LEA to verify that national laws comply with human rights > standards > (3) Require LEA to verify that WHOIS requests do not violate > international human rights standards > > > 17 - Data access - "ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual > interface website to provide thick Whois data for" COM and NET, who > have thin whois. This is subject to existing policy and policy-making > by the GNSO. It is inappropriate for the Review Team to intervene at > this level of detail into the GNSO policy process, *and in a way that > privileges certain substantive outcomes over others.* > > > Section E. Work of this RT > > A factual point. There is only one Chatham House rule, so the statement > referring to it should use the singular. > > Freedom of Expression References: > > As noted by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression > in his annual report of 2011: > > 23. The vast potential and benefits of the Internet are > rooted in its unique characteristics, such as its speed, worldwide reach > and > relative anonymity. At the same time, these distinctive features of the > Internet that enable individuals to disseminate information in "real time" > and to mobilize people has also created fear amongst Governments and the > powerful. This has led to increased restrictions on the Internet through > the > use of increasingly sophisticated technologies to block content, monitor > and > identify activists and critics, criminalization of legitimate expression, > and adoption of restrictive legislation to justify such measures. In this > regard, the Special Rapporteur also emphasizes that the existing > international human rights standards, in particular article 19, paragraph 3 > of the ICCPR, remain pertinent in determining the types of restrictions > that > are in breach of States' obligations to guarantee the right to freedom of > expression. > 24. As set out in article 19, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, > there are certain, exceptional types of expression which may be > legitimately > restricted under international human rights law, essentially to safeguard > the rights of others. This issue has been examined in the previous annual > report of the Special Rapporteur. However, the Special Rapporteur deems it > appropriate to reiterate that any limitation to the right to freedom of > expression must pass the following three-part, cumulative test: > (1) it must be provided by law, which is clear and accessible to > everyone (principles of predictability and transparency); and > (2) it must pursue one of the purposes set out in article 19, paragraph > 3 of the ICCPR, namely (i) to protect the rights or reputations of others, > or (ii) to protect national security or of public order, or of public > health > or morals (principle of legitimacy); and > (3) it must be proven as necessary and the least restrictive means > required to achieve the purported aim (principles of necessity and > proportionality). > Moreover, any legislation restricting the right to > freedom of expression must be applied by a body which is independent of any > political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is > neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, and with adequate safeguards against > abuse, including the possibility of challenge and remedy against its > abusive > application. > And further: > > 26 However, in many instances, States restrict, control, manipulate > and > censor content disseminated via the Internet without any legal basis, or on > the basis of broad and ambiguous laws; without justifying the purpose of > such actions; and/or in a manner that is clearly unnecessary and/or > disproportionate to achieve the intended aim, as explored in the following > sections. Such actions are clearly incompatible with States' obligations > under international human rights law, and often create a broader chilling > effect on the right to freedom of opinion and expression. > (full reference: Frank La Rue "Report of the Special Rapporteur on the > promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression" > (26 April 2011, A/HRC/17/27) also available at: http://scr.bi/z6lZ8N ) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wendy Sat Mar 17 17:27:59 2012 From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 11:27:59 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Proposed comments for the WHOIS RT In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F64AD7F.2010907@seltzer.com> Thanks all. Sent (with the formatting cleaned up a bit). --Wendy On 03/15/2012 08:59 PM, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote: > Thanks Wendy, Joy and Maria for drafting this. I am very happy to sign this off and fully support the comments. > > Thanks again for all your work. > > KK > > From: Wendy Seltzer > > Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 00:36:09 +0000 > To: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" > > Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Proposed comments for the WHOIS RT > > Can we try to get approval for sending this before we leave CR? > > Thanks! > --Wendy > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Proposed comments for the WHOIS RT > Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 20:31:57 -0400 > From: Wendy Seltzer > > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > > Thanks very much to Maria and Joy for contributions to this, proposed > comments for the WHOIS RT. Comments are due March 18, but I'd like to > send them before leaving tomorrow, if possible. > > > We would like to commend the general readability of the report. WHOIS > has become a very complex issue, and presenting it so clearly and > accessibly facilitates participation in both this consultation process > and participation more generally. We particularly appreciate the hard > work of collecting the WHOIS policies from the various places where > they reside. > > High-level recommendations: > > The report should explicitly recommend that WHOIS policy recognize > that registrants, both individual and organizations, commercial and > non-commercial, have a legitimate interest in, *and in many jurisdictions > the legal right to, the privacy of their personal data*. > > In the normative discussion, privacy should be given equivalent emphasis > to accuracy. *It would be instructive in this regard to reference the > OECD privacy guidelines, agreed to by all OECD member countries with input > from business and civil society. Data accuracy (or 'quality') is considered > by OECD members to be of equal importance to purpose specification, use > limitation and security safeguards, none of which factors are supported by > Whois as it currently operates. (OECD Guideline reference: > http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_34255_1815186_1_1_1_1,00.html > ) * > > It is as important that registrants have privacy as that > their data be accurately recorded. At the moment, the report appears, > from its emphasis on access and accuracy, to discount those privacy > concerns *that are accepted by all OECD member states and participating > business and civil society actors as having equal importance.* > > > Section F. Findings > > The brief ?tour de table? provides useful background reading, but > *should* include > reference to the fact that ICANN?s Whois policies are > incompatible with the OECD privacy guidelines and also applicable national > laws in many countries, including > member states of the European Union.*The European Union's Article 29 > Working Party of national data protection officers provided specific input > to ICANN's 2003 Montreal meeting regarding the many ways gTLD Whois > breaches EU law. These included the lack of definition of a purpose of > Whois, lack of use limitation, misuse of Whois data by third parties and > the disproportionality of the publication of personal data. The Article 29 > Working Party concluded that "there is no legal ground justifying the > mandatory publication of personal data referring to this person. (the > registrant)". * > > *(Article 29 WP reference: Opinion 2/2003 on the application of the data > protection principles* > > *to the Whois directories * > http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2003/wp76_en.pdf) > > *It is very concerning that the findings of the Whois Review Team do not > consider the glaring fact of the illegality of gTLD Whois requirements in > many jurisdictions, and the incompatibility of Whois as it currently stands > with the only internationally accepted guidelines on data privacy. * > > > Section G. Recommendations > > 1. Single Whois Policy - "The Board should oversee the creation of a > single Whois policy document." > > We welcome the call for a single Whois policy that sets out the > requirements, globally and facilitates registrants who wish to consult > those requirements. Whois ?policy? is currently inferred from registry > and registrar contracts.* A single Whois policy should be compatible with > the internationally accepted OECD privacy guidelines, in respect of a > statement of purpose for the use of data, use limitation, data accuracy and > appropriate security safeguards for personal data.* However, gTLD policy > development is the > responsibility of the GNSO, not the Board (until the final stages), > and needs to be developed through the bottom up process, with the > cooperation of the multiple stakeholders affected. > > 3 - "Make Whois a Strategic Priority" > > Change "Strategic Priority" to "Strategic Consideration." As the > review team was focused only on WHOIS, it was in no position to > analyze the tradeoffs involved in setting global priorities. Many > items on ICANN's policy agenda *may be considered* more worthy of the > community's > limited time and attention. *The appropriate process for the community to > prioritize issues such as Whois is via the Strategic Plan.* No evidence > is offered in this report to support prioritizing > WHOIS o*ver other issues of importance to the community as a whole.* > > 5 - Data Accuracy - As many law enforcement comments in the report > suggest, contactability is more important than "accuracy." Separation > of the contact details from the public display could enhance the > accuracy of the contact details available to appropriately qualified > requesters. > > 10-16. "Data Access: Privacy and Proxy Services." > > The recommendations should explicitly acknowledge the importance of > privacy and proxy services in providing options to legitimate Internet > users to preserve their privacy. National laws in the United States, > for example, recognize privacy interests not only for individuals, but > for associations. The report further documents the legitimate > interests of even commercial Internet users in private domain name > registrations. > * In relation to the references to national legislation: it is > important to note that this reference may be problematic if national > legislation violates international human rights standards, for example, > relating to freedom of expression (see the citation of this report below). > * Freedom of association: proxy registration services can support the > rights of human rights defenders to carry out lawful activity without > persecution. Threats to registrants include surveillance of registrants > through use of information which is accessed via WHOIS data - continuing to > expand the nature of information held in WHOIS will only heighten the > safety > concerns of human rights defenders. In addition, just in time attacks on > websites of civil society organisations have been used to disrupt lawful > activity and democratic participation in a number of countries: see > Deibert, > R., Palfrey, J., Rohozinski, R. & Zittrain, J. (Eds.) (2011). Access > Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace. MIT > Press. > * Governments whose legislation is in violation of these rights > should > not be able to rely on such laws when requesting WHOIS data access and > proxy > information. It would be unreasonable to require Registrars to carry out an > additional analysis. Other options include: > (1) Provide that LEA WHOIS data requests may be refused where there are > reasonable grounds to believe that such requests may violate *registrants' > * > rights of freedom of expression or freedom of association > (2) Require LEA to verify that national laws comply with human rights > standards > (3) Require LEA to verify that WHOIS requests do not violate > international human rights standards > > > 17 - Data access - "ICANN should set up a dedicated, multilingual > interface website to provide thick Whois data for" COM and NET, who > have thin whois. This is subject to existing policy and policy-making > by the GNSO. It is inappropriate for the Review Team to intervene at > this level of detail into the GNSO policy process, *and in a way that > privileges certain substantive outcomes over others.* > > > Section E. Work of this RT > > A factual point. There is only one Chatham House rule, so the statement > referring to it should use the singular. > > Freedom of Expression References: > > As noted by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression > in his annual report of 2011: > > 23. The vast potential and benefits of the Internet are > rooted in its unique characteristics, such as its speed, worldwide reach > and > relative anonymity. At the same time, these distinctive features of the > Internet that enable individuals to disseminate information in "real time" > and to mobilize people has also created fear amongst Governments and the > powerful. This has led to increased restrictions on the Internet through > the > use of increasingly sophisticated technologies to block content, monitor > and > identify activists and critics, criminalization of legitimate expression, > and adoption of restrictive legislation to justify such measures. In this > regard, the Special Rapporteur also emphasizes that the existing > international human rights standards, in particular article 19, paragraph 3 > of the ICCPR, remain pertinent in determining the types of restrictions > that > are in breach of States' obligations to guarantee the right to freedom of > expression. > 24. As set out in article 19, paragraph 3 of the ICCPR, > there are certain, exceptional types of expression which may be > legitimately > restricted under international human rights law, essentially to safeguard > the rights of others. This issue has been examined in the previous annual > report of the Special Rapporteur. However, the Special Rapporteur deems it > appropriate to reiterate that any limitation to the right to freedom of > expression must pass the following three-part, cumulative test: > (1) it must be provided by law, which is clear and accessible to > everyone (principles of predictability and transparency); and > (2) it must pursue one of the purposes set out in article 19, paragraph > 3 of the ICCPR, namely (i) to protect the rights or reputations of others, > or (ii) to protect national security or of public order, or of public > health > or morals (principle of legitimacy); and > (3) it must be proven as necessary and the least restrictive means > required to achieve the purported aim (principles of necessity and > proportionality). > Moreover, any legislation restricting the right to > freedom of expression must be applied by a body which is independent of any > political, commercial, or other unwarranted influences in a manner that is > neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, and with adequate safeguards against > abuse, including the possibility of challenge and remedy against its > abusive > application. > And further: > > 26 However, in many instances, States restrict, control, manipulate and > censor content disseminated via the Internet without any legal basis, or on > the basis of broad and ambiguous laws; without justifying the purpose of > such actions; and/or in a manner that is clearly unnecessary and/or > disproportionate to achieve the intended aim, as explored in the following > sections. Such actions are clearly incompatible with States' obligations > under international human rights law, and often create a broader chilling > effect on the right to freedom of opinion and expression. > (full reference: Frank La Rue "Report of the Special Rapporteur on the > promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression" > (26 April 2011, A/HRC/17/27) also available at: http://scr.bi/z6lZ8N ) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 william.drake Mon Mar 19 00:05:29 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 17:05:29 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Special GNSO Council meeting 26 March Message-ID: Hi Robin I will be traveling and unable to attend the Special GNSO Council meeting 26 March on the Red Cross/IOC motion. I could give someone my proxy, but I think it would be better for NCSG to have all hands on deck to be able to make its case. As such, I would like to appoint Avri Doria as my Temporary Alternate. Please notify Glen of this change. As for voting guidance, I would abstain on the vote due to the end to end procedural irregularities and bypassing of ICANN's vaunted bottom up consensus based model at multiple stages of the process. I hope Avri will convey that when the time comes. Thanks Bill *************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland william.drake at uzh.ch www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake www.williamdrake.org **************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alain.berranger Mon Mar 19 07:22:52 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 01:22:52 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Special GNSO Council meeting 26 March In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Bill, nice to meet you in San Jos? and discover shared international development interests between NCUC and NPOC. If you have a minute....Not sure I understand what you mean by:* "...due to the end to end procedural irregularities..."