From Mary.Wong  Mon Sep 10 23:22:01 2012
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 16:22:01 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Council call this week
Message-ID: <504E13A90200005B00096098@smtp.law.unh.edu>


Hi all - I have to teach class during the Council call this Thursday; may I have a volunteer for a proxy please? Thanks, and sorry! 
Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
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  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120910/e11dae84/attachment.html>


From wendy  Tue Sep 11 00:01:56 2012
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 17:01:56 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Council call this week
In-Reply-To: <504E13A90200005B00096098@smtp.law.unh.edu>
References: <504E13A90200005B00096098@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <504E5544.1000701@seltzer.com>

I'm in another meeting face-to-face at the same time.  I will try to be
available for key issues where I'd have input (WHOIS RT and Consumer
Metrics) but I won't be on for the whole call.

--Wendy

On 09/10/2012 04:22 PM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote:
> 
> Hi all - I have to teach class during the Council call this Thursday; may I have a volunteer for a proxy please? Thanks, and sorry! 
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> 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  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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  Wed Sep 12 22:48:24 2012
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:48:24 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
References: <20120912194433.D01F3C2D24B@sjc-wfweb02>
Message-ID: <E013A71E-D12C-40FD-B188-A81CA72D4DAA@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Confirmation Message" <no-reply at wufoo.com>
> Date: September 12, 2012 12:44:33 PM PDT
> To: robin at ipjustice.org
> Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
> Reply-To: no-reply at icann.org
>
> GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
> Name of Officer: *	Robin Gross
> Officer Email Address: *	robin at ipjustice.org
> Date Prepared: *	Wednesday, September 12, 2012
> GNSO Organization: *	
> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
> Officer Position or Title: *	
> Chair
> Voting Remedy: *	
> Proxy
> Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: *	
> Mary Wong is unable to attend the GNSO Council Meeting on 13  
> September 2012. Joy Liddicoat will hold Mary's proxy for the meeting.
> Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council  
> for which the remedy is being exercised: *	
> all
> Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate:
> [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending  
> an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] *	Friday, September  
> 14, 2012
> I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter 
> (s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or  
> Bylaws. *	
> Yes
> Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter 
> (s). *	
> Yes
> Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting  
> proxy: *	Joy Liddicoat




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120912/ebe5ee8d/attachment.html>


From robin  Wed Sep 12 22:48:45 2012
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 12:48:45 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
References: <20120912194625.AF5C3C2D24D@sjc-wfweb02>
Message-ID: <9548473E-3F6D-49CC-B330-50AAE17D2D97@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Confirmation Message" <no-reply at wufoo.com>
> Date: September 12, 2012 12:46:25 PM PDT
> To: robin at ipjustice.org
> Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
> Reply-To: no-reply at icann.org
>
> GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
> Name of Officer: *	Robin Gross
> Officer Email Address: *	robin at ipjustice.org
> Date Prepared: *	Wednesday, September 12, 2012
> GNSO Organization: *	
> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
> Officer Position or Title: *	
> Chair
> Voting Remedy: *	
> Proxy
> Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: *	
> Wolfgang Kleinwachter is unable to attend the GNSO Council Meeting  
> on 13 September 2012. William Drake will hold Wolf's proxy for the  
> meeting.
> Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council  
> for which the remedy is being exercised: *	
> all
> Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate:
> [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending  
> an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] *	Friday, September  
> 14, 2012
> I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter 
> (s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or  
> Bylaws. *	
> Yes
> Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter 
> (s). *	
> Yes
> Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting  
> proxy: *	William Drake




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120912/a3848377/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Thu Sep 13 06:35:52 2012
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 20:35:52 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
References: <20120913033454.4E4047E63A2@sjc-wfweb03>
Message-ID: <8CF4834A-D56F-46A1-836C-AE9ECD6529CA@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Confirmation Message" <no-reply at wufoo.com>
> Date: September 12, 2012 8:34:54 PM PDT
> To: robin at ipjustice.org
> Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
> Reply-To: no-reply at icann.org
>
> GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
> Name of Officer: *	Robin Gross
> Officer Email Address: *	robin at ipjustice.org
> Date Prepared: *	Wednesday, September 12, 2012
> GNSO Organization: *	
> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
> Officer Position or Title: *	
> Chair
> Voting Remedy: *	
> Proxy
> Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: *	
> Wendy Seltzer is unable to attend the GNSO Council Meeting on 13  
> September 2012, so Rafik Dammak will hold Wendy's proxy vote for  
> that meeting.
> Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council  
> for which the remedy is being exercised: *	
> all
> Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate:
> [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending  
> an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] *	Friday, September  
> 14, 2012
> I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter 
> (s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or  
> Bylaws. *	
> Yes
> Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter 
> (s). *	
> Yes
> Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting  
> proxy: *	Rafik Dammak




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120912/2b471802/attachment.html>


From avri  Sat Sep 15 20:23:57 2012
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:23:57 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] [] IOC/Red Cross DT: Proposed Narrowing of Options
In-Reply-To: <5054B905.5010708@seltzer.com>
References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E0D662D7B@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
	<A2F00893-8FFD-484E-9A38-89896315E300@acm.org>
	<3B6AF2AF-5638-429E-9083-4176CBB1B7C9@acm.org>
	<5054B905.5010708@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <E092D53B-2A5C-4DC6-BD11-E019B3AF7C2B@ACM.ORG>

Hi,

If possible, it would be good to get an NCSG-PC position on this.


avri


On 15 Sep 2012, at 13:21, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> Thanks Avri,
> 
> I think we should stick to our position. Don't put any special-case
> changes as new requirements on existing applicants.
> 
> --Wendy




From avri  Tue Sep 18 01:37:40 2012
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:37:40 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [gnso-iocrc-dt] Update from The New gTLD Program
	Committee on the Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC Issues
In-Reply-To: <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF2720BFF49@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
References: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3EDD58E202@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com>
	<65E07F49-849D-4EA6-A5F1-506CC94F6504@indom.com>
	<DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF2720BFF49@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
Message-ID: <05C8ECED-4187-49F3-8508-E62DFF650EAB@acm.org>

Hi,

I thought this was out for SG/C review.

When did it morph into an approved resolution?

avri

On 17 Sep 2012, at 17:09, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:

> The resolution and rationale are now posted at http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-new-gtld-13sep12-en.htm.
>  
> Greg Shatan
>  
>  
> Gregory S. Shatan 
> Deputy Chair| Tech Transactions Group 
> IP | Technology | Media 
> ReedSmithLLP 
> The business of relationships
> 599 Lexington Avenue
> New York, NY 10022
> 212.549.0275 | Phone
> 917.816.6428 | Mobile
> 212.521.5450 | Fax
> gshatan at reedsmith.com
> www.reedsmith.com 
> Abu Dhabi | Beijing | Century City | Chicago | 
> Dubai | Falls Church | Greece | Hong Kong | 
> London | Los Angeles | Munich | New York| 
> Paris | Philadelphia | Pittsburgh | Princeton | 
> Richmond | San Francisco | Shanghai |
> Silicon Valley | Washington DC | Wilmington
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of St?phane Van Gelder
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 3:27 AM
> To: Neuman, Jeff
> Cc: gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] FW: Update from The New gTLD Program Committee on the Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC Issues
>  
> Thanks for sending it on Jeff.
>  
> Cherine's note is obviously of great importance to this group. Please note the deadline set by the Board for them to get a response from the GNSO and adjust your work schedule accordingly.
>  
> If the group has a problem with either the deadline or the work it is being asked to do here, please let the Council know asap.
>  
> Once again, my thanks to this group for its hard work on these issues.
>  
> St?phane Van Gelder
> Directeur G?n?ral / General manager
> INDOM NetNames France
> ----------------
> Registry Relations and Strategy Director
> NetNames
> T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51
> F: +22 (0)1 48 01 83 61
> 
>  
> Le 17 sept. 2012 ? 04:08, Neuman, Jeff a ?crit :
> 
> 
> FYI.  I know this came out on Friday, but I am not sure this was sent to the group. 
>  
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
> 
> 
>  
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of David Olive
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 9:27 PM
> To: council at gnso.icann.org
> Cc: Margie Milam
> Subject: [council] FW: Update from The New gTLD Program Committee on the Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC Issues
>  
> For your information.
>  
> Regards,      David
>  
>  
> From: Cherine Chalaby 
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 1:32 PM
> To: stephane.vangelder at indom.com
> Cc: Margie Milam; New gTLD Program Committee
> Subject: Update from The New gTLD Program Committee on the Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC Issues
>  
> Dear St?phane,
> I wanted to reach out to you and the GNSO Council to let you know about an issue of interest to the GNSO that the New gTLD Program Committee addressed this week: the protection of Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC names.  The Committee passed a resolution yesterday requesting that the GNSO consider a proposed solution for the first round to protect at the second level the names of Red Cross/Red Crescent and IOC, consistent with the GAC advice to the Board.
> We have been apprised of, and appreciate, the significant work currently underway by the GNSO?s IOC/RC Drafting Team, and the potential PDP under consideration.  We crafted the resolution in a way that recognises that GNSO work is ongoing.  The resolution and the rationale will be posted next Monday.
> The Committee adopted this resolution now, rather than wait until Toronto, to provide sufficient time for the GNSO to develop its views on this request taking into account the timeline for the first round.   It is important that this issue is resolved early next year so that additional protections, if they are adopted, are in place for the first round.  As a result, the Committee is seeking the GNSO?s response by January 31, 2013.
> We look forward to receiving the GNSO's response and are available to discuss this issue in further detail in Toronto.    
> Sincerely,
> Cherine Chalaby
>  
> 
>  
> * * *
> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation.
> * * *
> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00




From avri  Wed Sep 19 16:05:49 2012
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:05:49 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting
In-Reply-To: <c6ec6adc-7716-487a-9444-f827979855d2@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA>
References: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3EDD58E3BF@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com>
	<c6ec6adc-7716-487a-9444-f827979855d2@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA>
Message-ID: <7665EF71-97CD-4210-A28E-A8C3D1CBD932@acm.org>


Hi,

I too will miss the meeting.  If possible I would like this message to be entered into the meeting content.

In my view anything put on the reserved names list MUST also apply to incumbents as well as new gTLDs, and that is a problem that a PDP MUST discuss and plan for.  One thing we need to be careful of, is creating more and more differential requirements for new versus old gTLDs.  Rather, the trend needs to be one of bringing requirements between the new and the old into line with each other.

I, and the NCSG, remain in favor of a PDP and against any addition to the reserved names list until such time as a PDP has made its recommendation.
I am also against the creation of the new term, moratorium, and a new list.

If the Board in response to GAC advice wishes to take this action, that is their business.  The idea I have read that because the Board is going to do it anyway, we should do it first is, to my mind, silly.  Rather, since they are going to do it anyway and we can't stop them, we might as well let them do it and not try to out-Board the Board.

Assuming this DT votes in approval, I request the right to include an opposing statement.


avri


On 19 Sep 2012, at 01:06, Alan Greenberg wrote:

> Jeff, in light of "Whereas, the Board favors a conservative approach, that restrictions on second-level registration can be lifted at a later time, but restrictions cannot be applied retroactively after domain names are registered.", It sounds like a "moratorium" is exactly what they have in mind, so my guess is that they would be quite satisfied with this approach. 
> 
> My personal take is that we should not invent a new term - moratorium, but rather say that the names should be included on the reserved names list pending the outcome of the PDP with whatever other verbage is necessary to make it crystal clear that if the PDP decides that they should not be on the reserved names list, they get taken off upon implementation of the PDP recommendations.
> 
> The GAC letter was dated 14 September - https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2011-09-14-IOCRC-1.
> 
> Alan
> 
> At 18/09/2012 11:20 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>> All,
>>  
>> A meeting I am unable to get out of has just come up that makes it impossible for me to attend the call.  It would still be good for you all to discuss the e-mail sent around earlier to make sure that I have worded the proposal accurately and to refine if necessary, so that we can get final feedback on the consensus call by September 26th.  
>>  
>> I am going to ask Chuck or Thomas if they can lead the call?.sorry to put you two on the spot.  If you want, you can discuss the Board resolution as well.  I believe that our current proposal may be in line with the resolution, but there may be some issues  I believe that need to be addressed.
>> 
>> The resolution states:
>>  
>> Resolved (NG2012.09.13.01), if it is not possible to conclude the policy work prior to 31 January 2013, the Board requests that the GNSO Council advise the Board by no later than that date if it is aware of any reason, such as concerns with the global public interest or the security or stability of the DNS, that the Board should take into account in making its decision about whether to include second level protections for the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent names listed in section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook by inclusion on a Reserved Names List applicable in all new gTLD registries approved in the first round of the New gTLD Program
>>  
>> What does it mean to ?conclude the policy work??  If the GNSO recommends the ?moratorium on registrations?, but initiates the pdp (which will not likely be done by 1/31/13), would the Board attempt to override the ongoing pdp.  Or would the moratorium on registrations satisfy this requirement.  I would like to see if the Board?s new gTLD Program Committee could give us some more details about this.  Please let me know if you share my concerns.
>>  
>> Thanks in advance and I apologize for not being able to attend, but I wil listen to the recording. 
>>  
>> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>> 46000 Center Oak Plaza, 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 
>>  




From avri  Wed Sep 19 18:21:55 2012
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 12:21:55 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting
In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E0D677202@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3EDD58E3BF@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com>
	<c6ec6adc-7716-487a-9444-f827979855d2@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<7665EF71-97CD-4210-A28E-A8C3D1CBD932@acm.org>
	<1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3EDD58E3E0@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com>
	<6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E0D677202@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Message-ID: <2678BFB3-2746-41E6-A3CB-79B8ACC98199@acm.org>

Hi,

(I am bcc'ing this to the NCSG Policy Committee, so that they know what I am saying.)

The NCSG is in favor of the PDP as a plan: meaning that once the PDP is framed in the g-council, they will take a decision on the PDP itself - as I expect other SG/Cs will.  So if the consensus call separates the two questions we are in favor of PDP and against reserved/moratorium lists.  If the recommendations to the g-council are bound together, then we are against the overall recommendation.

