From joy  Thu Aug  1 00:13:19 2013
From: joy (joy)
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 09:13:19 +1200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Thanks to the NCSG
In-Reply-To: <AA2CD321EE9B1F4D99ECFC1A2B0342320F9EB0@stntexmb12.cis.neustar.com>
References: <AA2CD321EE9B1F4D99ECFC1A2B0342320F9EB0@stntexmb12.cis.neustar.com>
Message-ID: <51F97DEF.1020503@apc.org>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
Hi - somewhat belatedly i have found this email from Jeff Neuman while
at the ICANN47 meeting - it was in relation to the motion that he
withdrew. Not sure there is any point forwarding this to the list now -
what do you think?
Joy


- -------- Original Message --------
Subject:     Thanks to the NCSG
Date:     Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:03:01 +0000
From:     Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
To:     joy at apc.org <joy at apc.org>



The motion was going to be defeated and I could not do that to the GNSO
for its long term health. Can you please pass on to the others.

 

*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
<mailto:jeff.neuman at neustar.biz>  */*www.neustar.biz
<http://www.neustar.biz/>

 



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR+X3vAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqK1IH/0hGpMlvEyIF3haaq3gz0Oq5
1tCOXGqBu1lW2QlHxcr9eb+lSqQtZ/q20mvjD8y7rVV2ml6Dgeuj5w5c4FlQk7Ua
e2PrMXXDeUxcvhTJhnbwFsKC+WpdXRF9nZ1EU53aeMezTUeXRarDzGshYT4YgbyU
iIM8tu8XtvStQZXllEEKdFOGhKi81hYvl77UnC0s7a6SaYsd3aggq9XrtTR2wpTz
D8Z20F/cke4OOI2JNu09eovJ9W9IRXVdTZQUoII0tFGQpXb8VbF6GxrZ3mYA3iJU
vtZzhALrP1TaxpbeHFEXEPJGJUe1diu58ofv0o3j3rK5eFBeqPNNBzWJEf/XIBE=
=n4YM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130801/073aa4a8/attachment.html>


From rudi.vansnick  Thu Aug  1 12:01:32 2013
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 11:01:32 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] privacy advocates work group list
In-Reply-To: <0B727D88-C4E9-4072-8953-9D1939B18303@ipjustice.org>
References: <0B727D88-C4E9-4072-8953-9D1939B18303@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <6AE3A2B9-E748-4291-A131-4C8A4C6BF4B4@isoc.be>

I'm on travel from 1/8 till 6/8 (ISOC BoT meetings) and will not be available for the 2 August call. However, I'll try to respond to the mail below in the next 24 hours.

Kind regards,

Rudi Vansnick
NPOC chair Policy Committee
NPOC treasurer
rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32

Op 31-jul.-2013, om 22:09 heeft Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> het volgende geschreven:

> Hello NCSG Privacy Advocates,
> 
> This list has been set up to discuss privacy policy at ICANN and initially, specifically to develop an NCSG response to the EWG Final Report.
> 
> So I've added any NCSG member who expressed an interest in drafting a response and a few privacy or policy experts to help coordinate our input.
> 
> Apparently, we have until 12 August to file a comment in the ICANN open comment forum:
>  http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-en.htm
> 
> It would be great if someone on this list would volunteer to serve as the "shepherd" of the NCSG response (i.e. coordinate the various input into drafts as it develops and make sure it is timely filed).  Any volunteers please?
> 
> NCSG and EWG have a joint call scheduled for 6 August 14:00 - 15:00 in which I hope you all will participate.
> 
> Also, I propose we hold a call this Friday 2 August at 8:30am (Pacific Time) to prepare for next Tuesday's call with EWG and also discuss our written response.  Would folks be able to do that and think the prep call on Friday is worthwhile?
> 
> Note: Wendy and Avri (the Chair and Alt. Chair of NCSG's Policy Committee) are also on this list to help coordinate NCSG's PC response.
> 
> If anyone else would like to be added to this email list, please let me know.  Reminder: this list is publicly archived.
> 
> Thanks!
> Robin
> 
> EWG Durban Public Report:
>  https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/41892060/EWG-Durban-Public-Final.pdf
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130801/db70bc6a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130801/db70bc6a/attachment.sig>


From robin  Thu Aug  1 19:48:44 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 09:48:44 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] privacy advocates work group list
In-Reply-To: <0B727D88-C4E9-4072-8953-9D1939B18303@ipjustice.org>
References: <0B727D88-C4E9-4072-8953-9D1939B18303@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <3E4DF6D8-09C9-4A44-923B-B4D6C1AD8623@ipjustice.org>

We've got a call scheduled for tomorrow, Friday 2 August at 8:30 (PDT) for one hour to review the EWG Report and prepare for our call with EWG on Tues. the 6th.

Please use the usual NCSG Adobe Connect and Telephone Bridge for our call tomorrow:
  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/ 
  http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCSG_Passcodes.htm

Does anyone have any initial thoughts on the EWG Report to post to this list now to get us started before tomorrow's call?

Thanks!
Robin

On Jul 31, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> Hello NCSG Privacy Advocates,
> 
> This list has been set up to discuss privacy policy at ICANN and initially, specifically to develop an NCSG response to the EWG Final Report.
> 
> So I've added any NCSG member who expressed an interest in drafting a response and a few privacy or policy experts to help coordinate our input.
> 
> Apparently, we have until 12 August to file a comment in the ICANN open comment forum:
>  http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-en.htm
> 
> It would be great if someone on this list would volunteer to serve as the "shepherd" of the NCSG response (i.e. coordinate the various input into drafts as it develops and make sure it is timely filed).  Any volunteers please?
> 
> NCSG and EWG have a joint call scheduled for 6 August 14:00 - 15:00 in which I hope you all will participate.
> 
> Also, I propose we hold a call this Friday 2 August at 8:30am (Pacific Time) to prepare for next Tuesday's call with EWG and also discuss our written response.  Would folks be able to do that and think the prep call on Friday is worthwhile?
> 
> Note: Wendy and Avri (the Chair and Alt. Chair of NCSG's Policy Committee) are also on this list to help coordinate NCSG's PC response.
> 
> If anyone else would like to be added to this email list, please let me know.  Reminder: this list is publicly archived.
> 
> Thanks!
> Robin
> 
> EWG Durban Public Report:
>  https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/41892060/EWG-Durban-Public-Final.pdf
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130801/9533343a/attachment-0001.html>


From magaly.pazello  Thu Aug  1 20:32:10 2013
From: magaly.pazello (Magaly Pazello)
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 14:32:10 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] privacy advocates work group list
In-Reply-To: <3E4DF6D8-09C9-4A44-923B-B4D6C1AD8623@ipjustice.org>
References: <0B727D88-C4E9-4072-8953-9D1939B18303@ipjustice.org>
	<3E4DF6D8-09C9-4A44-923B-B4D6C1AD8623@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CA+dOKfAfTk3NckGr_wasYXJJPykBG7cktjA3aKNk7qzhsSGLFA@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Robin for make the arangements!
I am not able to make it due conflicts of my teaching duties. do you
know if transcripts will be available for this meeting?
Magaly

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> We've got a call scheduled for tomorrow, Friday 2 August at 8:30 (PDT) for
> one hour to review the EWG Report and prepare for our call with EWG on Tues.
> the 6th.
>
> Please use the usual NCSG Adobe Connect and Telephone Bridge for our call
> tomorrow:
>   https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/
>   http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCSG_Passcodes.htm
>
> Does anyone have any initial thoughts on the EWG Report to post to this list
> now to get us started before tomorrow's call?
>
> Thanks!
> Robin
>
> On Jul 31, 2013, at 1:09 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>
> Hello NCSG Privacy Advocates,
>
> This list has been set up to discuss privacy policy at ICANN and initially,
> specifically to develop an NCSG response to the EWG Final Report.
>
> So I've added any NCSG member who expressed an interest in drafting a
> response and a few privacy or policy experts to help coordinate our input.
>
> Apparently, we have until 12 August to file a comment in the ICANN open
> comment forum:
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-en.htm
>
> It would be great if someone on this list would volunteer to serve as the
> "shepherd" of the NCSG response (i.e. coordinate the various input into
> drafts as it develops and make sure it is timely filed).  Any volunteers
> please?
>
> NCSG and EWG have a joint call scheduled for 6 August 14:00 - 15:00 in which
> I hope you all will participate.
>
> Also, I propose we hold a call this Friday 2 August at 8:30am (Pacific Time)
> to prepare for next Tuesday's call with EWG and also discuss our written
> response.  Would folks be able to do that and think the prep call on Friday
> is worthwhile?
>
> Note: Wendy and Avri (the Chair and Alt. Chair of NCSG's Policy Committee)
> are also on this list to help coordinate NCSG's PC response.
>
> If anyone else would like to be added to this email list, please let me
> know.  Reminder: this list is publicly archived.
>
> Thanks!
> Robin
>
> EWG Durban Public Report:
>
> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/41892060/EWG-Durban-Public-Final.pdf
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



From robin  Fri Aug  2 22:06:35 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 12:06:35 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: MP3 recording of the NCSG call, 2nd August 2013
References: <BDBCC21442A22640A4ECE2C75A8E215ABA6505D8D8@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <18582244-FDB7-4768-9071-8B517DC1430B@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
> Subject: MP3 recording of the NCSG call, 2nd August 2013
> Date: August 2, 2013 10:40:45 AM PDT
> To: "robin at ipjustice.org" <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> 
> Dear Robin,
>  
> Please find the link to the mp3 recording of the NCSG call held today on the 2nd August 2013: https://icann.box.com/shared/static/ogfrxm5or88i6qjkk5p4.mp3
>  
> The transcription will be sent to you upon reception
>  
> Kindest regards
>  
> Nathalie

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130802/24056e65/attachment.html>


From avri  Sat Aug  3 16:24:22 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 15:24:22 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NXdomains issue
Message-ID: <1DE35BE2-CBB7-4ED8-8B7E-C574DA6DEB50@acm.org>

Hi

The whole NXdomains colliding with new domain names issue seems to be begging as a policy issue.  

SSAC45 came out in 2010 and should have triggered a GNSO policy action.  But I think we slept through the warning.
We had finished the work of reserved names around 2006 and then never looked back except in terms of RCRC and IOC. Given the issues now coming up, perhaps something needs to be done.

Now Verisign is raising the issue again and it is becoming a very political issue. 

When the issue first came up, i think even on the list, I was not sure what we should be doing.    I am still not sure what we should be doing, but am sure we have to do something.  Or the BoardStaff in it infinite wisdom will again make a decision none of us are comfortable with.

avri

Interesting article at: http://www.circleid.com/account/login/posts/20130731_nxdomains_ssacs_sac045_and_new_gtlds_part_4_of_5

And an IETF note

>From RFC 6762

Appendix G.  Private DNS Namespaces

   The special treatment of names ending in ".local." has been
   implemented in Macintosh computers since the days of Mac OS 9, and
   continues today in Mac OS X and iOS.  There are also implementations
   for Microsoft Windows [B4W], Linux, and other platforms.

   Some network operators setting up private internal networks
   ("intranets") have used unregistered top-level domains, and some may
   have used the ".local" top-level domain.  Using ".local" as a private
   top-level domain conflicts with Multicast DNS and may cause problems
   for users.  Clients can be configured to send both Multicast and
   Unicast DNS queries in parallel for these names, and this does allow
   names to be looked up both ways, but this results in additional
   network traffic and additional delays in name resolution, as well as
   potentially creating user confusion when it is not clear whether any
   given result was received via link-local multicast from a peer on the
   same link, or from the configured unicast name server.  Because of
   this, we recommend against using ".local" as a private Unicast DNS
   top-level domain.  We do not recommend use of unregistered top-level
   domains at all, but should network operators decide to do this, the
   following top-level domains have been used on private internal
   networks without the problems caused by trying to reuse ".local." for
   this purpose:

      .intranet.
      .internal.
      .private.
      .corp.
      .home.
      .lan.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130803/ede5c742/attachment.html>


From robin  Sun Aug  4 02:02:35 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 16:02:35 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCSG Transcription call on the 2nd August 2013
References: <BDBCC21442A22640A4ECE2C75A8E215ABA6505DAE9@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <18003E1C-F774-445F-880C-4108F53C781D@ipjustice.org>

NCSG call on Report from EWG on Directory Services (aka Whois) - in prep for Tuesday Aug. 6th's call with EWG.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Nathalie Peregrine <nathalie.peregrine at icann.org>
> Subject: NCSG Transcription call on the 2nd August 2013
> Date: August 2, 2013 11:58:22 PM PDT
> To: "robin at ipjustice.org" <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> 
> Dear Robin,
> 
> Please find attached the transcript of the NCSG call held on the 2nd August 2013.
> 
> Kindest regards
> 
> Nathalie 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130803/b13df00b/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: transcript.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 131655 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130803/b13df00b/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130803/b13df00b/attachment-0003.html>


From robin  Sun Aug  4 02:21:18 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 2013 16:21:18 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Councilors to participate at Buenos Aires Meeting in
	November
Message-ID: <A13A5DEE-D711-49DE-BDD2-302F0239C9CB@ipjustice.org>

Dear GNSO Councilors:

We must let ICANN know who is traveling to Buenos Aires for ICANN #48 in November on behalf of NCSG asap.

Which NCSG GNSO Councilors are willing and able to participate in the Buenos Aires meeting?

Please let me know asap so I can tell ICANN who is traveling to Buenos Aires and travel arrangements can be made.

Thanks very much!
Robin


From rafik.dammak  Sun Aug  4 10:35:12 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 16:35:12 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NXdomains issue
In-Reply-To: <1DE35BE2-CBB7-4ED8-8B7E-C574DA6DEB50@acm.org>
References: <1DE35BE2-CBB7-4ED8-8B7E-C574DA6DEB50@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnuPprukS8Qr5S8XTif3B84O30txxS4HO97Xi_=FB3wwg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

did SSAC have updates about those issues to GNSO council in several
meetings and asked for specific actions?
my understanding that it brought the issue to GAC in durban, so it I
definitely a political issue. SSAC also presented their coming report about
name collision in durban (report not published yet)
can be this initiated through a corss-community WG including GNSO, SSAC,
ALAC even we know that will take time to act ?

Best,

Rafik


2013/8/3 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>

> Hi
>
> The whole NXdomains colliding with new domain names issue seems to be
> begging as a policy issue.
>
> SSAC45 <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-045-en.pdf> came
> out in 2010 and should have triggered a GNSO policy action.  But I think we
> slept through the warning.
> We had finished the work of reserved names around 2006 and then never
> looked back except in terms of RCRC and IOC. Given the issues now coming
> up, perhaps something needs to be done.
>
> Now Verisign is raising the issue again and it is becoming a very
> political issue.
>
> When the issue first came up, i think even on the list, I was not sure
> what we should be doing.    I am still not sure what we should be doing,
> but am sure we have to do something.  Or the BoardStaff in it infinite
> wisdom will again make a decision none of us are comfortable with.
>
> avri
>
> Interesting article at:
> http://www.circleid.com/account/login/posts/20130731_nxdomains_ssacs_sac045_and_new_gtlds_part_4_of_5
>
> And an IETF note
>
> From RFC 6762
>
> Appendix G <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6762#appendix-G>.  Private DNS Namespaces
>
>    The special treatment of names ending in ".local." has been
>    implemented in Macintosh computers since the days of Mac OS 9, and
>    continues today in Mac OS X and iOS.  There are also implementations
>    for Microsoft Windows [B4W <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6762#ref-B4W>], Linux, and other platforms.
>
>    Some network operators setting up private internal networks
>    ("intranets") have used unregistered top-level domains, and some may
>    have used the ".local" top-level domain.  Using ".local" as a private
>    top-level domain conflicts with Multicast DNS and may cause problems
>    for users.  Clients can be configured to send both Multicast and
>    Unicast DNS queries in parallel for these names, and this does allow
>    names to be looked up both ways, but this results in additional
>    network traffic and additional delays in name resolution, as well as
>    potentially creating user confusion when it is not clear whether any
>    given result was received via link-local multicast from a peer on the
>    same link, or from the configured unicast name server.  Because of
>    this, we recommend against using ".local" as a private Unicast DNS
>    top-level domain.  We do not recommend use of unregistered top-level
>    domains at all, but should network operators decide to do this, the
>    following top-level domains have been used on private internal
>    networks without the problems caused by trying to reuse ".local." for
>    this purpose:
>
>       .intranet.
>       .internal.
>       .private.
>       .corp.
>       .home.
>       .lan.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130804/686673ea/attachment.html>


From avri  Sun Aug  4 11:35:35 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 10:35:35 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NXdomains issue
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnuPprukS8Qr5S8XTif3B84O30txxS4HO97Xi_=FB3wwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1DE35BE2-CBB7-4ED8-8B7E-C574DA6DEB50@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThnuPprukS8Qr5S8XTif3B84O30txxS4HO97Xi_=FB3wwg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B795F6C6-58B2-4EB6-BE55-B03D70A44A81@acm.org>

Hi,

Well it seems like it has to be a GNSO Policy issue to me.

WG are open to all.  the first step would be to request an issues report.

Is the NCSG ready to be at the center of another storm?  In this case, it really does not affect us, we are neither responsible for putting names in the root, nor are we applicants for these names.  Yet this is another part of the reserved name policy issue.

I have had conversations with both sides on this issue (Donut and Verisign).  I do not beleive that Verisign is making noise just because of protecting incumbency - they are a backend to many names and stand to lose as much as any by delays.


On the other hand it is an issue, as you say that the GAC has grabbed hold of.  I do not want to the see the board making preemptory policy decisions that run counter to previous GNSO policy issues.
 
Personally, while I was skeptical about this issue at first, I have done some delving and now see it as an unfortunate consequence of early protocol development that put session layer type of functionality in DNS.  This was compounded by microsoft (at least in the case of .corp) using .corp instead of .example (.yourcompanyname  as an example in their setup instruction for servers and reinforced by the habit of people to follow examples as if they were recipes.