* or I suspect maybe just a typo? If latter, no need to respond... Alain On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:05 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Robin > > I will be traveling and unable to attend the Special GNSO Council meeting > 26 March on the Red Cross/IOC motion. I could give someone my proxy, but I > think it would be better for NCSG to have all hands on deck to be able to > make its case. As such, I would like to appoint Avri Doria as my Temporary > Alternate. Please notify Glen of this change. > > As for voting guidance, I would abstain on the vote due to the end to end > procedural irregularities and bypassing of ICANN's vaunted bottom up > consensus based model at multiple stages of the process. I hope Avri will > convey that when the time comes. > > Thanks > > Bill > > > *************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > william.drake at uzh.ch > www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake > www.williamdrake.org > **************************************************** > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake Mon Mar 19 13:17:52 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 06:17:52 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Special GNSO Council meeting 26 March In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 19, 2012, at 12:22 AM, Alain Berranger wrote: > Dear Bill, nice to meet you in San Jos? and discover shared international development interests between NCUC and NPOC. Ditto?to be discussed further. As it happens, I'm in Bogota giving a lecture today on IG4D?. > > If you have a minute....Not sure I understand what you mean by: "...due to the end to end procedural irregularities..." or I suspect maybe just a typo? If latter, no need to respond? typo, meant end to end BD > > Alain > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:05 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Robin > > I will be traveling and unable to attend the Special GNSO Council meeting 26 March on the Red Cross/IOC motion. I could give someone my proxy, but I think it would be better for NCSG to have all hands on deck to be able to make its case. As such, I would like to appoint Avri Doria as my Temporary Alternate. Please notify Glen of this change. > > As for voting guidance, I would abstain on the vote due to the end to end procedural irregularities and bypassing of ICANN's vaunted bottom up consensus based model at multiple stages of the process. I hope Avri will convey that when the time comes. > > Thanks > > Bill > > > *************************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > william.drake at uzh.ch > www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake > www.williamdrake.org > **************************************************** > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > -- > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alain.berranger Tue Mar 20 14:42:45 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:42:45 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Special GNSO Council meeting 26 March In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bill, if you can share your IG4D lecture, I'm sure many in the NGO community would benefit... I know I would. Alain On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 7:17 AM, William Drake wrote: > > > On Mar 19, 2012, at 12:22 AM, Alain Berranger wrote: > > Dear Bill, nice to meet you in San Jos? and discover shared international > development interests between NCUC and NPOC. > > > Ditto?to be discussed further. As it happens, I'm in Bogota giving a > lecture today on IG4D?. > > > If you have a minute....Not sure I understand what you mean by:* "...due > to the end to end procedural irregularities..."* or I suspect maybe just > a typo? If latter, no need to respond? > > > typo, meant end to end > > BD > > > Alain > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:05 PM, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi Robin >> >> I will be traveling and unable to attend the Special GNSO Council meeting >> 26 March on the Red Cross/IOC motion. I could give someone my proxy, but I >> think it would be better for NCSG to have all hands on deck to be able to >> make its case. As such, I would like to appoint Avri Doria as my Temporary >> Alternate. Please notify Glen of this change. >> >> As for voting guidance, I would abstain on the vote due to the end to end >> procedural irregularities and bypassing of ICANN's vaunted bottom up >> consensus based model at multiple stages of the process. I hope Avri will >> convey that when the time comes. >> >> Thanks >> >> Bill >> >> >> *************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> william.drake at uzh.ch >> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake >> www.williamdrake.org >> **************************************************** >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > > > -- > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger > > > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake Tue Mar 20 15:18:02 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:18:02 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Special GNSO Council meeting 26 March In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Alain Thanks for your interest. Have a look at my chapter in http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/images/2010/book/igf.sharm.book.final.pdf that pretty much captures the gist. Cheers Bill On Mar 20, 2012, at 7:42 AM, Alain Berranger wrote: > Bill, if you can share your IG4D lecture, I'm sure many in the NGO community would benefit... I know I would. > > Alain > > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 7:17 AM, William Drake wrote: > > > On Mar 19, 2012, at 12:22 AM, Alain Berranger wrote: > >> Dear Bill, nice to meet you in San Jos? and discover shared international development interests between NCUC and NPOC. > > Ditto?to be discussed further. As it happens, I'm in Bogota giving a lecture today on IG4D?. >> >> If you have a minute....Not sure I understand what you mean by: "...due to the end to end procedural irregularities..." or I suspect maybe just a typo? If latter, no need to respond? > > typo, meant end to end > > BD > >> >> Alain >> >> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:05 PM, William Drake wrote: >> Hi Robin >> >> I will be traveling and unable to attend the Special GNSO Council meeting 26 March on the Red Cross/IOC motion. I could give someone my proxy, but I think it would be better for NCSG to have all hands on deck to be able to make its case. As such, I would like to appoint Avri Doria as my Temporary Alternate. Please notify Glen of this change. >> >> As for voting guidance, I would abstain on the vote due to the end to end procedural irregularities and bypassing of ICANN's vaunted bottom up consensus based model at multiple stages of the process. I hope Avri will convey that when the time comes. >> >> Thanks >> >> Bill >> >> >> *************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> william.drake at uzh.ch >> www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake >> www.williamdrake.org >> **************************************************** >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA >> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca >> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca >> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org >> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org >> interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ >> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 >> Skype: alain.berranger >> > > > > > -- > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wendy Fri Mar 23 01:32:40 2012 From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 19:32:40 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5FF0@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5FF0@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: <4F6BB698.2090409@seltzer.com> As discussed at the Council wrap-up, I will be unable to make this meeting while traveling. Rafik offered to take my proxy -- does this still work for you, Rafik? Thanks, --Wendy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:41:28 -0700 From: Glen de Saint G?ry To: council at gnso.icann.org Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26mar12-en.htm The Agenda posted on the Wiki page usually has the latest updates: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+26+March+2012 The motions can be found on page: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+March+2012 Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes available so interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for the latest updates on the GNSO Council workspace. 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 Times Coordinated Universal Time: 16:00 UTC 09:00 Los Angeles; 12:00 Washington DC; 17:00 London; 18:00 Paris; 01:00 Tokyo; 27 March 2012 05:00 Wellington Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) 1.1 Roll Call 1.2 Statement of interest updates 1.3 Review/amend agenda Item 2: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names A GNSO Drafting Team is working on a charter to determine recommendations how to handle the protection of RC and IOC names at the top level for the current new gTLD application round to send to the ICANN Board. Council must now vote on whether to approve these recommendations. This motion was deferred from the San Jos? Council meeting. Due to the severe time constraints involved in acting on the Drafting Team's recommendations, this motion is being considered today as an emergency item. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+2012 2.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) 2.2 Discussion 2.3 Vote Item 3: 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 March & October (Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 16:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 09:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 12:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 13:00 Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+0DST 13:00 London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 17:00 Abuja,Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+0DST 18:00 Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 21:00 Hong Kong (HKT) UTC+8+0DST 00:00 next day Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9+0DST 01:00 next day Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 05:00 next day ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 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 From robin Fri Mar 23 02:39:20 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:39:20 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5FF8@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > Subject: [liaison6c] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC > Date: March 22, 2012 1:51:50 PM PDT > To: liaison6c > > > Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26mar12-en.htm > > The Agenda posted on the Wiki page usually has the latest updates: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+26+March+2012 > The motions can be found on page: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+March+2012 > > > Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes available so interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for the latest updates on the GNSO Council workspace. > 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 Times > Coordinated Universal Time: 16:00 UTC > > 09:00 Los Angeles; 12:00 Washington DC; 17:00 London; 18:00 Paris; 01:00 Tokyo; > 27 March 2012 > 05:00 Wellington > Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed. > > Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) > > 1.1 Roll Call > > 1.2 Statement of interest updates > > 1.3 Review/amend agenda > > > Item 2: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names > > A GNSO Drafting Team is working on a charter to determine recommendations how to handle the protection of RC and IOC names at the top level for the current new gTLD application round to send to the ICANN Board. Council must now vote on whether to approve these recommendations. > > This motion was deferred from the San Jos? Council meeting. Due to the severe time constraints involved in acting on the Drafting Team's recommendations, this motion is being considered today as an emergency item. > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+2012 > > 2.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) > 2.2 Discussion > 2.3 Vote > > > Item 3: 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 March & October (Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 16:00 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 09:00 > New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 12:00 > Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 13:00 > Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+0DST 13:00 > London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 17:00 > Abuja,Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 > Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 > Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 > Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 > Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+0DST 18:00 > Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 21:00 > Hong Kong (HKT) UTC+8+0DST 00:00 next day > Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9+0DST 01:00 next day > Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 05:00 next day > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 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: From rafik.dammak Fri Mar 23 02:49:28 2012 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 09:49:28 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <4F6BB698.2090409@seltzer.com> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5FF0@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <4F6BB698.2090409@seltzer.com> Message-ID: hi Wendy, yes sure, just tell me about your vote intention :) Best, Rafik 2012/3/23 Wendy Seltzer > As discussed at the Council wrap-up, I will be unable to make this > meeting while traveling. Rafik offered to take my proxy -- does this > still work for you, Rafik? > > Thanks, > --Wendy > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting > 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC > Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:41:28 -0700 > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > To: council at gnso.icann.org > > Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26mar12-en.htm > > The Agenda posted on the Wiki page usually has the latest updates: > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+26+March+2012 > The motions can be found on page: > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+March+2012 > > Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes > available so interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for > the latest updates on the GNSO Council > workspace. > 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 > Times< > http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Special+Council+Meeting&iso=20120326T16 > > > Coordinated Universal Time: 16:00 UTC > 09:00 Los Angeles; 12:00 Washington DC; 17:00 London; 18:00 Paris; 01:00 > Tokyo; > 27 March 2012 > 05:00 Wellington > Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out > call is needed. > > Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) > 1.1 Roll Call > > 1.2 Statement of interest updates > > 1.3 Review/amend agenda > > Item 2: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names > > A GNSO Drafting Team is working on a charter to determine > recommendations how to handle the protection of RC and IOC names at the > top level for the current new gTLD application round to send to the > ICANN Board. Council must now vote on whether to approve these > recommendations. > > This motion was deferred from the San Jos? Council meeting. Due to the > severe time constraints involved in acting on the Drafting Team's > recommendations, this motion is being considered today as an emergency > item. > > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+2012 > > > 2.