As for the notion of whether policies that apply to new gTLDs should also apply to incumbent gTLDs, I have not gauged the NCSG response on this specific question yet as it is not currently in question.  In fact I had always assumed that this was an existing GNSO position.  And especially with regard to reserved names, when the G-council discussed these issues during the new gTLD PDP, I never heard anyone propose the notion that we have separate reserved names lists for new gTLDs and incumbent gTLDs.  Yes, that is the effect of granting the IOC and the IFRC the exceptions they demand, but I do not remember us ever discussing the policy implications on the incumbents.  I have always found the incumbents readiness to impose these requirements on the new gTLDs without seeming to consider the larger policy effects a bit confounding.

As for insulting this team with the phrase 'out-Boarding the Board'.  Yes, it is true that this group came to the idea of a special reserved list first in its attempt to please the GAC.  In my mind, this ordering difference does not change the fact that we are bending over backwards to comply with GAC demands without a proper policy process - and to me that is a prime example of 'out-Boarding the Board' - we just beat them to it this time.

avri



On 19 Sep 2012, at 10:43, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> 
> Jeff,
> 
> In saying "we will note the NCSG objection to the consensus call" I assume you mean that we will note the NCSG answer to both consensus call questions is 'no' rather than noting that the NCSG objects to the fact that a consensus call was made.
> 
> 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: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:33 AM
>> To: Avri Doria; gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks for this Avri and your opinions should be noted.
>> 
>> I just wanted to be clear for the record that our proposal for the
>> moratorium did predate the Board's resolution (without any knowledge
>> that the Board was even having that discussion), so the premise and our
>> rationale, I believe have nothing to do with the Board's resolution.
>> In fact, we are just continuing down the same path, in my opinion, that
>> we started down regardless of the Board's resolution.  It just so
>> happens that it may be in line with their resolution.
>> 
>> I think it may be unfair to those that have made the proposal and those
>> that support it to classify this as outboarding the board?
>> 
>> On the point that this should apply to incumbents, by definition,
>> outcomes of PDPs if there are Consensus Policies in them would apply to
>> incumbents and therefore those discussions should absolutely occur
>> during the PDP.  So, I am not sure there is any disagreement there.
>> 
>> Thanks again and we will note the NCSG objection to the consensus call
>> and has been our practice allow that opposing statement to be posted.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
>> dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:06 AM
>> To: gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I too will miss the meeting.  If possible I would like this message to
>> be entered into the meeting content.
>> 
>> In my view anything put on the reserved names list MUST also apply to
>> incumbents as well as new gTLDs, and that is a problem that a PDP MUST
>> discuss and plan for.  One thing we need to be careful of, is creating
>> more and more differential requirements for new versus old gTLDs.
>> Rather, the trend needs to be one of bringing requirements between the
>> new and the old into line with each other.
>> 
>> I, and the NCSG, remain in favor of a PDP and against any addition to
>> the reserved names list until such time as a PDP has made its
>> recommendation.
>> I am also against the creation of the new term, moratorium, and a new
>> list.
>> 
>> If the Board in response to GAC advice wishes to take this action, that
>> is their business.  The idea I have read that because the Board is
>> going to do it anyway, we should do it first is, to my mind, silly.
>> Rather, since they are going to do it anyway and we can't stop them, we
>> might as well let them do it and not try to out-Board the Board.
>> 
>> Assuming this DT votes in approval, I request the right to include an
>> opposing statement.
>> 
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> On 19 Sep 2012, at 01:06, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> 
>>> Jeff, in light of "Whereas, the Board favors a conservative approach,
>> that restrictions on second-level registration can be lifted at a later
>> time, but restrictions cannot be applied retroactively after domain
>> names are registered.", It sounds like a "moratorium" is exactly what
>> they have in mind, so my guess is that they would be quite satisfied
>> with this approach.
>>> 
>>> My personal take is that we should not invent a new term -
>> moratorium, but rather say that the names should be included on the
>> reserved names list pending the outcome of the PDP with whatever other
>> verbage is necessary to make it crystal clear that if the PDP decides
>> that they should not be on the reserved names list, they get taken off
>> upon implementation of the PDP recommendations.
>>> 
>>> The GAC letter was dated 14 September -
>> https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2011-09-14-IOCRC-1.
>>> 
>>> Alan
>>> 
>>> At 18/09/2012 11:20 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>> 
>>>> A meeting I am unable to get out of has just come up that makes it
>> impossible for me to attend the call.  It would still be good for you
>> all to discuss the e-mail sent around earlier to make sure that I have
>> worded the proposal accurately and to refine if necessary, so that we
>> can get final feedback on the consensus call by September 26th.
>>>> 
>>>> I am going to ask Chuck or Thomas if they can lead the call....sorry
>> to put you two on the spot.  If you want, you can discuss the Board
>> resolution as well.  I believe that our current proposal may be in line
>> with the resolution, but there may be some issues  I believe that need
>> to be addressed.
>>>> 
>>>> The resolution states:
>>>> 
>>>> Resolved (NG2012.09.13.01), if it is not possible to conclude the
>> policy work prior to 31 January 2013, the Board requests that the GNSO
>> Council advise the Board by no later than that date if it is aware of
>> any reason, such as concerns with the global public interest or the
>> security or stability of the DNS, that the Board should take into
>> account in making its decision about whether to include second level
>> protections for the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent names listed in
>> section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook by inclusion on a Reserved
>> Names List applicable in all new gTLD registries approved in the first
>> round of the New gTLD Program
>>>> 
>>>> What does it mean to "conclude the policy work"?  If the GNSO
>> recommends the "moratorium on registrations", but initiates the pdp
>> (which will not likely be done by 1/31/13), would the Board attempt to
>> override the ongoing pdp.  Or would the moratorium on registrations
>> satisfy this requirement.  I would like to see if the Board's new gTLD
>> Program Committee could give us some more details about this.  Please
>> let me know if you share my concerns.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks in advance and I apologize for not being able to attend, but
>> I wil listen to the recording.
>>>> 
>>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>>>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>>>> 46000 Center Oak Plaza, 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
>>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 




From Mary.Wong  Wed Sep 19 23:18:57 2012
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:18:57 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting
In-Reply-To: <2678BFB3-2746-41E6-A3CB-79B8ACC98199@acm.org>
References: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3EDD58E3BF@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com>
	<c6ec6adc-7716-487a-9444-f827979855d2@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<7665EF71-97CD-4210-A28E-A8C3D1CBD932@acm.org>
	<1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3EDD58E3E0@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com>
	<6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E0D677202@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
	<2678BFB3-2746-41E6-A3CB-79B8ACC98199@acm.org>
Message-ID: <5059F0710200005B00096C70@smtp.law.unh.edu>


All, I was able to participate (finally) in the latest DT call earlier this afternoon. The consensus document will be finalized and sent out to each SG/C rep for forwarding on to and discussion amongst all our groups by tomorrow or thereabouts. I'm glad to report that Avri's notes and statements were incorporated into the transcript/records for the meeting, and that most of the group continue to favor a PDP, although there are differences of opinion as to whether this should (a) be just for the second round and beyond, or be expedited to include the first round as well; and (b) cover also the IGO issue in addition to the IOC/RC topic. It was noted also that each SG/C will be able to file a minority statement (per Avri's previous requests). 

The final language for the consensus document - such as there is a general consensus - is the product of much compromise, and parts of it are likely to not find favor with everyone. In particular, the two questions in the document (per Avri's note below) are linked together, although there is acknowledgment that it will be up to the GNSO Council to determine the final scope of a PDP. 

It was also noted on the call that each SG/C/individual will have various different mechanisms for feedback to the Council even after the final document is sent to the Council, including through their Councilors and through the mandatory public comment period.  

We should coordinate a response to the document - which response is expected within a week - and bear in mind that we ought also to continue to be coherent and constant in bringing forward that message to the GNSO Council when the time comes. 

Once the DT has a final copy of the consensus document, either Avri or I will be sure to circulate it to everyone. 

Cheers 
Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
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:  
Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 

To: 
<gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org> 

Date:  
9/19/2012 11:23 AM 

Subject:  
Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting 


Hi,

(I am bcc'ing this to the NCSG Policy Committee, so that they know what I am saying.)

The NCSG is in favor of the PDP as a plan: meaning that once the PDP is framed in the g-council, they will take a decision on the PDP itself - as I expect other SG/Cs will.  So if the consensus call separates the two questions we are in favor of PDP and against reserved/moratorium lists.  If the recommendations to the g-council are bound together, then we are against the overall recommendation.

As for the notion of whether policies that apply to new gTLDs should also apply to incumbent gTLDs, I have not gauged the NCSG response on this specific question yet as it is not currently in question.  In fact I had always assumed that this was an existing GNSO position.  And especially with regard to reserved names, when the G-council discussed these issues during the new gTLD PDP, I never heard anyone propose the notion that we have separate reserved names lists for new gTLDs and incumbent gTLDs.  Yes, that is the effect of granting the IOC and the IFRC the exceptions they demand, but I do not remember us ever discussing the policy implications on the incumbents.  I have always found the incumbents readiness to impose these requirements on the new gTLDs without seeming to consider the larger policy effects a bit confounding.

As for insulting this team with the phrase 'out-Boarding the Board'.  Yes, it is true that this group came to the idea of a special reserved list first in its attempt to please the GAC.  In my mind, this ordering difference does not change the fact that we are bending over backwards to comply with GAC demands without a proper policy process - and to me that is a prime example of 'out-Boarding the Board' - we just beat them to it this time.

avri



On 19 Sep 2012, at 10:43, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

>
> Jeff,
>
> In saying "we will note the NCSG objection to the consensus call" I assume you mean that we will note the NCSG answer to both consensus call questions is 'no' rather than noting that the NCSG objects to the fact that a consensus call was made.
>
> 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: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:33 AM
>> To: Avri Doria; gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting
>>
>>
>> Thanks for this Avri and your opinions should be noted.
>>
>> I just wanted to be clear for the record that our proposal for the
>> moratorium did predate the Board's resolution (without any knowledge
>> that the Board was even having that discussion), so the premise and our
>> rationale, I believe have nothing to do with the Board's resolution.
>> In fact, we are just continuing down the same path, in my opinion, that
>> we started down regardless of the Board's resolution.  It just so
>> happens that it may be in line with their resolution.
>>
>> I think it may be unfair to those that have made the proposal and those
>> that support it to classify this as outboarding the board?
>>
>> On the point that this should apply to incumbents, by definition,
>> outcomes of PDPs if there are Consensus Policies in them would apply to
>> incumbents and therefore those discussions should absolutely occur
>> during the PDP.  So, I am not sure there is any disagreement there.
>>
>> Thanks again and we will note the NCSG objection to the consensus call
>> and has been our practice allow that opposing statement to be posted.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
>> dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:06 AM
>> To: gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
>> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I too will miss the meeting.  If possible I would like this message to
>> be entered into the meeting content.
>>
>> In my view anything put on the reserved names list MUST also apply to
>> incumbents as well as new gTLDs, and that is a problem that a PDP MUST
>> discuss and plan for.  One thing we need to be careful of, is creating
>> more and more differential requirements for new versus old gTLDs.
>> Rather, the trend needs to be one of bringing requirements between the
>> new and the old into line with each other.
>>
>> I, and the NCSG, remain in favor of a PDP and against any addition to
>> the reserved names list until such time as a PDP has made its
>> recommendation.
>> I am also against the creation of the new term, moratorium, and a new
>> list.
>>
>> If the Board in response to GAC advice wishes to take this action, that
>> is their business.  The idea I have read that because the Board is
>> going to do it anyway, we should do it first is, to my mind, silly.
>> Rather, since they are going to do it anyway and we can't stop them, we
>> might as well let them do it and not try to out-Board the Board.
>>
>> Assuming this DT votes in approval, I request the right to include an
>> opposing statement.
>>
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 19 Sep 2012, at 01:06, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>
>>> Jeff, in light of "Whereas, the Board favors a conservative approach,
>> that restrictions on second-level registration can be lifted at a later
>> time, but restrictions cannot be applied retroactively after domain
>> names are registered.", It sounds like a "moratorium" is exactly what
>> they have in mind, so my guess is that they would be quite satisfied
>> with this approach.
>>>
>>> My personal take is that we should not invent a new term -
>> moratorium, but rather say that the names should be included on the
>> reserved names list pending the outcome of the PDP with whatever other
>> verbage is necessary to make it crystal clear that if the PDP decides
>> that they should not be on the reserved names list, they get taken off
>> upon implementation of the PDP recommendations.
>>>
>>> The GAC letter was dated 14 September -
>> https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2011-09-14-IOCRC-1.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> At 18/09/2012 11:20 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> A meeting I am unable to get out of has just come up that makes it
>> impossible for me to attend the call.  It would still be good for you
>> all to discuss the e-mail sent around earlier to make sure that I have
>> worded the proposal accurately and to refine if necessary, so that we
>> can get final feedback on the consensus call by September 26th.
>>>>
>>>> I am going to ask Chuck or Thomas if they can lead the call....sorry
>> to put you two on the spot.  If you want, you can discuss the Board
>> resolution as well.  I believe that our current proposal may be in line
>> with the resolution, but there may be some issues  I believe that need
>> to be addressed.
>>>>
>>>> The resolution states:
>>>>
>>>> Resolved (NG2012.09.13.01), if it is not possible to conclude the
>> policy work prior to 31 January 2013, the Board requests that the GNSO
>> Council advise the Board by no later than that date if it is aware of
>> any reason, such as concerns with the global public interest or the
>> security or stability of the DNS, that the Board should take into
>> account in making its decision about whether to include second level
>> protections for the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent names listed in
>> section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook by inclusion on a Reserved
>> Names List applicable in all new gTLD registries approved in the first
>> round of the New gTLD Program
>>>>
>>>> What does it mean to "conclude the policy work"?  If the GNSO
>> recommends the "moratorium on registrations", but initiates the pdp
>> (which will not likely be done by 1/31/13), would the Board attempt to
>> override the ongoing pdp.  Or would the moratorium on registrations
>> satisfy this requirement.  I would like to see if the Board's new gTLD
>> Program Committee could give us some more details about this.  Please
>> let me know if you share my concerns.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in advance and I apologize for not being able to attend, but
>> I wil listen to the recording.
>>>>
>>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>>>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>>>> 46000 Center Oak Plaza, 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
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120919/afbc5d92/attachment-0001.html>