I recommend that our council members look into this issue and consider putting together a motion for an issues request.  Lets get beyondd the FUD and accusations and figure out whether there is something that needs to be done.

avri


On 4 Aug 2013, at 09:35, Rafik Dammak wrote:

> Hi Avri,
> 
> did SSAC have updates about those issues to GNSO council in several meetings and asked for specific actions?
> my understanding that it brought the issue to GAC in durban, so it I definitely a political issue. SSAC also presented their coming report about name collision in durban (report not published yet)
> can be this initiated through a corss-community WG including GNSO, SSAC, ALAC even we know that will take time to act ?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 
> 2013/8/3 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> Hi
> 
> The whole NXdomains colliding with new domain names issue seems to be begging as a policy issue.  
> 
> SSAC45 came out in 2010 and should have triggered a GNSO policy action.  But I think we slept through the warning.
> We had finished the work of reserved names around 2006 and then never looked back except in terms of RCRC and IOC. Given the issues now coming up, perhaps something needs to be done.
> 
> Now Verisign is raising the issue again and it is becoming a very political issue. 
> 
> When the issue first came up, i think even on the list, I was not sure what we should be doing.    I am still not sure what we should be doing, but am sure we have to do something.  Or the BoardStaff in it infinite wisdom will again make a decision none of us are comfortable with.
> 
> avri
> 
> Interesting article at: http://www.circleid.com/account/login/posts/20130731_nxdomains_ssacs_sac045_and_new_gtlds_part_4_of_5
> 
> And an IETF note
> 
> From RFC 6762
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appendix G.  Private DNS Namespaces
> 
> 
>    The special treatment of names ending in ".local." has been
>    implemented in Macintosh computers since the days of Mac OS 9, and
>    continues today in Mac OS X and iOS.  There are also implementations
>    for Microsoft Windows [
> B4W
> ], Linux, and other platforms.
> 
>    Some network operators setting up private internal networks
>    ("intranets") have used unregistered top-level domains, and some may
>    have used the ".local" top-level domain.  Using ".local" as a private
>    top-level domain conflicts with Multicast DNS and may cause problems
>    for users.  Clients can be configured to send both Multicast and
>    Unicast DNS queries in parallel for these names, and this does allow
>    names to be looked up both ways, but this results in additional
>    network traffic and additional delays in name resolution, as well as
>    potentially creating user confusion when it is not clear whether any
>    given result was received via link-local multicast from a peer on the
>    same link, or from the configured unicast name server.  Because of
>    this, we recommend against using ".local" as a private Unicast DNS
>    top-level domain.  We do not recommend use of unregistered top-level
>    domains at all, but should network operators decide to do this, the
>    following top-level domains have been used on private internal
>    networks without the problems caused by trying to reuse ".local." for
>    this purpose:
> 
>       .intranet.
>       .internal.
>       .private.
>       .corp.
>       .home.
>       .lan.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From dave  Sun Aug  4 14:25:30 2013
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 19:25:30 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NXdomains issue
In-Reply-To: <B795F6C6-58B2-4EB6-BE55-B03D70A44A81@acm.org>
References: <1DE35BE2-CBB7-4ED8-8B7E-C574DA6DEB50@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThnuPprukS8Qr5S8XTif3B84O30txxS4HO97Xi_=FB3wwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B795F6C6-58B2-4EB6-BE55-B03D70A44A81@acm.org>
Message-ID: <8ABD0B72-F2BE-4C39-A8C0-04D1213B3DFE@difference.com.au>

I think this issue is a real one.
SSAC45 fairly indicates there is an issue, but not the solution. SSAC57 indicates that the implications of SSAC45 are significantly worse than we thought at the time.  There may not be a one size fits all solution. Some names that are going through to the root may well be effectively mitigated (for example, I believe there are a lot of queries for .ice, but these can probably be almost entirely traced to equipment configured by a single electricity provider). But for the major problematic ones, .home and .corp etc. I am gradually coming to the conclusion that there is not much that can be done. Compound it with the cert issue, and it is a big security problem that is juicy enough that exploitation is likely if they are ever delegated (and could be occurring already, for all we know, but could be far more exploitable if delegated as a new gTLD). 

I'm vaguely surprised that there aren't reserved names set aside for purely internal use, the DNS equivalents of 192.168 etc. Possibly that was what .local was originally intended for, but now it is used for mDNS. 

On 04/08/2013, at 4:35 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Well it seems like it has to be a GNSO Policy issue to me.
> 
> WG are open to all.  the first step would be to request an issues report.
> 
> Is the NCSG ready to be at the center of another storm?  In this case, it really does not affect us, we are neither responsible for putting names in the root, nor are we applicants for these names.  Yet this is another part of the reserved name policy issue.
> 

	My feeling is that we would get strong support from CSG on this one, who have already made a few comments. So I don't think we would be too near the centre of the storm. 

> I have had conversations with both sides on this issue (Donut and Verisign).  I do not beleive that Verisign is making noise just because of protecting incumbency - they are a backend to many names and stand to lose as much as any by delays.

I am finding myself in sympathy with Verisign on this one. 

> 
> On the other hand it is an issue, as you say that the GAC has grabbed hold of.  I do not want to the see the board making preemptory policy decisions that run counter to previous GNSO policy issues.

	This issue needs some nuanced technical examination, and we certainly won't get it from the GAC. 
	I personally believe that non-delegation of .home and .corp would be a sensible outcome, disappointing as that would be for Donuts etc. But there could be effective mitigation strategies based on looking at the current 2TLD queries etc. I think delegation without a serious look at the problems identified by SSAC would be a policy failure. 

> Personally, while I was skeptical about this issue at first, I have done some delving and now see it as an unfortunate consequence of early protocol development that put session layer type of functionality in DNS.  This was compounded by microsoft (at least in the case of .corp) using .corp instead of .example (.yourcompanyname  as an example in their setup instruction for servers and reinforced by the habit of people to follow examples as if they were recipes.

	I'm not sure if I'd exactly say it is due to session layer stuff in the DNS (though I'll certainly yield to your far greater knowledge of protocol design), but certainly the close relationship between session layer protocols like TLS/SSL and the DNS is an important part of the problem. 

> I recommend that our council members look into this issue and consider putting together a motion for an issues request.  Lets get beyondd the FUD and accusations and figure out whether there is something that needs to be done.

	I've been thinking about how to deal with this issue myself. Thank you Avri for suggesting the appropriate process. I'd be happy to suggest an issues report. 
	Regards
		David

> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 4 Aug 2013, at 09:35, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> 
>> Hi Avri,
>> 
>> did SSAC have updates about those issues to GNSO council in several meetings and asked for specific actions?
>> my understanding that it brought the issue to GAC in durban, so it I definitely a political issue. SSAC also presented their coming report about name collision in durban (report not published yet)
>> can be this initiated through a corss-community WG including GNSO, SSAC, ALAC even we know that will take time to act ?
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik 
>> 
>> 
>> 2013/8/3 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>> Hi
>> 
>> The whole NXdomains colliding with new domain names issue seems to be begging as a policy issue.  
>> 
>> SSAC45 came out in 2010 and should have triggered a GNSO policy action.  But I think we slept through the warning.
>> We had finished the work of reserved names around 2006 and then never looked back except in terms of RCRC and IOC. Given the issues now coming up, perhaps something needs to be done.
>> 
>> Now Verisign is raising the issue again and it is becoming a very political issue. 
>> 
>> When the issue first came up, i think even on the list, I was not sure what we should be doing.    I am still not sure what we should be doing, but am sure we have to do something.  Or the BoardStaff in it infinite wisdom will again make a decision none of us are comfortable with.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> Interesting article at: http://www.circleid.com/account/login/posts/20130731_nxdomains_ssacs_sac045_and_new_gtlds_part_4_of_5
>> 
>> And an IETF note
>> 
>> From RFC 6762
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Appendix G.  Private DNS Namespaces
>> 
>> 
>>   The special treatment of names ending in ".local." has been
>>   implemented in Macintosh computers since the days of Mac OS 9, and
>>   continues today in Mac OS X and iOS.  There are also implementations
>>   for Microsoft Windows [
>> B4W
>> ], Linux, and other platforms.
>> 
>>   Some network operators setting up private internal networks
>>   ("intranets") have used unregistered top-level domains, and some may
>>   have used the ".local" top-level domain.  Using ".local" as a private
>>   top-level domain conflicts with Multicast DNS and may cause problems
>>   for users.  Clients can be configured to send both Multicast and
>>   Unicast DNS queries in parallel for these names, and this does allow
>>   names to be looked up both ways, but this results in additional
>>   network traffic and additional delays in name resolution, as well as
>>   potentially creating user confusion when it is not clear whether any
>>   given result was received via link-local multicast from a peer on the
>>   same link, or from the configured unicast name server.  Because of
>>   this, we recommend against using ".local" as a private Unicast DNS
>>   top-level domain.  We do not recommend use of unregistered top-level
>>   domains at all, but should network operators decide to do this, the
>>   following top-level domains have been used on private internal
>>   networks without the problems caused by trying to reuse ".local." for
>>   this purpose:
>> 
>>      .intranet.
>>      .internal.
>>      .private.
>>      .corp.
>>      .home.
>>      .lan.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From rafik.dammak  Sun Aug  4 16:36:21 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2013 22:36:21 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NXdomains issue
In-Reply-To: <B795F6C6-58B2-4EB6-BE55-B03D70A44A81@acm.org>
References: <1DE35BE2-CBB7-4ED8-8B7E-C574DA6DEB50@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThnuPprukS8Qr5S8XTif3B84O30txxS4HO97Xi_=FB3wwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B795F6C6-58B2-4EB6-BE55-B03D70A44A81@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=gwuWPvk9aBaoL6x_WMpk5t==O7-jXQhZC79BwQaxcLA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

+1 for requesting issue report to start the process and to have
some substantive information policy impact. and it will be great to have
David with his tech knowledge to lead that within gnso council and to be
able to respond to any kind of usual fallacious comments there. btw the
ISPPC supposed looking for stability should be a natural allies about this
question?
was there any discussion within IETF about that issue? I am not sure but I
thought that IAB expressed concern before?
there was strong push  and bypass for reserved names for IOC and RC to
prevent the "fall of gnso" , lets help to prevent the "fall on the
internet" ;)

Best,

Rafik

2013/8/4 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>

> Hi,
>
> Well it seems like it has to be a GNSO Policy issue to me.
>
> WG are open to all.  the first step would be to request an issues report.
>
> Is the NCSG ready to be at the center of another storm?  In this case, it
> really does not affect us, we are neither responsible for putting names in
> the root, nor are we applicants for these names.  Yet this is another part
> of the reserved name policy issue.
>
> I have had conversations with both sides on this issue (Donut and
> Verisign).  I do not beleive that Verisign is making noise just because of
> protecting incumbency - they are a backend to many names and stand to lose
> as much as any by delays.
>
>
> On the other hand it is an issue, as you say that the GAC has grabbed hold
> of.  I do not want to the see the board making preemptory policy decisions
> that run counter to previous GNSO policy issues.
>
> Personally, while I was skeptical about this issue at first, I have done
> some delving and now see it as an unfortunate consequence of early protocol
> development that put session layer type of functionality in DNS.  This was
> compounded by microsoft (at least in the case of .corp) using .corp instead
> of .example (.yourcompanyname  as an example in their setup instruction for
> servers and reinforced by the habit of people to follow examples as if they
> were recipes.
>
> I recommend that our council members look into this issue and consider
> putting together a motion for an issues request.  Lets get beyondd the FUD
> and accusations and figure out whether there is something that needs to be
> done.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 4 Aug 2013, at 09:35, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> > Hi Avri,
> >
> > did SSAC have updates about those issues to GNSO council in several
> meetings and asked for specific actions?
> > my understanding that it brought the issue to GAC in durban, so it I
> definitely a political issue. SSAC also presented their coming report about
> name collision in durban (report not published yet)
> > can be this initiated through a corss-community WG including GNSO, SSAC,
> ALAC even we know that will take time to act ?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> >
> > 2013/8/3 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> > Hi
> >
> > The whole NXdomains colliding with new domain names issue seems to be
> begging as a policy issue.
> >
> > SSAC45 came out in 2010 and should have triggered a GNSO policy action.
>  But I think we slept through the warning.
> > We had finished the work of reserved names around 2006 and then never
> looked back except in terms of RCRC and IOC. Given the issues now coming
> up, perhaps something needs to be done.
> >
> > Now Verisign is raising the issue again and it is becoming a very
> political issue.
> >
> > When the issue first came up, i think even on the list, I was not sure
> what we should be doing.    I am still not sure what we should be doing,
> but am sure we have to do something.  Or the BoardStaff in it infinite
> wisdom will again make a decision none of us are comfortable with.
> >
> > avri
> >
> > Interesting article at:
> http://www.circleid.com/account/login/posts/20130731_nxdomains_ssacs_sac045_and_new_gtlds_part_4_of_5
> >
> > And an IETF note
> >
> > From RFC 6762
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Appendix G.  Private DNS Namespaces
> >
> >
> >    The special treatment of names ending in ".local." has been
> >    implemented in Macintosh computers since the days of Mac OS 9, and
> >    continues today in Mac OS X and iOS.  There are also implementations
> >    for Microsoft Windows [
> > B4W
> > ], Linux, and other platforms.
> >
> >    Some network operators setting up private internal networks
> >    ("intranets") have used unregistered top-level domains, and some may
> >    have used the ".local" top-level domain.  Using ".local" as a private
> >    top-level domain conflicts with Multicast DNS and may cause problems
> >    for users.  Clients can be configured to send both Multicast and
> >    Unicast DNS queries in parallel for these names, and this does allow
> >    names to be looked up both ways, but this results in additional
> >    network traffic and additional delays in name resolution, as well as
> >    potentially creating user confusion when it is not clear whether any
> >    given result was received via link-local multicast from a peer on the
> >    same link, or from the configured unicast name server.  Because of
> >    this, we recommend against using ".local" as a private Unicast DNS
> >    top-level domain.  We do not recommend use of unregistered top-level
> >    domains at all, but should network operators decide to do this, the
> >    following top-level domains have been used on private internal
> >    networks without the problems caused by trying to reuse ".local." for
> >    this purpose:
> >
> >       .intranet.
> >       .internal.
> >       .private.
> >       .corp.
> >       .home.
> >       .lan.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130804/df7121d8/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Aug  6 11:27:55 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 10:27:55 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NXdomains issue
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=gwuWPvk9aBaoL6x_WMpk5t==O7-jXQhZC79BwQaxcLA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1DE35BE2-CBB7-4ED8-8B7E-C574DA6DEB50@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThnuPprukS8Qr5S8XTif3B84O30txxS4HO97Xi_=FB3wwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B795F6C6-58B2-4EB6-BE55-B03D70A44A81@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=gwuWPvk9aBaoL6x_WMpk5t==O7-jXQhZC79BwQaxcLA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6FB4BFE7-CF35-40FA-8B23-5F286C1D9940@acm.org>

Hi,

the issue to mention is probably:

from SSAC 45


Recommendation (2): The SSAC recommends that ICANN consider the following in
the context of the new gTLD program.

? Prohibit the delegation of certain TLD strings. RFC 2606, ?Reserved Top Level
Domain Names,? currently prohibits a list of strings, including test, example,
invalid, and localhost.4 ICANN should coordinate with the community to
Invalid Top Level Domain Queries at the Root Level of the Domain Name System
identify a more complete set of principles than the amount of traffic observed at the
root as invalid queries as the basis for prohibiting the delegation of additional strings
to those already identified in RFC 2606.

? Alert the applicant during the string evaluation process about the pre-existence of
invalid TLD queries to the applicant?s string. ICANN should coordinate with the
community to identify a threshold of traffic observed at the root as the basis for such
notification.

? Define circumstances where a previously delegated string may be re-used, or prohibit
the practice.


Now they are requesting that IETF do the work, but it is the GNSO that does recommendations to the reserved names list from a policy POV.

We are already doing work on reserved names in the case of IOG-INGO.  This seems like ti may be a bit more important.

At least we need to understand the fulll extent of the situation so that GNSO can decide what, if anything, need to be done.

avri

On 4 Aug 2013, at 15:36, Rafik Dammak wrote:

> Hi Avri,
> 
> +1 for requesting issue report to start the process and to have some substantive information policy impact. and it will be great to have David with his tech knowledge to lead that within gnso council and to be able to respond to any kind of usual fallacious comments there. btw the ISPPC supposed looking for stability should be a natural allies about this question? 
> was there any discussion within IETF about that issue? I am not sure but I thought that IAB expressed concern before?
> there was strong push  and bypass for reserved names for IOC and RC to prevent the "fall of gnso" , lets help to prevent the "fall on the internet" ;)
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 2013/8/4 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> Hi,
> 
> Well it seems like it has to be a GNSO Policy issue to me.
> 
> WG are open to all.  the first step would be to request an issues report.
> 
> Is the NCSG ready to be at the center of another storm?  In this case, it really does not affect us, we are neither responsible for putting names in the root, nor are we applicants for these names.  Yet this is another part of the reserved name policy issue.
> 
> I have had conversations with both sides on this issue (Donut and Verisign).  I do not beleive that Verisign is making noise just because of protecting incumbency - they are a backend to many names and stand to lose as much as any by delays.
> 
> 
> On the other hand it is an issue, as you say that the GAC has grabbed hold of.  I do not want to the see the board making preemptory policy decisions that run counter to previous GNSO policy issues.
> 
> Personally, while I was skeptical about this issue at first, I have done some delving and now see it as an unfortunate consequence of early protocol development that put session layer type of functionality in DNS.  This was compounded by microsoft (at least in the case of .corp) using .corp instead of .example (.yourcompanyname  as an example in their setup instruction for servers and reinforced by the habit of people to follow examples as if they were recipes.
> 
> I recommend that our council members look into this issue and consider putting together a motion for an issues request.  Lets get beyondd the FUD and accusations and figure out whether there is something that needs to be done.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 4 Aug 2013, at 09:35, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> 
> > Hi Avri,
> >
> > did SSAC have updates about those issues to GNSO council in several meetings and asked for specific actions?
> > my understanding that it brought the issue to GAC in durban, so it I definitely a political issue. SSAC also presented their coming report about name collision in durban (report not published yet)
> > can be this initiated through a corss-community WG including GNSO, SSAC, ALAC even we know that will take time to act ?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> >
> > 2013/8/3 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> > Hi
> >
> > The whole NXdomains colliding with new domain names issue seems to be begging as a policy issue.
> >
> > SSAC45 came out in 2010 and should have triggered a GNSO policy action.  But I think we slept through the warning.
> > We had finished the work of reserved names around 2006 and then never looked back except in terms of RCRC and IOC. Given the issues now coming up, perhaps something needs to be done.
> >
> > Now Verisign is raising the issue again and it is becoming a very political issue.
> >
> > When the issue first came up, i think even on the list, I was not sure what we should be doing.    I am still not sure what we should be doing, but am sure we have to do something.  Or the BoardStaff in it infinite wisdom will again make a decision none of us are comfortable with.
> >
> > avri
> >
> > Interesting article at: http://www.circleid.com/account/login/posts/20130731_nxdomains_ssacs_sac045_and_new_gtlds_part_4_of_5
> >
> > And an IETF note
> >
> > From RFC 6762
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Appendix G.  Private DNS Namespaces
> >
> >
> >    The special treatment of names ending in ".local." has been
> >    implemented in Macintosh computers since the days of Mac OS 9, and
> >    continues today in Mac OS X and iOS.  There are also implementations
> >    for Microsoft Windows [
> > B4W
> > ], Linux, and other platforms.
> >
> >    Some network operators setting up private internal networks
> >    ("intranets") have used unregistered top-level domains, and some may
> >    have used the ".local" top-level domain.  Using ".local" as a private
> >    top-level domain conflicts with Multicast DNS and may cause problems
> >    for users.  Clients can be configured to send both Multicast and
> >    Unicast DNS queries in parallel for these names, and this does allow
> >    names to be looked up both ways, but this results in additional
> >    network traffic and additional delays in name resolution, as well as
> >    potentially creating user confusion when it is not clear whether any
> >    given result was received via link-local multicast from a peer on the
> >    same link, or from the configured unicast name server.  Because of
> >    this, we recommend against using ".local" as a private Unicast DNS
> >    top-level domain.  We do not recommend use of unregistered top-level
> >    domains at all, but should network operators decide to do this, the
> >    following top-level domains have been used on private internal
> >    networks without the problems caused by trying to reuse ".local." for
> >    this purpose:
> >
> >       .intranet.
> >       .internal.
> >       .private.
> >       .corp.
> >       .home.
> >       .lan.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Tue Aug  6 13:12:54 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 12:12:54 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NXdomains issue
In-Reply-To: <6FB4BFE7-CF35-40FA-8B23-5F286C1D9940@acm.org>
References: <1DE35BE2-CBB7-4ED8-8B7E-C574DA6DEB50@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThnuPprukS8Qr5S8XTif3B84O30txxS4HO97Xi_=FB3wwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B795F6C6-58B2-4EB6-BE55-B03D70A44A81@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=gwuWPvk9aBaoL6x_WMpk5t==O7-jXQhZC79BwQaxcLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<6FB4BFE7-CF35-40FA-8B23-5F286C1D9940@acm.org>
Message-ID: <E532FC4D-BEA9-477D-AE39-4689C11CA01E@acm.org>