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) > 2.2 Discussion > 2.3 Vote > > > > > Item 3: 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 March & October (Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 16:00 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > California, USA > (PST< > http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) > UTC-8+1DST 09:00 > New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 12:00 > Buenos Aires, Argentina > (ART< > http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html>) > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 > Montevideo, Uruguay > (UYST< > http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 > London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 17:00 > Abuja,Nigeria > (WAT< > http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html > >) > UTC+1+0DST 17:00 > Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 > Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 > Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 > Ramat Hasharon, > Israel(IST< > http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.html > >) > UTC+2+0DST 18:00 > Karachi, Pakistan > (PKT< > http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> > ) UTC+5+0DST 21:00 > Hong Kong > (HKT< > http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/hkt.html>) > UTC+8+0DST 00:00 next day > Tokyo, Japan > (JST< > http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) > UTC+9+0DST 01:00 next day > Wellington, New Zealand > (NZDT< > http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html > > > ) UTC+12+1DST 05:00 next day > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 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: From avri Fri Mar 23 05:27:52 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 22:27:52 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC In-Reply-To: References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5FF0@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <4F6BB698.2090409@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <020257DE-FCF5-4B14-8085-EAEB58C6E2F5@acm.org> Some of us have spoken about it being important to be in full force at this meeting and to have people like KK, RG, MM and me acting as temporary substitutes for anyone who can't make it. Bill has asked me, assuming it is ok with you all. Perhaps others can consider a similar level of participation. avri On 22 Mar 2012, at 19:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: > hi Wendy, > > yes sure, just tell me about your vote intention :) > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2012/3/23 Wendy Seltzer > As discussed at the Council wrap-up, I will be unable to make this > meeting while traveling. Rafik offered to take my proxy -- does this > still work for you, Rafik? > > Thanks, > --Wendy > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting > 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC > Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:41:28 -0700 > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > To: council at gnso.icann.org > > Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26mar12-en.htm > > The Agenda posted on the Wiki page usually has the latest updates: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+26+March+2012 > The motions can be found on page: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+March+2012 > > Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes > available so interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for > the latest updates on the GNSO Council > workspace. > 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 > Times > Coordinated Universal Time: 16:00 UTC > 09:00 Los Angeles; 12:00 Washington DC; 17:00 London; 18:00 Paris; 01:00 > Tokyo; > 27 March 2012 > 05:00 Wellington > Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out > call is needed. > > Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) > 1.1 Roll Call > > 1.2 Statement of interest updates > > 1.3 Review/amend agenda > > Item 2: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names > > A GNSO Drafting Team is working on a charter to determine > recommendations how to handle the protection of RC and IOC names at the > top level for the current new gTLD application round to send to the > ICANN Board. Council must now vote on whether to approve these > recommendations. > > This motion was deferred from the San Jos? Council meeting. Due to the > severe time constraints involved in acting on the Drafting Team's > recommendations, this motion is being considered today as an emergency item. > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+2012 > > > 2.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) > 2.2 Discussion > 2.3 Vote > > > > > Item 3: 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 March & October (Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 16:00 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > California, USA > (PST) > UTC-8+1DST 09:00 > New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 12:00 > Buenos Aires, Argentina > (ART) > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 > Montevideo, Uruguay > (UYST) > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 > London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 17:00 > Abuja,Nigeria > (WAT) > UTC+1+0DST 17:00 > Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 > Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 > Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 > Ramat Hasharon, > Israel(IST) > UTC+2+0DST 18:00 > Karachi, Pakistan > (PKT > ) UTC+5+0DST 21:00 > Hong Kong > (HKT) > UTC+8+0DST 00:00 next day > Tokyo, Japan > (JST) > UTC+9+0DST 01:00 next day > Wellington, New Zealand > (NZDT > ) UTC+12+1DST 05:00 next day > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From Mary.Wong Fri Mar 23 06:06:47 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:06:47 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue In-Reply-To: <020257DE-FCF5-4B14-8085-EAEB58C6E2F5@acm.org> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5FF0@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <4F6BB698.2090409@seltzer.com> <020257DE-FCF5-4B14-8085-EAEB58C6E2F5@acm.org> Message-ID: <4F6BBE970200005B0008820C@smtp.law.unh.edu> Hi, doing my usual hijack - if you can, please review the attached draft statement that I'd be happy to put in on behalf of the PC before the public comment period closes in less than 24 hours' time. Apologies upon apologies for not being able to get this to you earlier, but it's been a squeeze even trying to churn this out. If I may, I'd like to ask that folks please please please not do multiple simultaneous edits and redlines - just do a reply all with your comments for discussion and possible amendment of the statement. That will be much more efficient, I think, especially as my bandwidth on Friday is pretty limited :( Thanks, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu >>> From: Avri Doria To: NCSG-Policy Date: 3/22/2012 11:28 PM Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC Some of us have spoken about it being important to be in full force at this meeting and to have people like KK, RG, MM and me acting as temporary substitutes for anyone who can't make it Bill has asked me, assuming it is ok with you all. Perhaps others can consider a similar level of participation. avri On 22 Mar 2012, at 19:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: > hi Wendy, > > yes sure, just tell me about your vote intention :) > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2012/3/23 Wendy Seltzer > As discussed at the Council wrap-up, I will be unable to make this > meeting while traveling. Rafik offered to take my proxy -- does this > still work for you, Rafik? > > Thanks, > --Wendy > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting > 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC > Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:41:28 -0700 > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > To: council at gnso.icann.org > > Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26mar12-en.htm > > The Agenda posted on the Wiki page usually has the latest updates: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+26+March+2012 > The motions can be found on page: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+March+2012 > > Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes > available so interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for > the latest updates on the GNSO Council > workspace. > 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 > Times > Coordinated Universal Time: 16:00 UTC > 09:00 Los Angeles; 12:00 Washington DC; 17:00 London; 18:00 Paris; 01:00 > Tokyo; > 27 March 2012 > 05:00 Wellington > Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out > call is needed. > > Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) > 1.1 Roll Call > > 1.2 Statement of interest updates > > 1.3 Review/amend agenda > > Item 2: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names > > A GNSO Drafting Team is working on a charter to determine > recommendations how to handle the protection of RC and IOC names at the > top level for the current new gTLD application round to send to the > ICANN Board. Council must now vote on whether to approve these > recommendations. > > This motion was deferred from the San Jos? Council meeting. Due to the > severe time constraints involved in acting on the Drafting Team's > recommendations, this motion is being considered today as an emergency item. > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+2012 > > > 2.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) > 2.2 Discussion > 2.3 Vote > > > > > Item 3: 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 March & October (Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 16:00 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > California, USA > (PST) > UTC-8+1DST 09:00 > New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 12:00 > Buenos Aires, Argentina > (ART) > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 > Montevideo, Uruguay > (UYST) > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 > London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 17:00 > Abuja,Nigeria > (WAT) > UTC+1+0DST 17:00 > Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 > Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 > Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 > Ramat Hasharon, > Israel(IST) > UTC+2+0DST 18:00 > Karachi, Pakistan > (PKT > ) UTC+5+0DST 21:00 > Hong Kong > (HKT) > UTC+8+0DST 00:00 next day > Tokyo, Japan > (JST) > UTC+9+0DST 01:00 next day > Wellington, New Zealand > (NZDT > ) UTC+12+1DST 05:00 next day > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG Policy Committee Statement on Proposal to Protect Names of the International Federation of the Red Cross and the International Olympic Committee.docx Type: application/octet-stream Size: 160869 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri Fri Mar 23 06:49:48 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 23:49:48 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue In-Reply-To: <4F6BBE970200005B0008820C@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5FF0@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <4F6BB698.2090409@seltzer.com> <020257DE-FCF5-4B14-8085-EAEB58C6E2F5@acm.org> <4F6BBE970200005B0008820C@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <6AC2A4AC-D6E7-4292-8FBF-55E7A17096BF@acm.org> this observer thinks it is great. made two minor, non substantive changes. avri On 22 Mar 2012, at 23:06, wrote: > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rc-ioc-NCSG-stmt-120322+ad.doc Type: application/msword Size: 44544 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter Fri Mar 23 08:54:07 2012 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 07:54:07 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5FF0@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <4F6BB698.2090409@seltzer.com> <020257DE-FCF5-4B14-8085-EAEB58C6E2F5@acm.org> <4F6BBE970200005B0008820C@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCA3A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Well drafted Mary. Go ahead. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Gesendet: Fr 23.03.2012 05:06 An: Avri Doria; NCSG-Policy Betreff: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue Hi, doing my usual hijack - if you can, please review the attached draft statement that I'd be happy to put in on behalf of the PC before the public comment period closes in less than 24 hours' time. Apologies upon apologies for not being able to get this to you earlier, but it's been a squeeze even trying to churn this out. If I may, I'd like to ask that folks please please please not do multiple simultaneous edits and redlines - just do a reply all with your comments for discussion and possible amendment of the statement. That will be much more efficient, I think, especially as my bandwidth on Friday is pretty limited :( Thanks, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index..phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu >>> From: Avri Doria To: NCSG-Policy Date: 3/22/2012 11:28 PM Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC Some of us have spoken about it being important to be in full force at this meeting and to have people like KK, RG, MM and me acting as temporary substitutes for anyone who can't make it Bill has asked me, assuming it is ok with you all. Perhaps others can consider a similar level of participation. avri On 22 Mar 2012, at 19:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: > hi Wendy, > > yes sure, just tell me about your vote intention :) > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2012/3/23 Wendy Seltzer > As discussed at the Council wrap-up, I will be unable to make this > meeting while traveling. Rafik offered to take my proxy -- does this > still work for you, Rafik? > > Thanks, > --Wendy > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting > 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC > Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:41:28 -0700 > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > To: council at gnso.icann.org > > Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26mar12-en.htm > > The Agenda posted on the Wiki page usually has the latest updates: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+26+March+2012 > The motions can be found on page: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+March+2012 > > Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes > available so interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for > the latest updates on the GNSO Council > workspace. > 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 > Times > Coordinated Universal Time: 16:00 UTC > 09:00 Los Angeles; 12:00 Washington DC; 17:00 London; 18:00 Paris; 01:00 > Tokyo; > 27 March 2012 > 05:00 Wellington > Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out > call is needed. > > Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) > 1.1 Roll Call > > 1.2 Statement of interest updates > > 1.3 Review/amend agenda > > Item 2: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names > > A GNSO Drafting Team is working on a charter to determine > recommendations how to handle the protection of RC and IOC names at the > top level for the current new gTLD application round to send to the > ICANN Board. Council must now vote on whether to approve these > recommendations. > > This motion was deferred from the San Jos? Council meeting. Due to the > severe time constraints involved in acting on the Drafting Team's > recommendations, this motion is being considered today as an emergency item. > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+2012 > > > 2.