From william.drake  Thu Sep 20 14:24:20 2012
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 13:24:20 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting
In-Reply-To: <5059F0710200005B00096C70@smtp.law.unh.edu>
References: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3EDD58E3BF@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com>
	<c6ec6adc-7716-487a-9444-f827979855d2@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<7665EF71-97CD-4210-A28E-A8C3D1CBD932@acm.org>
	<1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3EDD58E3E0@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com>
	<6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E0D677202@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
	<2678BFB3-2746-41E6-A3CB-79B8ACC98199@acm.org>
	<5059F0710200005B00096C70@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <0734AA72-EB90-4AAF-880E-931EB6A874EA@uzh.ch>

Hi

Thanks for this.  Hmm?is "out-boarding" an omsbudable speech crime?  :-)

Bill

On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:18 PM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:

> All, I was able to participate (finally) in the latest DT call earlier this afternoon. The consensus document will be finalized and sent out to each SG/C rep for forwarding on to and discussion amongst all our groups by tomorrow or thereabouts. I'm glad to report that Avri's notes and statements were incorporated into the transcript/records for the meeting, and that most of the group continue to favor a PDP, although there are differences of opinion as to whether this should (a) be just for the second round and beyond, or be expedited to include the first round as well; and (b) cover also the IGO issue in addition to the IOC/RC topic. It was noted also that each SG/C will be able to file a minority statement (per Avri's previous requests).
> 
> The final language for the consensus document - such as there is a general consensus - is the product of much compromise, and parts of it are likely to not find favor with everyone. In particular, the two questions in the document (per Avri's note below) are linked together, although there is acknowledgment that it will be up to the GNSO Council to determine the final scope of a PDP.
> 
> It was also noted on the call that each SG/C/individual will have various different mechanisms for feedback to the Council even after the final document is sent to the Council, including through their Councilors and through the mandatory public comment period.
> 
> We should coordinate a response to the document - which response is expected within a week - and bear in mind that we ought also to continue to be coherent and constant in bringing forward that message to the GNSO Council when the time comes.
> 
> Once the DT has a final copy of the consensus document, either Avri or I will be sure to circulate it to everyone.
> 
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> 
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> 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:
> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> To:
> <gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>
> Date:
> 9/19/2012 11:23 AM
> Subject:
> Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting                  
> 
> Hi,
> 
> (I am bcc'ing this to the NCSG Policy Committee, so that they know what I am saying.)
> 
> The NCSG is in favor of the PDP as a plan: meaning that once the PDP is framed in the g-council, they will take a decision on the PDP itself - as I expect other SG/Cs will.  So if the consensus call separates the two questions we are in favor of PDP and against reserved/moratorium lists.  If the recommendations to the g-council are bound together, then we are against the overall recommendation.
> 
> As for the notion of whether policies that apply to new gTLDs should also apply to incumbent gTLDs, I have not gauged the NCSG response on this specific question yet as it is not currently in question.  In fact I had always assumed that this was an existing GNSO position.  And especially with regard to reserved names, when the G-council discussed these issues during the new gTLD PDP, I never heard anyone propose the notion that we have separate reserved names lists for new gTLDs and incumbent gTLDs.  Yes, that is the effect of granting the IOC and the IFRC the exceptions they demand, but I do not remember us ever discussing the policy implications on the incumbents.  I have always found the incumbents readiness to impose these requirements on the new gTLDs without seeming to consider the larger policy effects a bit confounding.
> 
> As for insulting this team with the phrase 'out-Boarding the Board'.  Yes, it is true that this group came to the idea of a special reserved list first in its attempt to please the GAC.  In my mind, this ordering difference does not change the fact that we are bending over backwards to comply with GAC demands without a proper policy process - and to me that is a prime example of 'out-Boarding the Board' - we just beat them to it this time.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 19 Sep 2012, at 10:43, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> >
> > Jeff,
> >
> > In saying "we will note the NCSG objection to the consensus call" I assume you mean that we will note the NCSG answer to both consensus call questions is 'no' rather than noting that the NCSG objects to the fact that a consensus call was made.
> >
> > 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: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:33 AM
> >> To: Avri Doria; gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
> >> Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks for this Avri and your opinions should be noted.
> >>
> >> I just wanted to be clear for the record that our proposal for the
> >> moratorium did predate the Board's resolution (without any knowledge
> >> that the Board was even having that discussion), so the premise and our
> >> rationale, I believe have nothing to do with the Board's resolution.
> >> In fact, we are just continuing down the same path, in my opinion, that
> >> we started down regardless of the Board's resolution.  It just so
> >> happens that it may be in line with their resolution.
> >>
> >> I think it may be unfair to those that have made the proposal and those
> >> that support it to classify this as outboarding the board?
> >>
> >> On the point that this should apply to incumbents, by definition,
> >> outcomes of PDPs if there are Consensus Policies in them would apply to
> >> incumbents and therefore those discussions should absolutely occur
> >> during the PDP.  So, I am not sure there is any disagreement there.
> >>
> >> Thanks again and we will note the NCSG objection to the consensus call
> >> and has been our practice allow that opposing statement to be posted.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> >> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
> >> dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:06 AM
> >> To: gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I too will miss the meeting.  If possible I would like this message to
> >> be entered into the meeting content.
> >>
> >> In my view anything put on the reserved names list MUST also apply to
> >> incumbents as well as new gTLDs, and that is a problem that a PDP MUST
> >> discuss and plan for.  One thing we need to be careful of, is creating
> >> more and more differential requirements for new versus old gTLDs.
> >> Rather, the trend needs to be one of bringing requirements between the
> >> new and the old into line with each other.
> >>
> >> I, and the NCSG, remain in favor of a PDP and against any addition to
> >> the reserved names list until such time as a PDP has made its
> >> recommendation.
> >> I am also against the creation of the new term, moratorium, and a new
> >> list.
> >>
> >> If the Board in response to GAC advice wishes to take this action, that
> >> is their business.  The idea I have read that because the Board is
> >> going to do it anyway, we should do it first is, to my mind, silly.
> >> Rather, since they are going to do it anyway and we can't stop them, we
> >> might as well let them do it and not try to out-Board the Board.
> >>
> >> Assuming this DT votes in approval, I request the right to include an
> >> opposing statement.
> >>
> >>
> >> avri
> >>
> >>
> >> On 19 Sep 2012, at 01:06, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> >>
> >>> Jeff, in light of "Whereas, the Board favors a conservative approach,
> >> that restrictions on second-level registration can be lifted at a later
> >> time, but restrictions cannot be applied retroactively after domain
> >> names are registered.", It sounds like a "moratorium" is exactly what
> >> they have in mind, so my guess is that they would be quite satisfied
> >> with this approach.
> >>>
> >>> My personal take is that we should not invent a new term -
> >> moratorium, but rather say that the names should be included on the
> >> reserved names list pending the outcome of the PDP with whatever other
> >> verbage is necessary to make it crystal clear that if the PDP decides
> >> that they should not be on the reserved names list, they get taken off
> >> upon implementation of the PDP recommendations.
> >>>
> >>> The GAC letter was dated 14 September -
> >> https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2011-09-14-IOCRC-1.
> >>>
> >>> Alan
> >>>
> >>> At 18/09/2012 11:20 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> >>>> All,
> >>>>
> >>>> A meeting I am unable to get out of has just come up that makes it
> >> impossible for me to attend the call.  It would still be good for you
> >> all to discuss the e-mail sent around earlier to make sure that I have
> >> worded the proposal accurately and to refine if necessary, so that we
> >> can get final feedback on the consensus call by September 26th.
> >>>>
> >>>> I am going to ask Chuck or Thomas if they can lead the call....sorry
> >> to put you two on the spot.  If you want, you can discuss the Board
> >> resolution as well.  I believe that our current proposal may be in line
> >> with the resolution, but there may be some issues  I believe that need
> >> to be addressed.
> >>>>
> >>>> The resolution states:
> >>>>
> >>>> Resolved (NG2012.09.13.01), if it is not possible to conclude the
> >> policy work prior to 31 January 2013, the Board requests that the GNSO
> >> Council advise the Board by no later than that date if it is aware of
> >> any reason, such as concerns with the global public interest or the
> >> security or stability of the DNS, that the Board should take into
> >> account in making its decision about whether to include second level
> >> protections for the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent names listed in
> >> section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook by inclusion on a Reserved
> >> Names List applicable in all new gTLD registries approved in the first
> >> round of the New gTLD Program
> >>>>
> >>>> What does it mean to "conclude the policy work"?  If the GNSO
> >> recommends the "moratorium on registrations", but initiates the pdp
> >> (which will not likely be done by 1/31/13), would the Board attempt to
> >> override the ongoing pdp.  Or would the moratorium on registrations
> >> satisfy this requirement.  I would like to see if the Board's new gTLD
> >> Program Committee could give us some more details about this.  Please
> >> let me know if you share my concerns.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks in advance and I apologize for not being able to attend, but
> >> I wil listen to the recording.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> >>>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
> >>>> 46000 Center Oak Plaza, 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
> >>>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120920/16e8ecc0/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Thu Sep 20 15:44:13 2012
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:44:13 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting
In-Reply-To: <0734AA72-EB90-4AAF-880E-931EB6A874EA@uzh.ch>
References: <1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3EDD58E3BF@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com>
	<c6ec6adc-7716-487a-9444-f827979855d2@EXHUB2010-3.campus.MCGILL.CA>
	<7665EF71-97CD-4210-A28E-A8C3D1CBD932@acm.org>
	<1C4C1D63EA1A814AA391AEFD88199A3EDD58E3E0@STNTEXCH01.cis.neustar.com>
	<6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E0D677202@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
	<2678BFB3-2746-41E6-A3CB-79B8ACC98199@acm.org>
	<5059F0710200005B00096C70@smtp.law.unh.edu>
	<0734AA72-EB90-4AAF-880E-931EB6A874EA@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <727BFBC6-B2F1-43C4-A3FB-A4372D60DD29@acm.org>

Hi,

Yes Mary thanks for being there when I couldn't.

If you beleive the Board is doing a good thing, then it is a good thing to out-Board the Board.

The expression is cousin to 'more catholic than the Pope'

Bill:

Please don't threaten me with the ombudsman.  
I am scared of being turned in to the ombudsman.