The long awaited ICANN report on name colisions

https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-05aug13-en.htm

On 6 Aug 2013, at 10:27, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> the issue to mention is probably:
> 
> from SSAC 45
> 
> 
> Recommendation (2): The SSAC recommends that ICANN consider the following in
> the context of the new gTLD program.
> 
> ? Prohibit the delegation of certain TLD strings. RFC 2606, ?Reserved Top Level
> Domain Names,? currently prohibits a list of strings, including test, example,
> invalid, and localhost.4 ICANN should coordinate with the community to
> Invalid Top Level Domain Queries at the Root Level of the Domain Name System
> identify a more complete set of principles than the amount of traffic observed at the
> root as invalid queries as the basis for prohibiting the delegation of additional strings
> to those already identified in RFC 2606.
> 
> ? Alert the applicant during the string evaluation process about the pre-existence of
> invalid TLD queries to the applicant?s string. ICANN should coordinate with the
> community to identify a threshold of traffic observed at the root as the basis for such
> notification.
> 
> ? Define circumstances where a previously delegated string may be re-used, or prohibit
> the practice.
> 
> 
> Now they are requesting that IETF do the work, but it is the GNSO that does recommendations to the reserved names list from a policy POV.
> 
> We are already doing work on reserved names in the case of IOG-INGO.  This seems like ti may be a bit more important.
> 
> At least we need to understand the fulll extent of the situation so that GNSO can decide what, if anything, need to be done.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 4 Aug 2013, at 15:36, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> 
>> Hi Avri,
>> 
>> +1 for requesting issue report to start the process and to have some substantive information policy impact. and it will be great to have David with his tech knowledge to lead that within gnso council and to be able to respond to any kind of usual fallacious comments there. btw the ISPPC supposed looking for stability should be a natural allies about this question? 
>> was there any discussion within IETF about that issue? I am not sure but I thought that IAB expressed concern before?
>> there was strong push  and bypass for reserved names for IOC and RC to prevent the "fall of gnso" , lets help to prevent the "fall on the internet" ;)
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik 
>> 
>> 2013/8/4 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Well it seems like it has to be a GNSO Policy issue to me.
>> 
>> WG are open to all.  the first step would be to request an issues report.
>> 
>> Is the NCSG ready to be at the center of another storm?  In this case, it really does not affect us, we are neither responsible for putting names in the root, nor are we applicants for these names.  Yet this is another part of the reserved name policy issue.
>> 
>> I have had conversations with both sides on this issue (Donut and Verisign).  I do not beleive that Verisign is making noise just because of protecting incumbency - they are a backend to many names and stand to lose as much as any by delays.
>> 
>> 
>> On the other hand it is an issue, as you say that the GAC has grabbed hold of.  I do not want to the see the board making preemptory policy decisions that run counter to previous GNSO policy issues.
>> 
>> Personally, while I was skeptical about this issue at first, I have done some delving and now see it as an unfortunate consequence of early protocol development that put session layer type of functionality in DNS.  This was compounded by microsoft (at least in the case of .corp) using .corp instead of .example (.yourcompanyname  as an example in their setup instruction for servers and reinforced by the habit of people to follow examples as if they were recipes.
>> 
>> I recommend that our council members look into this issue and consider putting together a motion for an issues request.  Lets get beyondd the FUD and accusations and figure out whether there is something that needs to be done.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> On 4 Aug 2013, at 09:35, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Avri,
>>> 
>>> did SSAC have updates about those issues to GNSO council in several meetings and asked for specific actions?
>>> my understanding that it brought the issue to GAC in durban, so it I definitely a political issue. SSAC also presented their coming report about name collision in durban (report not published yet)
>>> can be this initiated through a corss-community WG including GNSO, SSAC, ALAC even we know that will take time to act ?
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2013/8/3 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> The whole NXdomains colliding with new domain names issue seems to be begging as a policy issue.
>>> 
>>> SSAC45 came out in 2010 and should have triggered a GNSO policy action.  But I think we slept through the warning.
>>> We had finished the work of reserved names around 2006 and then never looked back except in terms of RCRC and IOC. Given the issues now coming up, perhaps something needs to be done.
>>> 
>>> Now Verisign is raising the issue again and it is becoming a very political issue.
>>> 
>>> When the issue first came up, i think even on the list, I was not sure what we should be doing.    I am still not sure what we should be doing, but am sure we have to do something.  Or the BoardStaff in it infinite wisdom will again make a decision none of us are comfortable with.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> Interesting article at: http://www.circleid.com/account/login/posts/20130731_nxdomains_ssacs_sac045_and_new_gtlds_part_4_of_5
>>> 
>>> And an IETF note
>>> 
>>> From RFC 6762
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Appendix G.  Private DNS Namespaces
>>> 
>>> 
>>>   The special treatment of names ending in ".local." has been
>>>   implemented in Macintosh computers since the days of Mac OS 9, and
>>>   continues today in Mac OS X and iOS.  There are also implementations
>>>   for Microsoft Windows [
>>> B4W
>>> ], Linux, and other platforms.
>>> 
>>>   Some network operators setting up private internal networks
>>>   ("intranets") have used unregistered top-level domains, and some may
>>>   have used the ".local" top-level domain.  Using ".local" as a private
>>>   top-level domain conflicts with Multicast DNS and may cause problems
>>>   for users.  Clients can be configured to send both Multicast and
>>>   Unicast DNS queries in parallel for these names, and this does allow
>>>   names to be looked up both ways, but this results in additional
>>>   network traffic and additional delays in name resolution, as well as
>>>   potentially creating user confusion when it is not clear whether any
>>>   given result was received via link-local multicast from a peer on the
>>>   same link, or from the configured unicast name server.  Because of
>>>   this, we recommend against using ".local" as a private Unicast DNS
>>>   top-level domain.  We do not recommend use of unregistered top-level
>>>   domains at all, but should network operators decide to do this, the
>>>   following top-level domains have been used on private internal
>>>   networks without the problems caused by trying to reuse ".local." for
>>>   this purpose:
>>> 
>>>      .intranet.
>>>      .internal.
>>>      .private.
>>>      .corp.
>>>      .home.
>>>      .lan.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Tue Aug  6 15:07:17 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2013 14:07:17 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NXdomains issue
In-Reply-To: <E532FC4D-BEA9-477D-AE39-4689C11CA01E@acm.org>
References: <1DE35BE2-CBB7-4ED8-8B7E-C574DA6DEB50@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThnuPprukS8Qr5S8XTif3B84O30txxS4HO97Xi_=FB3wwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B795F6C6-58B2-4EB6-BE55-B03D70A44A81@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=gwuWPvk9aBaoL6x_WMpk5t==O7-jXQhZC79BwQaxcLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<6FB4BFE7-CF35-40FA-8B23-5F286C1D9940@acm.org>
	<E532FC4D-BEA9-477D-AE39-4689C11CA01E@acm.org>
Message-ID: <26399F91-D70F-495C-9344-7AC7268408B8@acm.org>

Hi,

This changes the call for an issues report.  While ICANN is making recommendations, there may be call for the GNSO to do some policy as well.

then again, maybe not.

avri

On 6 Aug 2013, at 12:12, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> The long awaited ICANN report on name colisions
> 
> https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-05aug13-en.htm
> 
> On 6 Aug 2013, at 10:27, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> the issue to mention is probably:
>> 
>> from SSAC 45
>> 
>> 
>> Recommendation (2): The SSAC recommends that ICANN consider the following in
>> the context of the new gTLD program.
>> 
>> ? Prohibit the delegation of certain TLD strings. RFC 2606, ?Reserved Top Level
>> Domain Names,? currently prohibits a list of strings, including test, example,
>> invalid, and localhost.4 ICANN should coordinate with the community to
>> Invalid Top Level Domain Queries at the Root Level of the Domain Name System
>> identify a more complete set of principles than the amount of traffic observed at the
>> root as invalid queries as the basis for prohibiting the delegation of additional strings
>> to those already identified in RFC 2606.
>> 
>> ? Alert the applicant during the string evaluation process about the pre-existence of
>> invalid TLD queries to the applicant?s string. ICANN should coordinate with the
>> community to identify a threshold of traffic observed at the root as the basis for such
>> notification.
>> 
>> ? Define circumstances where a previously delegated string may be re-used, or prohibit
>> the practice.
>> 
>> 
>> Now they are requesting that IETF do the work, but it is the GNSO that does recommendations to the reserved names list from a policy POV.
>> 
>> We are already doing work on reserved names in the case of IOG-INGO.  This seems like ti may be a bit more important.
>> 
>> At least we need to understand the fulll extent of the situation so that GNSO can decide what, if anything, need to be done.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 4 Aug 2013, at 15:36, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Avri,
>>> 
>>> +1 for requesting issue report to start the process and to have some substantive information policy impact. and it will be great to have David with his tech knowledge to lead that within gnso council and to be able to respond to any kind of usual fallacious comments there. btw the ISPPC supposed looking for stability should be a natural allies about this question? 
>>> was there any discussion within IETF about that issue? I am not sure but I thought that IAB expressed concern before?
>>> there was strong push  and bypass for reserved names for IOC and RC to prevent the "fall of gnso" , lets help to prevent the "fall on the internet" ;)
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik 
>>> 
>>> 2013/8/4 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Well it seems like it has to be a GNSO Policy issue to me.
>>> 
>>> WG are open to all.  the first step would be to request an issues report.
>>> 
>>> Is the NCSG ready to be at the center of another storm?  In this case, it really does not affect us, we are neither responsible for putting names in the root, nor are we applicants for these names.  Yet this is another part of the reserved name policy issue.
>>> 
>>> I have had conversations with both sides on this issue (Donut and Verisign).  I do not beleive that Verisign is making noise just because of protecting incumbency - they are a backend to many names and stand to lose as much as any by delays.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On the other hand it is an issue, as you say that the GAC has grabbed hold of.  I do not want to the see the board making preemptory policy decisions that run counter to previous GNSO policy issues.
>>> 
>>> Personally, while I was skeptical about this issue at first, I have done some delving and now see it as an unfortunate consequence of early protocol development that put session layer type of functionality in DNS.  This was compounded by microsoft (at least in the case of .corp) using .corp instead of .example (.yourcompanyname  as an example in their setup instruction for servers and reinforced by the habit of people to follow examples as if they were recipes.
>>> 
>>> I recommend that our council members look into this issue and consider putting together a motion for an issues request.  Lets get beyondd the FUD and accusations and figure out whether there is something that needs to be done.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4 Aug 2013, at 09:35, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>> 
>>>> did SSAC have updates about those issues to GNSO council in several meetings and asked for specific actions?
>>>> my understanding that it brought the issue to GAC in durban, so it I definitely a political issue. SSAC also presented their coming report about name collision in durban (report not published yet)
>>>> can be this initiated through a corss-community WG including GNSO, SSAC, ALAC even we know that will take time to act ?
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2013/8/3 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>>>> Hi
>>>> 
>>>> The whole NXdomains colliding with new domain names issue seems to be begging as a policy issue.
>>>> 
>>>> SSAC45 came out in 2010 and should have triggered a GNSO policy action.  But I think we slept through the warning.
>>>> We had finished the work of reserved names around 2006 and then never looked back except in terms of RCRC and IOC. Given the issues now coming up, perhaps something needs to be done.
>>>> 
>>>> Now Verisign is raising the issue again and it is becoming a very political issue.
>>>> 
>>>> When the issue first came up, i think even on the list, I was not sure what we should be doing.    I am still not sure what we should be doing, but am sure we have to do something.  Or the BoardStaff in it infinite wisdom will again make a decision none of us are comfortable with.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> Interesting article at: http://www.circleid.com/account/login/posts/20130731_nxdomains_ssacs_sac045_and_new_gtlds_part_4_of_5
>>>> 
>>>> And an IETF note
>>>> 
>>>> From RFC 6762
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Appendix G.  Private DNS Namespaces
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>  The special treatment of names ending in ".local." has been
>>>>  implemented in Macintosh computers since the days of Mac OS 9, and
>>>>  continues today in Mac OS X and iOS.  There are also implementations
>>>>  for Microsoft Windows [
>>>> B4W
>>>> ], Linux, and other platforms.
>>>> 
>>>>  Some network operators setting up private internal networks
>>>>  ("intranets") have used unregistered top-level domains, and some may
>>>>  have used the ".local" top-level domain.  Using ".local" as a private
>>>>  top-level domain conflicts with Multicast DNS and may cause problems
>>>>  for users.  Clients can be configured to send both Multicast and
>>>>  Unicast DNS queries in parallel for these names, and this does allow
>>>>  names to be looked up both ways, but this results in additional
>>>>  network traffic and additional delays in name resolution, as well as
>>>>  potentially creating user confusion when it is not clear whether any
>>>>  given result was received via link-local multicast from a peer on the
>>>>  same link, or from the configured unicast name server.  Because of
>>>>  this, we recommend against using ".local" as a private Unicast DNS
>>>>  top-level domain.  We do not recommend use of unregistered top-level
>>>>  domains at all, but should network operators decide to do this, the
>>>>  following top-level domains have been used on private internal
>>>>  networks without the problems caused by trying to reuse ".local." for
>>>>  this purpose:
>>>> 
>>>>     .intranet.
>>>>     .internal.
>>>>     .private.
>>>>     .corp.
>>>>     .home.
>>>>     .lan.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Wed Aug  7 16:20:11 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2013 15:20:11 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NXdomains issue
In-Reply-To: <26399F91-D70F-495C-9344-7AC7268408B8@acm.org>
References: <1DE35BE2-CBB7-4ED8-8B7E-C574DA6DEB50@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThnuPprukS8Qr5S8XTif3B84O30txxS4HO97Xi_=FB3wwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<B795F6C6-58B2-4EB6-BE55-B03D70A44A81@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=gwuWPvk9aBaoL6x_WMpk5t==O7-jXQhZC79BwQaxcLA@mail.gmail.com>
	<6FB4BFE7-CF35-40FA-8B23-5F286C1D9940@acm.org>
	<E532FC4D-BEA9-477D-AE39-4689C11CA01E@acm.org>
	<26399F91-D70F-495C-9344-7AC7268408B8@acm.org>
Message-ID: <56FE2B3B-D21E-4C6D-A728-11220776B10B@acm.org>


Another interesting report:

 
http://techreports.verisignlabs.com/tr2/docs/tr-1130008-1.pdf
 
 And I recommend the 5 part series:


http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130624_introduction_new_gtld_security_and_stability_considerations_part_1/
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130626_internet_infrastructure_stability_at_core_innovation_edge_part_2/
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130628_name_collisions_why_every_enterprise_should_care_part_3_of_5/
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130731_nxdomains_ssacs_sac045_and_new_gtlds_part_4_of_5/
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20130806_new_gtld_ssr_2_exploratory_consumer_impact_analysis_part_5_of_5/