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) > 2.2 Discussion > 2.3 Vote > > > > > Item 3: 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 March & October (Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 16:00 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > California, USA > (PST) > UTC-8+1DST 09:00 > New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 12:00 > Buenos Aires, Argentina > (ART >) > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 > Montevideo, Uruguay > (UYST) > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 > London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 17:00 > Abuja,Nigeria > (WAT) > UTC+1+0DST 17:00 > Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 > Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 > Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 > Ramat Hasharon, > Israel(IST) > UTC+2+0DST 18:00 > Karachi, Pakistan > (PKT > > ) UTC+5+0DST 21:00 > Hong Kong > (HKT >) > UTC+8+0DST 00:00 next day > Tokyo, Japan > (JST) > UTC+9+0DST 01:00 next day > Wellington, New Zealand > (NZDT > ) UTC+12+1DST 05:00 next day > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 bkuerbis Fri Mar 23 15:02:07 2012 From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 09:02:07 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCA3A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5FF0@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <4F6BB698.2090409@seltzer.com> <020257DE-FCF5-4B14-8085-EAEB58C6E2F5@acm.org> <4F6BBE970200005B0008820C@smtp.law.unh.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCA3A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Fantastic summary of the issues, thanks Mary! Please submit on behalf of the PC. Best regards, --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org 2012/3/23 "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Well drafted Mary. Go ahead. > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu > Gesendet: Fr 23.03.2012 05:06 > An: Avri Doria; NCSG-Policy > Betreff: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue > > > > Hi, doing my usual hijack - if you can, please review the attached draft > statement that I'd be happy to put in on behalf of the PC before the public > comment period closes in less than 24 hours' time. Apologies upon apologies > for not being able to get this to you earlier, but it's been a squeeze even > trying to churn this out. If I may, I'd like to ask that folks please > please please not do multiple simultaneous edits and redlines - just do a > reply all with your comments for discussion and possible amendment of the > statement. That will be much more efficient, I think, especially as my > bandwidth on Friday is pretty limited :( > > > Thanks, > > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH > 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: > http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index..phpSelected < > http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected> writings available on > the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: > http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the > University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New > Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed > and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu. For more > information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit > law.unh.edu > > > >>> > > From: > > Avri Doria > > To: > > NCSG-Policy > > Date: > > 3/22/2012 11:28 PM > > Subject: > > Re: [PC-NCSG] [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council > Meeting 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC > > Some of us have spoken about it being important to be in full force at > this meeting and to have people like KK, RG, MM and me acting as temporary > substitutes for anyone who can't make it > > Bill has asked me, assuming it is ok with you all. > > Perhaps others can consider a similar level of participation. > > avri > > On 22 Mar 2012, at 19:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > hi Wendy, > > > > yes sure, just tell me about your vote intention :) > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2012/3/23 Wendy Seltzer > > As discussed at the Council wrap-up, I will be unable to make this > > meeting while traveling. Rafik offered to take my proxy -- does this > > still work for you, Rafik? > > > > Thanks, > > --Wendy > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting > > 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC > > Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:41:28 -0700 > > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > > To: council at gnso.icann.org > > > > Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 > > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26mar12-en.htm > > > > The Agenda posted on the Wiki page usually has the latest updates: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+26+March+2012 > > The motions can be found on page: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+March+2012 > > > > Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes > > available so interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for > > the latest updates on the GNSO Council > > workspace. > > 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 > > Times< > http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Special+Council+Meeting&iso=20120326T16 > > > > Coordinated Universal Time: 16:00 UTC > > 09:00 Los Angeles; 12:00 Washington DC; 17:00 London; 18:00 Paris; 01:00 > > Tokyo; > > 27 March 2012 > > 05:00 Wellington > > Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out > > call is needed. > > > > Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) > > 1.1 Roll Call > > > > 1.2 Statement of interest updates > > > > 1.3 Review/amend agenda > > > > Item 2: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names > > > > A GNSO Drafting Team is working on a charter to determine > > recommendations how to handle the protection of RC and IOC names at the > > top level for the current new gTLD application round to send to the > > ICANN Board. Council must now vote on whether to approve these > > recommendations. > > > > This motion was deferred from the San Jos? Council meeting. Due to the > > severe time constraints involved in acting on the Drafting Team's > > recommendations, this motion is being considered today as an emergency > item. > > > > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+2012 > > > > > > 2.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) > > 2.2 Discussion > > 2.3 Vote > > > > > > > > > > Item 3: 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< > http://gnso.icann.org/council/gnso-operating-procedures-22sep11-en.pdf>) > > > > 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 March & October (Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 16:00 > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > California, USA > > (PST< > http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/na/pst.html>) > > UTC-8+1DST 09:00 > > New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 12:00 > > Buenos Aires, Argentina > > (ART< > http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art..html < > http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/art.html> >) > > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 > > Montevideo, Uruguay > > (UYST< > http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/sa/uyst.html>) > > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 > > London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 17:00 > > Abuja,Nigeria > > (WAT< > http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/africa/wat.html > >) > > UTC+1+0DST 17:00 > > Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 > > Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 > > Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 > > Ramat Hasharon, > > Israel(IST< > http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/ist-israel.html > >) > > UTC+2+0DST 18:00 > > Karachi, Pakistan > > (PKT< > http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html < > http://www.timeanddate..com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> > > > > ) UTC+5+0DST 21:00 > > Hong Kong > > (HKT< > http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/hkt.html < > http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/hkt..html> > >) > > UTC+8+0DST 00:00 next day > > Tokyo, Japan > > (JST< > http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/jst.html>) > > UTC+9+0DST 01:00 next day > > Wellington, New Zealand > > (NZDT< > http://www.timeanddate.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/pacific/nzdt.html > > > > ) UTC+12+1DST 05:00 next day > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2012, 2:00 or 3:00 local > > time (with exceptions) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com < > http://www.timeanddate.com/> > > > > Glen de Saint G?ry > > GNSO Secretariat > > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > > http://gnso.icann.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From william.drake Fri Mar 23 15:57:16 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 08:57:16 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <020257DE-FCF5-4B14-8085-EAEB58C6E2F5@acm.org> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5FF0@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <4F6BB698.2090409@seltzer.com> <020257DE-FCF5-4B14-8085-EAEB58C6E2F5@acm.org> Message-ID: <0B870BC8-3C0A-4DF4-B097-07A7EF2D0E32@uzh.ch> Again, temporary alternatives are much better than proxies for this. Avri's mine, if KK can take Joy's and RG Wendy's we'll at full force. Notify RG, she sends the form at http://gnso.icann.org, done. Mary's statement is way cool by me. Bill On Mar 22, 2012, at 10:27 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Some of us have spoken about it being important to be in full force at this meeting and to have people like KK, RG, MM and me acting as temporary substitutes for anyone who can't make it. > > Bill has asked me, assuming it is ok with you all. > > Perhaps others can consider a similar level of participation. > > avri > > On 22 Mar 2012, at 19:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> hi Wendy, >> >> yes sure, just tell me about your vote intention :) >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2012/3/23 Wendy Seltzer >> As discussed at the Council wrap-up, I will be unable to make this >> meeting while traveling. Rafik offered to take my proxy -- does this >> still work for you, Rafik? >> >> Thanks, >> --Wendy >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting >> 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC >> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:41:28 -0700 >> From: Glen de Saint G?ry >> To: council at gnso.icann.org >> >> Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 >> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26mar12-en.htm >> >> The Agenda posted on the Wiki page usually has the latest updates: >> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+26+March+2012 >> The motions can be found on page: >> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+March+2012 >> >> Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes >> available so interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for >> the latest updates on the GNSO Council >> workspace. >> 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 >> Times >> Coordinated Universal Time: 16:00 UTC >> 09:00 Los Angeles; 12:00 Washington DC; 17:00 London; 18:00 Paris; 01:00 >> Tokyo; >> 27 March 2012 >> 05:00 Wellington >> Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out >> call is needed. >> >> Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) >> 1.1 Roll Call >> >> 1.2 Statement of interest updates >> >> 1.3 Review/amend agenda >> >> Item 2: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names >> >> A GNSO Drafting Team is working on a charter to determine >> recommendations how to handle the protection of RC and IOC names at the >> top level for the current new gTLD application round to send to the >> ICANN Board. Council must now vote on whether to approve these >> recommendations. >> >> This motion was deferred from the San Jos? Council meeting. Due to the >> severe time constraints involved in acting on the Drafting Team's >> recommendations, this motion is being considered today as an emergency item. >> >> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+2012 >> >> >> 2.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) >> 2.2 Discussion >> 2.3 Vote >> >> >> >> >> Item 3: 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 March & October (Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ) >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 16:00 >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> California, USA >> (PST) >> UTC-8+1DST 09:00 >> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 12:00 >> Buenos Aires, Argentina >> (ART) >> UTC-3+0DST 13:00 >> Montevideo, Uruguay >> (UYST) >> UTC-3+0DST 13:00 >> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 17:00 >> Abuja,Nigeria >> (WAT) >> UTC+1+0DST 17:00 >> Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 >> Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 >> Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 >> Ramat Hasharon, >> Israel(IST) >> UTC+2+0DST 18:00 >> Karachi, Pakistan >> (PKT >> ) UTC+5+0DST 21:00 >> Hong Kong >> (HKT) >> UTC+8+0DST 00:00 next day >> Tokyo, Japan >> (JST) >> UTC+9+0DST 01:00 next day >> Wellington, New Zealand >> (NZDT >> ) UTC+12+1DST 05:00 next day >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wendy Fri Mar 23 19:13:12 2012 From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:13:12 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <0B870BC8-3C0A-4DF4-B097-07A7EF2D0E32@uzh.ch> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5FF0@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <4F6BB698.2090409@seltzer.com> <020257DE-FCF5-4B14-8085-EAEB58C6E2F5@acm.org> <0B870BC8-3C0A-4DF4-B097-07A7EF2D0E32@uzh.ch> Message-ID: <4F6CAF28.8040409@seltzer.com> >> On 22 Mar 2012, at 19:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> hi Wendy, >>> >>> yes sure, just tell me about your vote intention :) Unless the motion changes dramatically, and suddenly gets support from our other NCSG Councilors, I vote "no." Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ From robin Fri Mar 23 20:45:34 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 11:45:34 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue In-Reply-To: References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5FF0@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <4F6BB698.2090409@seltzer.com> <020257DE-FCF5-4B14-8085-EAEB58C6E2F5@acm.org> <4F6BBE970200005B0008820C@smtp.law.unh.