avri


On 20 Sep 2012, at 08:24, William Drake wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Thanks for this.  Hmm?is "out-boarding" an omsbudable speech crime?  :-)
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Sep 19, 2012, at 10:18 PM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:
> 
>> All, I was able to participate (finally) in the latest DT call earlier this afternoon. The consensus document will be finalized and sent out to each SG/C rep for forwarding on to and discussion amongst all our groups by tomorrow or thereabouts. I'm glad to report that Avri's notes and statements were incorporated into the transcript/records for the meeting, and that most of the group continue to favor a PDP, although there are differences of opinion as to whether this should (a) be just for the second round and beyond, or be expedited to include the first round as well; and (b) cover also the IGO issue in addition to the IOC/RC topic. It was noted also that each SG/C will be able to file a minority statement (per Avri's previous requests).
>> 
>> The final language for the consensus document - such as there is a general consensus - is the product of much compromise, and parts of it are likely to not find favor with everyone. In particular, the two questions in the document (per Avri's note below) are linked together, although there is acknowledgment that it will be up to the GNSO Council to determine the final scope of a PDP.
>> 
>> It was also noted on the call that each SG/C/individual will have various different mechanisms for feedback to the Council even after the final document is sent to the Council, including through their Councilors and through the mandatory public comment period.
>> 
>> We should coordinate a response to the document - which response is expected within a week - and bear in mind that we ought also to continue to be coherent and constant in bringing forward that message to the GNSO Council when the time comes.
>> 
>> Once the DT has a final copy of the consensus document, either Avri or I will be sure to circulate it to everyone.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Mary
>> 
>> 
>> Mary W S Wong 
>> Professor of Law 
>> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP 
>> Chair, Graduate IP Programs 
>> 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:
>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>> To:
>> <gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>
>> Date:
>> 9/19/2012 11:23 AM
>> Subject:
>> Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting                  
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> (I am bcc'ing this to the NCSG Policy Committee, so that they know what I am saying.)
>> 
>> The NCSG is in favor of the PDP as a plan: meaning that once the PDP is framed in the g-council, they will take a decision on the PDP itself - as I expect other SG/Cs will.  So if the consensus call separates the two questions we are in favor of PDP and against reserved/moratorium lists.  If the recommendations to the g-council are bound together, then we are against the overall recommendation.
>> 
>> As for the notion of whether policies that apply to new gTLDs should also apply to incumbent gTLDs, I have not gauged the NCSG response on this specific question yet as it is not currently in question.  In fact I had always assumed that this was an existing GNSO position.  And especially with regard to reserved names, when the G-council discussed these issues during the new gTLD PDP, I never heard anyone propose the notion that we have separate reserved names lists for new gTLDs and incumbent gTLDs.  Yes, that is the effect of granting the IOC and the IFRC the exceptions they demand, but I do not remember us ever discussing the policy implications on the incumbents.  I have always found the incumbents readiness to impose these requirements on the new gTLDs without seeming to consider the larger policy effects a bit confounding.
>> 
>> As for insulting this team with the phrase 'out-Boarding the Board'.  Yes, it is true that this group came to the idea of a special reserved list first in its attempt to please the GAC.  In my mind, this ordering difference does not change the fact that we are bending over backwards to comply with GAC demands without a proper policy process - and to me that is a prime example of 'out-Boarding the Board' - we just beat them to it this time.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 19 Sep 2012, at 10:43, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>> 
>> >
>> > Jeff,
>> >
>> > In saying "we will note the NCSG objection to the consensus call" I assume you mean that we will note the NCSG answer to both consensus call questions is 'no' rather than noting that the NCSG objects to the fact that a consensus call was made.
>> >
>> > 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: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:33 AM
>> >> To: Avri Doria; gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
>> >> Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for this Avri and your opinions should be noted.
>> >>
>> >> I just wanted to be clear for the record that our proposal for the
>> >> moratorium did predate the Board's resolution (without any knowledge
>> >> that the Board was even having that discussion), so the premise and our
>> >> rationale, I believe have nothing to do with the Board's resolution.
>> >> In fact, we are just continuing down the same path, in my opinion, that
>> >> we started down regardless of the Board's resolution.  It just so
>> >> happens that it may be in line with their resolution.
>> >>
>> >> I think it may be unfair to those that have made the proposal and those
>> >> that support it to classify this as outboarding the board?
>> >>
>> >> On the point that this should apply to incumbents, by definition,
>> >> outcomes of PDPs if there are Consensus Policies in them would apply to
>> >> incumbents and therefore those discussions should absolutely occur
>> >> during the PDP.  So, I am not sure there is any disagreement there.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks again and we will note the NCSG objection to the consensus call
>> >> and has been our practice allow that opposing statement to be posted.
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >>
>> >> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>> >> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: owner-gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-iocrc-
>> >> dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 9:06 AM
>> >> To: gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] Apologies for Wednesday Meeting
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I too will miss the meeting.  If possible I would like this message to
>> >> be entered into the meeting content.
>> >>
>> >> In my view anything put on the reserved names list MUST also apply to
>> >> incumbents as well as new gTLDs, and that is a problem that a PDP MUST
>> >> discuss and plan for.  One thing we need to be careful of, is creating
>> >> more and more differential requirements for new versus old gTLDs.
>> >> Rather, the trend needs to be one of bringing requirements between the
>> >> new and the old into line with each other.
>> >>
>> >> I, and the NCSG, remain in favor of a PDP and against any addition to
>> >> the reserved names list until such time as a PDP has made its
>> >> recommendation.
>> >> I am also against the creation of the new term, moratorium, and a new
>> >> list.
>> >>
>> >> If the Board in response to GAC advice wishes to take this action, that
>> >> is their business.  The idea I have read that because the Board is
>> >> going to do it anyway, we should do it first is, to my mind, silly.
>> >> Rather, since they are going to do it anyway and we can't stop them, we
>> >> might as well let them do it and not try to out-Board the Board.
>> >>
>> >> Assuming this DT votes in approval, I request the right to include an
>> >> opposing statement.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> avri
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 19 Sep 2012, at 01:06, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Jeff, in light of "Whereas, the Board favors a conservative approach,
>> >> that restrictions on second-level registration can be lifted at a later
>> >> time, but restrictions cannot be applied retroactively after domain
>> >> names are registered.", It sounds like a "moratorium" is exactly what
>> >> they have in mind, so my guess is that they would be quite satisfied
>> >> with this approach.
>> >>>
>> >>> My personal take is that we should not invent a new term -
>> >> moratorium, but rather say that the names should be included on the
>> >> reserved names list pending the outcome of the PDP with whatever other
>> >> verbage is necessary to make it crystal clear that if the PDP decides
>> >> that they should not be on the reserved names list, they get taken off
>> >> upon implementation of the PDP recommendations.
>> >>>
>> >>> The GAC letter was dated 14 September -
>> >> https://gacweb.icann.org/display/GACADV/2011-09-14-IOCRC-1.
>> >>>
>> >>> Alan
>> >>>
>> >>> At 18/09/2012 11:20 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
>> >>>> All,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> A meeting I am unable to get out of has just come up that makes it
>> >> impossible for me to attend the call.  It would still be good for you
>> >> all to discuss the e-mail sent around earlier to make sure that I have
>> >> worded the proposal accurately and to refine if necessary, so that we
>> >> can get final feedback on the consensus call by September 26th.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I am going to ask Chuck or Thomas if they can lead the call....sorry
>> >> to put you two on the spot.  If you want, you can discuss the Board
>> >> resolution as well.  I believe that our current proposal may be in line
>> >> with the resolution, but there may be some issues  I believe that need
>> >> to be addressed.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The resolution states:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Resolved (NG2012.09.13.01), if it is not possible to conclude the
>> >> policy work prior to 31 January 2013, the Board requests that the GNSO
>> >> Council advise the Board by no later than that date if it is aware of
>> >> any reason, such as concerns with the global public interest or the
>> >> security or stability of the DNS, that the Board should take into
>> >> account in making its decision about whether to include second level
>> >> protections for the IOC and Red Cross/Red Crescent names listed in
>> >> section 2.2.1.2.3 of the Applicant Guidebook by inclusion on a Reserved
>> >> Names List applicable in all new gTLD registries approved in the first
>> >> round of the New gTLD Program
>> >>>>
>> >>>> What does it mean to "conclude the policy work"?  If the GNSO
>> >> recommends the "moratorium on registrations", but initiates the pdp
>> >> (which will not likely be done by 1/31/13), would the Board attempt to
>> >> override the ongoing pdp.  Or would the moratorium on registrations
>> >> satisfy this requirement.  I would like to see if the Board's new gTLD
>> >> Program Committee could give us some more details about this.  Please
>> >> let me know if you share my concerns.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks in advance and I apologize for not being able to attend, but
>> >> I wil listen to the recording.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman
>> >>>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>> >>>> 46000 Center Oak Plaza, 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
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From avri  Thu Sep 20 21:12:47 2012
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:12:47 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] For your review - updated charter
References: <504F95D0035A264EBB1BFAABAA772B950D625E62@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Message-ID: <B28E70EE-024C-49F3-86E4-3934F66A4A61@acm.org>

Hi,

Notice Jeff's comment at the end:


"
[NOTE:  I WOULD ADD THE OPPOSITE.  SHOULD THE PDP WG REACH CONSENSUS ON A RECOMMENDATION THAT THICK WHOIS SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR ALL GTLDS, THEN THE WG NEEDS TO LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY OF THOSE THAT OPERATE A THICK REGISTRY CHOOSING TO GO THIN AND GETTING RID OF THEIR EXISTING REQUIREMENTS TO BE THICK]
"

Perhaps we have an ally in unwinding the Board's command that Thick WHOIS be imposed on all new gTLDs.

avri


Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at Verisign.com>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] For your review - updated charter
> Date: 20 September 2012 13:55:08 GMT-03:00
> To: "Gnso-thickwhois-dt at icann.org" <Gnso-thickwhois-dt at icann.org>
> Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> 
> All,
>  
> I am forwarding the attached comments/proposed edits from Jeff Neuman for review and discussion on today?s call.
>  
> These comments are not a consensus position of the RySG. They were provided to me by Jeff following my request for input from RySG members, but the RySG hasn?t had a chance to discuss as a group.
>  
> Thanks,
> Keith
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> Keith Drazek
> Director of Policy
> kdrazek at Verisign.com
> 
> m: +1-571-377-9182
> 21345 Ridgetop Circle Dulles, VA 20166
> 
> VerisignInc.com
> 
>  
>  
> From: owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhois-dt at icann.org] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
> Sent: Monday, September 17, 2012 9:55 AM
> To: Evan Leibovitch
> Cc: Gnso-thickwhois-dt at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] For your review - updated charter
>  
> Apologies, you are right, I attached the old version by mistake. Please find attached the updated version.
>  
> With best regards,
>  
> Marika
>  
> From: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
> Date: Monday 17 September 2012 15:48
> To: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
> Cc: "Gnso-thickwhois-dt at icann.org" <Gnso-thickwhois-dt at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhois-dt] For your review - updated charter
>  
>  
> 
> On 17 September 2012 04:46, Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org> wrote: 
> Included reference to information / advice provided by other ICANN SO/ACs
>  
> Sorry, but I don't see the wording that you and I agree upoin last week in the new draft. Judging by the filename you may have attached an older draft.
>  
> - Evan
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120920/65f51bf2/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 131 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120920/65f51bf2/attachment-0002.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120920/65f51bf2/attachment-0005.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 3105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120920/65f51bf2/attachment-0003.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120920/65f51bf2/attachment-0006.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Thick Whois Draft Charter - Updated 17 September 2012 - JJN.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 45420 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120920/65f51bf2/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120920/65f51bf2/attachment-0007.html>


From Mary.Wong  Fri Sep 21 17:00:02 2012
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 10:00:02 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [council] updated draft letter
Message-ID: <505C3AA20200005B00096E89@smtp.law.unh.edu>


For those on the last Council call, is this something you agree to? Was
there a discussion on the problem with the bifurcated houses? If not,
then the final sentences of the letter, speaking to the "resiliency" of
the GNSO, could imply that none of us wish to change that structure. 

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 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:  
Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de> 

To: 
St?phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder at indom.com> 

CC: 
GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org> 

Date:  
9/21/2012 9:51 AM 

Subject:  
Re: [council] updated draft letter 

St?phane, 

this was proposed to address John's concern. I had copied John's
comment in an earlier e-mail to the list. 

Please find below an updated letter with Ray as addressee and Bertrand
in cc (as indicated at the end of the letter).  



Thanks, 

Thomas 







Ray Plzak 

Chairman of the Board Structural Improvements Committee 



Dear Ray, 
the GNSO Council would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide
feedback to your request for input on the impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's
structure. 
As you know, the Council as well as individual SGs and Constituencies
have been discussing this important subject for a long time now. It has
also been a topic during face to face meetings between the GNSO Council
and the Board and GAC as well as with the ccNSO. Some groups have
already or will respond to the Board directly and our impression is that
they are confident to have taken appropriate steps to address the
upcoming challenges.  
As far as the Council is concerned, here will most likely be
quantitative and qualitative challenges. What these will be and their
size can hardly be predicted.  
In qualitative terms, there may be new requests to form constituencies
and new stakeholder groups in both houses, some of which may be
re-configurations or alignments of existing groups. 
Since this is an unknown factor, the effects on the democratic and
participatory process of the Council and the response to that are yet to
be seen. However, we would like to highlight that ICANN is already
publishing information on how to participate (see
http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/participation.htm) including information
on how to form a Constituency. Thus, the information and processes are
available to be inclusive  
In quantitative terms, challenges are more predictable in some aspects.
For sure, there will be  
- more attention by the general pubic and Governments; 
- more attendants at meetings, which has an impact on sizing the
venues;  
- more groups that need administrative and technical support; 
- more telephone conferences with more participants and more remote
participation; 
- more documents to be produced and read;  
- more decisions to be made and operationalized; 
- more contractors that need to be managed; 
- the need for ever more stringent budget management and control; and 
- more compliance issues that need to be taken care of. 
These quantitative challenges require managerial responses that ICANN
can prepare for. Such preparations should also encompass the increased
burden on volunteers to deal with even more and potentially more complex
material to work on. Processes and support schemes for volunteers should
be designed to best possibly avoid volunteer fatigue. 
The unknown is what new groups will be established and what their place
and role in the ICANN eco system shall be. However, additions will only
lead to marginal changes that can be dealt with once they are known. 
In summary, the GNSO Council believes that the current structure is
resilient to respond to the challenges to come as long as ICANN provides
the resources required to accommodate an increasing number of
participants / stakeholders and their respective needs.   
Thank you, 
St?phane van Gelder 
Chair, GNSO Council 



cc: Bertrand de La Chapelle 





















Am 21.09.2012 um 11:18 schrieb St?phane Van Gelder: 





Why Ray and not Bertrand? 



St?phane Van Gelder
Directeur G?n?ral / General manager
INDOM NetNames France 

----------------
Registry Relations and Strategy Director 

NetNames 

T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51
F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61




Le 21 sept. 2012 ? 10:39, St?phane Van Gelder a ?crit : 





OK, thanks Thomas. 



Can we send the letter out today? 



St?phane Van Gelder
Directeur G?n?ral / General manager
INDOM NetNames France 

----------------
Registry Relations and Strategy Director 

NetNames 

T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51
F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61




Le 21 sept. 2012 ? 10:31, Thomas Rickert a ?crit : 





Hello St?phane, 

we are almost there. There was just one suggestion for a change sent by
John, which I have copied below: 





*** 

Thomas,

As much as I like stirring the pot, I wonder if we can do one or two
things to this letter than have less to do with its content, but its
character.

I know that Bertrand is a member of the Board Structural Improvements
Committee, but I don't think that is what motivated his request.
Neither
is he on the New gTLD Committee.

He is likely hoping to help solve a problem, much as he tried to do in
Cartagena at the Council dinner even before he was seated on the Board.

Because of that, could we address the letter to the Board overall (or
either of its committees?) and change the opening paragraph to note
the
request from Bertrand?

I hate the thought that I am getting mired in the kind of kabuki that
I
often rail about, but I am uneasy about upsetting Board comity.

My two cents.

Cheers, 

John Berard
Founder 

*** 



Since there were no objections or comments as a response to that
suggestion, I propose we address the letter to the Board Structural
Improvements Committee (SIC), that is to say to Ray Plzak as its chair.
Bertrand wrote that the SIC will review the proposals and therefore it
should be adquate to address its chair and cc Bertrand. 



The content of the letter should remain unaltered, though. 



In my note to the Council I reminded the group of the intention
discussed during out last call to submit the letter by the end of the
week. May I suggest that you dispatch it by COB today to allow for
additional comments until then? 



Thanks, 

Thomas 





Am 21.09.2012 um 10:12 schrieb St?phane Van Gelder: 





Thanks Wolf and everyone else who has responded to Thomas' call. 



Are we now in a position for me to send the letter as it is now
drafted? 



St?phane Van Gelder
Directeur G?n?ral / General manager
INDOM NetNames France 

----------------
Registry Relations and Strategy Director 

NetNames 

T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51
F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61




Le 20 sept. 2012 ? 22:12, <KnobenW at telekom.de> <KnobenW at telekom.de> a
?crit : 





The ISPCP is supporting to send out this letter 

  


Best regards
Wolf-Ulrich  

  





Von: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org]
Im Auftrag von Thomas Rickert
Gesendet: Freitag, 14. September 2012 16:30
An: GNSO Council List
Betreff: [council] updated draft letter



Dear all, 

as discussed during yesterday's call, please find below the draft
letter regarding the impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure including
the changes proposed by St?phane.  



Please provide your comments and suggestions as soon as you can as the
plan is to finalize the draft by the end of next week. 