On 6 Aug 2013, at 14:07, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> This changes the call for an issues report.  While ICANN is making recommendations, there may be call for the GNSO to do some policy as well.
> 
> then again, maybe not.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 6 Aug 2013, at 12:12, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The long awaited ICANN report on name colisions
>> 
>> https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-05aug13-en.htm
>> 
>> On 6 Aug 2013, at 10:27, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> the issue to mention is probably:
>>> 
>>> from SSAC 45
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Recommendation (2): The SSAC recommends that ICANN consider the following in
>>> the context of the new gTLD program.
>>> 
>>> ? Prohibit the delegation of certain TLD strings. RFC 2606, ?Reserved Top Level
>>> Domain Names,? currently prohibits a list of strings, including test, example,
>>> invalid, and localhost.4 ICANN should coordinate with the community to
>>> Invalid Top Level Domain Queries at the Root Level of the Domain Name System
>>> identify a more complete set of principles than the amount of traffic observed at the
>>> root as invalid queries as the basis for prohibiting the delegation of additional strings
>>> to those already identified in RFC 2606.
>>> 
>>> ? Alert the applicant during the string evaluation process about the pre-existence of
>>> invalid TLD queries to the applicant?s string. ICANN should coordinate with the
>>> community to identify a threshold of traffic observed at the root as the basis for such
>>> notification.
>>> 
>>> ? Define circumstances where a previously delegated string may be re-used, or prohibit
>>> the practice.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Now they are requesting that IETF do the work, but it is the GNSO that does recommendations to the reserved names list from a policy POV.
>>> 
>>> We are already doing work on reserved names in the case of IOG-INGO.  This seems like ti may be a bit more important.
>>> 
>>> At least we need to understand the fulll extent of the situation so that GNSO can decide what, if anything, need to be done.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> On 4 Aug 2013, at 15:36, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>> 
>>>> +1 for requesting issue report to start the process and to have some substantive information policy impact. and it will be great to have David with his tech knowledge to lead that within gnso council and to be able to respond to any kind of usual fallacious comments there. btw the ISPPC supposed looking for stability should be a natural allies about this question? 
>>>> was there any discussion within IETF about that issue? I am not sure but I thought that IAB expressed concern before?
>>>> there was strong push  and bypass for reserved names for IOC and RC to prevent the "fall of gnso" , lets help to prevent the "fall on the internet" ;)
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik 
>>>> 
>>>> 2013/8/4 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Well it seems like it has to be a GNSO Policy issue to me.
>>>> 
>>>> WG are open to all.  the first step would be to request an issues report.
>>>> 
>>>> Is the NCSG ready to be at the center of another storm?  In this case, it really does not affect us, we are neither responsible for putting names in the root, nor are we applicants for these names.  Yet this is another part of the reserved name policy issue.
>>>> 
>>>> I have had conversations with both sides on this issue (Donut and Verisign).  I do not beleive that Verisign is making noise just because of protecting incumbency - they are a backend to many names and stand to lose as much as any by delays.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On the other hand it is an issue, as you say that the GAC has grabbed hold of.  I do not want to the see the board making preemptory policy decisions that run counter to previous GNSO policy issues.
>>>> 
>>>> Personally, while I was skeptical about this issue at first, I have done some delving and now see it as an unfortunate consequence of early protocol development that put session layer type of functionality in DNS.  This was compounded by microsoft (at least in the case of .corp) using .corp instead of .example (.yourcompanyname  as an example in their setup instruction for servers and reinforced by the habit of people to follow examples as if they were recipes.
>>>> 
>>>> I recommend that our council members look into this issue and consider putting together a motion for an issues request.  Lets get beyondd the FUD and accusations and figure out whether there is something that needs to be done.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 4 Aug 2013, at 09:35, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>>> 
>>>>> did SSAC have updates about those issues to GNSO council in several meetings and asked for specific actions?
>>>>> my understanding that it brought the issue to GAC in durban, so it I definitely a political issue. SSAC also presented their coming report about name collision in durban (report not published yet)
>>>>> can be this initiated through a corss-community WG including GNSO, SSAC, ALAC even we know that will take time to act ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2013/8/3 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>> 
>>>>> The whole NXdomains colliding with new domain names issue seems to be begging as a policy issue.
>>>>> 
>>>>> SSAC45 came out in 2010 and should have triggered a GNSO policy action.  But I think we slept through the warning.
>>>>> We had finished the work of reserved names around 2006 and then never looked back except in terms of RCRC and IOC. Given the issues now coming up, perhaps something needs to be done.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Now Verisign is raising the issue again and it is becoming a very political issue.
>>>>> 
>>>>> When the issue first came up, i think even on the list, I was not sure what we should be doing.    I am still not sure what we should be doing, but am sure we have to do something.  Or the BoardStaff in it infinite wisdom will again make a decision none of us are comfortable with.
>>>>> 
>>>>> avri
>>>>> 
>>>>> Interesting article at: http://www.circleid.com/account/login/posts/20130731_nxdomains_ssacs_sac045_and_new_gtlds_part_4_of_5
>>>>> 
>>>>> And an IETF note
>>>>> 
>>>>> From RFC 6762
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Appendix G.  Private DNS Namespaces
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The special treatment of names ending in ".local." has been
>>>>> implemented in Macintosh computers since the days of Mac OS 9, and
>>>>> continues today in Mac OS X and iOS.  There are also implementations
>>>>> for Microsoft Windows [
>>>>> B4W
>>>>> ], Linux, and other platforms.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Some network operators setting up private internal networks
>>>>> ("intranets") have used unregistered top-level domains, and some may
>>>>> have used the ".local" top-level domain.  Using ".local" as a private
>>>>> top-level domain conflicts with Multicast DNS and may cause problems
>>>>> for users.  Clients can be configured to send both Multicast and
>>>>> Unicast DNS queries in parallel for these names, and this does allow
>>>>> names to be looked up both ways, but this results in additional
>>>>> network traffic and additional delays in name resolution, as well as
>>>>> potentially creating user confusion when it is not clear whether any
>>>>> given result was received via link-local multicast from a peer on the
>>>>> same link, or from the configured unicast name server.  Because of
>>>>> this, we recommend against using ".local" as a private Unicast DNS
>>>>> top-level domain.  We do not recommend use of unregistered top-level
>>>>> domains at all, but should network operators decide to do this, the
>>>>> following top-level domains have been used on private internal
>>>>> networks without the problems caused by trying to reuse ".local." for
>>>>> this purpose:
>>>>> 
>>>>>    .intranet.
>>>>>    .internal.
>>>>>    .private.
>>>>>    .corp.
>>>>>    .home.
>>>>>    .lan.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Thu Aug  8 09:28:13 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 08:28:13 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: SCI Methodology for Decision Making
References: <29FBDC94-220A-4965-86FA-588603350D61@acm.org>
Message-ID: <00A9CFEE-8A26-406F-AD51-9A90120591DA@acm.org>

Hi,

this is a note I sent to Marika (slightly edited) on the issue of full consensus voting.  she recommended I send it to NCSG Council members as material you might use in the conversation the council is having.

avri

Begin forwarded message:

I think that the full consensus is important for several reasons:

1. the case of an Operating Procedure (OP) change being approved with a majority vote that affects something requiring greater than a majority vote.  E.g. if we did not require full consensus for a recommendation and only one SG disagreed with a change - i.e. ICANN consensus, we could have a circumstance where some constituency wanted to change the term limit rule (the kind of rule that is most often changed by organizations - not that I suspect anyone of this, it is just an example) to the 50% threshold: If all but one SG agreed in the SCI, i.e ICANN consensus, the council could enact that by a 50% vote.

We could even have a case of a majority being enough to raise a threshold, such as that for an issues report.  If a particular group does not want to see an issue report done that only one SG insists on, they can conceivably get ICANN consensus in SCI on raising the threshold and approve the change by a majority in the council, even though in an open vote on the issues report might possibly pass at the currently low margin.  People will sometimes vote differently on a process issue than they will on a substantive issue.

2. Rules should not be easy to change.  The members of the SCI are all representatives, none of us act on our own. To argue that all of the SG/Cs should come to a consensus on changing rules on something is a courtesy that contributes to a collegiality.  I beleive that this was the thinking behind the rule in the first place - we all have to live with these rules in the long term, lets do each other the courtesy of reaching consensus in the committee.

3. The SCI, other than the council is the only place where we all represent our C/SG, so like the council it is reasonable that it have its own voting structure and not be governed by the WG guidelines that pertain to groups of participants who are not necessarily in a representative role.

4. We have proof in action of a case where only one person doggedly kept pushing us on having not understood the full problem.  If we had had a ICANN consensus rule, we would have been able to just declare ourselves done instead of being forced to give ourselves the opportunity of doing  the hard work of finally understanding the point and fixing a hole in our recommendation. 

5. On rules, for the continuity of an organization, they should not be easy to change on a whim or in the event of a single hard case that moves a majority.  If one SG/C insists doggedly that something should not change, I really beleive we need to respect that.  After all, the GNSO Council does not need the SCI recommendation to do something, but that scenario would have to play out in a much more politically charged arena.




From maria.farrell  Thu Aug  8 17:42:56 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 15:42:56 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Councilors to participate at Buenos Aires
 Meeting in November
In-Reply-To: <A13A5DEE-D711-49DE-BDD2-302F0239C9CB@ipjustice.org>
References: <A13A5DEE-D711-49DE-BDD2-302F0239C9CB@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdBEF2JuobDTVWQTMAjRegKCVUmjx5SVC-ecBAV0L0CAiA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Robin,

Yes, I'm willing and able to participate in the BA meeting, and very much
looking forward to being back in the thick of it.

All the best Maria


On 4 August 2013 00:21, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Dear GNSO Councilors:
>
> We must let ICANN know who is traveling to Buenos Aires for ICANN #48 in
> November on behalf of NCSG asap.
>
> Which NCSG GNSO Councilors are willing and able to participate in the
> Buenos Aires meeting?
>
> Please let me know asap so I can tell ICANN who is traveling to Buenos
> Aires and travel arrangements can be made.
>
> Thanks very much!
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130808/45072ae2/attachment.html>


From robin  Fri Aug  9 20:23:07 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2013 10:23:07 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Extension of Public Comment period to 15 August:
	Potential Postponement of the GNSO Review
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FF826954014@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <C8E381F9-9E9A-4671-9DA1-A166F7D45895@ipjustice.org>

There had been some talk about filing a statement to recommend going forward with the GNSO Review, rather than postponing it, since the GNSO is in need of many improvements.  It would be great if NCSG could file a comment on this issue before the comment period ends on 6 Sept.  Any interest or other thoughts on this issue?  Thanks.

Best,
Robin


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] Extension of Public Comment period to 15 August: Potential Postponement of the GNSO Review
> Date: August 8, 2013 1:10:56 AM PDT
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> 
>  
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-review-15jul13-en.htm 
> Potential Postponement of the GNSO Review
> Comment period closes: Extended to 15 August 2013 [23:59]
> Reply period close date: Extended to 6 September 2013 [23:59]
>  
> Comment / Reply Periods (*)
> Comment Open Date:  15 July 2013
> Comment Close Date:  15 August 2013 - 23:59 UTC
> Reply Open Date:  16 August 2013
> Reply Close Date:  6 September 2013 - 23:59 UTC
> Important Information Links
> Public Comment Announcement
> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)
> View Comments Submitted
> Brief Overview
> Originating Organization: 
> Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC)
> Categories/Tags: 
> GNSO
> ICANN Board/Bylaws
> Organizational Reviews
> Reviews/Improvements
> Purpose (Brief): 
> The Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) is considering recommending to the ICANN Board of Directors that the review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which is mandated by ICANN Bylaws Article IV, Section 4, be postponed and that a new schedule for the review be established within the next 6 months. The SIC seeks comments from the ICANN Community to better form its recommendation or to reconsider its recommendation.
> Current Status: 
> Questions to the ICANN Community
> Next Steps: 
> Public comments are requested to inform Board Structural Improvements Committee action.
> Staff Contact: 
> Alice Jansen
> Email Staff Contact
> Detailed Information
> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: 
> The Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) is considering recommending to the ICANN Board of Directors that the review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) be postponed and that a new schedule for the review be established within the next 6 months. The GNSO review is mandated by ICANN Bylaws Article IV, Section 4. The SIC is considering this recommendation because there are two substantial, relevant activities that have commenced. They are the second Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) Accountability and Transparency Review (ATRT2) and ICANN's Strategic Planning Process. The ATRT2 will include an assessment of the policy development process to facilitate enhanced cross-community deliberations, and effective and timely policy development. The Strategic Planning Process includes consideration of attributes and characteristics of ICANN's community structures and processes, engagement of end-users, and other issues. Both of these activities will require dedicated participation by the GNSO, and may have implications for the GNSO review.
> 
> The SIC seeks comments from the ICANN Community to better form its recommendation or to reconsider its recommendation. The SIC is most appreciative of any comments from the ICANN Community but is particularly interested in comments that are in response to the following question: Are there other factors that the SIC should consider with regard to this recommendation?
> 
> Update ? 7 August 2013: the public comment period is extended at the request of the GNSO Council.
> 
> Section II: Background: 
> ICANN Bylaws Article IV, Section 4 call for the Board to cause a periodic review of the performance and operation of each Supporting Organization, each Supporting Organization Council, each Advisory Committee (other than the Governmental Advisory Committee), and the Nominating Committee by an entity or entities independent of the organization under review. The first GNSO review was launched in 2006.
> 
> Section III: Document and Resource Links: 
> ICANN Organizational Reviews
> ICANN Bylaws
> Section IV: Additional Information: 
> None
> (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.
> 
>  
>  
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130809/19169e28/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Thu Aug 22 19:53:35 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 12:53:35 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Privacy group submission on the EWG
Message-ID: <36313EA9-08CB-43A3-8E84-FDF406F2D887@acm.org>

Hi,

Members of the NCSG Privacy group <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/privacy>  have submitted the following comments to the gTLD Service model comment period.

Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Who on the	EWG Specializes in Abuse of the Whois Data?   Kathy Kleiman
Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services We Strongly Object to a Centralized Whois/Registrant Data Database; What were Plans B and C?   Kathy Kleiman
Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Why is the	Whois Broken?   Kathy Kleiman
Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services The EWG	Use Cases Seem Fundamentally Flawed   Kathy Kleiman
Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Data	Elements Will Require a Separate Review by the ICANN Community   Kathy Kleiman
Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Potential	Conflict of Interest   Edward Morris
Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Has the	EWG Evaluated Closely What is at Stake for Registrants?   Edward Morris
found at: <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-en.htm>

The NCSG PC is being asked to endorse these statements as an NCSG position.  

The membership is invited to discuss, to send in comments of their own, to inform the Policy Committee through discussions on NCSG-DISCUSS on their views on endorsing these statement, ... whatever really.

The Policy Committee has until 6 Sept 13 to send in and endorsement/comments.

thanks

avri
written as:
Alternate Chair, PC-NCSG
Participant in NCSG Policy group
 a co-signer of the statements
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130822/2062383f/attachment.html>


From avri  Thu Aug 22 21:50:16 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:50:16 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September,
	23.59 UTC
References: <CD58B553-2619-4FDF-A87B-2EC52A81EA01@anwaelte.de>
Message-ID: <80F178D1-780E-4329-8E98-7F36E95FB575@acm.org>

Hi,

Now that the comment period has conclude the IGO-INGO group is moving toward final report - and trying to do it very quickly.

The consensus call portion of the process has begun with a bang.

The note below explains the activity we are now engaged in.

I have replaced the blank form Thomas provided with my best guess of a NCSG position based on many conversations we have had over the years.  But I might be wrong.

I am copying this to the Policy team as they are the ones who need to approve a position based on your comments and their understanding.

In addition to a NCSG postion, each of the constituencies is encouraged to come up with a view, especially if that view is different than the one the NCSG Policy committee agrees on.  This is a complicated topic and coming down to a few words that expresses all the nuance is tough.

thanks

avri



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September, 23.59 UTC
> Date: 21 August 2013 17:17:54 EDT
> To: "gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
> 
> All,
> thank you again for a productive call earlier today. As you can see from the attached document, we have incorporated the changes that were requested. These are:
> 
> 1)      A separate general table with language was added for those organizations that are granted protection and for the designations that are protected
> 2)      The error of Rec #5 for IGOs was removed.
> 3)      Scope1,2 for INGOs are updated.
> 4)      The TMCH recommendations to include scope 1 are adjusted.
> 5)      The reference to the current assessment of the consensus level was removed 
> 6)      The consensus scale introduction has been removed.
> 
> I understand that not everyone in the working group is happy with the recommendations, but it is my belief that this document includes the recommendations that got most traction based on the analysis of the discussions we had and the documents that were exchanged during the course of the WG and in part of the pre-decessing drafting team. 
> 
> As positions held by working group members have been exchanged and discussed by the group and no new ideas are in sight despite working group meetings, G-Council briefings, public comment and the session in Durban, it is now time to conduct the consensus call, which I hereby initiate. 
> 
> Please note that the "Recommendations not Receiving adequate support for all organizations" are NOT part of the consensus call as they did not get sufficient traction. However, they are included for information purposes. 
> 
> I would now ask you to get back to your respective groups / organizations and provide feedback on the recommendations. You are not required to give one answer for all protections and all categories of organizations, but you can indicate the position for each item individually. 
> 
> It is very well possible that one or more recommendations in the table to not reach consensus level, but I took the approach to only exclude those options that obviously did not enjoy substantial support. 
> 
> In case you / your group wishes to file a minority position, please make sure that you have that ready be the end of the deadline. I understand that some of you wish to make such statements. 
> 
> One final remark: I know that meeting the dates in the work plan is ambitious. I know that all of you have generously given your time and expertise to allow the working group to get as far as we are now. Wouldn't it be great to enable both the GNSO Council as well as the ICANN Board to see the results of our work by the next ICANN meeting? This would help avoid a policy clash and also demonstrate that consensus-driven community work does not take ages despite a highly controversial and complex topic.
> 
> Your input is requested by 3 September 2013 @ 23:59 UTC
> 
> Thanks again,
> Thomas
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 79872 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130822/eb6a69ac/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------



From robin  Fri Aug 23 04:31:35 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 18:31:35 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Privacy group submission on the
	EWG
References: <36313EA9-08CB-43A3-8E84-FDF406F2D887@acm.org>
Message-ID: <5E139E28-CC15-4EE0-BBB5-B013383C9DAE@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Privacy group submission on the EWG
> Date: August 22, 2013 9:53:35 AM PDT
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Reply-To: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Members of the NCSG Privacy group <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/privacy>  have submitted the following comments to the gTLD Service model comment period.
> 
> Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Who on the	EWG Specializes in Abuse of the Whois Data?   Kathy Kleiman
> Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services We Strongly Object to a Centralized Whois/Registrant Data Database; What were Plans B and C?   Kathy Kleiman
> Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Why is the	Whois Broken?   Kathy Kleiman
> Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services The EWG	Use Cases Seem Fundamentally Flawed   Kathy Kleiman
> Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Data	Elements Will Require a Separate Review by the ICANN Community   Kathy Kleiman
> Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Potential	Conflict of Interest   Edward Morris
> Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Has the	EWG Evaluated Closely What is at Stake for Registrants?   Edward Morris
> found at: <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-en.htm>
> 
> The NCSG PC is being asked to endorse these statements as an NCSG position.  
> 
> The membership is invited to discuss, to send in comments of their own, to inform the Policy Committee through discussions on NCSG-DISCUSS on their views on endorsing these statement, ... whatever really.
> 
> The Policy Committee has until 6 Sept 13 to send in and endorsement/comments.
> 
> thanks
> 
> avri
> written as:
> Alternate Chair, PC-NCSG
> Participant in NCSG Policy group
>  a co-signer of the statements

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130822/20831a38/attachment.html>


From robin  Mon Aug 26 18:27:09 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 08:27:09 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Privacy group submission on the
	EWG
In-Reply-To: <5E139E28-CC15-4EE0-BBB5-B013383C9DAE@ipjustice.org>
References: <36313EA9-08CB-43A3-8E84-FDF406F2D887@acm.org>
	<5E139E28-CC15-4EE0-BBB5-B013383C9DAE@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <06D7F020-9B4C-4544-9040-F5033220FAE8@ipjustice.org>

Dear NCSG PC Members:

Can NCSG PC support these comments that were submitted by a group of NCSG members last week?  We've got a short timeframe for submitting the endorsement, so can we spend a moment to consider this in the next day or two please?