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCA3A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: I agree that we should submit the comment and that it forms a good basis for NCSG to vote NO on Jeff's motion. Thanks, Mary! Robin On Mar 23, 2012, at 6:02 AM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: > Fantastic summary of the issues, thanks Mary! Please submit on behalf of the PC. > > Best regards, > > > --------------------------------------- > Brenden Kuerbis > Internet Governance Project > http://internetgovernance.org > > > 2012/3/23 "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" > Well drafted Mary. Go ahead. > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu > Gesendet: Fr 23.03.2012 05:06 > An: Avri Doria; NCSG-Policy > Betreff: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue > > > > Hi, doing my usual hijack - if you can, please review the attached draft statement that I'd be happy to put in on behalf of the PC before the public comment period closes in less than 24 hours' time. Apologies upon apologies for not being able to get this to you earlier, but it's been a squeeze even trying to churn this out. If I may, I'd like to ask that folks please please please not do multiple simultaneous edits and redlines - just do a reply all with your comments for discussion and possible amendment of the statement. That will be much more efficient, I think, especially as my bandwidth on Friday is pretty limited :( > > > Thanks, > > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index..phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu > > > >>> > > From: > > Avri Doria > > To: > > NCSG-Policy > > Date: > > 3/22/2012 11:28 PM > > Subject: > > Re: [PC-NCSG] [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC > > Some of us have spoken about it being important to be in full force at this meeting and to have people like KK, RG, MM and me acting as temporary substitutes for anyone who can't make it > > Bill has asked me, assuming it is ok with you all. > > Perhaps others can consider a similar level of participation. > > avri > > On 22 Mar 2012, at 19:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > hi Wendy, > > > > yes sure, just tell me about your vote intention :) > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2012/3/23 Wendy Seltzer > > As discussed at the Council wrap-up, I will be unable to make this > > meeting while traveling. Rafik offered to take my proxy -- does this > > still work for you, Rafik? > > > > Thanks, > > --Wendy > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting > > 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC > > Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:41:28 -0700 > > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > > To: council at gnso.icann.org > > > > Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 > > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26mar12-en.htm > > > > The Agenda posted on the Wiki page usually has the latest updates: > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+26+March+2012 > > The motions can be found on page: > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+March+2012 > > > > Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes > > available so interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for > > the latest updates on the GNSO Council > > workspace. > > 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 > > Times > > Coordinated Universal Time: 16:00 UTC > > 09:00 Los Angeles; 12:00 Washington DC; 17:00 London; 18:00 Paris; 01:00 > > Tokyo; > > 27 March 2012 > > 05:00 Wellington > > Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out > > call is needed. > > > > Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) > > 1.1 Roll Call > > > > 1.2 Statement of interest updates > > > > 1.3 Review/amend agenda > > > > Item 2: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names > > > > A GNSO Drafting Team is working on a charter to determine > > recommendations how to handle the protection of RC and IOC names at the > > top level for the current new gTLD application round to send to the > > ICANN Board. Council must now vote on whether to approve these > > recommendations. > > > > This motion was deferred from the San Jos? Council meeting. Due to the > > severe time constraints involved in acting on the Drafting Team's > > recommendations, this motion is being considered today as an emergency item. > > > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+2012 > > > > > > 2.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) > > 2.2 Discussion > > 2.3 Vote > > > > > > > > > > Item 3: 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 March & October (Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 16:00 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > California, USA > > (PST) > > UTC-8+1DST 09:00 > > New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 12:00 > > Buenos Aires, Argentina > > (ART >) > > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 > > Montevideo, Uruguay > > (UYST) > > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 > > London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 17:00 > > Abuja,Nigeria > > (WAT) > > UTC+1+0DST 17:00 > > Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 > > Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 > > Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 > > Ramat Hasharon, > > Israel(IST) > > UTC+2+0DST 18:00 > > Karachi, Pakistan > > (PKT > > > ) UTC+5+0DST 21:00 > > Hong Kong > > (HKT >) > > UTC+8+0DST 00:00 next day > > Tokyo, Japan > > (JST) > > UTC+9+0DST 01:00 next day > > Wellington, New Zealand > > (NZDT > > ) UTC+12+1DST 05:00 next day > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Fri Mar 23 20:56:06 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 11:56:06 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <4F6CAF28.8040409@seltzer.com> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5FF0@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <4F6BB698.2090409@seltzer.com> <020257DE-FCF5-4B14-8085-EAEB58C6E2F5@acm.org> <0B870BC8-3C0A-4DF4-B097-07A7EF2D0E32@uzh.ch> <4F6CAF28.8040409@seltzer.com> Message-ID: <124EB1F7-8884-4F28-A84C-50952B89847B@ipjustice.org> Just so everyone is clear about the Temporary Alternates for our absent councilors at Monday's Special GNSO Council Meeting: 1. Avri is Bill's Temporary Alternate. 2. Konstantinos is Joy's Temporary Alternate. 3. Robin is Wendy's Temporary Alternate. Is there any other GNSO Councilor who cannot be present and for whom I need to appoint a TA? Thanks, Robin On Mar 23, 2012, at 10:13 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >>> On 22 Mar 2012, at 19:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>>> hi Wendy, >>>> >>>> yes sure, just tell me about your vote intention :) > > Unless the motion changes dramatically, and suddenly gets support from > our other NCSG Councilors, I vote "no." > > Thanks, > --Wendy > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 > Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University > http://wendy.seltzer.org/ > https://www.chillingeffects.org/ > https://www.torproject.org/ > http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From Mary.Wong Fri Mar 23 22:44:08 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:44:08 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue In-Reply-To: References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5FF0@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <4F6BB698.2090409@seltzer.com> <020257DE-FCF5-4B14-8085-EAEB58C6E2F5@acm.org> <4F6BBE970200005B0008820C@smtp.law.unh.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCA3A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4F6CA8580200005B000882AF@smtp.law.unh.edu> Thanks to all for their kind words. So far, we have Yes to submit from voting PC members Robin, Bill, Wolfgang, Joy, Brendan and me. I believe KK is out on vacation, and have not heard from Wendy, Rafik, Amber or Alain. Avri as one of our two observers also supports the statement. Since KK, Wendy and Rafik all oppose the motion as presented, I believe that the numbers indicate we have rough consensus on the proposed statement. As the due date for public comments on the IOC/RC issue is today, and we have only a few hours left, I will be sending in the statement unless I hear otherwise from someone before 7 p.m. EST (11 p.m. UTC) today. Thanks, all! Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Robin Gross To:NCSG-Policy Date: 3/23/2012 2:46 PM Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue I agree that we should submit the comment and that it forms a good basis for NCSG to vote NO on Jeff's motion. Thanks, Mary! Robin On Mar 23, 2012, at 6:02 AM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: Fantastic summary of the issues, thanks Mary! Please submit on behalf of the PC. Best regards, --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org 2012/3/23 "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" Well drafted Mary. Go ahead. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Gesendet: Fr 23.03.2012 05:06 An: Avri Doria; NCSG-Policy Betreff: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue Hi, doing my usual hijack - if you can, please review the attached draft statement that I'd be happy to put in on behalf of the PC before the public comment period closes in less than 24 hours' time. Apologies upon apologies for not being able to get this to you earlier, but it's been a squeeze even trying to churn this out. If I may, I'd like to ask that folks please please please not do multiple simultaneous edits and redlines - just do a reply all with your comments for discussion and possible amendment of the statement. That will be much more efficient, I think, especially as my bandwidth on Friday is pretty limited :( Thanks, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index..phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu >>> From: Avri Doria To: NCSG-Policy Date: 3/22/2012 11:28 PM Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC Some of us have spoken about it being important to be in full force at this meeting and to have people like KK, RG, MM and me acting as temporary substitutes for anyone who can't make it Bill has asked me, assuming it is ok with you all. Perhaps others can consider a similar level of participation. avri On 22 Mar 2012, at 19:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: > hi Wendy, > > yes sure, just tell me about your vote intention :) > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2012/3/23 Wendy Seltzer > As discussed at the Council wrap-up, I will be unable to make this > meeting while traveling. Rafik offered to take my proxy -- does this > still work for you, Rafik? > > Thanks, > --Wendy > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting > 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC > Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:41:28 -0700 > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > To: council at gnso.icann.org > > Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26mar12-en.htm > > The Agenda posted on the Wiki page usually has the latest updates: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+26+March+2012 > The motions can be found on page: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+March+2012 > > Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes > available so interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for > the latest updates on the GNSO Council > workspace. > 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 > Times > Coordinated Universal Time: 16:00 UTC > 09:00 Los Angeles; 12:00 Washington DC; 17:00 London; 18:00 Paris; 01:00 > Tokyo; > 27 March 2012 > 05:00 Wellington > Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out > call is needed. > > Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) > 1.1 Roll Call > > 1.2 Statement of interest updates > > 1.3 Review/amend agenda > > Item 2: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names > > A GNSO Drafting Team is working on a charter to determine > recommendations how to handle the protection of RC and IOC names at the > top level for the current new gTLD application round to send to the > ICANN Board. Council must now vote on whether to approve these > recommendations. > > This motion was deferred from the San Jos? Council meeting. Due to the > severe time constraints involved in acting on the Drafting Team's > recommendations, this motion is being considered today as an emergency item. > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+2012 > > > 2.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) > 2.2 Discussion > 2.3 Vote > > > > > Item 3: 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 March & October (Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 16:00 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > California, USA > (PST) > UTC-8+1DST 09:00 > New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 12:00 > Buenos Aires, Argentina > (ART >) > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 > Montevideo, Uruguay > (UYST) > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 > London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 17:00 > Abuja,Nigeria > (WAT) > UTC+1+0DST 17:00 > Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 > Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 > Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 > Ramat Hasharon, > Israel(IST) > UTC+2+0DST 18:00 > Karachi, Pakistan > (PKT > > ) UTC+5+0DST 21:00 > Hong Kong > (HKT >) > UTC+8+0DST 00:00 next day > Tokyo, Japan > (JST) > UTC+9+0DST 01:00 next day > Wellington, New Zealand > (NZDT > ) UTC+12+1DST 05:00 next day > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Fri Mar 23 23:36:56 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 14:36:56 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue In-Reply-To: <4F6CA8580200005B000882AF@smtp.law.unh.edu> References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5FF0@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <4F6BB698.2090409@seltzer.com> <020257DE-FCF5-4B14-8085-EAEB58C6E2F5@acm.org> <4F6BBE970200005B0008820C@smtp.law.unh.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCA3A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4F6CA8580200005B000882AF@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: I agree. Please submit the statement, Mary, on behalf of the NCSG PC. Thanks again for your timely drafting. Best, Robin On Mar 23, 2012, at 1:44 PM, wrote: > Thanks to all for their kind words. So far, we have Yes to submit from voting PC members Robin, Bill, Wolfgang, Joy, Brendan and me. I believe KK is out on vacation, and have not heard from Wendy, Rafik, Amber or Alain. Avri as one of our two observers also supports the statement. > > Since KK, Wendy and Rafik all oppose the motion as presented, I believe that the numbers indicate we have rough consensus on the proposed statement. As the due date for public comments on the IOC/RC issue is today, and we have only a few hours left, I will be sending in the statement unless I hear otherwise from someone before 7 p.m. EST (11 p.m. UTC) today. > > Thanks, all! > > Cheers > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > >>> > From: Robin Gross > To: NCSG-Policy > Date: 3/23/2012 2:46 PM > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue > I agree that we should submit the comment and that it forms a good basis for NCSG to vote NO on Jeff's motion. Thanks, Mary! > > Robin > > > On Mar 23, 2012, at 6:02 AM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: > >> Fantastic summary of the issues, thanks Mary! Please submit on behalf of the PC. >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> --------------------------------------- >> Brenden Kuerbis >> Internet Governance Project >> http://internetgovernance.org >> >> >> 2012/3/23 "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" >> Well drafted Mary. Go ahead. >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu >> Gesendet: Fr 23.03.2012 05:06 >> An: Avri Doria; NCSG-Policy >> Betreff: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue >> >> >> >> Hi, doing my usual hijack - if you can, please review the attached draft statement that I'd be happy to put in on behalf of the PC before the public comment period closes in less than 24 hours' time. Apologies upon apologies for not being able to get this to you earlier, but it's been a squeeze even trying to churn this out. If I may, I'd like to ask that folks please please please not do multiple simultaneous edits and redlines - just do a reply all with your comments for discussion and possible amendment of the statement. That will be much more efficient, I think, especially as my bandwidth on Friday is pretty limited :( >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mary >> >> >> Mary W S Wong >> Professor of Law >> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP >> Chair, Graduate IP Programs >> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index..phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >> As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu >> >> >> >>> >> >> From: >> >> Avri Doria >> >> To: >> >> NCSG-Policy >> >> Date: >> >> 3/22/2012 11:28 PM >> >> Subject: >> >> Re: [PC-NCSG] [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC >> >> Some of us have spoken about it being important to be in full force at this meeting and to have people like KK, RG, MM and me acting as temporary substitutes for anyone who can't make it >> >> Bill has asked me, assuming it is ok with you all. >> >> Perhaps others can consider a similar level of participation. >> >> avri >> >> On 22 Mar 2012, at 19:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> > hi Wendy, >> > >> > yes sure, just tell me about your vote intention :) >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Rafik >> > >> > >> > 2012/3/23 Wendy Seltzer >> > As discussed at the Council wrap-up, I will be unable to make this >> > meeting while traveling. Rafik offered to take my proxy -- does this >> > still work for you, Rafik? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > --Wendy >> > >> > -------- Original Message -------- >> > Subject: [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting >> > 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC >> > Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:41:28 -0700 >> > From: Glen de Saint G?ry >> > To: council at gnso.icann.org >> > >> > Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 >> > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26mar12-en.htm >> > >> > The Agenda posted on the Wiki page usually has the latest updates: >> > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+26+March+2012 >> > The motions can be found on page: >> > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+March+2012 >> > >> > Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes >> > available so interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for >> > the latest updates on the GNSO Council >> > workspace. >> > 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 >> > Times >> > Coordinated Universal Time: 16:00 UTC >> > 09:00 Los Angeles; 12:00 Washington DC; 17:00 London; 18:00 Paris; 01:00 >> > Tokyo; >> > 27 March 2012 >> > 05:00 Wellington >> > Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out >> > call is needed. >> > >> > Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) >> > 1.1 Roll Call >> > >> > 1.2 Statement of interest updates >> > >> > 1.3 Review/amend agenda >> > >> > Item 2: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names >> > >> > A GNSO Drafting Team is working on a charter to determine >> > recommendations how to handle the protection of RC and IOC names at the >> > top level for the current new gTLD application round to send to the >> > ICANN Board. Council must now vote on whether to approve these >> > recommendations. >> > >> > This motion was deferred from the San Jos? Council meeting. Due to the >> > severe time constraints involved in acting on the Drafting Team's >> > recommendations, this motion is being considered today as an emergency item. >> > >> > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+2012 >> > >> > >> > 2.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) >> > 2.2 Discussion >> > 2.3 Vote >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Item 3: 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 March & October (Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ) >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 16:00 >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > California, USA >> > (PST) >> > UTC-8+1DST 09:00 >> > New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 12:00 >> > Buenos Aires, Argentina >> > (ART >) >> > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 >> > Montevideo, Uruguay >> > (UYST) >> > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 >> > London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 17:00 >> > Abuja,Nigeria >> > (WAT) >> > UTC+1+0DST 17:00 >> > Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 >> > Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 >> > Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 >> > Ramat Hasharon, >> > Israel(IST) >> > UTC+2+0DST 18:00 >> > Karachi, Pakistan >> > (PKT > >> > ) UTC+5+0DST 21:00 >> > Hong Kong >> > (HKT >) >> > UTC+8+0DST 00:00 next day >> > Tokyo, Japan >> > (JST) >> > UTC+9+0DST 01:00 next day >> > Wellington, New Zealand >> > (NZDT >> > ) UTC+12+1DST 05:00 next day >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 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 >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Sat Mar 24 00:05:23 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 15:05:23 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue In-Reply-To: References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5FF0@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <4F6BB698.2090409@seltzer.com> <020257DE-FCF5-4B14-8085-EAEB58C6E2F5@acm.org> <4F6BBE970200005B0008820C@smtp.law.unh.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCA3A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4F6CA8580200005B000882AF@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <55C28BE4-2C90-43C0-96CF-93A6174DEE81@ipjustice.org> The 2 NPOC representatives appointed to the NCSG Policy Committee were Amber & Alain last fall for a term that ends after the 2012 ICANN Annual Meeting: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG-PC I have not received any notification of any change in those appointments from NPOC. Both Amber & Alain are on the NCSG Policy Committee email discussion list. Hopefully this can help to begin to clear this up. Best, Robin On Mar 23, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Alain Berranger wrote: > Hi Mary, Robin, > > I'm not on NCSG-PC list (it is Klaus and Michael who have represented NPOC up to now). Klaus - now an elected officer - is off line in Germany for personal reasons. Michael did not run for elections, so we will have to appoint a new elected officer to designate an elected NPOC officer on NCSG-PC. I will advise soon on that. > > Meanwhile, I would like to remind you that NPOC's position has not been reflected, perhaps even ignored in this discussion. I restate: > > NPOC's interim EC (as I said, we now have an elected NPOC EC - more news about that soon) supported a) that the IOC and RC receive exemption; and b) that any organization would receive the same treatment if they past the "International Legal Personality" test. Hence, the proposal: Would receive new gTLD protection "Any organization operating globally in the public interest and enjoying International Legal Personality in the country where its Headquarters are located, and its members." > > I believe this position by one of the two constituencies of NCSG should be mentioned in the NCSG statement. > > Alain > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:44 PM, wrote: > Thanks to all for their kind words. So far, we have Yes to submit from voting PC members Robin, Bill, Wolfgang, Joy, Brendan and me. I believe KK is out on vacation, and have not heard from Wendy, Rafik, Amber or Alain. Avri as one of our two observers also supports the statement. > > Since KK, Wendy and Rafik all oppose the motion as presented, I believe that the numbers indicate we have rough consensus on the proposed statement. As the due date for public comments on the IOC/RC issue is today, and we have only a few hours left, I will be sending in the statement unless I hear otherwise from someone before 7 p.m. EST (11 p.m. UTC) today. > > Thanks, all! > > Cheers > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > >>> > From: Robin Gross > To: NCSG-Policy > Date: 3/23/2012 2:46 PM > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue > I agree that we should submit the comment and that it forms a good basis for NCSG to vote NO on Jeff's motion. Thanks, Mary! > > Robin > > > On Mar 23, 2012, at 6:02 AM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: > >> Fantastic summary of the issues, thanks Mary! Please submit on behalf of the PC. >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> --------------------------------------- >> Brenden Kuerbis >> Internet Governance Project >> http://internetgovernance.org >> >> >> 2012/3/23 "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" >> Well drafted Mary. Go ahead. >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu >> Gesendet: Fr 23.03.2012 05:06 >> An: Avri Doria; NCSG-Policy >> Betreff: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue >> >> >> >> Hi, doing my usual hijack - if you can, please review the attached draft statement that I'd be happy to put in on behalf of the PC before the public comment period closes in less than 24 hours' time. Apologies upon apologies for not being able to get this to you earlier, but it's been a squeeze even trying to churn this out. If I may, I'd like to ask that folks please please please not do multiple simultaneous edits and redlines - just do a reply all with your comments for discussion and possible amendment of the statement. That will be much more efficient, I think, especially as my bandwidth on Friday is pretty limited :( >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mary >> >> >> Mary W S Wong >> Professor of Law >> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP >> Chair, Graduate IP Programs >> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index..phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >> As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu >> >> >> >>> >> >> From: >> >> Avri Doria >> >> To: >> >> NCSG-Policy >> >> Date: >> >> 3/22/2012 11:28 PM >> >> Subject: >> >> Re: [PC-NCSG] [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC >> >> Some of us have spoken about it being important to be in full force at this meeting and to have people like KK, RG, MM and me acting as temporary substitutes for anyone who can't make it >> >> Bill has asked me, assuming it is ok with you all. >> >> Perhaps others can consider a similar level of participation. >> >> avri >> >> On 22 Mar 2012, at 19:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> > hi Wendy, >> > >> > yes sure, just tell me about your vote intention :) >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Rafik >> > >> > >> > 2012/3/23 Wendy Seltzer >> > As discussed at the Council wrap-up, I will be unable to make this >> > meeting while traveling. Rafik offered to take my proxy -- does this >> > still work for you, Rafik? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > --Wendy >> > >> > -------- Original Message -------- >> > Subject: [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting >> > 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC >> > Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:41:28 -0700 >> > From: Glen de Saint G?ry >> > To: council at gnso.icann.org >> > >> > Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 >> > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26mar12-en.htm >> > >> > The Agenda posted on the Wiki page usually has the latest updates: >> > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+26+March+2012 >> > The motions can be found on page: >> > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+March+2012 >> > >> > Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes >> > available so interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for >> > the latest updates on the GNSO Council >> > workspace. >> > 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 >> > Times >> > Coordinated Universal Time: 16:00 UTC >> > 09:00 Los Angeles; 12:00 Washington DC; 17:00 London; 18:00 Paris; 01:00 >> > Tokyo; >> > 27 March 2012 >> > 05:00 Wellington >> > Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out >> > call is needed. >> > >> > Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) >> > 1.1 Roll Call >> > >> > 1.2 Statement of interest updates >> > >> > 1.3 Review/amend agenda >> > >> > Item 2: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names >> > >> > A GNSO Drafting Team is working on a charter to determine >> > recommendations how to handle the protection of RC and IOC names at the >> > top level for the current new gTLD application round to send to the >> > ICANN Board. Council must now vote on whether to approve these >> > recommendations. >> > >> > This motion was deferred from the San Jos? Council meeting. Due to the >> > severe time constraints involved in acting on the Drafting Team's >> > recommendations, this motion is being considered today as an emergency item. >> > >> > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+2012 >> > >> > >> > 2.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) >> > 2.2 Discussion >> > 2.3 Vote >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Item 3: 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 March & October (Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ) >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 16:00 >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > California, USA >> > (PST) >> > UTC-8+1DST 09:00 >> > New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 12:00 >> > Buenos Aires, Argentina >> > (ART >) >> > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 >> > Montevideo, Uruguay >> > (UYST) >> > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 >> > London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 17:00 >> > Abuja,Nigeria >> > (WAT) >> > UTC+1+0DST 17:00 >> > Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 >> > Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 >> > Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 >> > Ramat Hasharon, >> > Israel(IST) >> > UTC+2+0DST 18:00 >> > Karachi, Pakistan >> > (PKT > >> > ) UTC+5+0DST 21:00 >> > Hong Kong >> > (HKT >) >> > UTC+8+0DST 00:00 next day >> > Tokyo, Japan >> > (JST) >> > UTC+9+0DST 01:00 next day >> > Wellington, New Zealand >> > (NZDT >> > ) UTC+12+1DST 05:00 next day >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 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 >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > -- > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Sat Mar 24 00:14:57 2012 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:14:57 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue In-Reply-To: References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5FF0@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <4F6BB698.2090409@seltzer.com> <020257DE-FCF5-4B14-8085-EAEB58C6E2F5@acm.org> <4F6BBE970200005B0008820C@smtp.law.unh.