Kind regards and have a great weekend, 

Thomas 



Dear Bertrand, 
the GNSO Council would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide
feedback to your request for input on the impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's
structure. 
As you know, the Council as well as individual SGs and Constituencies
have been discussing this important subject for a long time now. It has
also been a topic during face to face meetings between the GNSO Council
and the Board and GAC as well as with the ccNSO. Some groups have
already or will respond to the Board directly and our impression is that
they are confident to have taken appropriate steps to address the
upcoming challenges.  
As far as the Council is concerned, here will most likely be
quantitative and qualitative challenges. What these will be and their
size can hardly be predicted.  
In qualitative terms, there may be new requests to form constituencies
and new stakeholder groups in both houses, some of which may be
re-configurations or alignments of existing groups. 
Since this is an unknown factor, the effects on the democratic and
participatory process of the Council and the response to that are yet to
be seen. However, we would like to highlight that ICANN is already
publishing information on how to participate (see
http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/participation.htm) including information
on how to form a Constituency. Thus, the information and processes are
available to be inclusive  
In quantitative terms, challenges are more predictable in some aspects.
For sure, there will be  
- more attention by the general pubic and Governments; 
- more attendants at meetings, which has an impact on sizing the
venues;  
- more groups that need administrative and technical support; 
- more telephone conferences with more participants and more remote
participation; 
- more documents to be produced and read;  
- more decisions to be made and operationalized; 
- more contractors that need to be managed; 
- the need for ever more stringent budget management and control; and 
- more compliance issues that need to be taken care of. 
These quantitative challenges require managerial responses that ICANN
can prepare for. Such preparations should also encompass the increased
burden on volunteers to deal with even more and potentially more complex
material to work on. Processes and support schemes for volunteers should
be designed to best possibly avoid volunteer fatigue. 
The unknown is what new groups will be established and what their place
and role in the ICANN eco system shall be. However, additions will only
lead to marginal changes that can be dealt with once they are known. 
In summary, the GNSO Council believes that the current structure is
resilient to respond to the challenges to come as long as ICANN provides
the resources required to accommodate an increasing number of
participants / stakeholders and their respective needs.   
Thank you, 
St?phane van Gelder 
Chair, GNSO Council 

 
 
 


 


 


 


 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120921/c1915ddc/attachment-0001.html>


From william.drake  Fri Sep 21 17:55:25 2012
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 16:55:25 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [council] updated draft letter
In-Reply-To: <505C3AA20200005B00096E89@smtp.law.unh.edu>
References: <505C3AA20200005B00096E89@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <99399D69-2B4C-464B-AFB9-B53FA5BD70CD@uzh.ch>

Hi Mary

I wouldn't think that line will be interpreted as pre-committing us to a view contra any future evolution.  People agreed to have a discussion down the line but it's all pretty nascent and amorphous at this stage, no?

Best

BD

On Sep 21, 2012, at 4:00 PM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:

> For those on the last Council call, is this something you agree to? Was there a discussion on the problem with the bifurcated houses? If not, then the final sentences of the letter, speaking to the "resiliency" of the GNSO, could imply that none of us wish to change that structure.
> 
> 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 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:
> Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>
> To:
> St?phane Van Gelder<stephane.vangelder at indom.com>                  
> CC:
> GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Date:
> 9/21/2012 9:51 AM
> Subject:
> Re: [council] updated draft letter
> St?phane,
> this was proposed to address John's concern. I had copied John's comment in an earlier e-mail to the list.
> Please find below an updated letter with Ray as addressee and Bertrand in cc (as indicated at the end of the letter). 
> 
> Thanks,
> Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> Ray Plzak
> Chairman of the Board Structural Improvements Committee
> 
> Dear Ray,
> the GNSO Council would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback to your request for input on the impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure.
> As you know, the Council as well as individual SGs and Constituencies have been discussing this important subject for a long time now. It has also been a topic during face to face meetings between the GNSO Council and the Board and GAC as well as with the ccNSO. Some groups have already or will respond to the Board directly and our impression is that they are confident to have taken appropriate steps to address the upcoming challenges. 
> As far as the Council is concerned, here will most likely be quantitative and qualitative challenges. What these will be and their size can hardly be predicted. 
> In qualitative terms, there may be new requests to form constituencies and new stakeholder groups in both houses, some of which may be re-configurations or alignments of existing groups.
> Since this is an unknown factor, the effects on the democratic and participatory process of the Council and the response to that are yet to be seen. However, we would like to highlight that ICANN is already publishing information on how to participate (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/participation.htm) including information on how to form a Constituency. Thus, the information and processes are available to be inclusive 
> In quantitative terms, challenges are more predictable in some aspects. For sure, there will be 
> - more attention by the general pubic and Governments;
> - more attendants at meetings, which has an impact on sizing the venues; 
> - more groups that need administrative and technical support;
> - more telephone conferences with more participants and more remote participation;
> - more documents to be produced and read; 
> - more decisions to be made and operationalized;
> - more contractors that need to be managed;
> - the need for ever more stringent budget management and control; and
> - more compliance issues that need to be taken care of.
> These quantitative challenges require managerial responses that ICANN can prepare for. Such preparations should also encompass the increased burden on volunteers to deal with even more and potentially more complex material to work on. Processes and support schemes for volunteers should be designed to best possibly avoid volunteer fatigue.
> The unknown is what new groups will be established and what their place and role in the ICANN eco system shall be. However, additions will only lead to marginal changes that can be dealt with once they are known.
> In summary, the GNSO Council believes that the current structure is resilient to respond to the challenges to come as long as ICANN provides the resources required to accommodate an increasing number of participants / stakeholders and their respective needs.  
> Thank you,
> St?phane van Gelder
> Chair, GNSO Council
> 
> cc: Bertrand de La Chapelle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am 21.09.2012 um 11:18 schrieb St?phane Van Gelder:
> 
>> Why Ray and not Bertrand?
>> 
>> St?phane Van Gelder
>> Directeur G?n?ral / General manager
>> INDOM NetNames France
>> ----------------
>> Registry Relations and Strategy Director
>> NetNames
>> T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51
>> F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61
>> 
>> 
>> Le 21 sept. 2012 ? 10:39, St?phane Van Gelder a ?crit :
>> 
>>> OK, thanks Thomas.
>>> 
>>> Can we send the letter out today?
>>> 
>>> St?phane Van Gelder
>>> Directeur G?n?ral / General manager
>>> INDOM NetNames France
>>> ----------------
>>> Registry Relations and Strategy Director
>>> NetNames
>>> T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51
>>> F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Le 21 sept. 2012 ? 10:31, Thomas Rickert a ?crit :
>>> 
>>>> Hello St?phane,
>>>> we are almost there. There was just one suggestion for a change sent by John, which I have copied below:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ***
>>>> Thomas,
>>>> 
>>>> As much as I like stirring the pot, I wonder if we can do one or two
>>>> things to this letter than have less to do with its content, but its
>>>> character.
>>>> 
>>>> I know that Bertrand is a member of the Board Structural Improvements
>>>> Committee, but I don't think that is what motivated his request. Neither
>>>> is he on the New gTLD Committee.
>>>> 
>>>> He is likely hoping to help solve a problem, much as he tried to do in
>>>> Cartagena at the Council dinner even before he was seated on the Board. 
>>>> Because of that, could we address the letter to the Board overall (or
>>>> either of its committees?) and change the opening paragraph to note the
>>>> request from Bertrand?
>>>> 
>>>> I hate the thought that I am getting mired in the kind of kabuki that I
>>>> often rail about, but I am uneasy about upsetting Board comity.
>>>> 
>>>> My two cents.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers, 
>>>> 
>>>> John Berard
>>>> Founder
>>>> ***
>>>> 
>>>> Since there were no objections or comments as a response to that suggestion, I propose we address the letter to the Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC), that is to say to Ray Plzak as its chair. Bertrand wrote that the SIC will review the proposals and therefore it should be adquate to address its chair and cc Bertrand.
>>>> 
>>>> The content of the letter should remain unaltered, though.
>>>> 
>>>> In my note to the Council I reminded the group of the intention discussed during out last call to submit the letter by the end of the week. May I suggest that you dispatch it by COB today to allow for additional comments until then?                                    
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Thomas
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Am 21.09.2012 um 10:12 schrieb St?phane Van Gelder:
>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks Wolf and everyone else who has responded to Thomas' call.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Are we now in a position for me to send the letter as it is now drafted?
>>>>> 
>>>>> St?phane Van Gelder
>>>>> Directeur G?n?ral / General manager
>>>>> INDOM NetNames France
>>>>> ----------------
>>>>> Registry Relations and Strategy Director
>>>>> NetNames
>>>>> T: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 51
>>>>> F: +33 (0)1 48 01 83 61
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Le 20 sept. 2012 ? 22:12, <KnobenW at telekom.de> <KnobenW at telekom.de> a ?crit :
>>>>> 
>>>>>> The ISPCP is supporting to send out this letter
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Best regards
>>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Von: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Thomas Rickert
>>>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 14. September 2012 16:30
>>>>>> An: GNSO Council List
>>>>>> Betreff: [council] updated draft letter
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>> as discussed during yesterday's call, please find below the draft letter regarding the impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure including the changes proposed by St?phane. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please provide your comments and suggestions as soon as you can as the plan is to finalize the draft by the end of next week.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Kind regards and have a great weekend,
>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear Bertrand,
>>>>>> the GNSO Council would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback to your request for input on the impact of new gTLDs on ICANN's structure.
>>>>>> As you know, the Council as well as individual SGs and Constituencies have been discussing this important subject for a long time now. It has also been a topic during face to face meetings between the GNSO Council and the Board and GAC as well as with the ccNSO. Some groups have already or will respond to the Board directly and our impression is that they are confident to have taken appropriate steps to address the upcoming challenges. 
>>>>>> As far as the Council is concerned, here will most likely be quantitative and qualitative challenges. What these will be and their size can hardly be predicted. 
>>>>>> In qualitative terms, there may be new requests to form constituencies and new stakeholder groups in both houses, some of which may be re-configurations or alignments of existing groups.
>>>>>> Since this is an unknown factor, the effects on the democratic and participatory process of the Council and the response to that are yet to be seen. However, we would like to highlight that ICANN is already publishing information on how to participate (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/participation.htm) including information on how to form a Constituency. Thus, the information and processes are available to be inclusive 
>>>>>> In quantitative terms, challenges are more predictable in some aspects. For sure, there will be 
>>>>>> - more attention by the general pubic and Governments;
>>>>>> - more attendants at meetings, which has an impact on sizing the venues; 
>>>>>> - more groups that need administrative and technical support;
>>>>>> - more telephone conferences with more participants and more remote participation;
>>>>>> - more documents to be produced and read; 
>>>>>> - more decisions to be made and operationalized;
>>>>>> - more contractors that need to be managed;
>>>>>> - the need for ever more stringent budget management and control; and
>>>>>> - more compliance issues that need to be taken care of.
>>>>>> These quantitative challenges require managerial responses that ICANN can prepare for. Such preparations should also encompass the increased burden on volunteers to deal with even more and potentially more complex material to work on. Processes and support schemes for volunteers should be designed to best possibly avoid volunteer fatigue.
>>>>>> The unknown is what new groups will be established and what their place and role in the ICANN eco system shall be. However, additions will only lead to marginal changes that can be dealt with once they are known.
>>>>>> In summary, the GNSO Council believes that the current structure is resilient to respond to the challenges to come as long as ICANN provides the resources required to accommodate an increasing number of participants / stakeholders and their respective needs.  
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>> St?phane van Gelder
>>>>>> Chair, GNSO Council
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120921/11b07637/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Thu Sep 27 15:42:57 2012
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:42:57 +0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed statement for the IOC/IFRC DT resolution
Message-ID: <df62ff9d-b967-4b91-93d1-3f64f2523caf@email.android.com>

The IOC/IFRC is claiming consensus on its proposal to suggest a temporary registration block for the IOC and IFRC.  This is the statement I propose be added to the statement indicating the disagreement of the NCSG with that proposal.

I request that the NCSG-PC endorse this statement.

-----

The NCSG rejects the 3b "temporary registration block." defined in IOC/IFRC Drafting Team' recommendation for a number of reasons:

1. Policy recommendations from the GNSO on reserved names can only be made by a PDP that is properly constituted and is run according to the process rules as established in the ICANN by-laws.

2.  This drafting team continues to circumvent proper process by attempting to make policy as opposed to performing its proper function of fact gathering and presenting information to the council that can be used in deciding on the viability and charter for such a PDP.

The NCSG supports the PDP only on the condition that among the possible outcomes is the current status quo, no protection at the second level.  We support the PDP as the only appropriate place to resolve this proposal among competing proposals. We believe it is illegitimate to change reserved name policy,,,,, no matter how it is euphemistically named, before the PDP runs its course.  

The NCSG is also aware of other types of humanitarian organization that also demand these privileges and we feel that any discussion on granting such special reservations must include a full discussion of all who request such reservations. 

Finally the NCSG does not believe that the reserved name list can be used solely for the purpose of new gTLDs, and that any decisions on adding names to the reserved list must take incumbent registries into account.


------
Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120927/e4057469/attachment.html>


From avri  Thu Sep 27 15:51:06 2012
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 17:51:06 +0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] proposed statement for the IOC/IFRC DT
	resolution
In-Reply-To: <df62ff9d-b967-4b91-93d1-3f64f2523caf@email.android.com>
References: <df62ff9d-b967-4b91-93d1-3f64f2523caf@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <4e5e549b-33a3-47b7-ab4e-8ae7733a2664@email.android.com>

PS.  Jeff as chair of this DT is declaring that opposition statements be submitted by Friday morning, i.e tomorrow.