Thank you,
Robin


On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:31 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Privacy group submission on the EWG
>> Date: August 22, 2013 9:53:35 AM PDT
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> Reply-To: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Members of the NCSG Privacy group <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/privacy>  have submitted the following comments to the gTLD Service model comment period.
>> 
>> Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Who on the	EWG Specializes in Abuse of the Whois Data?   Kathy Kleiman
>> Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services We Strongly Object to a Centralized Whois/Registrant Data Database; What were Plans B and C?   Kathy Kleiman
>> Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Why is the	Whois Broken?   Kathy Kleiman
>> Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services The EWG	Use Cases Seem Fundamentally Flawed   Kathy Kleiman
>> Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Data	Elements Will Require a Separate Review by the ICANN Community   Kathy Kleiman
>> Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Potential	Conflict of Interest   Edward Morris
>> Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Has the	EWG Evaluated Closely What is at Stake for Registrants?   Edward Morris
>> found at: <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-en.htm>
>> 
>> The NCSG PC is being asked to endorse these statements as an NCSG position.  
>> 
>> The membership is invited to discuss, to send in comments of their own, to inform the Policy Committee through discussions on NCSG-DISCUSS on their views on endorsing these statement, ... whatever really.
>> 
>> The Policy Committee has until 6 Sept 13 to send in and endorsement/comments.
>> 
>> thanks
>> 
>> avri
>> written as:
>> Alternate Chair, PC-NCSG
>> Participant in NCSG Policy group
>>  a co-signer of the statements
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130826/7a2c596d/attachment.html>


From avri  Mon Aug 26 19:48:35 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:48:35 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Privacy group
	submission on the EWG
In-Reply-To: <06D7F020-9B4C-4544-9040-F5033220FAE8@ipjustice.org>
References: <36313EA9-08CB-43A3-8E84-FDF406F2D887@acm.org>
	<5E139E28-CC15-4EE0-BBB5-B013383C9DAE@ipjustice.org>
	<06D7F020-9B4C-4544-9040-F5033220FAE8@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <A8889CB5-F8A0-4728-BBC8-6F44173CBBE2@acm.org>

hi,

I suggest the NCSG-PC send the following:

The NCSG community has reviewed and NCSG PC endorses the comments submitted by the NCSG Policy group and consigned by it members.

The statements fully endorsed are:

(list here)

signed NCSG-PC

anyone object?
anyone want to add anything else to the note.


avri



On 26 Aug 2013, at 11:27, Robin Gross wrote:

> Dear NCSG PC Members:
> 
> Can NCSG PC support these comments that were submitted by a group of NCSG members last week?  We've got a short timeframe for submitting the endorsement, so can we spend a moment to consider this in the next day or two please?
> 
> Thank you,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:31 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Privacy group submission on the EWG
>>> Date: August 22, 2013 9:53:35 AM PDT
>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>> Reply-To: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Members of the NCSG Privacy group <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/privacy>  have submitted the following comments to the gTLD Service model comment period.
>>> 
>>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Who on the	EWG Specializes in Abuse of the Whois Data?   Kathy Kleiman
>>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services We Strongly Object to a Centralized Whois/Registrant Data Database; What were Plans B and C?   Kathy Kleiman
>>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Why is the	Whois Broken?   Kathy Kleiman
>>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services The EWG	Use Cases Seem Fundamentally Flawed   Kathy Kleiman
>>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Data	Elements Will Require a Separate Review by the ICANN Community   Kathy Kleiman
>>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Potential	Conflict of Interest   Edward Morris
>>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Has the	EWG Evaluated Closely What is at Stake for Registrants?   Edward Morris
>>> found at: <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-en.htm>
>>> 
>>> The NCSG PC is being asked to endorse these statements as an NCSG position.  
>>> 
>>> The membership is invited to discuss, to send in comments of their own, to inform the Policy Committee through discussions on NCSG-DISCUSS on their views on endorsing these statement, ... whatever really.
>>> 
>>> The Policy Committee has until 6 Sept 13 to send in and endorsement/comments.
>>> 
>>> thanks
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> written as:
>>> Alternate Chair, PC-NCSG
>>> Participant in NCSG Policy group
>>>  a co-signer of the statements
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From robin  Tue Aug 27 01:54:08 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:54:08 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Response to NCSG DIDP Request 20130724-1
References: <CE3E7A80.2263%elizabeth.le@icann.org>
Message-ID: <829B4AE6-172E-4E5C-8A8D-40CF385537E2@ipjustice.org>

ICANN "responded" to NCSG's DIDP request by pointing to a few public websites (of what they want to make public) and then essentially claiming everything else is a confidential trade secret.  Unbelievable.  This is supposed to be the accountability mechanism for ICANN?   

Just another slap in the face from ICANN staff to NCSG and any attempt for accountability and transparency at ICANN.    How does the community appeal a bullshit response to a DIDP request?  Or does ICANN have carte blanche to do whatever it wants with no accountability to the community or democratic principles?  If nothing else, we have to make a ton of noise about this. 

Robin


Begin forwarded message:

> From: DIDP <DIDP at icann.org>
> Subject: Response to NCSG DIDP Request 20130724-1
> Date: August 24, 2013 3:02:59 PM PDT
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> 
> Ms. Gross, 
> 
> Attached please find a response to the request that was submitted by the Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group under ICANN's Documentary Information Disclosure Policy on 24 July 2013.  We have also attached a copy of the request.
> 
> Best regards,
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
> Los Angeles, CA  90094
> 
> 
> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Date: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 7:05 PM
> To: "didp at icann.org" <didp at icann.org>
> Cc: "ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org" <ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, NCSG-Policy Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: [DIDP] NCSG DIDP Request
> 
> The Articles of Incorporation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), article 4, require ICANN to act through ?open and transparent processes.? ICANN is required by it?s corporate Bylaws to use  ?open and transparent policy development mechanisms? (Bylaws, article I, Section 2(7)) and to ?operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner? (Bylaws, article III, section 1 (1)).
> To meet these obligations, ICANN has established a Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) which requires it to ?ensure that information contained in documents concerning ICANN?s operational activities, is made available to the public unless there is a compelling reason for confidentiality.?
> The Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group (NCSG), with over 300 members the largest and most diverse constituent member of ICANN?s Generic Name Supporting Organization (GNSO), supports ICANN?s commitment to open and transparent policy processes.
> The NCSG notes that under the DIDP ICANN is required to supply ?information not already publicly available? to any member of the public so requesting said information.  ?To the extent feasible? ICANN is required to provide this information to the requestor no later than 30 days from the date of receipt of the request.
> As such, the Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG) respectfully requests that the following documentary information be provided to it without delay per the terms of the DIDP:
> 1.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, concerning and / or leading to the staff action of the imposition of the policy announced in the 20 March 2013 staff memo titled ?Trademark Claims Protection for Previously Abused Names. 
> 2.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, leading to adoption of staff recommendation of the so-called ?Trademark +50? policy, including, but not exclusively, any information, data, facts or rationale, per article 7 of the Affirmation of Commitments by the United States Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers, leading to the determination that the number ?50? was the appropriate enumerator for this unprecedented extension of property rights and if any other numbers were considered.
> 3.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, involved in the preparation, compilation and production of Fadi Chehade?s 19 September 2012 letter to members of the United States Congress.
> 4.  All correspondence between ICANN, staff and Board, and third parties, including but not exclusively government officials, trade associations, corporate and legal firms and interests, concerning the extension of trademark protection beyond the GNSO-approved ?exact match? standard in the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH).
> 5.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, concerning the meeting convened by Fadi Chehade in Los Angeles on 15-16 November 2012 to discuss the creation of new trademark privileges in new gtld policy.  This request explicitly includes but is not limited to materials relating to the meeting?s organization, the substance of its discussions, and any follow-up materials related to the meeting.
> 6.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, concerning staff memo of 29 November 2012, and the 3 December 2013 update, titled ?Trademark Clearinghouse: Strawman Solution?, involving any aspect of allegedly abusively registered strings and policy / implementation concerns thereof.
> 7.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, provided to or used by Mr. Chehade and/or staff in compiling Mr. Chehade?s 26 November 2012 blog post concerning strings and allegedly abusive registrations and policy / implementation issues thereof.  This request explicitly includes but is not limited to any such materials relating to the post-publication change, deletion, addition, or other editing of the text of the blog post.
> 8.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, used in the creation of Mr. Chehade?s e-mail to GNSO Chair Jonathan Robinson asking for ?policy guidance? on the portion of the Strawman Model relating to the scope of trademark claims.
> 9.  All documentation, contracts, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to ICANN, staff, board and external contractor?s, consideration of and response to Reconsideration Request 13-3.
> 10.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to the Board Governance Committee?s memo of 16 May 2013 concerning Reconsideration Request 13-3.  This request includes but is not limited to materials related to the BGC?s 16 May meeting in which NCSG?s request was discussed, including board discussions, staff briefings or any notes, records or other information related to those staff briefings or board discussions.
> 11.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to the Board Governance Committee?s Revised Recommendation of 25 June 2013, concerning Reconsideration Request 13-3, including but not limited to any materials relating to the reason for the revision.  This request includes but is not limited to materials related to the BGC?s 25 June meeting in which NCSG?s request was discussed, including staff briefings or any notes, records or other information related to those staff briefings or board discussions.
> 12.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to the New gTLD Program Committees action of 2 July 2013 relating to Reconsideration Request 13-3.
> 13.  All correspondence, and / or records thereof, between ICANN, staff and Board, and United States Senator Pat Leahy from 1 May 2012 to the present.
> 14.  All correspondence, and / or records thereof, between ICANN, staff and Board, and Yahoo! Inc., including that between ICANN and Yahoo!?s representatives and agents, from 1 May 2012 to the present.
> 15.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including contracts and invoices, relating to the involvement and / or contracting of outside counsel in any matter concerning Reconsideration Request 13-3. 
> Prompt attention to this information request is greatly appreciated.  We would respectfully point out that the information requested, per the DIDP, is that which is not currently ?publicly available?.  We are aware of the contents of the ICANN website and do not need any guidance in locating materials on it.
> Thank you for your assistance in this matter.  We applaud ICANN for its commitment to openness and transparency and look forward to receiving the materials requested in a timely manner.
> Sincerely,
> Robin Gross
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group (NCSG)
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130826/90192ea0/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DIDP-Response-NCSG-20130724-1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 135201 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130826/90192ea0/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130826/90192ea0/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DIDP-Request-NCSG-20130724-1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 98812 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130826/90192ea0/attachment-0003.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130826/90192ea0/attachment-0005.html>


From robin  Tue Aug 27 03:49:11 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 17:49:11 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Privacy group
	submission on the EWG
In-Reply-To: <A8889CB5-F8A0-4728-BBC8-6F44173CBBE2@acm.org>
References: <36313EA9-08CB-43A3-8E84-FDF406F2D887@acm.org>
	<5E139E28-CC15-4EE0-BBB5-B013383C9DAE@ipjustice.org>
	<06D7F020-9B4C-4544-9040-F5033220FAE8@ipjustice.org>
	<A8889CB5-F8A0-4728-BBC8-6F44173CBBE2@acm.org>
Message-ID: <C8B35FC2-DDE7-4E6E-A70D-FF3EB6DDCAE7@ipjustice.org>

Yes, let's do it.  Anyone object?

Thanks,
Robin

On Aug 26, 2013, at 9:48 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> hi,
> 
> I suggest the NCSG-PC send the following:
> 
> The NCSG community has reviewed and NCSG PC endorses the comments submitted by the NCSG Policy group and consigned by it members.
> 
> The statements fully endorsed are:
> 
> (list here)
> 
> signed NCSG-PC
> 
> anyone object?
> anyone want to add anything else to the note.
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 26 Aug 2013, at 11:27, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> Dear NCSG PC Members:
>> 
>> Can NCSG PC support these comments that were submitted by a group of NCSG members last week?  We've got a short timeframe for submitting the endorsement, so can we spend a moment to consider this in the next day or two please?
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:31 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>>> From: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Privacy group submission on the EWG
>>>> Date: August 22, 2013 9:53:35 AM PDT
>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>> Reply-To: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Members of the NCSG Privacy group <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/privacy>  have submitted the following comments to the gTLD Service model comment period.
>>>> 
>>>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Who on the	EWG Specializes in Abuse of the Whois Data?   Kathy Kleiman
>>>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services We Strongly Object to a Centralized Whois/Registrant Data Database; What were Plans B and C?   Kathy Kleiman
>>>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Why is the	Whois Broken?   Kathy Kleiman
>>>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services The EWG	Use Cases Seem Fundamentally Flawed   Kathy Kleiman
>>>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Data	Elements Will Require a Separate Review by the ICANN Community   Kathy Kleiman
>>>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Potential	Conflict of Interest   Edward Morris
>>>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Has the	EWG Evaluated Closely What is at Stake for Registrants?   Edward Morris
>>>> found at: <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-en.htm>
>>>> 
>>>> The NCSG PC is being asked to endorse these statements as an NCSG position.  
>>>> 
>>>> The membership is invited to discuss, to send in comments of their own, to inform the Policy Committee through discussions on NCSG-DISCUSS on their views on endorsing these statement, ... whatever really.
>>>> 
>>>> The Policy Committee has until 6 Sept 13 to send in and endorsement/comments.
>>>> 
>>>> thanks
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> written as:
>>>> Alternate Chair, PC-NCSG
>>>> Participant in NCSG Policy group
>>>> a co-signer of the statements
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From mllemineur  Tue Aug 27 04:19:54 2013
From: mllemineur (Marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 19:19:54 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Privacy group
	submission on the EWG
In-Reply-To: <C8B35FC2-DDE7-4E6E-A70D-FF3EB6DDCAE7@ipjustice.org>
References: <36313EA9-08CB-43A3-8E84-FDF406F2D887@acm.org>
	<5E139E28-CC15-4EE0-BBB5-B013383C9DAE@ipjustice.org>
	<06D7F020-9B4C-4544-9040-F5033220FAE8@ipjustice.org>
	<A8889CB5-F8A0-4728-BBC8-6F44173CBBE2@acm.org>
	<C8B35FC2-DDE7-4E6E-A70D-FF3EB6DDCAE7@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <02DB5A30-5DB6-4771-87C6-FD302E04F779@gmail.com>

Agree. 
Best, 
Marie-laure

Sent from my iPad

On 26/08/2013, at 18:49, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Yes, let's do it.  Anyone object?
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> On Aug 26, 2013, at 9:48 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> hi,
>> 
>> I suggest the NCSG-PC send the following:
>> 
>> The NCSG community has reviewed and NCSG PC endorses the comments submitted by the NCSG Policy group and consigned by it members.
>> 
>> The statements fully endorsed are:
>> 
>> (list here)
>> 
>> signed NCSG-PC
>> 
>> anyone object?
>> anyone want to add anything else to the note.
>> 
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 26 Aug 2013, at 11:27, Robin Gross wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear NCSG PC Members:
>>> 
>>> Can NCSG PC support these comments that were submitted by a group of NCSG members last week?  We've got a short timeframe for submitting the endorsement, so can we spend a moment to consider this in the next day or two please?
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:31 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>>> From: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Privacy group submission on the EWG
>>>>> Date: August 22, 2013 9:53:35 AM PDT
>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>>> Reply-To: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Members of the NCSG Privacy group <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/privacy>  have submitted the following comments to the gTLD Service model comment period.
>>>>> 
>>>>>    ? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Who on the    EWG Specializes in Abuse of the Whois Data?   Kathy Kleiman
>>>>>    ? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services We Strongly Object to a Centralized Whois/Registrant Data Database; What were Plans B and C?   Kathy Kleiman
>>>>>    ? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Why is the    Whois Broken?   Kathy Kleiman
>>>>>    ? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services The EWG    Use Cases Seem Fundamentally Flawed   Kathy Kleiman
>>>>>    ? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Data    Elements Will Require a Separate Review by the ICANN Community   Kathy Kleiman
>>>>>    ? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Potential    Conflict of Interest   Edward Morris
>>>>>    ? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Has the    EWG Evaluated Closely What is at Stake for Registrants?   Edward Morris
>>>>> found at: <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-en.htm>
>>>>> 
>>>>> The NCSG PC is being asked to endorse these statements as an NCSG position.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> The membership is invited to discuss, to send in comments of their own, to inform the Policy Committee through discussions on NCSG-DISCUSS on their views on endorsing these statement, ... whatever really.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Policy Committee has until 6 Sept 13 to send in and endorsement/comments.
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> 
>>>>> avri
>>>>> written as:
>>>>> Alternate Chair, PC-NCSG
>>>>> Participant in NCSG Policy group
>>>>> a co-signer of the statements
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From joy  Tue Aug 27 05:28:45 2013
From: joy (joy)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:28:45 +1200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Privacy group
 submission on the EWG
In-Reply-To: <02DB5A30-5DB6-4771-87C6-FD302E04F779@gmail.com>
References: <36313EA9-08CB-43A3-8E84-FDF406F2D887@acm.org>
	<5E139E28-CC15-4EE0-BBB5-B013383C9DAE@ipjustice.org>
	<06D7F020-9B4C-4544-9040-F5033220FAE8@ipjustice.org>
	<A8889CB5-F8A0-4728-BBC8-6F44173CBBE2@acm.org>
	<C8B35FC2-DDE7-4E6E-A70D-FF3EB6DDCAE7@ipjustice.org>
	<02DB5A30-5DB6-4771-87C6-FD302E04F779@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <521C0EDD.9050008@apc.org>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
also agree - thanks to those who worked on this
cheers
joy
On 27/08/2013 1:19 p.m., Marie-laure Lemineur wrote:
> Agree. 
> Best,
> Marie-laure
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 26/08/2013, at 18:49, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Yes, let's do it.  Anyone object?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>> On Aug 26, 2013, at 9:48 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> I suggest the NCSG-PC send the following:
>>>
>>> The NCSG community has reviewed and NCSG PC endorses the comments
submitted by the NCSG Policy group and consigned by it members.
>>>
>>> The statements fully endorsed are:
>>>
>>> (list here)
>>>
>>> signed NCSG-PC
>>>
>>> anyone object?
>>> anyone want to add anything else to the note.
>>>
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 26 Aug 2013, at 11:27, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear NCSG PC Members:
>>>>
>>>> Can NCSG PC support these comments that were submitted by a group
of NCSG members last week?  We've got a short timeframe for submitting
the endorsement, so can we spend a moment to consider this in the next
day or two please?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:31 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
>>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Privacy group submission on the EWG
>>>>>> Date: August 22, 2013 9:53:35 AM PDT
>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>>>> Reply-To: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Members of the NCSG Privacy group
<http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/privacy>  have submitted the
following comments to the gTLD Service model comment period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    ? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Who
on the    EWG Specializes in Abuse of the Whois Data?   Kathy Kleiman
>>>>>>    ? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services We
Strongly Object to a Centralized Whois/Registrant Data Database; What
were Plans B and C?   Kathy Kleiman
>>>>>>    ? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Why
is the    Whois Broken?   Kathy Kleiman
>>>>>>    ? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services The
EWG    Use Cases Seem Fundamentally Flawed   Kathy Kleiman
>>>>>>    ? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services
Data    Elements Will Require a Separate Review by the ICANN Community  
Kathy Kleiman
>>>>>>    ? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services
Potential    Conflict of Interest   Edward Morris
>>>>>>    ? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Has
the    EWG Evaluated Closely What is at Stake for Registrants?   Edward
Morris
>>>>>> found at:
<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-en.htm>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The NCSG PC is being asked to endorse these statements as an NCSG
position. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The membership is invited to discuss, to send in comments of
their own, to inform the Policy Committee through discussions on
NCSG-DISCUSS on their views on endorsing these statement, ... whatever
really.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Policy Committee has until 6 Sept 13 to send in and
endorsement/comments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> avri
>>>>>> written as:
>>>>>> Alternate Chair, PC-NCSG
>>>>>> Participant in NCSG Policy group
>>>>>> a co-signer of the statements
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSHA7dAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqOJEIAJmijEst0yf3WMQwcCScFV3D
FozI6vF3rSsMKaDb6DF2YjtOzqjWJHJXorbRP7BX+IZmoEU59a9blaslSFuImHcA
txVDs8m5s5UMpfMAv/KoG8MTfJE7nc4KPmph8JiiEcO4/6EpRF8JX9d6odgCB1+T
DpwFIBZ54N7a0Jvf/pJbbcdtKp+I65EJGYu8nc9VT6X6ReiSz7Mb97OWdejZysUu
pcG2I6Rc6q71BSsO4+YbiG7NO/SnPssnCy6hjRZDaLgutnVFD1WoArCnUOxqKCnB
AHjns4l+4SiVahiwyGDd8+RwvlPvrS+zXB+WIX85ZOJMXTEccz5dvSQEH693Osg=
=RYQu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




From avri  Tue Aug 27 18:51:10 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 11:51:10 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Last Call: NCSG endorses Kleiman/Morris comments
Message-ID: <54515EA8-E246-433A-8AD2-55768B14CCFC@acm.org>

Having seen nothing but positive comments and had at least one from each constituency, 
I will send the following out in 24 hours (after 1600 UTC 28 aug)

Please send corrections if you have any.

avri

Robin: unless it is better to have you as chair send it out?  views?