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCA3A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4F6CA8580200005B000882AF@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <421EB1E9-CDA4-44F9-9337-9C98E5F7F754@acm.org> Hi, I certainly did not ignore your position in my comments, though I may not have used your words. While Mary's statement refers to the IGOs, it is correct that it does not specifically refer to your community or to your special wording. Perhaps the following " Given that a number of international governmental organizations (IGOs) have in the meantime (in December 2011) officially requested that ICANN afford similar treatment for their names at both the top and second levels in the first round of the new gTLD program[1], on the basis that they too have a protected status similar to the IOC and RC, it is absolutely necessary that the legal basis for such exceptional treatment of the IOC and RC be publicly disclosed, fully vetted and these IGOs and other organizations be given an opportunity to state their case before any such preference is given to just two organizations. At the very least, it ought to be the GNSO Council?s responsibility to vote only after it has been given the full legal background to the IOC/RC protections " could be amended to say: " Given that a number of international governmental organizations (IGOs) have in the meantime (in December 2011) officially requested that ICANN afford similar treatment for their names at both the top and second levels in the first round of the new gTLD program[1], on the basis that they too have a protected status similar to the IOC and RC, it is absolutely necessary that the legal basis for such exceptional treatment of the IOC and RC be publicly disclosed, fully vetted and these IGOs and other organizations be given an opportunity to state their case before any such preference is given to just two organizations. Additionally NPOC, a constituency within NCSG has recommended that "any organization operating globally in the public interest and enjoying International Legal Personality in the country where its Headquarters are located" should be considered for the same protections. At the very least, it ought to be the GNSO Council?s responsibility to vote only after it has been given the full legal background to the IOC/RC protections " Just a thought from an observer. Not up to me, but trying to be helpful. avri On 23 Mar 2012, at 16:54, Alain Berranger wrote: > Hi Mary, Robin, > > I'm not on NCSG-PC list (it is Klaus and Michael who have represented NPOC up to now). Klaus - now an elected officer - is off line in Germany for personal reasons. Michael did not run for elections, so we will have to appoint a new elected officer to designate an elected NPOC officer on NCSG-PC. I will advise soon on that. > > Meanwhile, I would like to remind you that NPOC's position has not been reflected, perhaps even ignored in this discussion. I restate: > > NPOC's interim EC (as I said, we now have an elected NPOC EC - more news about that soon) supported a) that the IOC and RC receive exemption; and b) that any organization would receive the same treatment if they past the "International Legal Personality" test. Hence, the proposal: Would receive new gTLD protection "Any organization operating globally in the public interest and enjoying International Legal Personality in the country where its Headquarters are located, and its members." > > I believe this position by one of the two constituencies of NCSG should be mentioned in the NCSG statement. > > Alain > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:44 PM, wrote: > Thanks to all for their kind words. So far, we have Yes to submit from voting PC members Robin, Bill, Wolfgang, Joy, Brendan and me. I believe KK is out on vacation, and have not heard from Wendy, Rafik, Amber or Alain. Avri as one of our two observers also supports the statement. > > Since KK, Wendy and Rafik all oppose the motion as presented, I believe that the numbers indicate we have rough consensus on the proposed statement. As the due date for public comments on the IOC/RC issue is today, and we have only a few hours left, I will be sending in the statement unless I hear otherwise from someone before 7 p.m. EST (11 p.m. UTC) today. > > Thanks, all! > > Cheers > Mary > > > Mary W S Wong > Professor of Law > Chair, Graduate IP Programs > Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP > UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > >>> > From: Robin Gross > To: NCSG-Policy > Date: 3/23/2012 2:46 PM > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue > I agree that we should submit the comment and that it forms a good basis for NCSG to vote NO on Jeff's motion. Thanks, Mary! > > Robin > > > On Mar 23, 2012, at 6:02 AM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: > >> Fantastic summary of the issues, thanks Mary! Please submit on behalf of the PC. >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> --------------------------------------- >> Brenden Kuerbis >> Internet Governance Project >> http://internetgovernance.org >> >> >> 2012/3/23 "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" >> Well drafted Mary. Go ahead. >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu >> Gesendet: Fr 23.03.2012 05:06 >> An: Avri Doria; NCSG-Policy >> Betreff: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue >> >> >> >> Hi, doing my usual hijack - if you can, please review the attached draft statement that I'd be happy to put in on behalf of the PC before the public comment period closes in less than 24 hours' time. Apologies upon apologies for not being able to get this to you earlier, but it's been a squeeze even trying to churn this out. If I may, I'd like to ask that folks please please please not do multiple simultaneous edits and redlines - just do a reply all with your comments for discussion and possible amendment of the statement. That will be much more efficient, I think, especially as my bandwidth on Friday is pretty limited :( >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Mary >> >> >> Mary W S Wong >> Professor of Law >> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP >> Chair, Graduate IP Programs >> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index..phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >> As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu >> >> >> >>> >> >> From: >> >> Avri Doria >> >> To: >> >> NCSG-Policy >> >> Date: >> >> 3/22/2012 11:28 PM >> >> Subject: >> >> Re: [PC-NCSG] [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC >> >> Some of us have spoken about it being important to be in full force at this meeting and to have people like KK, RG, MM and me acting as temporary substitutes for anyone who can't make it >> >> Bill has asked me, assuming it is ok with you all. >> >> Perhaps others can consider a similar level of participation. >> >> avri >> >> On 22 Mar 2012, at 19:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> > hi Wendy, >> > >> > yes sure, just tell me about your vote intention :) >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Rafik >> > >> > >> > 2012/3/23 Wendy Seltzer >> > As discussed at the Council wrap-up, I will be unable to make this >> > meeting while traveling. Rafik offered to take my proxy -- does this >> > still work for you, Rafik? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > --Wendy >> > >> > -------- Original Message -------- >> > Subject: [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting >> > 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC >> > Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:41:28 -0700 >> > From: Glen de Saint G?ry >> > To: council at gnso.icann.org >> > >> > Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 >> > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26mar12-en.htm >> > >> > The Agenda posted on the Wiki page usually has the latest updates: >> > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+26+March+2012 >> > The motions can be found on page: >> > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+March+2012 >> > >> > Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes >> > available so interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for >> > the latest updates on the GNSO Council >> > workspace. >> > 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 >> > Times >> > Coordinated Universal Time: 16:00 UTC >> > 09:00 Los Angeles; 12:00 Washington DC; 17:00 London; 18:00 Paris; 01:00 >> > Tokyo; >> > 27 March 2012 >> > 05:00 Wellington >> > Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out >> > call is needed. >> > >> > Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) >> > 1.1 Roll Call >> > >> > 1.2 Statement of interest updates >> > >> > 1.3 Review/amend agenda >> > >> > Item 2: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names >> > >> > A GNSO Drafting Team is working on a charter to determine >> > recommendations how to handle the protection of RC and IOC names at the >> > top level for the current new gTLD application round to send to the >> > ICANN Board. Council must now vote on whether to approve these >> > recommendations. >> > >> > This motion was deferred from the San Jos? Council meeting. Due to the >> > severe time constraints involved in acting on the Drafting Team's >> > recommendations, this motion is being considered today as an emergency item. >> > >> > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+2012 >> > >> > >> > 2.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) >> > 2.2 Discussion >> > 2.3 Vote >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Item 3: 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 March & October (Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ) >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 16:00 >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > California, USA >> > (PST) >> > UTC-8+1DST 09:00 >> > New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 12:00 >> > Buenos Aires, Argentina >> > (ART >) >> > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 >> > Montevideo, Uruguay >> > (UYST) >> > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 >> > London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 17:00 >> > Abuja,Nigeria >> > (WAT) >> > UTC+1+0DST 17:00 >> > Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 >> > Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 >> > Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 >> > Ramat Hasharon, >> > Israel(IST) >> > UTC+2+0DST 18:00 >> > Karachi, Pakistan >> > (PKT > >> > ) UTC+5+0DST 21:00 >> > Hong Kong >> > (HKT >) >> > UTC+8+0DST 00:00 next day >> > Tokyo, Japan >> > (JST) >> > UTC+9+0DST 01:00 next day >> > Wellington, New Zealand >> > (NZDT >> > ) UTC+12+1DST 05:00 next day >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 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 >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > -- > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger > From Mary.Wong Sat Mar 24 00:41:23 2012 From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu) Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:41:23 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue In-Reply-To: References: <41F6C547EA49EC46B4EE1EB2BC2F34184ABD4B5FF0@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <4F6BB698.2090409@seltzer.com> <020257DE-FCF5-4B14-8085-EAEB58C6E2F5@acm.org> <4F6BBE970200005B0008820C@smtp.law.unh.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8010CCA3A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4F6CA8580200005B000882AF@smtp.law.unh.edu> Message-ID: <4F6CC3D30200005B00088302@smtp.law.unh.edu> Hi Alain Thanks for the note; I don't know who from NPOC is on the PC list so your note is helpful. I would like to explain that the reason I didn't specifically state the NPOC proposal in the comment I drafted for the PC is because (as mentioned in the comment) our reasons and other positions have been stated elsewhere (e.g. at the GNSO Council meeting in Costa Rica). In the comment, I also mention the need for a more well-thought-out and thorough discussion of the appropriate criteria upon which to base protections for IGOS and other organizations which act in the global public interest - my intention there was to allude to the NPOC proposal, which essentially suggests a similar development of broad generic criteria. Would it help if I added a sentence in that part of the comment, that states something like "A proposal to develop well-substantiated general criteria that would protect international organizations acting in the global public interest was recently submitted by NCSG's new Non Profit Organizational Concerns constituency (NPOC). That proposal ought to be considered as part of the fuller discussion that should take place for the second round of new gTLDs"? Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Alain Berranger To: CC:"Klaus.Stoll" , "Carson, Michael" , Robin Gross , Avri Doria , Konstantinos Komaitis , Lori Schulman , Eduardo Monge , "Branzelle, Judy" , Amber Sterling Date: 3/23/2012 5:55 PM Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue Hi Mary, Robin, I'm not on NCSG-PC list (it is Klaus and Michael who have represented NPOC up to now). Klaus - now an elected officer - is off line in Germany for personal reasons. Michael did not run for elections, so we will have to appoint a new elected officer to designate an elected NPOC officer on NCSG-PC. I will advise soon on that. Meanwhile, I would like to remind you that NPOC's position has not been reflected, perhaps even ignored in this discussion. I restate: NPOC's interim EC (as I said, we now have an elected NPOC EC - more news about that soon) supported a) that the IOC and RC receive exemption; and b) that any organization would receive the same treatment if they past the "International Legal Personality" test. Hence, the proposal: Would receive new gTLD protection "Any organization operating globally in the public interest and enjoying International Legal Personality in the country where its Headquarters are located, and its members." I believe this position by one of the two constituencies of NCSG should be mentioned in the NCSG statement. Alain On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 4:44 PM, wrote: Thanks to all for their kind words. So far, we have Yes to submit from voting PC members Robin, Bill, Wolfgang, Joy, Brendan and me. I believe KK is out on vacation, and have not heard from Wendy, Rafik, Amber or Alain. Avri as one of our two observers also supports the statement. Since KK, Wendy and Rafik all oppose the motion as presented, I believe that the numbers indicate we have rough consensus on the proposed statement. As the due date for public comments on the IOC/RC issue is today, and we have only a few hours left, I will be sending in the statement unless I hear otherwise from someone before 7 p.m. EST (11 p.m. UTC) today. Thanks, all! Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Chair, Graduate IP Programs Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143 ( tel:1-603-513-5143 )Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> From: Robin Gross To:NCSG-Policy Date: 3/23/2012 2:46 PM Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue I agree that we should submit the comment and that it forms a good basis for NCSG to vote NO on Jeff's motion. Thanks, Mary! Robin On Mar 23, 2012, at 6:02 AM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: Fantastic summary of the issues, thanks Mary! Please submit on behalf of the PC. Best regards, --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org 2012/3/23 "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" Well drafted Mary. Go ahead. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Gesendet: Fr 23.03.2012 05:06 An: Avri Doria; NCSG-Policy Betreff: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue Hi, doing my usual hijack - if you can, please review the attached draft statement that I'd be happy to put in on behalf of the PC before the public comment period closes in less than 24 hours' time. Apologies upon apologies for not being able to get this to you earlier, but it's been a squeeze even trying to churn this out. If I may, I'd like to ask that folks please please please not do multiple simultaneous edits and redlines - just do a reply all with your comments for discussion and possible amendment of the statement. That will be much more efficient, I think, especially as my bandwidth on Friday is pretty limited :( Thanks, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index..phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu >>> From: Avri Doria To: NCSG-Policy Date: 3/22/2012 11:28 PM Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC Some of us have spoken about it being important to be in full force at this meeting and to have people like KK, RG, MM and me acting as temporary substitutes for anyone who can't make it Bill has asked me, assuming it is ok with you all. Perhaps others can consider a similar level of participation. avri On 22 Mar 2012, at 19:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: > hi Wendy, > > yes sure, just tell me about your vote intention :) > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2012/3/23 Wendy Seltzer > As discussed at the Council wrap-up, I will be unable to make this > meeting while traveling. Rafik offered to take my proxy -- does this > still work for you, Rafik? > > Thanks, > --Wendy > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting > 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC > Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:41:28 -0700 > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > To: council at gnso.icann.org > > Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26mar12-en.htm > > The Agenda posted on the Wiki page usually has the latest updates: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+26+March+2012 > The motions can be found on page: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+March+2012 > > Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes > available so interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for > the latest updates on the GNSO Council > workspace. > 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 > Times > Coordinated Universal Time: 16:00 UTC > 09:00 Los Angeles; 12:00 Washington DC; 17:00 London; 18:00 Paris; 01:00 > Tokyo; > 27 March 2012 > 05:00 Wellington > Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out > call is needed. > > Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) > 1.1 Roll Call > > 1.2 Statement of interest updates > > 1.3 Review/amend agenda > > Item 2: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names > > A GNSO Drafting Team is working on a charter to determine > recommendations how to handle the protection of RC and IOC names at the > top level for the current new gTLD application round to send to the > ICANN Board. Council must now vote on whether to approve these > recommendations. > > This motion was deferred from the San Jos? Council meeting. Due to the > severe time constraints involved in acting on the Drafting Team's > recommendations, this motion is being considered today as an emergency item. > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+2012 > > > 2.