I will write up another one that will be my personal statement, but I need the NCSG-PC approval for this statement to be NCSG's.  


avri

Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

>The IOC/IFRC is claiming consensus on its proposal to suggest a
>temporary registration block for the IOC and IFRC.  This is the
>statement I propose be added to the statement indicating the
>disagreement of the NCSG with that proposal.
>
>I request that the NCSG-PC endorse this statement.
>
>-----
>
>The NCSG rejects the 3b "temporary registration block." defined in
>IOC/IFRC Drafting Team' recommendation for a number of reasons:
>
>1. Policy recommendations from the GNSO on reserved names can only be
>made by a PDP that is properly constituted and is run according to the
>process rules as established in the ICANN by-laws.
>
>2.  This drafting team continues to circumvent proper process by
>attempting to make policy as opposed to performing its proper function
>of fact gathering and presenting information to the council that can be
>used in deciding on the viability and charter for such a PDP.
>
>The NCSG supports the PDP only on the condition that among the possible
>outcomes is the current status quo, no protection at the second level. 
>We support the PDP as the only appropriate place to resolve this
>proposal among competing proposals. We believe it is illegitimate to
>change reserved name policy,,,,, no matter how it is euphemistically
>named, before the PDP runs its course.  
>
>The NCSG is also aware of other types of humanitarian organization that
>also demand these privileges and we feel that any discussion on
>granting such special reservations must include a full discussion of
>all who request such reservations. 
>
>Finally the NCSG does not believe that the reserved name list can be
>used solely for the purpose of new gTLDs, and that any decisions on
>adding names to the reserved list must take incumbent registries into
>account.
>
>
>------
>Avri Doria

Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120927/9f3d9db0/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Thu Sep 27 16:06:19 2012
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:06:19 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed statement for the IOC/IFRC DT resolution
In-Reply-To: <df62ff9d-b967-4b91-93d1-3f64f2523caf@email.android.com>
References: <df62ff9d-b967-4b91-93d1-3f64f2523caf@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <93C57881-873F-4CAE-95B3-B96D5FD9AC2B@uzh.ch>

On Sep 27, 2012, at 2:42 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> I request that the NCSG-PC endorse this statement.

Yes

BD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120927/efb06576/attachment.html>


From bkuerbis  Thu Sep 27 16:14:47 2012
From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 09:14:47 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Ncu-exec] proposed statement for the IOC/IFRC DT
	resolution
In-Reply-To: <df62ff9d-b967-4b91-93d1-3f64f2523caf@email.android.com>
References: <df62ff9d-b967-4b91-93d1-3f64f2523caf@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <CANwsP3ABtw8+8WK5mZJwYtrRv5cHALxh65zHuSrZOBKszAAgjw@mail.gmail.com>

I support this statement, thanks Avri.

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


On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> The IOC/IFRC is claiming consensus on its proposal to suggest a temporary
> registration block for the IOC and IFRC. This is the statement I propose be
> added to the statement indicating the disagreement of the NCSG with that
> proposal.
>
> I request that the NCSG-PC endorse this statement.
>
> -----
>
> The NCSG rejects the 3b "temporary registration block." defined in
> IOC/IFRC Drafting Team' recommendation for a number of reasons:
>
> 1. Policy recommendations from the GNSO on reserved names can only be made
> by a PDP that is properly constituted and is run according to the process
> rules as established in the ICANN by-laws.
>
> 2. This drafting team continues to circumvent proper process by attempting
> to make policy as opposed to performing its proper function of fact
> gathering and presenting information to the council that can be used in
> deciding on the viability and charter for such a PDP.
>
> The NCSG supports the PDP only on the condition that among the possible
> outcomes is the current status quo, no protection at the second level. We
> support the PDP as the only appropriate place to resolve this proposal
> among competing proposals. We believe it is illegitimate to change reserved
> name policy,,,,, no matter how it is euphemistically named, before the PDP
> runs its course.
>
> The NCSG is also aware of other types of humanitarian organization that
> also demand these privileges and we feel that any discussion on granting
> such special reservations must include a full discussion of all who request
> such reservations.
>
> Finally the NCSG does not believe that the reserved name list can be used
> solely for the purpose of new gTLDs, and that any decisions on adding names
> to the reserved list must take incumbent registries into account.
>
>
> ------
> Avri Doria
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncu-exec mailing list
> Ncu-exec at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ncu-exec
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120927/d53dbe18/attachment.html>


From robin  Thu Sep 27 16:58:32 2012
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 06:58:32 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Ncu-exec] proposed statement for the IOC/IFRC DT
	resolution
In-Reply-To: <50645871.2030308@cafonso.ca>
References: <df62ff9d-b967-4b91-93d1-3f64f2523caf@email.android.com>
	<CANwsP3ABtw8+8WK5mZJwYtrRv5cHALxh65zHuSrZOBKszAAgjw@mail.gmail.com>
	<50645871.2030308@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <167B4C17-F131-4CF4-84D8-EB69DF273380@ipjustice.org>

Thanks, Avri.  I support the statement and am disappointed the drafting team did not take noncommercial views into account.  I know several NCSG members answered the group's call for input, but advice that did not conform to the drafting team's pre-determined plans was not included in their report.  Disappointing.

Robin

On Sep 27, 2012, at 6:45 AM, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> wrote:

> Me too!
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> On 09/27/2012 10:14 AM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:
>> I support this statement, thanks Avri.
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------
>> Brenden Kuerbis
>> Internet Governance Project
>> http://internetgovernance.org
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:42 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> The IOC/IFRC is claiming consensus on its proposal to suggest a temporary
>>> registration block for the IOC and IFRC. This is the statement I propose be
>>> added to the statement indicating the disagreement of the NCSG with that
>>> proposal.
>>> 
>>> I request that the NCSG-PC endorse this statement.
>>> 
>>> -----
>>> 
>>> The NCSG rejects the 3b "temporary registration block." defined in
>>> IOC/IFRC Drafting Team' recommendation for a number of reasons:
>>> 
>>> 1. Policy recommendations from the GNSO on reserved names can only be made
>>> by a PDP that is properly constituted and is run according to the process
>>> rules as established in the ICANN by-laws.
>>> 
>>> 2. This drafting team continues to circumvent proper process by attempting
>>> to make policy as opposed to performing its proper function of fact
>>> gathering and presenting information to the council that can be used in
>>> deciding on the viability and charter for such a PDP.
>>> 
>>> The NCSG supports the PDP only on the condition that among the possible
>>> outcomes is the current status quo, no protection at the second level. We
>>> support the PDP as the only appropriate place to resolve this proposal
>>> among competing proposals. We believe it is illegitimate to change reserved
>>> name policy,,,,, no matter how it is euphemistically named, before the PDP
>>> runs its course.
>>> 
>>> The NCSG is also aware of other types of humanitarian organization that
>>> also demand these privileges and we feel that any discussion on granting
>>> such special reservations must include a full discussion of all who request
>>> such reservations.
>>> 
>>> Finally the NCSG does not believe that the reserved name list can be used
>>> solely for the purpose of new gTLDs, and that any decisions on adding names
>>> to the reserved list must take incumbent registries into account.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ------
>>> Avri Doria
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncu-exec mailing list
>>> Ncu-exec at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ncu-exec
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ncu-exec mailing list
>> Ncu-exec at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ncu-exec
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncu-exec mailing list
> Ncu-exec at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ncu-exec
> 



From avri  Thu Sep 27 21:03:17 2012
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 23:03:17 +0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3,
	attendance 26 September 2012
Message-ID: <817fd934-3021-4c8c-b3d2-7da3bcd70adf@email.android.com>

can we do this:

"
So, I will ask again if the NCSG can submit an official statement for the record by COB today to give ICANN staff time to collect the statements for posting tomorrow. We would like to get the recommendations out for public comment (along with all of the other statements) ASAP to give as much time prior to Toronto for people to discuss. WE will continue to accept more comments through Toronto and beyond (as there is a reply period).
"


-------- Original Message --------
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
Sent: Thu Sep 27 18:45:34 AZST 2012
To: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>, "'gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org'" <gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>, "Wolfgang Kleinw?chter" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance 26 September 2012

Avri,

I believe others may have addressed your points.  September 26th (yesterday) was the deadline for the response to the Consensus call and as Chuck stated, that date has been known for several weeks (at least three weeks ? 21 days).  I have agreed to give an extra day for those that were unable to get in written statements by yesterday and expressed their viewpoints orally on the call, just so I (or ICANN staff) would not be in the position of paraphrasing the oral comments in the documents that go out.

If Wolfgang did say he was speaking in his personal capacity, I missed that as well.  I just re-listened to that part of the call which occurs a little less than ? way through the call (maybe closer to 1/3 of the way through?hard to tell as no timer is available?but it is between Alan?s statement on behalf of the ALAC and Osvaldo?s statement), where Wolfgang states: ?bottom line is similar to the ALAC.  We can more or less agree with the recommendation as it stands now. . . for the moment I think the text of the recommendation, the language as it stands now, lets say has a rough consensus of the constituency.?

So, I will ask again if the NCSG can submit an official statement for the record by COB today to give ICANN staff time to collect the statements for posting tomorrow.  We would like to get the recommendations out for public comment (along with all of the other statements) ASAP to give as much time prior to Toronto for people to discuss.  WE will continue to accept more comments through Toronto and beyond (as there is a reply period).

Thanks.

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs


From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:23 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org'; Wolfgang Kleinw?chter
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance 26 September 2012

hi,

He informed the NCSG list that he was speaking purely personally and not for the NCSG.

I really hope that we are not once again using this DT to suppress disagreement. I have been very clear for a while now that you do not have agreement from the NCSG for a moratorium recommendation. To miss one meeting and have that erased would really be a misuse of even this misapplication of GNSO process.

I know it is predetermined that they will get special privileges not available to others and not established through proper process, but it should not go down as something that has consensus.

Also giving only one day for the submission of comments is a bit arbitrary and prejudicial in my opinion.
"Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us<mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>> wrote:

Avri,

We are going to open up a public comment period on everything that has been received by COB today (wherever you are in the world)...just so Berry and ICANN has it when they come into the office in the morning Friday,  that said, Wolfgang was on from the NCSG yesterday, but did not express opposition to the moratorium.  I thought, and we can check the recording, that he said the NCSG supported the recommendations.  I could be off base, and Berry was taking notes so he can correct me.

In either case, that opinion is not set in stone, but it is important as it sounded like on the call the was indeed a consensus on all of the recommendations (if just a rough consensus).  So, if you could confirm the NCSG position that would be great.

Thanks.

Sent with Good (www.good.com<http://www.good.com>)


-----Original

Message-----
From:  Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 02:31 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org<mailto:gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance 26 September 2012

I unfortunately could not attend the meeting.

I want to make it clear that I do not support a the moratorium, but do support the PDP
I also believe that this is the position of the NCSG.

I hope that this is what was conveyed by the lone NCSG participant.

What is the deadline for opposing statements?


Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org<mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>> wrote:



 Dear all,



  Please find the MP3 recording of the GAC/GNSO issues related to International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) names discussion group teleconference held on Wednesday 26 September 2012  at 1800 UTC at:



  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-gac-ioc-20120926-en.mp3



  On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep



 The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:

  http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/><http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/%3e>;





 Attendees

  Jeff Neuman -  Registry SG group leader

   Wolfgang Kleinwachter ? NCUC

   Lanre Ajayi - Nominating Committee Appointee

   Alan Greenberg ? ALAC

   Chuck Gomes - RySG

  Kiran Malancharuvil ? IPC

  David Heasley - IPC

   Jim Bikoff ? IPC

   St?phane Hankins ? International Committee

of the Red Cross

   Thomas Rickert - Nominating Committee Appointee

   Osvaldo Novao -ISPC





  Apology :

   Avri Doria ?  NCSG

   J.Scott Evans ? IPC

   Gregory Shatan ? IPC

   Mary Wong - NCUC

   Brian Peck



  ICANN Staff

   Margie Milam

   Berry Cobb

   Nathalie Peregrine





  ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **



  The mailing list address is

   Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org> <mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org> > <mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org%20%3cmailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>> >



 Public archives are at:http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-iocrc-dt/



 Thank you.

  Kind regards,



 Nathalie

  GNSO Secretariat

  gnso-secs at icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>












Avri Doria


Avri Doria

Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120927/4fca78e8/attachment.html>


From Mary.Wong  Thu Sep 27 21:52:03 2012
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 14:52:03 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG]  Fwd: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3,
 attendance 26 September 2012
In-Reply-To: <817fd934-3021-4c8c-b3d2-7da3bcd70adf@email.android.com>
References: <817fd934-3021-4c8c-b3d2-7da3bcd70adf@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <506468130200005B000979E6@smtp.law.unh.edu>


Hi and yes, I can do that. Sorry - I was in classes and meetings all
day and am just now catching up on these emails. I have just emailed the
DT mailing list to confirm Avri's and Wendy's statement of the NCSG and
NCUC position. I'll send this statement as drafted to the DT now, on
behalf of the NCSG. 

Cheers 
Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
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:  
Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 

To: 
<pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org> 

Date:  
9/27/2012 2:03 PM 

Subject:  
[PC-NCSG] Fwd: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3,
attendance 26 September 2012 

can we do this:

"
So, I will ask again if the NCSG can submit an official statement for
the record by COB today to give ICANN staff time to collect the
statements for posting tomorrow. We would like to get the
recommendations out for public comment (along with all of the other
statements) ASAP to give as much time prior to Toronto for people to
discuss. WE will continue to accept more comments through Toronto and
beyond (as there is a reply period).
"


From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
Sent: Thu Sep 27 18:45:34 AZST 2012
To: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>, "'gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org'"
<gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>, "Wolfgang Kleinw?chter"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance 26
September 2012



Avri, 

I believe others may have addressed your points.  September 26th
(yesterday) was the deadline for the response to the Consensus call and
as Chuck stated, that date has been known for several weeks (at least
three weeks ? 21 days).  I have agreed to give an extra day for those
that were unable to get in written statements by yesterday and expressed
their viewpoints orally on the call, just so I (or ICANN staff) would
not be in the position of paraphrasing the oral comments in the
documents that go out.   
   
If Wolfgang did say he was speaking in his personal capacity, I missed
that as well.  I just re-listened to that part of the call which occurs
a little less than ? way through the call (maybe closer to 1/3 of the
way through?hard to tell as no timer is available?but it is between
Alan?s statement on behalf of the ALAC and Osvaldo?s statement),
where Wolfgang states: ?bottom line is similar to the ALAC.  We can more
or less agree with the recommendation as it stands now. . . for the
moment I think the text of the recommendation, the language as it stands
now, lets say has a rough consensus of the constituency.?   
   
So, I will ask again if the NCSG can submit an official statement for
the record by COB today to give ICANN staff time to collect the
statements for posting tomorrow.  We would like to get the
recommendations out for public comment (along with all of the other
statements) ASAP to give as much time prior to Toronto for people to
discuss.  WE will continue to accept more comments through Toronto and
beyond (as there is a reply period). 
   
Thanks. 
   

Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs

 

   

From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:23 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; 'gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org'; Wolfgang Kleinw?chter
Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance 26
September 2012 

  
hi,

He informed the NCSG list that he was speaking purely personally and
not for the NCSG.

I really hope that we are not once again using this DT to suppress
disagreement. I have been very clear for a while now that you do not
have agreement from the NCSG for a moratorium recommendation. To miss
one meeting and have that erased would really be a misuse of even this
misapplication of GNSO process.

I know it is predetermined that they will get special privileges not
available to others and not established through proper process, but it
should not go down as something that has consensus.
Also giving only one day for the submission of comments is a bit
arbitrary and prejudicial in my opinion. 

"Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us> wrote: 

Avri,

We are going to open up a public comment period on everything that has
been received by COB today (wherever you are in the world)...just so
Berry and ICANN has it when they come into the office in the morning
Friday,  that said, Wolfgang was on from the NCSG yesterday, but did not
express opposition to the moratorium.  I thought, and we can check the
recording, that he said the NCSG supported the recommendations.  I could
be off base, and Berry was taking notes so he can correct me.

In either case, that opinion is not set in stone, but it is important
as it sounded like on the call the was ind!              
             
 eed a          
consensus on all of the recommendations (if just a rough consensus). 
So, if you could confirm the NCSG position that would be great.

Thanks.

Sent with Good (www.good.com)


-----Original 
Message-----
From:  Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 02:31 AM Eastern Standard Time
To: gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance 26
September 2012

I unfortunately could not attend the meeting.

I want to make it clear that I do not support a the moratorium, but do
support the PDP
I also believe that this is the position of the NCSG.

I hope that this is what was conveyed by the lone NCSG participant.

What is the deadline for opposing 
statements?


Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> wrote:

   

 Dear all,

    

  Please find the MP3 recording of the GAC/GNSO issues related to
International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) names
discussion group teleconference held on Wednesday 26 September 2012  at
1800 UTC at:

    

  http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-gac-ioc-20120926-en.mp3

    

  On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep

    

 The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO
Master Calendar page:

  http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/> (
http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/%3e ); 


    

   

 Attendees

  Jeff Neuman -  Registry SG group leader

   Wolfgang Kleinwachter ? NCUC

   Lanre Ajayi - Nominating Committee Appointee

   Alan Greenberg ? ALAC

   Chuck Gomes - RySG

  Kiran Malancharuvil ? IPC

  David Heasley - IPC

   Jim Bikoff ? IPC

   St?phane Hankins ? International Committee 
of the Red Cross

   Thomas Rickert - Nominating Committee Appointee

   Osvaldo Novao -ISPC

    

   

  Apology : 

   Avri Doria ?  NCSG

   J.Scott Evans ? IPC

   Gregory Shatan ? IPC

   Mary Wong - NCUC

   Brian Peck

    

  ICANN Staff

   Margie Milam

   Berry Cobb

   Nathalie Peregrine

   


   

  ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **

    

  The mailing list address is

   Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org (
mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org )
<mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org> >
<mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org (
mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org%20%3cmailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org )> >

    

 Public archives are at:http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-iocrc-dt/

    

 Thank you.

  Kind regards,

    

 Nathalie

  GNSO Secretariat

  gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> 

    

   

   

   

   


Avri Doria




Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120927/3547c589/attachment-0001.html>


From bkuerbis  Thu Sep 27 22:30:12 2012
From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:30:12 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3,
 attendance 26 September 2012
In-Reply-To: <506468130200005B000979E6@smtp.law.unh.edu>
References: <817fd934-3021-4c8c-b3d2-7da3bcd70adf@email.android.com>
	<506468130200005B000979E6@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <CANwsP3ACw+OhVfC0mrwLLn4JNnYcbBBb=ar_hG64B4MhvnzKfg@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Mary and Avri!  You may also want to cc the NCSG Members list, as
there was a lot of enthusiasm for this statement.

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:52 PM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:

>  Hi and yes, I can do that. Sorry - I was in classes and meetings all day
> and am just now catching up on these emails. I have just emailed the DT
> mailing list to confirm Avri's and Wendy's statement of the NCSG and NCUC
> position. I'll send this statement as drafted to the DT now, on behalf of
> the NCSG.
>
>  Cheers
>
> Mary
>
>
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> 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: *
>
> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>
> *To:*
>
> <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
>
> *Date: *
>
> 9/27/2012 2:03 PM
>
> *Subject: *
>
> [PC-NCSG] Fwd: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance
> 26 September 2012
>
> can we do this:
>
> "
> So, I will ask again if the NCSG can submit an official statement for the
> record by COB today to give ICANN staff time to collect the statements for
> posting tomorrow. We would like to get the recommendations out for public
> comment (along with all of the other statements) ASAP to give as much time
> prior to Toronto for people to discuss. WE will continue to accept more
> comments through Toronto and beyond (as there is a reply period).
> "
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
> *Sent:* Thu Sep 27 18:45:34 AZST 2012
> *To:* Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>, "'gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org'" <
> gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>, "Wolfgang Kleinw?chter" <
> wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance 26
> September 2012
>
>
>   Avri,****
>
>
> I believe others may have addressed your points.  September 26th (yesterday)
> was the deadline for the response to the Consensus call and as Chuck
> stated, that date has been known for several weeks (at least three weeks ?
> 21 days).  I have agreed to give an extra day for those that were unable to
> get in written statements by yesterday and expressed their viewpoints
> orally on the call, just so I (or ICANN staff) would not be in the position
> of paraphrasing the oral comments in the documents that go out.  ****
>
> **  **
>
> If Wolfgang did say he was speaking in his personal capacity, I missed
> that as well.  I just re-listened to that part of the call which occurs a
> little less than ? way through the call (maybe closer to 1/3 of the way
> through?hard to tell as no timer is available?but it is between Alan?s
> statement on behalf of the ALAC and Osvaldo?s statement), where Wolfgang
> states: ?bottom line is similar to the ALAC.  We can more or less agree
> with the recommendation as it stands now. . . for the moment I think the
> text of the recommendation, the language as it stands now, lets say has a
> rough consensus of the constituency.?  ****
>
> **  **
>
> So, I will ask again if the NCSG can submit an official statement for the
> record by COB today to give ICANN staff time to collect the statements for
> posting tomorrow.  We would like to get the recommendations out for public
> comment (along with all of the other statements) ASAP to give as much time
> prior to Toronto for people to discuss.  WE will continue to accept more
> comments through Toronto and beyond (as there is a reply period).****
>
> **  **
>
> Thanks.****
>
> **  **
>
> *Jeffrey J. Neuman**
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs*
>
> ****
>
> **  **
>
> *From:* Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:23 AM
> *To:* Neuman, Jeff; 'gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org'; Wolfgang Kleinw?chter
> *Subject:* RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance 26
> September 2012****
>
> **  **
>
> hi,
>
> He informed the NCSG list that he was speaking purely personally and not
> for the NCSG.
>
> I really hope that we are not once again using this DT to suppress
> disagreement. I have been very clear for a while now that you do not have
> agreement from the NCSG for a moratorium recommendation. To miss one
> meeting and have that erased would really be a misuse of even this
> misapplication of GNSO process.
>
> I know it is predetermined that they will get special privileges not
> available to others and not established through proper process, but it
> should not go down as something that has consensus.
> Also giving only one day for the submission of comments is a bit arbitrary
> and prejudicial in my opinion.****
>
> "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us> wrote:****
>
>
>
> Avri,
>
> We are going to open up a public comment period on everything that has been received by COB today (wherever you are in the world)...just so Berry and ICANN has it when they come into the office in the morning Friday,  that said, Wolfgang was on from the NCSG yesterday, but did not express opposition to the moratorium.  I thought, and we can check the recording, that he said the NCSG supported the recommendations.  I could be off base, and Berry was taking notes so he can correct me.
>
> In either case, that opinion is not set in stone, but it is important as it sounded like on the call the was ind!
>
>
>
>              eed a
>
>           consensus on all of the recommendations (if just a rough consensus).  So, if you could confirm the NCSG position that would be great.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Sent with Good (www.good.com)
>
>
> -----Original****
>
> Message-----
> From:  Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org <avri at acm.org>]
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 02:31 AM Eastern Standard Time
> To: gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3, attendance 26 September 2012
>
> I unfortunately could not attend the meeting.
>
> I want to make it clear that I do not support a the moratorium, but do support the PDP
> I also believe that this is the position of the NCSG.
>
> I hope that this is what was conveyed by the lone NCSG participant.
>
> What is the deadline for opposing
>
>       statements?
>
>
> Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>  Dear all,
>
>
>
>   Please find the MP3 recording of the GAC/GNSO issues related to International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) names discussion group teleconference held on Wednesday 26 September 2012  at 1800 UTC at:
>
>
>
>   http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-gac-ioc-20120926-en.mp3
>
>
>
>   On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep
>
>
>
>  The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page:
>
>   http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/>;
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Attendees
>
>   Jeff Neuman -  Registry SG group leader
>
>    Wolfgang Kleinwachter ? NCUC
>
>    Lanre Ajayi - Nominating Committee Appointee
>
>    Alan Greenberg ? ALAC
>
>    Chuck Gomes - RySG
>
>   Kiran Malancharuvil ? IPC
>
>   David Heasley - IPC
>
>    Jim Bikoff ? IPC
>
>    St?phane Hankins ? International Committee****
>
> of the Red Cross
>
>    Thomas Rickert - Nominating Committee Appointee
>
>    Osvaldo Novao -ISPC
>
>
>
>
>
>   Apology :
>
>    Avri Doria ?  NCSG
>
>    J.Scott Evans ? IPC
>
>    Gregory Shatan ? IPC
>
>    Mary Wong - NCUC
>
>    Brian Peck
>
>
>
>   ICANN Staff
>
>    Margie Milam
>
>    Berry Cobb
>
>    Nathalie Peregrine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
>
>
>
>   The mailing list address is
>
>    Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org <Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>> > <mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org <Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org%20%3cmailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org>> >
>
>
>
>  Public archives are at:http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-iocrc-dt/
>
>
>
>  Thank you.
>
>   Kind regards,
>
>
>
>  Nathalie
>
>   GNSO Secretariat
>
>   gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org <gnso-secs at icann.org>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Avri Doria
>
> ****
>
>
> Avri Doria****
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120927/3979213d/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Thu Sep 27 22:39:57 2012
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 12:39:57 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3,
	attendance 26 September 2012
In-Reply-To: <CANwsP3ACw+OhVfC0mrwLLn4JNnYcbBBb=ar_hG64B4MhvnzKfg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <817fd934-3021-4c8c-b3d2-7da3bcd70adf@email.android.com>
	<506468130200005B000979E6@smtp.law.unh.edu>
	<CANwsP3ACw+OhVfC0mrwLLn4JNnYcbBBb=ar_hG64B4MhvnzKfg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D762B8C9-54D7-4C32-B1E1-6E9114847091@ipjustice.org>

Thanks very much Avri, Mary and Wendy - and all the others who voiced  
their support for this important statement, especially given the very  
short deadline provided by the drafting team.

Mary, if you send me what you sent to the DT, I'll post it to the  
NCSG wiki.  Thanks!

Regards,
Robin


On Sep 27, 2012, at 12:30 PM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:

> Thank you Mary and Avri!  You may also want to cc the NCSG Members  
> list, as there was a lot of enthusiasm for this statement.
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 2:52 PM, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:
> Hi and yes, I can do that. Sorry - I was in classes and meetings  
> all day and am just now catching up on these emails. I have just  
> emailed the DT mailing list to confirm Avri's and Wendy's statement  
> of the NCSG and NCUC position. I'll send this statement as drafted  
> to the DT now, on behalf of the NCSG.
>
> Cheers
> Mary
>
>
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> 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:
> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> To:
> <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> Date:
> 9/27/2012 2:03 PM
> Subject:
> [PC-NCSG] Fwd: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3,  
> attendance 26 September 2012
> can we do this:
>
> "
> So, I will ask again if the NCSG can submit an official statement  
> for the record by COB today to give ICANN staff time to collect the  
> statements for posting tomorrow. We would like to get the  
> recommendations out for public comment (along with all of the other  
> statements) ASAP to give as much time prior to Toronto for people  
> to discuss. WE will continue to accept more comments through  
> Toronto and beyond (as there is a reply period).
> "
>
> From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
> Sent: Thu Sep 27 18:45:34 AZST 2012
> To: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>, "'gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org'" <gnso- 
> iocrc-dt at icann.org>, "Wolfgang Kleinw?chter"  
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3,  
> attendance 26 September 2012
>
>
> Avri,
>
> I believe others may have addressed your points.  September 26th  
> (yesterday) was the deadline for the response to the Consensus call  
> and as Chuck stated, that date has been known for several weeks (at  
> least three weeks ? 21 days).  I have agreed to give an extra day  
> for those that were unable to get in written statements by  
> yesterday and expressed their viewpoints orally on the call, just  
> so I (or ICANN staff) would not be in the position of paraphrasing  
> the oral comments in the documents that go out.
>
> If Wolfgang did say he was speaking in his personal capacity, I  
> missed that as well.  I just re-listened to that part of the call  
> which occurs a little less than ? way through the call (maybe  
> closer to 1/3 of the way through?hard to tell as no timer is  
> available?but it is between Alan?s statement on behalf of the ALAC  
> and Osvaldo?s statement), where Wolfgang states: ?bottom line is  
> similar to the ALAC.  We can more or less agree with the  
> recommendation as it stands now. . . for the moment I think the  
> text of the recommendation, the language as it stands now, lets say  
> has a rough consensus of the constituency.?
>
> So, I will ask again if the NCSG can submit an official statement  
> for the record by COB today to give ICANN staff time to collect the  
> statements for posting tomorrow.  We would like to get the  
> recommendations out for public comment (along with all of the other  
> statements) ASAP to give as much time prior to Toronto for people  
> to discuss.  WE will continue to accept more comments through  
> Toronto and beyond (as there is a reply period).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs
>
>
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 8:23 AM
> To: Neuman, Jeff; 'gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org'; Wolfgang Kleinw?chter
> Subject: RE: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3,  
> attendance 26 September 2012
>
> hi,
>
> He informed the NCSG list that he was speaking purely personally  
> and not for the NCSG.
>
> I really hope that we are not once again using this DT to suppress  
> disagreement. I have been very clear for a while now that you do  
> not have agreement from the NCSG for a moratorium recommendation.  
> To miss one meeting and have that erased would really be a misuse  
> of even this misapplication of GNSO process.
>
> I know it is predetermined that they will get special privileges  
> not available to others and not established through proper process,  
> but it should not go down as something that has consensus.
> Also giving only one day for the submission of comments is a bit  
> arbitrary and prejudicial in my opinion.
> "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us> wrote:
>
>
>
> Avri,
>
> We are going to open up a public comment period on everything that  
> has been received by COB today (wherever you are in the  
> world)...just so Berry and ICANN has it when they come into the  
> office in the morning Friday,  that said, Wolfgang was on from the  
> NCSG yesterday, but did not express opposition to the moratorium.   
> I thought, and we can check the recording, that he said the NCSG  
> supported the recommendations.  I could be off base, and Berry was  
> taking notes so he can correct me.
>
>
> In either case, that opinion is not set in stone, but it is  
> important as it sounded like on the call the was ind!
>
>
>
>  eed a
>
> consensus on all of the recommendations (if just a rough  
> consensus).  So, if you could confirm the NCSG position that would  
> be great.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Sent with Good (www.good.com)
>
>
>
> -----Original
>
>
> Message-----
> From:  Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
>
> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2012 02:31 AM Eastern Standard Time
> To: gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org
>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-iocrc-dt] IOCR discussion group - MP3,  
> attendance 26 September 2012
>
> I unfortunately could not attend the meeting.
>
>
> I want to make it clear that I do not support a the moratorium, but  
> do support the PDP
> I also believe that this is the position of the NCSG.
>
>
> I hope that this is what was conveyed by the lone NCSG participant.
>
> What is the deadline for opposing
>
> statements?
>
>
> Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>  Dear all,
>
>
>
>
>   Please find the MP3 recording of the GAC/GNSO issues related to  
> International Olympic Committee (IOC) and Red Cross (RC) names  
> discussion group teleconference held on Wednesday 26 September  
> 2012  at 1800 UTC at:
>
>
>
>
>   http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-gac-ioc-20120926-en.mp3
>
>
>
>
>   On page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#sep
>
>
>
>
>  The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the  
> GNSO Master Calendar page:
>
>
>   http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ <http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/>;
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Attendees
>
>
>   Jeff Neuman -  Registry SG group leader
>
>    Wolfgang Kleinwachter ? NCUC
>
>
>    Lanre Ajayi - Nominating Committee Appointee
>
>    Alan Greenberg ? ALAC
>
>
>    Chuck Gomes - RySG
>
>   Kiran Malancharuvil ? IPC
>
>
>   David Heasley - IPC
>
>    Jim Bikoff ? IPC
>
>    St?phane Hankins ? International Committee
>
>
>
> of the Red Cross
>
>    Thomas Rickert - Nominating Committee Appointee
>
>
>    Osvaldo Novao -ISPC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   Apology :
>
>    Avri Doria ?  NCSG
>
>
>    J.Scott Evans ? IPC
>
>    Gregory Shatan ? IPC
>
>
>    Mary Wong - NCUC
>
>    Brian Peck
>
>
>
>
>   ICANN Staff
>
>    Margie Milam
>
>
>    Berry Cobb
>
>    Nathalie Peregrine
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list **
>
>
>
>
>   The mailing list address is
>
>    Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org<mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org  
> <mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org%3cmailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org> >  
> <mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-iocrc-dt at icann.org> >
>
>
>
>
>  Public archives are at:http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-iocrc-dt/
>
>
>
>
>  Thank you.
>
>   Kind regards,
>
>
>
>
>  Nathalie
>
>   GNSO Secretariat
>
>
>   gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Avri Doria
>
>
>
> Avri Doria
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120927/6519c155/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Fri Sep 28 04:53:01 2012
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 18:53:01 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] BC position re nomination
In-Reply-To: <SNT123-DS4BF7CA7607D09CF5FAE41D39C0@phx.gbl>
References: <SNT123-DS4BF7CA7607D09CF5FAE41D39C0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C2832470-8EAF-45FC-AA2C-D80F64150DE6@ipjustice.org>

Thank you, Marilyn.  Interesting theory about questioning the  
legitimacy of the election of Thomas.  Too bad it was not mentioned  
to us before now, as we could have discussed it in our call Tuesday  
re: the nominations.  I'd be surprised if the General Counsel finds  
it problematic.  Anyway, we look forward to your findings and thanks  
again.

Best,
Robin


On Sep 26, 2012, at 2:29 PM, Marilyn Cade wrote:

> We can accept a House nomination with a few caveats.
>
> - support a House nomination w the understanding no commitments on  
> voting for any candidate
> -  understanding that Thomas becomes non voting as he committed,  
> and volunteered to do, and that he become non voting at the end of  
> the Council meeting in Toronto.
> -  the new Council holds the vote. Thomas will be non voting NCA at  
> that point, as he proposed.
>
> I predicate that on the General Counsel's finding a way to enable  
> the change in NCA assignments, and have asked him to provide such  
> information to all.
>
> In this circumstances, the BC can accept a House nomination, with  
> no commitment to decisions on voting.
>
> This is supported by the majority of the BC excomm so is the BC  
> position.
>
> As Chair of the BC, I  am concerned about legitimacy of the  
> election if Thomas votes for himself, and then resigns and  
> converts, so to speak. There is no procedure for that, and it could  
> turn into a messy and embarrassing fiasco that the GAC and Board  
> would be appalled by, and demand more oversight of the election  
> procedures.
>
> We also have to be aware that all of this must result in a Council  
> that cab work collaboratively, and I know we all are committed to  
> that.
>
> So, BC accepts that there is a House nomination for Thomas, with  
> the points made above. I will be advising the BC membership of our  
> Excomm decision. Thanks for your patience as we have worked on this.
>
>
> Marilyn Cade, BC Chair
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 19:42:22
> To: <marilynscade at hotmail.com>; <krosette at cov.com>;  
> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>
> Subject: Re: discussion about what we decide to do now
>
> Thanks, Marilyn.  We won't have the option to consider 2 candidates  
> if we don't nominate Thomas today and several councilors who have  
> already talked with him and want to support him and put forth his  
> nomination.
>
>
> No one has to decide now who to ultimately vote for in the  
> election, but it is better to have a choice and opportunity to look  
> more closely at each of the 2 candidates.
>
>
> Let's try to come to a consensus and have a nomination from our  
> house for consideration at the very least.
>
>
> Thanks, I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.
>
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 26, 2012, at 9:34 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote:
>
> I think we have to discuss this further. I have been trying to  
> study the rules, and a House nomination requires full House  
> concurrence. As we discussed in yesterday's call,
> we were going to discuss this further, once the nomination was made.
>
>
> While I can do a call at some times today, it will primarilly be  
> online communications and exchanges, I think.
>
>
> I understand it takes full agreement to be a House nomination; I do  
> have a call with Thomas right now, so will be talking to him.
>
>
> I'll post again after I conclude that call.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------
> To: krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com> ;  
> marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com> ;  
> tonyarholmes at btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>
> From: robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: 2 remaining candidates in GNSO Chair election
> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:22:13 -0700
>
> Housemates:
>
>
> As the CPH has nominated Jonathan Robinson for GNSO Chair, we'd  
> like to nominate Thomas Rickett so that there are 2 candidates to  
> consider.  I do not know yet which of the two candidates our  
> councilors will decide to support in the final vote, but it is  
> better to have the choice remain until they can interview both  
> candidates.
>
>
> Therefore, as we discussed yesterday, we'll nominate Thomas today,  
> and focus our decision on these two remaining candidates.  Please  
> let me know if you have any thoughts.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120927/c89d26fb/attachment.html>


From robin  Fri Sep 28 23:50:27 2012
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:50:27 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Meetings at ICANN #45 in Toronto
Message-ID: <569DAD0C-F698-4743-8C88-000FF39FF8C0@ipjustice.org>

Dear All:

Toronto ICANN #45 Schedule:
   http://toronto45.icann.org/full-schedule

Below are select meetings that relate specifically to NCSG members,  
but also check the full schedule above because there are quite a few  
sessions throughout the week that may interest you.  Remote  
participation links are included below and on ICANN site.  Draft  
agendas for NCSG mtgs will be posted in the next couple of days.

Thanks,
Robin

NCSG Related Meetings:

Friday 12 October

NCUC Policy Conference: "ICANN & Internet Governance: Security &  
Freedom in a Connected World"
8:30 - 19:30 EST
Fairmont Royal York Hotel Ballroom & Quebec Room
Website:  http://www.amiando.com/NCUC-ICANN45.html

Saturday 13 October & Sunday 14 October

GNSO Council Working Sessions
9:00 - 18:00 EST
Westin Hotel - Room: Harbour AB

Monday 15 October

NCSG Policy Committee Meeting
Westin Hotel - Room: Queen's Quay 1
9:00 - 11:00 EST

Impact of New GTLDs on NGO's
Westin Hotel - Room: Queen's Quay 2
11:00 - 12:30 EST


Tuesday 16 October

NCUC Meeting
9:00 - 12:30 EST
Westin Hotel - Room: Pier 2&3

NPOC Meeting
9:00 - 11:00 EST
Westin Hotel - Room: Queen's Quay 2

Joint session: Board with NCSG
15:30 - 16:30 EST
Westin Hotel - Room: Metro East

Joint session: Board with GAC
16:45 - 18:00 EST
Westin Hotel - Room: Frontenac

Board Cocktails with Non-Contracted Parties House
19:00 - 20:00 EST
Westin Hotel - Marine Room

Music Night
20:30 - 23:00 EST
Westin Hotel - Room: Metro Centre


Wednesday 17 October

Multi-Stakeholder Process from the NGO Perspective
9:00 - 10:30 EST
Westin Hotel - Room: Dockside 5

IOC/Red Cross Drafting Team
9:00 - 10:30 EST
Westin Hotel - Room: Queen's Quay 1

GNSO Council Meeting
15:00 - 18:30 EST
Westin Hotel - Room: Metro Centre

ICANN #45 Gala Night at CN Tower
19:00 - 23:00 EST


Thursday 18 October

GNSO Wrap-Up Session
10:30 - 12:00 EST
Westin Hotel - Room: Harbour AB

ICANN Public Forum & Board Meeting
14:00 - 19:00 EST
Westin Hotel - Room: Metro Centre

ICANN #45 Wrap-Up Cocktails
19:00 - 21:00 EST
Westin Hotel - Room: Frontenac





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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120928/d11225b1/attachment.html>


From robin  Sat Sep 29 00:24:38 2012
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:24:38 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Meetings at ICANN #45 in Toronto
In-Reply-To: <569DAD0C-F698-4743-8C88-000FF39FF8C0@ipjustice.org>
References: <569DAD0C-F698-4743-8C88-000FF39FF8C0@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <8F9AEC49-AE09-469C-AC55-95F375382615@ipjustice.org>

Please add to Tuesday 16 October:

NCSG Meeting
13:30 - 15:30 EST
Westin Hotel - Room Pier 2&3

On Sep 28, 2012, at 1:50 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> Dear All:
>
> Toronto ICANN #45 Schedule:
>   http://toronto45.icann.org/full-schedule
>
> Below are select meetings that relate specifically to NCSG members,  
> but also check the full schedule above because there are quite a  
> few sessions throughout the week that may interest you.  Remote  
> participation links are included below and on ICANN site.  Draft  
> agendas for NCSG mtgs will be posted in the next couple of days.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> NCSG Related Meetings:
>
> Friday 12 October
>
> NCUC Policy Conference: "ICANN & Internet Governance: Security &  
> Freedom in a Connected World"
> 8:30 - 19:30 EST
> Fairmont Royal York Hotel Ballroom & Quebec Room
> Website:  http://www.amiando.com/NCUC-ICANN45.html
>
> Saturday 13 October & Sunday 14 October
>
> GNSO Council Working Sessions
> 9:00 - 18:00 EST
> Westin Hotel - Room: Harbour AB
>
> Monday 15 October
>
> NCSG Policy Committee Meeting
> Westin Hotel - Room: Queen's Quay 1
> 9:00 - 11:00 EST
>
> Impact of New GTLDs on NGO's
> Westin Hotel - Room: Queen's Quay 2
> 11:00 - 12:30 EST
>
>
> Tuesday 16 October
>
> NCUC Meeting
> 9:00 - 12:30 EST
> Westin Hotel - Room: Pier 2&3
>
> NPOC Meeting
> 9:00 - 11:00 EST
> Westin Hotel - Room: Queen's Quay 2

NCSG Meeting
13:30 - 15:30 EST
Westin Hotel - Room Pier 2&3
>
> Joint session: Board with NCSG
> 15:30 - 16:30 EST
> Westin Hotel - Room: Metro East
>
> Joint session: Board with GAC
> 16:45 - 18:00 EST
> Westin Hotel - Room: Frontenac
>
> Board Cocktails with Non-Contracted Parties House
> 19:00 - 20:00 EST
> Westin Hotel - Marine Room
>
> Music Night
> 20:30 - 23:00 EST
> Westin Hotel - Room: Metro Centre
>
>
> Wednesday 17 October
>
> Multi-Stakeholder Process from the NGO Perspective
> 9:00 - 10:30 EST
> Westin Hotel - Room: Dockside 5
>
> IOC/Red Cross Drafting Team
> 9:00 - 10:30 EST
> Westin Hotel - Room: Queen's Quay 1
>
> GNSO Council Meeting
> 15:00 - 18:30 EST
> Westin Hotel - Room: Metro Centre
>
> ICANN #45 Gala Night at CN Tower
> 19:00 - 23:00 EST
>
>
> Thursday 18 October
>
> GNSO Wrap-Up Session
> 10:30 - 12:00 EST
> Westin Hotel - Room: Harbour AB
>
> ICANN Public Forum & Board Meeting
> 14:00 - 19:00 EST
> Westin Hotel - Room: Metro Centre
>
> ICANN #45 Wrap-Up Cocktails
> 19:00 - 21:00 EST
> Westin Hotel - Room: Frontenac
>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120928/1e7dde6a/attachment.html>