---


The NCSG community has reviewed and the NCSG Policy Committee endorses the comments submitted by the NCSG Policy group and consigned by it members.

The statements fully endorsed are:

Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Who on the	EWG Specializes in Abuse of the Whois Data?   Kathy Kleiman
Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services We Strongly Object to a Centralized Whois/Registrant Data Database; What were Plans B and C?   Kathy Kleiman
Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Why is the	Whois Broken?   Kathy Kleiman
Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services The EWG	Use Cases Seem Fundamentally Flawed   Kathy Kleiman
Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Data	Elements Will Require a Separate Review by the ICANN Community   Kathy Kleiman
Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Potential	Conflict of Interest   Edward Morris
Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Has the	EWG Evaluated Closely What is at Stake for Registrants?   Edward Morris
found at: <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-en.htm>

According to the NCSG charter, it is the NCSG Policy Committee that is responsible for surveying the membership and making policy decisions for the NCSG.  

Submitted on behalf of the NCSG-PC

signed

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130827/95a6e084/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Aug 27 22:16:43 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:16:43 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September,
	23.59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <80F178D1-780E-4329-8E98-7F36E95FB575@acm.org>
References: <CD58B553-2619-4FDF-A87B-2EC52A81EA01@anwaelte.de>
	<80F178D1-780E-4329-8E98-7F36E95FB575@acm.org>
Message-ID: <B3CC4FB7-A677-4B4C-89F9-39C1908428AB@ella.com>


Hi,

Just got the reminder of the meeting next week.
do the members of the PC concur with the status as I have given it in the attachment?

avri

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 79872 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130827/62cb3abb/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------


On 22 Aug 2013, at 14:50, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Now that the comment period has conclude the IGO-INGO group is moving toward final report - and trying to do it very quickly.
> 
> The consensus call portion of the process has begun with a bang.
> 
> The note below explains the activity we are now engaged in.
> 
> I have replaced the blank form Thomas provided with my best guess of a NCSG position based on many conversations we have had over the years.  But I might be wrong.
> 
> I am copying this to the Policy team as they are the ones who need to approve a position based on your comments and their understanding.
> 
> In addition to a NCSG postion, each of the constituencies is encouraged to come up with a view, especially if that view is different than the one the NCSG Policy committee agrees on.  This is a complicated topic and coming down to a few words that expresses all the nuance is tough.
> 
> thanks
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>
>> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September, 23.59 UTC
>> Date: 21 August 2013 17:17:54 EDT
>> To: "gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
>> 
>> All,
>> thank you again for a productive call earlier today. As you can see from the attached document, we have incorporated the changes that were requested. These are:
>> 
>> 1)      A separate general table with language was added for those organizations that are granted protection and for the designations that are protected
>> 2)      The error of Rec #5 for IGOs was removed.
>> 3)      Scope1,2 for INGOs are updated.
>> 4)      The TMCH recommendations to include scope 1 are adjusted.
>> 5)      The reference to the current assessment of the consensus level was removed 
>> 6)      The consensus scale introduction has been removed.
>> 
>> I understand that not everyone in the working group is happy with the recommendations, but it is my belief that this document includes the recommendations that got most traction based on the analysis of the discussions we had and the documents that were exchanged during the course of the WG and in part of the pre-decessing drafting team. 
>> 
>> As positions held by working group members have been exchanged and discussed by the group and no new ideas are in sight despite working group meetings, G-Council briefings, public comment and the session in Durban, it is now time to conduct the consensus call, which I hereby initiate. 
>> 
>> Please note that the "Recommendations not Receiving adequate support for all organizations" are NOT part of the consensus call as they did not get sufficient traction. However, they are included for information purposes. 
>> 
>> I would now ask you to get back to your respective groups / organizations and provide feedback on the recommendations. You are not required to give one answer for all protections and all categories of organizations, but you can indicate the position for each item individually. 
>> 
>> It is very well possible that one or more recommendations in the table to not reach consensus level, but I took the approach to only exclude those options that obviously did not enjoy substantial support. 
>> 
>> In case you / your group wishes to file a minority position, please make sure that you have that ready be the end of the deadline. I understand that some of you wish to make such statements. 
>> 
>> One final remark: I know that meeting the dates in the work plan is ambitious. I know that all of you have generously given your time and expertise to allow the working group to get as far as we are now. Wouldn't it be great to enable both the GNSO Council as well as the ICANN Board to see the results of our work by the next ICANN meeting? This would help avoid a policy clash and also demonstrate that consensus-driven community work does not take ages despite a highly controversial and complex topic.
>> 
>> Your input is requested by 3 September 2013 @ 23:59 UTC
>> 
>> Thanks again,
>> Thomas
>> 
>> 
> 
> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG.doc>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From avri  Tue Aug 27 22:50:07 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:50:07 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September,
	23.59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <B3CC4FB7-A677-4B4C-89F9-39C1908428AB@ella.com>
References: <CD58B553-2619-4FDF-A87B-2EC52A81EA01@anwaelte.de>
	<80F178D1-780E-4329-8E98-7F36E95FB575@acm.org>
	<B3CC4FB7-A677-4B4C-89F9-39C1908428AB@ella.com>
Message-ID: <6EBFF4EF-64B6-43C4-8234-86A2F019B620@acm.org>

Note: this is not last call, but a rather a call on what position we go into the consensus discussions with.

Robin, Wolfgang, you are both in the group what do you think?

avri

On 27 Aug 2013, at 15:16, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> Just got the reminder of the meeting next week.
> do the members of the PC concur with the status as I have given it in the attachment?
> 
> avri
> 
> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG.doc>
> 
> On 22 Aug 2013, at 14:50, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Now that the comment period has conclude the IGO-INGO group is moving toward final report - and trying to do it very quickly.
>> 
>> The consensus call portion of the process has begun with a bang.
>> 
>> The note below explains the activity we are now engaged in.
>> 
>> I have replaced the blank form Thomas provided with my best guess of a NCSG position based on many conversations we have had over the years.  But I might be wrong.
>> 
>> I am copying this to the Policy team as they are the ones who need to approve a position based on your comments and their understanding.
>> 
>> In addition to a NCSG postion, each of the constituencies is encouraged to come up with a view, especially if that view is different than the one the NCSG Policy committee agrees on.  This is a complicated topic and coming down to a few words that expresses all the nuance is tough.
>> 
>> thanks
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>
>>> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September, 23.59 UTC
>>> Date: 21 August 2013 17:17:54 EDT
>>> To: "gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
>>> 
>>> All,
>>> thank you again for a productive call earlier today. As you can see from the attached document, we have incorporated the changes that were requested. These are:
>>> 
>>> 1)      A separate general table with language was added for those organizations that are granted protection and for the designations that are protected
>>> 2)      The error of Rec #5 for IGOs was removed.
>>> 3)      Scope1,2 for INGOs are updated.
>>> 4)      The TMCH recommendations to include scope 1 are adjusted.
>>> 5)      The reference to the current assessment of the consensus level was removed 
>>> 6)      The consensus scale introduction has been removed.
>>> 
>>> I understand that not everyone in the working group is happy with the recommendations, but it is my belief that this document includes the recommendations that got most traction based on the analysis of the discussions we had and the documents that were exchanged during the course of the WG and in part of the pre-decessing drafting team. 
>>> 
>>> As positions held by working group members have been exchanged and discussed by the group and no new ideas are in sight despite working group meetings, G-Council briefings, public comment and the session in Durban, it is now time to conduct the consensus call, which I hereby initiate. 
>>> 
>>> Please note that the "Recommendations not Receiving adequate support for all organizations" are NOT part of the consensus call as they did not get sufficient traction. However, they are included for information purposes. 
>>> 
>>> I would now ask you to get back to your respective groups / organizations and provide feedback on the recommendations. You are not required to give one answer for all protections and all categories of organizations, but you can indicate the position for each item individually. 
>>> 
>>> It is very well possible that one or more recommendations in the table to not reach consensus level, but I took the approach to only exclude those options that obviously did not enjoy substantial support. 
>>> 
>>> In case you / your group wishes to file a minority position, please make sure that you have that ready be the end of the deadline. I understand that some of you wish to make such statements. 
>>> 
>>> One final remark: I know that meeting the dates in the work plan is ambitious. I know that all of you have generously given your time and expertise to allow the working group to get as far as we are now. Wouldn't it be great to enable both the GNSO Council as well as the ICANN Board to see the results of our work by the next ICANN meeting? This would help avoid a policy clash and also demonstrate that consensus-driven community work does not take ages despite a highly controversial and complex topic.
>>> 
>>> Your input is requested by 3 September 2013 @ 23:59 UTC
>>> 
>>> Thanks again,
>>> Thomas
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG.doc>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From robin  Wed Aug 28 00:47:26 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:47:26 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September,
	23.59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <6EBFF4EF-64B6-43C4-8234-86A2F019B620@acm.org>
References: <CD58B553-2619-4FDF-A87B-2EC52A81EA01@anwaelte.de>
	<80F178D1-780E-4329-8E98-7F36E95FB575@acm.org>
	<B3CC4FB7-A677-4B4C-89F9-39C1908428AB@ella.com>
	<6EBFF4EF-64B6-43C4-8234-86A2F019B620@acm.org>
Message-ID: <03642979-4F11-4343-A1AE-4EC23026C9C7@ipjustice.org>

Thanks, Avri!

I made some additions to the text and also added my disagreement with support for fee waivers and a number of other privileges in the list of recommendations.  Hopefully we can include the spectrum of views within our group in the final tally.  (Attached).  It would be good to hear what others think as well and come to some consensus views in time to influence these recommendations.  

So please, PC members, please take a moment to review these and report back to the group your views asap.  Thanks much!

Best,
Robin


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG-rev2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 81920 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130827/aab6a8bd/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------



On Aug 27, 2013, at 12:50 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Note: this is not last call, but a rather a call on what position we go into the consensus discussions with.
> 
> Robin, Wolfgang, you are both in the group what do you think?
> 
> avri
> 
> On 27 Aug 2013, at 15:16, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Just got the reminder of the meeting next week.
>> do the members of the PC concur with the status as I have given it in the attachment?
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG.doc>
>> 
>> On 22 Aug 2013, at 14:50, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Now that the comment period has conclude the IGO-INGO group is moving toward final report - and trying to do it very quickly.
>>> 
>>> The consensus call portion of the process has begun with a bang.
>>> 
>>> The note below explains the activity we are now engaged in.
>>> 
>>> I have replaced the blank form Thomas provided with my best guess of a NCSG position based on many conversations we have had over the years.  But I might be wrong.
>>> 
>>> I am copying this to the Policy team as they are the ones who need to approve a position based on your comments and their understanding.
>>> 
>>> In addition to a NCSG postion, each of the constituencies is encouraged to come up with a view, especially if that view is different than the one the NCSG Policy committee agrees on.  This is a complicated topic and coming down to a few words that expresses all the nuance is tough.
>>> 
>>> thanks
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>>> From: Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>
>>>> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September, 23.59 UTC
>>>> Date: 21 August 2013 17:17:54 EDT
>>>> To: "gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
>>>> 
>>>> All,
>>>> thank you again for a productive call earlier today. As you can see from the attached document, we have incorporated the changes that were requested. These are:
>>>> 
>>>> 1)      A separate general table with language was added for those organizations that are granted protection and for the designations that are protected
>>>> 2)      The error of Rec #5 for IGOs was removed.
>>>> 3)      Scope1,2 for INGOs are updated.
>>>> 4)      The TMCH recommendations to include scope 1 are adjusted.
>>>> 5)      The reference to the current assessment of the consensus level was removed 
>>>> 6)      The consensus scale introduction has been removed.
>>>> 
>>>> I understand that not everyone in the working group is happy with the recommendations, but it is my belief that this document includes the recommendations that got most traction based on the analysis of the discussions we had and the documents that were exchanged during the course of the WG and in part of the pre-decessing drafting team. 
>>>> 
>>>> As positions held by working group members have been exchanged and discussed by the group and no new ideas are in sight despite working group meetings, G-Council briefings, public comment and the session in Durban, it is now time to conduct the consensus call, which I hereby initiate. 
>>>> 
>>>> Please note that the "Recommendations not Receiving adequate support for all organizations" are NOT part of the consensus call as they did not get sufficient traction. However, they are included for information purposes. 
>>>> 
>>>> I would now ask you to get back to your respective groups / organizations and provide feedback on the recommendations. You are not required to give one answer for all protections and all categories of organizations, but you can indicate the position for each item individually. 
>>>> 
>>>> It is very well possible that one or more recommendations in the table to not reach consensus level, but I took the approach to only exclude those options that obviously did not enjoy substantial support. 
>>>> 
>>>> In case you / your group wishes to file a minority position, please make sure that you have that ready be the end of the deadline. I understand that some of you wish to make such statements. 
>>>> 
>>>> One final remark: I know that meeting the dates in the work plan is ambitious. I know that all of you have generously given your time and expertise to allow the working group to get as far as we are now. Wouldn't it be great to enable both the GNSO Council as well as the ICANN Board to see the results of our work by the next ICANN meeting? This would help avoid a policy clash and also demonstrate that consensus-driven community work does not take ages despite a highly controversial and complex topic.
>>>> 
>>>> Your input is requested by 3 September 2013 @ 23:59 UTC
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks again,
>>>> Thomas
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG.doc>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 



From avri  Wed Aug 28 02:19:00 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 19:19:00 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September,
	23.59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <03642979-4F11-4343-A1AE-4EC23026C9C7@ipjustice.org>
References: <CD58B553-2619-4FDF-A87B-2EC52A81EA01@anwaelte.de>
	<80F178D1-780E-4329-8E98-7F36E95FB575@acm.org>
	<B3CC4FB7-A677-4B4C-89F9-39C1908428AB@ella.com>
	<6EBFF4EF-64B6-43C4-8234-86A2F019B620@acm.org>
	<03642979-4F11-4343-A1AE-4EC23026C9C7@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <2A1EF5C8-DE50-4E97-BFEE-9FC8D132AD5C@acm.org>

Hi,

Went through your comments.

You had a question:

> The WG recommends that the respective policies are amended so that curative rights of the UDRP and URS can be used by those organizations that are granted protections based on their identified designations.
> 
> RG: I don?t understand what this is actually recommending.


The recommendation include the recommendation that the petitioners (RCRC, IGO, INGO) be able to use the URS and UDRP.  But these are trademark oriented and would be augmented to include provision for IGO/INGO that are on the list.

Useless to say that the URS and UDRP methods can be used so you dont need blocking, if they cant use these mechanisms.

And, my questions

You not only want the RCRC blocking removed (the NCSG general position) but you don't want them to get the TMCh, URS and UDRP capabilities we are recommending for IGO/INGO?

As you know I am for removing the IOC from all protections, but I thought there was some merit in the RCRC case given Geneva Conventions, other international law and a variety of national laws actually protecting their names.  I agree that nothing should be blocked on this.  But to deny them recourse to TMCH, URS and UDRP seems harsh.

My reason for recommending the fee waiver for INGO is:
- TMCH, URS, and UDRP are money making processes.  They should not making money off of NGOs
- the ones that deserve to be covered (not all on the ECOSOC list but many of them) can't afford these fees.

My reason for supporting it for IGO:
- I have been arguing for parity between IGO and INGO.

avri





On 27 Aug 2013, at 17:47, Robin Gross wrote:

> Thanks, Avri!
> 
> I made some additions to the text and also added my disagreement with support for fee waivers and a number of other privileges in the list of recommendations.  Hopefully we can include the spectrum of views within our group in the final tally.  (Attached).  It would be good to hear what others think as well and come to some consensus views in time to influence these recommendations.  
> 
> So please, PC members, please take a moment to review these and report back to the group your views asap.  Thanks much!
> 
> Best,
> Robin
> 
> 
> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG-rev2.doc>
> 
> 
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 12:50 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> Note: this is not last call, but a rather a call on what position we go into the consensus discussions with.
>> 
>> Robin, Wolfgang, you are both in the group what do you think?
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 27 Aug 2013, at 15:16, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Just got the reminder of the meeting next week.
>>> do the members of the PC concur with the status as I have given it in the attachment?
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG.doc>
>>> 
>>> On 22 Aug 2013, at 14:50, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Now that the comment period has conclude the IGO-INGO group is moving toward final report - and trying to do it very quickly.
>>>> 
>>>> The consensus call portion of the process has begun with a bang.
>>>> 
>>>> The note below explains the activity we are now engaged in.
>>>> 
>>>> I have replaced the blank form Thomas provided with my best guess of a NCSG position based on many conversations we have had over the years.  But I might be wrong.
>>>> 
>>>> I am copying this to the Policy team as they are the ones who need to approve a position based on your comments and their understanding.
>>>> 
>>>> In addition to a NCSG postion, each of the constituencies is encouraged to come up with a view, especially if that view is different than the one the NCSG Policy committee agrees on.  This is a complicated topic and coming down to a few words that expresses all the nuance is tough.
>>>> 
>>>> thanks
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>>> From: Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>
>>>>> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September, 23.59 UTC
>>>>> Date: 21 August 2013 17:17:54 EDT
>>>>> To: "gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
>>>>> 
>>>>> All,
>>>>> thank you again for a productive call earlier today. As you can see from the attached document, we have incorporated the changes that were requested. These are:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1)      A separate general table with language was added for those organizations that are granted protection and for the designations that are protected
>>>>> 2)      The error of Rec #5 for IGOs was removed.
>>>>> 3)      Scope1,2 for INGOs are updated.
>>>>> 4)      The TMCH recommendations to include scope 1 are adjusted.
>>>>> 5)      The reference to the current assessment of the consensus level was removed 
>>>>> 6)      The consensus scale introduction has been removed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I understand that not everyone in the working group is happy with the recommendations, but it is my belief that this document includes the recommendations that got most traction based on the analysis of the discussions we had and the documents that were exchanged during the course of the WG and in part of the pre-decessing drafting team. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> As positions held by working group members have been exchanged and discussed by the group and no new ideas are in sight despite working group meetings, G-Council briefings, public comment and the session in Durban, it is now time to conduct the consensus call, which I hereby initiate. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please note that the "Recommendations not Receiving adequate support for all organizations" are NOT part of the consensus call as they did not get sufficient traction. However, they are included for information purposes. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would now ask you to get back to your respective groups / organizations and provide feedback on the recommendations. You are not required to give one answer for all protections and all categories of organizations, but you can indicate the position for each item individually. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is very well possible that one or more recommendations in the table to not reach consensus level, but I took the approach to only exclude those options that obviously did not enjoy substantial support. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> In case you / your group wishes to file a minority position, please make sure that you have that ready be the end of the deadline. I understand that some of you wish to make such statements. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> One final remark: I know that meeting the dates in the work plan is ambitious. I know that all of you have generously given your time and expertise to allow the working group to get as far as we are now. Wouldn't it be great to enable both the GNSO Council as well as the ICANN Board to see the results of our work by the next ICANN meeting? This would help avoid a policy clash and also demonstrate that consensus-driven community work does not take ages despite a highly controversial and complex topic.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Your input is requested by 3 September 2013 @ 23:59 UTC
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks again,
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG.doc>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From rafik.dammak  Wed Aug 28 04:18:33 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 10:18:33 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Privacy group
 submission on the EWG
In-Reply-To: <A8889CB5-F8A0-4728-BBC8-6F44173CBBE2@acm.org>
References: <36313EA9-08CB-43A3-8E84-FDF406F2D887@acm.org>
	<5E139E28-CC15-4EE0-BBB5-B013383C9DAE@ipjustice.org>
	<06D7F020-9B4C-4544-9040-F5033220FAE8@ipjustice.org>
	<A8889CB5-F8A0-4728-BBC8-6F44173CBBE2@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmfa07GGE=rKNuAR251ZZ-eCK8tWRfmN9dKh7XtCCKO7g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

I support this approach and the endorsement by NCSG  membership of the
comments! and I want to thank the group of volunteers who worked on the
drafting.

Best,

Rafik


2013/8/27 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>

> hi,
>
> I suggest the NCSG-PC send the following:
>
> The NCSG community has reviewed and NCSG PC endorses the comments
> submitted by the NCSG Policy group and consigned by it members.
>
> The statements fully endorsed are:
>
> (list here)
>
> signed NCSG-PC
>
> anyone object?
> anyone want to add anything else to the note.
>
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 26 Aug 2013, at 11:27, Robin Gross wrote:
>
> > Dear NCSG PC Members:
> >
> > Can NCSG PC support these comments that were submitted by a group of
> NCSG members last week?  We've got a short timeframe for submitting the
> endorsement, so can we spend a moment to consider this in the next day or
> two please?
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Robin
> >
> >
> > On Aug 22, 2013, at 6:31 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> >
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >>
> >>> From: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
> >>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Privacy group submission on the EWG
> >>> Date: August 22, 2013 9:53:35 AM PDT
> >>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> >>> Reply-To: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Members of the NCSG Privacy group <
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/privacy>  have submitted the
> following comments to the gTLD Service model comment period.
> >>>
> >>>     ? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Who on
> the   EWG Specializes in Abuse of the Whois Data?   Kathy Kleiman
> >>>     ? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services We
> Strongly Object to a Centralized Whois/Registrant Data Database; What were
> Plans B and C?   Kathy Kleiman
> >>>     ? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Why is
> the   Whois Broken?   Kathy Kleiman
> >>>     ? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services The EWG
>      Use Cases Seem Fundamentally Flawed   Kathy Kleiman
> >>>     ? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Data
> Elements Will Require a Separate Review by the ICANN Community   Kathy
> Kleiman
> >>>     ? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services
> Potential    Conflict of Interest   Edward Morris
> >>>     ? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Has the
>      EWG Evaluated Closely What is at Stake for Registrants?   Edward Morris
> >>> found at: <
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-en.htm
> >
> >>>
> >>> The NCSG PC is being asked to endorse these statements as an NCSG
> position.
> >>>
> >>> The membership is invited to discuss, to send in comments of their
> own, to inform the Policy Committee through discussions on NCSG-DISCUSS on
> their views on endorsing these statement, ... whatever really.
> >>>
> >>> The Policy Committee has until 6 Sept 13 to send in and
> endorsement/comments.
> >>>
> >>> thanks
> >>>
> >>> avri
> >>> written as:
> >>> Alternate Chair, PC-NCSG
> >>> Participant in NCSG Policy group
> >>>  a co-signer of the statements
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130828/7e9318a1/attachment.html>


From robin  Wed Aug 28 04:24:07 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:24:07 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Last Call: NCSG endorses Kleiman/Morris comments
In-Reply-To: <54515EA8-E246-433A-8AD2-55768B14CCFC@acm.org>
References: <54515EA8-E246-433A-8AD2-55768B14CCFC@acm.org>
Message-ID: <51FFF8FF-96D4-4029-86C3-747111E94E7A@ipjustice.org>

Great, thank you very much!  Please do send the comment in.

Thanks again,
Robin


On Aug 27, 2013, at 8:51 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Having seen nothing but positive comments and had at least one from each constituency, 
> I will send the following out in 24 hours (after 1600 UTC 28 aug)
> 
> Please send corrections if you have any.
> 
> avri
> 
> Robin: unless it is better to have you as chair send it out?  views?
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> The NCSG community has reviewed and the NCSG Policy Committee endorses the comments submitted by the NCSG Policy group and consigned by it members.
> 
> The statements fully endorsed are:
> 
> Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Who on the	EWG Specializes in Abuse of the Whois Data?   Kathy Kleiman
> Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services We Strongly Object to a Centralized Whois/Registrant Data Database; What were Plans B and C?   Kathy Kleiman
> Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Why is the	Whois Broken?   Kathy Kleiman
> Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services The EWG	Use Cases Seem Fundamentally Flawed   Kathy Kleiman
> Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Data	Elements Will Require a Separate Review by the ICANN Community   Kathy Kleiman
> Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Potential	Conflict of Interest   Edward Morris
> Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Has the	EWG Evaluated Closely What is at Stake for Registrants?   Edward Morris
> found at: <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-en.htm>
> 
> According to the NCSG charter, it is the NCSG Policy Committee that is responsible for surveying the membership and making policy decisions for the NCSG.  
> 
> Submitted on behalf of the NCSG-PC
> 
> signed
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130827/d837c982/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Wed Aug 28 04:40:58 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:40:58 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September,
	23.59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <2A1EF5C8-DE50-4E97-BFEE-9FC8D132AD5C@acm.org>
References: <CD58B553-2619-4FDF-A87B-2EC52A81EA01@anwaelte.de>
	<80F178D1-780E-4329-8E98-7F36E95FB575@acm.org>
	<B3CC4FB7-A677-4B4C-89F9-39C1908428AB@ella.com>
	<6EBFF4EF-64B6-43C4-8234-86A2F019B620@acm.org>
	<03642979-4F11-4343-A1AE-4EC23026C9C7@ipjustice.org>
	<2A1EF5C8-DE50-4E97-BFEE-9FC8D132AD5C@acm.org>
Message-ID: <6F92BCA3-7F8D-42FA-9B55-17F87614F877@ipjustice.org>

Thanks for your thoughts.  I've added a few comments and explanations below.

On Aug 27, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Went through your comments.
> 
> You had a question:
> 
>> The WG recommends that the respective policies are amended so that curative rights of the UDRP and URS can be used by those organizations that are granted protections based on their identified designations.
>> 
>> RG: I don?t understand what this is actually recommending.
> 
> 
> The recommendation include the recommendation that the petitioners (RCRC, IGO, INGO) be able to use the URS and UDRP.  But these are trademark oriented and would be augmented to include provision for IGO/INGO that are on the list.
> 
> Useless to say that the URS and UDRP methods can be used so you dont need blocking, if they cant use these mechanisms.

[RG:  Got it.  Thanks.]
> 
> And, my questions
> 
> You not only want the RCRC blocking removed (the NCSG general position) but you don't want them to get the TMCh, URS and UDRP capabilities we are recommending for IGO/INGO?

[RG: I guess I haven't been persuaded that any of these groups need and are entitled to special privileges of any stripe.]

> 
> As you know I am for removing the IOC from all protections, but I thought there was some merit in the RCRC case given Geneva Conventions, other international law and a variety of national laws actually protecting their names.  I agree that nothing should be blocked on this.  But to deny them recourse to TMCH, URS and UDRP seems harsh.
> 
> My reason for recommending the fee waiver for INGO is:
> - TMCH, URS, and UDRP are money making processes.  They should not making money off of NGOs
> - the ones that deserve to be covered (not all on the ECOSOC list but many of them) can't afford these fees.
> 
[RG:  I see it from a different perspective.  I see the objections as enabling restrictions on the speech of others, so I don't want to make it easy to create such restrictions with fee reductions.  The impact on speech from the policy is my focus, not that someone is making money.]

> My reason for supporting it for IGO:
> - I have been arguing for parity between IGO and INGO.

[RG: yes and I don't disagree that they can be treated the same.  I just haven't been persuaded that anyone else needs any more special privileges than what was in the guidebook.  I know I will lose and that the board already decided this based on the powerful lobbying it received, but I think it should be on the record that not everyone in the community was in agreement with creating these late privileges for special interests.]

> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 27 Aug 2013, at 17:47, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> Thanks, Avri!
>> 
>> I made some additions to the text and also added my disagreement with support for fee waivers and a number of other privileges in the list of recommendations.  Hopefully we can include the spectrum of views within our group in the final tally.  (Attached).  It would be good to hear what others think as well and come to some consensus views in time to influence these recommendations.  
>> 
>> So please, PC members, please take a moment to review these and report back to the group your views asap.  Thanks much!
>> 
>> Best,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG-rev2.doc>
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 27, 2013, at 12:50 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>>> Note: this is not last call, but a rather a call on what position we go into the consensus discussions with.
>>> 
>>> Robin, Wolfgang, you are both in the group what do you think?
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> On 27 Aug 2013, at 15:16, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Just got the reminder of the meeting next week.
>>>> do the members of the PC concur with the status as I have given it in the attachment?
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG.doc>
>>>> 
>>>> On 22 Aug 2013, at 14:50, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Now that the comment period has conclude the IGO-INGO group is moving toward final report - and trying to do it very quickly.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The consensus call portion of the process has begun with a bang.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The note below explains the activity we are now engaged in.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have replaced the blank form Thomas provided with my best guess of a NCSG position based on many conversations we have had over the years.  But I might be wrong.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am copying this to the Policy team as they are the ones who need to approve a position based on your comments and their understanding.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In addition to a NCSG postion, each of the constituencies is encouraged to come up with a view, especially if that view is different than the one the NCSG Policy committee agrees on.  This is a complicated topic and coming down to a few words that expresses all the nuance is tough.
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> 
>>>>> avri
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>
>>>>>> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September, 23.59 UTC
>>>>>> Date: 21 August 2013 17:17:54 EDT
>>>>>> To: "gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>> thank you again for a productive call earlier today. As you can see from the attached document, we have incorporated the changes that were requested. These are:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1)      A separate general table with language was added for those organizations that are granted protection and for the designations that are protected
>>>>>> 2)      The error of Rec #5 for IGOs was removed.
>>>>>> 3)      Scope1,2 for INGOs are updated.
>>>>>> 4)      The TMCH recommendations to include scope 1 are adjusted.
>>>>>> 5)      The reference to the current assessment of the consensus level was removed 
>>>>>> 6)      The consensus scale introduction has been removed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I understand that not everyone in the working group is happy with the recommendations, but it is my belief that this document includes the recommendations that got most traction based on the analysis of the discussions we had and the documents that were exchanged during the course of the WG and in part of the pre-decessing drafting team. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As positions held by working group members have been exchanged and discussed by the group and no new ideas are in sight despite working group meetings, G-Council briefings, public comment and the session in Durban, it is now time to conduct the consensus call, which I hereby initiate. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please note that the "Recommendations not Receiving adequate support for all organizations" are NOT part of the consensus call as they did not get sufficient traction. However, they are included for information purposes. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would now ask you to get back to your respective groups / organizations and provide feedback on the recommendations. You are not required to give one answer for all protections and all categories of organizations, but you can indicate the position for each item individually. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is very well possible that one or more recommendations in the table to not reach consensus level, but I took the approach to only exclude those options that obviously did not enjoy substantial support. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In case you / your group wishes to file a minority position, please make sure that you have that ready be the end of the deadline. I understand that some of you wish to make such statements. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> One final remark: I know that meeting the dates in the work plan is ambitious. I know that all of you have generously given your time and expertise to allow the working group to get as far as we are now. Wouldn't it be great to enable both the GNSO Council as well as the ICANN Board to see the results of our work by the next ICANN meeting? This would help avoid a policy clash and also demonstrate that consensus-driven community work does not take ages despite a highly controversial and complex topic.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Your input is requested by 3 September 2013 @ 23:59 UTC
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks again,
>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG.doc>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From avri  Wed Aug 28 04:59:39 2013
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 21:59:39 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September,
 23.59 UTC
Message-ID: <8i27gl5o7nouoyaaynpkeden.1377655179093@email.android.com>

Hi,

I have two thoughts

1. I hate that we have protections for businesses, trademarks, and nothing for ngos. Just part of the whole tilt this place has to worship of money first.

2. I too want to take away blocking privileges from everyone but I want to say they can use objections and RPMs.

You will definitely lose in the igo/ingo group. At this point though, you might still win in ncsg.

Avri
Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

-------- Original message --------
From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> 
Date: 08/27/2013  21:40  (GMT-05:00) 
To: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> 
Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> 
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September,
 	23.59 UTC 
 
Thanks for your thoughts.? I've added a few comments and explanations below.

On Aug 27, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Went through your comments.
> 
> You had a question:
> 
>> The WG recommends that the respective policies are amended so that curative rights of the UDRP and URS can be used by those organizations that are granted protections based on their identified designations.
>> 
>> RG: I don?t understand what this is actually recommending.
> 
> 
> The recommendation include the recommendation that the petitioners (RCRC, IGO, INGO) be able to use the URS and UDRP.? But these are trademark oriented and would be augmented to include provision for IGO/INGO that are on the list.
> 
> Useless to say that the URS and UDRP methods can be used so you dont need blocking, if they cant use these mechanisms.

[RG:? Got it.? Thanks.]
> 
> And, my questions
> 
> You not only want the RCRC blocking removed (the NCSG general position) but you don't want them to get the TMCh, URS and UDRP capabilities we are recommending for IGO/INGO?

[RG: I guess I haven't been persuaded that any of these groups need and are entitled to special privileges of any stripe.]

> 
> As you know I am for removing the IOC from all protections, but I thought there was some merit in the RCRC case given Geneva Conventions, other international law and a variety of national laws actually protecting their names.? I agree that nothing should be blocked on this.? But to deny them recourse to TMCH, URS and UDRP seems harsh.
> 
> My reason for recommending the fee waiver for INGO is:
> - TMCH, URS, and UDRP are money making processes.? They should not making money off of NGOs
> - the ones that deserve to be covered (not all on the ECOSOC list but many of them) can't afford these fees.
> 
[RG:? I see it from a different perspective.? I see the objections as enabling restrictions on the speech of others, so I don't want to make it easy to create such restrictions with fee reductions.? The impact on speech from the policy is my focus, not that someone is making money.]

> My reason for supporting it for IGO:
> - I have been arguing for parity between IGO and INGO.

[RG: yes and I don't disagree that they can be treated the same.? I just haven't been persuaded that anyone else needs any more special privileges than what was in the guidebook.? I know I will lose and that the board already decided this based on the powerful lobbying it received, but I think it should be on the record that not everyone in the community was in agreement with creating these late privileges for special interests.]

> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 27 Aug 2013, at 17:47, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> Thanks, Avri!
>> 
>> I made some additions to the text and also added my disagreement with support for fee waivers and a number of other privileges in the list of recommendations.? Hopefully we can include the spectrum of views within our group in the final tally.? (Attached).? It would be good to hear what others think as well and come to some consensus views in time to influence these recommendations.? 
>> 
>> So please, PC members, please take a moment to review these and report back to the group your views asap.? Thanks much!
>> 
>> Best,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG-rev2.doc>
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 27, 2013, at 12:50 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>>> Note: this is not last call, but a rather a call on what position we go into the consensus discussions with.
>>> 
>>> Robin, Wolfgang, you are both in the group what do you think?
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> On 27 Aug 2013, at 15:16, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Just got the reminder of the meeting next week.
>>>> do the members of the PC concur with the status as I have given it in the attachment?
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG.doc>
>>>> 
>>>> On 22 Aug 2013, at 14:50, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Now that the comment period has conclude the IGO-INGO group is moving toward final report - and trying to do it very quickly.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The consensus call portion of the process has begun with a bang.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The note below explains the activity we are now engaged in.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have replaced the blank form Thomas provided with my best guess of a NCSG position based on many conversations we have had over the years.? But I might be wrong.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I am copying this to the Policy team as they are the ones who need to approve a position based on your comments and their understanding.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In addition to a NCSG postion, each of the constituencies is encouraged to come up with a view, especially if that view is different than the one the NCSG Policy committee agrees on.? This is a complicated topic and coming down to a few words that expresses all the nuance is tough.
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks
>>>>> 
>>>>> avri
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>
>>>>>> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September, 23.59 UTC
>>>>>> Date: 21 August 2013 17:17:54 EDT
>>>>>> To: "gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> All,
>>>>>> thank you again for a productive call earlier today. As you can see from the attached document, we have incorporated the changes that were requested. These are:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1)????? A separate general table with language was added for those organizations that are granted protection and for the designations that are protected
>>>>>> 2)????? The error of Rec #5 for IGOs was removed.
>>>>>> 3)????? Scope1,2 for INGOs are updated.
>>>>>> 4)????? The TMCH recommendations to include scope 1 are adjusted.
>>>>>> 5)????? The reference to the current assessment of the consensus level was removed 
>>>>>> 6)????? The consensus scale introduction has been removed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I understand that not everyone in the working group is happy with the recommendations, but it is my belief that this document includes the recommendations that got most traction based on the analysis of the discussions we had and the documents that were exchanged during the course of the WG and in part of the pre-decessing drafting team. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As positions held by working group members have been exchanged and discussed by the group and no new ideas are in sight despite working group meetings, G-Council briefings, public comment and the session in Durban, it is now time to conduct the consensus call, which I hereby initiate. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please note that the "Recommendations not Receiving adequate support for all organizations" are NOT part of the consensus call as they did not get sufficient traction. However, they are included for information purposes. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would now ask you to get back to your respective groups / organizations and provide feedback on the recommendations. You are not required to give one answer for all protections and all categories of organizations, but you can indicate the position for each item individually. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It is very well possible that one or more recommendations in the table to not reach consensus level, but I took the approach to only exclude those options that obviously did not enjoy substantial support. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In case you / your group wishes to file a minority position, please make sure that you have that ready be the end of the deadline. I understand that some of you wish to make such statements. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> One final remark: I know that meeting the dates in the work plan is ambitious. I know that all of you have generously given your time and expertise to allow the working group to get as far as we are now. Wouldn't it be great to enable both the GNSO Council as well as the ICANN Board to see the results of our work by the next ICANN meeting? This would help avoid a policy clash and also demonstrate that consensus-driven community work does not take ages despite a highly controversial and complex topic.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Your input is requested by 3 September 2013 @ 23:59 UTC
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks again,
>>>>>> Thomas
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG.doc>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 


_______________________________________________
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/20130827/b1d53fd9/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Wed Aug 28 16:17:27 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 09:17:27 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Last Call: NCSG endorses Kleiman/Morris comments
In-Reply-To: <51FFF8FF-96D4-4029-86C3-747111E94E7A@ipjustice.org>
References: <54515EA8-E246-433A-8AD2-55768B14CCFC@acm.org>
	<51FFF8FF-96D4-4029-86C3-747111E94E7A@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <7351B123-9CC7-4F90-8B7D-D48D8FC15D8F@ACM.ORG>

Thanks.

Ok, I will send it in, as long as I hear no objection before 1600 UTC - 3 hours from now - the end of the 24 last call.

cheers.

avri

On 27 Aug 2013, at 21:24, Robin Gross wrote:

> Great, thank you very much!  Please do send the comment in.
> 
> Thanks again,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 8:51 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> Having seen nothing but positive comments and had at least one from each constituency, 
>> I will send the following out in 24 hours (after 1600 UTC 28 aug)
>> 
>> Please send corrections if you have any.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> Robin: unless it is better to have you as chair send it out?  views?
>> 
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> 
>> The NCSG community has reviewed and the NCSG Policy Committee endorses the comments submitted by the NCSG Policy group and consigned by it members.
>> 
>> The statements fully endorsed are:
>> 
>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Who on the	EWG Specializes in Abuse of the Whois Data?   Kathy Kleiman
>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services We Strongly Object to a Centralized Whois/Registrant Data Database; What were Plans B and C?   Kathy Kleiman
>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Why is the	Whois Broken?   Kathy Kleiman
>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services The EWG	Use Cases Seem Fundamentally Flawed   Kathy Kleiman
>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Data	Elements Will Require a Separate Review by the ICANN Community   Kathy Kleiman
>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Potential	Conflict of Interest   Edward Morris
>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Has the	EWG Evaluated Closely What is at Stake for Registrants?   Edward Morris
>> found at: <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-en.htm>
>> 
>> According to the NCSG charter, it is the NCSG Policy Committee that is responsible for surveying the membership and making policy decisions for the NCSG.  
>> 
>> Submitted on behalf of the NCSG-PC
>> 
>> signed
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From robin  Wed Aug 28 18:44:12 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 08:44:12 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September,
	23.59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <8i27gl5o7nouoyaaynpkeden.1377655179093@email.android.com>
References: <8i27gl5o7nouoyaaynpkeden.1377655179093@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <9C6F8326-83A8-4E09-9C26-402B209D9883@ipjustice.org>

Thanks again.  A few points below.

On Aug 27, 2013, at 6:59 PM, avri doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I have two thoughts
> 
> 1. I hate that we have protections for businesses, trademarks, and nothing for ngos. Just part of the whole tilt this place has to worship of money first.
[RG: I view these as unwarranted special privileges for special interests, not as "protections".  Again, my main concern is with the removal of words from use by EVERYONE in the DNS, so making it easier and cheaper to do that for any segment, even the poor, is not going to be my goal.  That money is changing hands is not my main concern - freedom to use words is.

> 
> 2. I too want to take away blocking privileges from everyone but I want to say they can use objections and RPMs.
> 
[RG: I don't want to encourage further policymaking in this fashion (after rules set and applications received, based mostly on lobbying, etc.) by rewarding these groups with giving them any special privileges at all.  It just sends the message to the next IOC and RC that ICANN is a push-over and will create special privileges for you if you lobby hard enough.]

Robin

> You will definitely lose in the igo/ingo group. At this point though, you might still win in ncsg.
> 
> Avri
> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> 
> Date: 08/27/2013 21:40 (GMT-05:00) 
> To: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> 
> Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> 
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September, 23.59 UTC 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your thoughts.  I've added a few comments and explanations below.
> 
> On Aug 27, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Went through your comments.
> > 
> > You had a question:
> > 
> >> The WG recommends that the respective policies are amended so that curative rights of the UDRP and URS can be used by those organizations that are granted protections based on their identified designations.
> >> 
> >> RG: I don?t understand what this is actually recommending.
> > 
> > 
> > The recommendation include the recommendation that the petitioners (RCRC, IGO, INGO) be able to use the URS and UDRP.  But these are trademark oriented and would be augmented to include provision for IGO/INGO that are on the list.
> > 
> > Useless to say that the URS and UDRP methods can be used so you dont need blocking, if they cant use these mechanisms.
> 
> [RG:  Got it.  Thanks.]
> > 
> > And, my questions
> > 
> > You not only want the RCRC blocking removed (the NCSG general position) but you don't want them to get the TMCh, URS and UDRP capabilities we are recommending for IGO/INGO?
> 
> [RG: I guess I haven't been persuaded that any of these groups need and are entitled to special privileges of any stripe.]
> 
> > 
> > As you know I am for removing the IOC from all protections, but I thought there was some merit in the RCRC case given Geneva Conventions, other international law and a variety of national laws actually protecting their names.  I agree that nothing should be blocked on this.  But to deny them recourse to TMCH, URS and UDRP seems harsh.
> > 
> > My reason for recommending the fee waiver for INGO is:
> > - TMCH, URS, and UDRP are money making processes.  They should not making money off of NGOs
> > - the ones that deserve to be covered (not all on the ECOSOC list but many of them) can't afford these fees.
> > 
> [RG:  I see it from a different perspective.  I see the objections as enabling restrictions on the speech of others, so I don't want to make it easy to create such restrictions with fee reductions.  The impact on speech from the policy is my focus, not that someone is making money.]
> 
> > My reason for supporting it for IGO:
> > - I have been arguing for parity between IGO and INGO.
> 
> [RG: yes and I don't disagree that they can be treated the same.  I just haven't been persuaded that anyone else needs any more special privileges than what was in the guidebook.  I know I will lose and that the board already decided this based on the powerful lobbying it received, but I think it should be on the record that not everyone in the community was in agreement with creating these late privileges for special interests.]
> 
> > 
> > avri
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 27 Aug 2013, at 17:47, Robin Gross wrote:
> > 
> >> Thanks, Avri!
> >> 
> >> I made some additions to the text and also added my disagreement with support for fee waivers and a number of other privileges in the list of recommendations.  Hopefully we can include the spectrum of views within our group in the final tally.  (Attached).  It would be good to hear what others think as well and come to some consensus views in time to influence these recommendations.  
> >> 
> >> So please, PC members, please take a moment to review these and report back to the group your views asap.  Thanks much!
> >> 
> >> Best,
> >> Robin
> >> 
> >> 
> >> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG-rev2.doc>
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Aug 27, 2013, at 12:50 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Note: this is not last call, but a rather a call on what position we go into the consensus discussions with.
> >>> 
> >>> Robin, Wolfgang, you are both in the group what do you think?
> >>> 
> >>> avri
> >>> 
> >>> On 27 Aug 2013, at 15:16, Avri Doria wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>> 
> >>>> Just got the reminder of the meeting next week.
> >>>> do the members of the PC concur with the status as I have given it in the attachment?
> >>>> 
> >>>> avri
> >>>> 
> >>>> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG.doc>
> >>>> 
> >>>> On 22 Aug 2013, at 14:50, Avri Doria wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Now that the comment period has conclude the IGO-INGO group is moving toward final report - and trying to do it very quickly.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The consensus call portion of the process has begun with a bang.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The note below explains the activity we are now engaged in.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I have replaced the blank form Thomas provided with my best guess of a NCSG position based on many conversations we have had over the years.  But I might be wrong.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I am copying this to the Policy team as they are the ones who need to approve a position based on your comments and their understanding.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> In addition to a NCSG postion, each of the constituencies is encouraged to come up with a view, especially if that view is different than the one the NCSG Policy committee agrees on.  This is a complicated topic and coming down to a few words that expresses all the nuance is tough.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> thanks
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> avri
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Begin forwarded message:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> From: Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>
> >>>>>> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus call - input requested by 3 September, 23.59 UTC
> >>>>>> Date: 21 August 2013 17:17:54 EDT
> >>>>>> To: "gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> All,
> >>>>>> thank you again for a productive call earlier today. As you can see from the attached document, we have incorporated the changes that were requested. These are:
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 1)      A separate general table with language was added for those organizations that are granted protection and for the designations that are protected
> >>>>>> 2)      The error of Rec #5 for IGOs was removed.
> >>>>>> 3)      Scope1,2 for INGOs are updated.
> >>>>>> 4)      The TMCH recommendations to include scope 1 are adjusted.
> >>>>>> 5)      The reference to the current assessment of the consensus level was removed 
> >>>>>> 6)      The consensus scale introduction has been removed.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> I understand that not everyone in the working group is happy with the recommendations, but it is my belief that this document includes the recommendations that got most traction based on the analysis of the discussions we had and the documents that were exchanged during the course of the WG and in part of the pre-decessing drafting team. 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> As positions held by working group members have been exchanged and discussed by the group and no new ideas are in sight despite working group meetings, G-Council briefings, public comment and the session in Durban, it is now time to conduct the consensus call, which I hereby initiate. 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Please note that the "Recommendations not Receiving adequate support for all organizations" are NOT part of the consensus call as they did not get sufficient traction. However, they are included for information purposes. 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> I would now ask you to get back to your respective groups / organizations and provide feedback on the recommendations. You are not required to give one answer for all protections and all categories of organizations, but you can indicate the position for each item individually. 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> It is very well possible that one or more recommendations in the table to not reach consensus level, but I took the approach to only exclude those options that obviously did not enjoy substantial support. 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> In case you / your group wishes to file a minority position, please make sure that you have that ready be the end of the deadline. I understand that some of you wish to make such statements. 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> One final remark: I know that meeting the dates in the work plan is ambitious. I know that all of you have generously given your time and expertise to allow the working group to get as far as we are now. Wouldn't it be great to enable both the GNSO Council as well as the ICANN Board to see the results of our work by the next ICANN meeting? This would help avoid a policy clash and also demonstrate that consensus-driven community work does not take ages despite a highly controversial and complex topic.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Your input is requested by 3 September 2013 @ 23:59 UTC
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Thanks again,
> >>>>>> Thomas
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG.doc>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>> 
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130828/448f6c9a/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Wed Aug 28 20:44:01 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:44:01 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Yet another issue (YAI?) GNSO Review
Message-ID: <437B29FD-E0B3-4A41-856F-5156918A570C@acm.org>

Hi,


http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-review-15jul13-en.htm

We missed the comment period.

it is in reply period

2 replies Google and ISPCP are against the delay.

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/

Personally I agree with them and am inclined to send a personal note, saying i agree the review  should not be delayed because the current  GNSO structure,  impacted by its 'binaries in opposition' modalities, doesn't work.

Should we try for something NCSGish?  Do we have a common view on:

GNSO Review now on schedule
GNSO delayed until the world is more stable

Or are we happy with the GNSO as it is - mostly deadlocked.

We have until 6 Sept.

avri





From avri  Wed Aug 28 22:48:55 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:48:55 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Informal midway update on NCSG discussions on 'consensus'
	points.
Message-ID: <7EF1984D-57AD-412C-9D76-EDA2842BF27D@acm.org>

Hi,

An update on the positions inside the NCSG.  

Or at least my view of it - NCSG, like ALAC, lists are all open archive so anyone can make their own evaluation.

The NCSG is still deliberating.

On some topics, we have a range of views ranging from: 

a - No Specal Privileges  For anyone  to 
  Let a restricted set of IGO, International Organizations and INGOs use Objection procedures and RPMs

b - Let INGOs use trademarks like everyone else  to 
     Accreditation by ECOSOC is equivalent to the IGO treaty requirements and stands in fair stead to business oriented trademarks

c  - IGO/INGO pay like everyone else to use RPMs to
    Giving them a break given their not-for-profit status 

The things I think we are agreed on, though I am still checking - BCC'ing this message to our open discussion list. -

I - In all issues we tend toward a fair and equivalent standard of treatment.  This is not just a throw away excuse as some may have characterized, but rather is an important driving principle in NCSG considerations.

II - We do not support blocking of names at either the first or second level.  That is we do not support expanding the reserved name list in any way.

III - We do not support giving those on reserved name lists (if they are expanded) a special privilege of exception from the reserved name list.

IV - We should not decide any policy issue based on the degree to which someone has lobbied the GAC and gotten them to issue Advice.   We should consider the Advice as one among many issues but not be ruled by it. 

I have not yet broached the issue of:

- Do Incumbents have to obey the same rules as new gTLDs, and what implications does this have for the renewal and transfer of current registration of names that may be have been added to the reserved list.  Is there a 'grandmother' rule?


I hope to have completed NCSG consensus opinion by next week's meeting.

avri

Writing as Alternate Chair of the NCSG Policy Committee in the midst of trying to determine our position.




From avri  Thu Aug 29 00:55:20 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:55:20 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Last Call: NCSG endorses Kleiman/Morris comments
In-Reply-To: <7351B123-9CC7-4F90-8B7D-D48D8FC15D8F@ACM.ORG>
References: <54515EA8-E246-433A-8AD2-55768B14CCFC@acm.org>
	<51FFF8FF-96D4-4029-86C3-747111E94E7A@ipjustice.org>
	<7351B123-9CC7-4F90-8B7D-D48D8FC15D8F@ACM.ORG>
Message-ID: <EABA514A-3B90-4C2D-906E-58AB2B1B07EF@acm.org>

Done

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/input-to-ewg/2013/000020.html


On 28 Aug 2013, at 09:17, Avri Doria wrote:

> Thanks.
> 
> Ok, I will send it in, as long as I hear no objection before 1600 UTC - 3 hours from now - the end of the 24 last call.
> 
> cheers.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 27 Aug 2013, at 21:24, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> Great, thank you very much!  Please do send the comment in.
>> 
>> Thanks again,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 27, 2013, at 8:51 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>>> Having seen nothing but positive comments and had at least one from each constituency, 
>>> I will send the following out in 24 hours (after 1600 UTC 28 aug)
>>> 
>>> Please send corrections if you have any.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> Robin: unless it is better to have you as chair send it out?  views?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The NCSG community has reviewed and the NCSG Policy Committee endorses the comments submitted by the NCSG Policy group and consigned by it members.
>>> 
>>> The statements fully endorsed are:
>>> 
>>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Who on the	EWG Specializes in Abuse of the Whois Data?   Kathy Kleiman
>>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services We Strongly Object to a Centralized Whois/Registrant Data Database; What were Plans B and C?   Kathy Kleiman
>>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Why is the	Whois Broken?   Kathy Kleiman
>>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services The EWG	Use Cases Seem Fundamentally Flawed   Kathy Kleiman
>>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Data	Elements Will Require a Separate Review by the ICANN Community   Kathy Kleiman
>>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Potential	Conflict of Interest   Edward Morris
>>> 	? Input to Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Has the	EWG Evaluated Closely What is at Stake for Registrants?   Edward Morris
>>> found at: <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-en.htm>
>>> 
>>> According to the NCSG charter, it is the NCSG Policy Committee that is responsible for surveying the membership and making policy decisions for the NCSG.  
>>> 
>>> Submitted on behalf of the NCSG-PC
>>> 
>>> signed
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 




From william.drake  Thu Aug 29 15:14:08 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:14:08 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Yet another issue (YAI?) GNSO Review
In-Reply-To: <437B29FD-E0B3-4A41-856F-5156918A570C@acm.org>
References: <437B29FD-E0B3-4A41-856F-5156918A570C@acm.org>
Message-ID: <890F3354-1E2A-4CDC-B6B6-6CFE3F6ED9F8@uzh.ch>

FWIW I would support a 'no delay' position.

Bill


On Aug 28, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> 
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-review-15jul13-en.htm
> 
> We missed the comment period.
> 
> it is in reply period
> 
> 2 replies Google and ISPCP are against the delay.
> 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/
> 
> Personally I agree with them and am inclined to send a personal note, saying i agree the review  should not be delayed because the current  GNSO structure,  impacted by its 'binaries in opposition' modalities, doesn't work.
> 
> Should we try for something NCSGish?  Do we have a common view on:
> 
> GNSO Review now on schedule
> GNSO delayed until the world is more stable
> 
> Or are we happy with the GNSO as it is - mostly deadlocked.
> 
> We have until 6 Sept.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

**********************************************************
William J. Drake
International Fellow & Lecturer
  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
  University of Zurich, Switzerland
Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130829/27d1e60d/attachment.html>


From robin  Thu Aug 29 21:19:31 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:19:31 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Yet another issue (YAI?) GNSO Review
In-Reply-To: <890F3354-1E2A-4CDC-B6B6-6CFE3F6ED9F8@uzh.ch>
References: <437B29FD-E0B3-4A41-856F-5156918A570C@acm.org>
	<890F3354-1E2A-4CDC-B6B6-6CFE3F6ED9F8@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <A9BB6434-9DFA-48DA-9A20-503C33C69213@ipjustice.org>

Agreed.  There is no reason not to get on with the GNSO Review and the needed improvements it could/should bring about.  ICANN desperately needs reform.

Thanks,
Robin


On Aug 29, 2013, at 5:14 AM, William Drake wrote:

> FWIW I would support a 'no delay' position.
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> On Aug 28, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gnso-review-15jul13-en.htm
>> 
>> We missed the comment period.
>> 
>> it is in reply period
>> 
>> 2 replies Google and ISPCP are against the delay.
>> 
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/
>> 
>> Personally I agree with them and am inclined to send a personal note, saying i agree the review  should not be delayed because the current  GNSO structure,  impacted by its 'binaries in opposition' modalities, doesn't work.
>> 
>> Should we try for something NCSGish?  Do we have a common view on:
>> 
>> GNSO Review now on schedule
>> GNSO delayed until the world is more stable
>> 
>> Or are we happy with the GNSO as it is - mostly deadlocked.
>> 
>> We have until 6 Sept.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> **********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************************
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130829/d0d26a94/attachment.html>