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) > 2.2 Discussion > 2.3 Vote > > > > > Item 3: 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 March & October (Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 16:00 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > California, USA > (PST) > UTC-8+1DST 09:00 > New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 12:00 > Buenos Aires, Argentina > (ART >) > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 > Montevideo, Uruguay > (UYST) > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 > London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 17:00 > Abuja,Nigeria > (WAT) > UTC+1+0DST 17:00 > Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 > Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 > Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 > Ramat Hasharon, > Israel(IST) > UTC+2+0DST 18:00 > Karachi, Pakistan > (PKT > > ) UTC+5+0DST 21:00 > Hong Kong > (HKT >) > UTC+8+0DST 00:00 next day > Tokyo, Japan > (JST) > UTC+9+0DST 01:00 next day > Wellington, New Zealand > (NZDT > ) UTC+12+1DST 05:00 next day > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824 ( tel:%2B1%20514%20484%207824 ); M:+1 514 704 7824 ( tel:%2B1%20514%20704%207824 ) Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Sat Mar 24 19:38:12 2012 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 10:38:12 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Your message to PC-NCSG awaits moderator approval In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Alain, If you read the server's message, it explains that the message was awaiting moderator approval because the number of recipients was too many for it to pass through the server. The email server moderates all messages with a large number of recipients (presumably because it seems "spammy"). As I said before, you are on the PC-NCSG mailing list and have full posting privileges of any member of the PC. Please remember to trim your number of recipients, however, as any authorized poster must for the message to pass without requiring moderator approval. Please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any further confusion regarding the mailing lists. Thanks, Robin On Mar 23, 2012, at 8:46 PM, Alain Berranger wrote: > Robin, you just indicated I'm on NCSG-PC but my message to its list got bounced... talk about being squeezed from both ends!!!! > > Alain > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: > Date: Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:43 PM > Subject: Your message to PC-NCSG awaits moderator approval > To: alain.berranger at gmail.com > > > Your mail to 'PC-NCSG' with the subject > > Re: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > > The reason it is being held: > > Too many recipients to the message > > Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive > notification of the moderator's decision. If you would like to cancel > this posting, please visit the following URL: > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/confirm/pc-ncsg/30f19d48d3523b209ad874349ea358d3d3ab7f22 > > > > > -- > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alain.berranger Sun Mar 25 06:32:49 2012 From: alain.berranger (Alain Berranger) Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 23:32:49 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Your message to PC-NCSG awaits moderator approval In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Robin, Thanks. All is clear at this end. Alain On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > Alain, > > If you read the server's message, it explains that the message was > awaiting moderator approval because the number of recipients was too many > for it to pass through the server. The email server moderates all messages > with a large number of recipients (presumably because it seems "spammy"). > > As I said before, you are on the PC-NCSG mailing list and have full > posting privileges of any member of the PC. Please remember to trim your > number of recipients, however, as any authorized poster must for the > message to pass without requiring moderator approval. > > Please do not hesitate to let me know if you have any further confusion > regarding the mailing lists. > > Thanks, > Robin > > > On Mar 23, 2012, at 8:46 PM, Alain Berranger wrote: > > Robin, you just indicated I'm on NCSG-PC but my message to its list got > bounced... talk about being squeezed from both ends!!!! > > Alain > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: > Date: Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:43 PM > Subject: Your message to PC-NCSG awaits moderator approval > To: alain.berranger at gmail.com > > > Your mail to 'PC-NCSG' with the subject > > Re: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue > > Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. > > The reason it is being held: > > Too many recipients to the message > > Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive > notification of the moderator's decision. If you would like to cancel > this posting, please visit the following URL: > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/confirm/pc-ncsg/30f19d48d3523b209ad874349ea358d3d3ab7f22 > > > > > -- > Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA > Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca > Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca > Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org > NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org > interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ > O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 > Skype: alain.berranger > > > -- Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org interim Membership Committee Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/ O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824 Skype: alain.berranger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis Sun Mar 25 15:59:28 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:59:28 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks Mary for drafting this. I am just back and going through the emails. I will be at the council meeting tomorrow. KK From: Robin Gross > Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 18:45:34 +0000 To: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org" > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue I agree that we should submit the comment and that it forms a good basis for NCSG to vote NO on Jeff's motion. Thanks, Mary! Robin On Mar 23, 2012, at 6:02 AM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: Fantastic summary of the issues, thanks Mary! Please submit on behalf of the PC. Best regards, --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org 2012/3/23 "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" > Well drafted Mary. Go ahead. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu Gesendet: Fr 23.03.2012 05:06 An: Avri Doria; NCSG-Policy Betreff: [PC-NCSG] Proposed NCSG PC statement for IOC/RC issue Hi, doing my usual hijack - if you can, please review the attached draft statement that I'd be happy to put in on behalf of the PC before the public comment period closes in less than 24 hours' time. Apologies upon apologies for not being able to get this to you earlier, but it's been a squeeze even trying to churn this out. If I may, I'd like to ask that folks please please please not do multiple simultaneous edits and redlines - just do a reply all with your comments for discussion and possible amendment of the statement. That will be much more efficient, I think, especially as my bandwidth on Friday is pretty limited :( Thanks, Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP Chair, Graduate IP Programs UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index..phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 As of August 30, 2010, Franklin Pierce Law Center has affiliated with the University of New Hampshire and is now known as the University of New Hampshire School of Law. Please note that all email addresses have changed and now follow the convention: firstname.lastname at law.unh.edu. For more information on the University of New Hampshire School of Law, please visit law.unh.edu >>> From: Avri Doria > To: NCSG-Policy > Date: 3/22/2012 11:28 PM Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC Some of us have spoken about it being important to be in full force at this meeting and to have people like KK, RG, MM and me acting as temporary substitutes for anyone who can't make it Bill has asked me, assuming it is ok with you all. Perhaps others can consider a similar level of participation. avri On 22 Mar 2012, at 19:49, Rafik Dammak wrote: > hi Wendy, > > yes sure, just tell me about your vote intention :) > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2012/3/23 Wendy Seltzer > > As discussed at the Council wrap-up, I will be unable to make this > meeting while traveling. Rafik offered to take my proxy -- does this > still work for you, Rafik? > > Thanks, > --Wendy > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [council] Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting > 26 March 2012 at 16:00 UTC > Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:41:28 -0700 > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > > To: council at gnso.icann.org > > > Proposed Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting 26 March 2012 > http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-council-26mar12-en.htm > > The Agenda posted on the Wiki page usually has the latest updates: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+26+March+2012 > The motions can be found on page: > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+26+March+2012 > > Note that this agenda may be updated as more information becomes > available so interested parties are encouraged to periodically check for > the latest updates on the GNSO Council > workspace. > 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 > Times > Coordinated Universal Time: 16:00 UTC > 09:00 Los Angeles; 12:00 Washington DC; 17:00 London; 18:00 Paris; 01:00 > Tokyo; > 27 March 2012 > 05:00 Wellington > Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out > call is needed. > > Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes) > 1.1 Roll Call > > 1.2 Statement of interest updates > > 1.3 Review/amend agenda > > Item 2: Red Cross and Olympic Committee names > > A GNSO Drafting Team is working on a charter to determine > recommendations how to handle the protection of RC and IOC names at the > top level for the current new gTLD application round to send to the > ICANN Board. Council must now vote on whether to approve these > recommendations. > > This motion was deferred from the San Jos? Council meeting. Due to the > severe time constraints involved in acting on the Drafting Team's > recommendations, this motion is being considered today as an emergency item. > > https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+2012 > > > 2.1 Reading of the motion (Jeff Neuman) > 2.2 Discussion > 2.3 Vote > > > > > Item 3: 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 March & October (Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere ) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 16:00 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > California, USA > (PST) > UTC-8+1DST 09:00 > New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 12:00 > Buenos Aires, Argentina > (ART >) > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 > Montevideo, Uruguay > (UYST) > UTC-3+0DST 13:00 > London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 17:00 > Abuja,Nigeria > (WAT) > UTC+1+0DST 17:00 > Tunis, Tunisia (CET) UTC+1+0DST 17:00 > Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 > Paris, France (CET) UTC+1+0DST 18:00 > Ramat Hasharon, > Israel(IST) > UTC+2+0DST 18:00 > Karachi, Pakistan > (PKT.com/library/abbreviations/timezones/asia/pkt.html> > > ) UTC+5+0DST 21:00 > Hong Kong > (HKT >) > UTC+8+0DST 00:00 next day > Tokyo, Japan > (JST) > UTC+9+0DST 01:00 next day > Wellington, New Zealand > (NZDT > ) UTC+12+1DST 05:00 next day > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From william.drake Mon Mar 26 19:40:37 2012 From: william.drake (William Drake) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:40:37 -0600 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] Amendments to IOC/RCRC Motion In-Reply-To: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3EB9296AED@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> References: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3EB9296AED@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> Message-ID: <7F07441E-B132-4471-955D-88DCE0A790E8@uzh.ch> Shouldn't there be an asterisk here noting that NCSG was not part of the DT's 'consensus'? BD On Mar 26, 2012, at 6:42 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: > First Resolved Clause > Resolved, that the GNSO Council adopts the following three recommendations from the IOC/RC Drafting Team?s three recommendations as described in its Proposal for the protection of IOC and RCRC names at the top level as provided inhttp://gnso.icann.org/issues/ioc-rcrc-proposal-02mar12-en.pdf; namely: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From k.komaitis Mon Mar 26 19:44:19 2012 From: k.komaitis (Konstantinos Komaitis) Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 17:44:19 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] Amendments to IOC/RCRC Motion In-Reply-To: <7F07441E-B132-4471-955D-88DCE0A790E8@uzh.ch> References: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3EB9296AED@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com> <7F07441E-B132-4471-955D-88DCE0A790E8@uzh.ch> Message-ID: The motion just passed! KK Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Senior Lecturer, Director of Postgraduate Instructional Courses Director of LLM Information Technology and Telecommunications Law University of Strathclyde, The Law School, Graham Hills building, 50 George Street, Glasgow G1 1BA UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 http://www.routledgemedia.com/books/The-Current-State-of-Domain-Name-Regulation-isbn9780415477765 Selected publications: http://hq.ssrn.com/submissions/MyPapers.cfm?partid=501038 Website: www.komaitis.org From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: ???????, 26 ??????? 2012 5:41 ?? To: NCSG-Policy Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [council] Amendments to IOC/RCRC Motion Shouldn't there be an asterisk here noting that NCSG was not part of the DT's 'consensus'? BD On Mar 26, 2012, at 6:42 AM, Neuman, Jeff wrote: First Resolved Clause Resolved, that the GNSO Council adopts the following three recommendations from the IOC/RC Drafting Team's three recommendations as described in its Proposal for the protection of IOC and RCRC names at the top level as provided inhttp://gnso.icann.org/issues/ioc-rcrc-proposal-02mar12-en.pdf; namely: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: