From rafik.dammak  Mon Dec  2 08:21:11 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:21:11 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Privacy and proxy accreditation working group
In-Reply-To: <D5740EF0-1D2F-4F64-B24F-414077ADFF26@isoc.be>
References: <CAC7qwdAjiiEtCZgBedcaSmRydyY2nZtemAxkF9zD1Uc=ws-Wbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8577de99-de5d-44d1-8453-0f660d6116c7@email.android.com>
	<E571CF3B-3BBD-4C96-A00B-5D5DB31DC86C@egyptig.org>
	<D5740EF0-1D2F-4F64-B24F-414077ADFF26@isoc.be>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkKdMC+jjvM0WezmUOewE2rrkEegGEZtC4-XXjQwr7WiQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Rudi,

Thanks for the update. maybe there is some confusion, GNSO WG are open to
everybody and we don't delegate members there per . We encourage members to
volunteer and participate. We are only trying to coordinate and ensure that
we have members covering WGs as much as possible.

Best,

Rafik


2013/11/30 Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>

> Dear Amr,
> dear all,
>
> NPOC will delegate Rudi Vansnick to this working group. If more NPOC
> members are interested we will get more involved. We?ll track them down
> asap.
>
>  Rudi Vansnick
> NPOC chair Policy Committee
> NPOC treasurer
> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
> www.npoc.org
>
> Op 28-nov.-2013, om 21:59 heeft Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> Hi,
>
> I agree with Avri. The WG Wiki page<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43983094> doesn?t
> have a list of WG members posted there yet, but from what I saw at the WG
> introductory meeting in BA, I?m guessing there will be considerable CSG/IPC
> and At-Large participation. With Maria serving as the Council liaison,
> having one of us serve as a co-chair will impact our participation as
> advocates. Speaking for myself, I?d rather spend my time on this WG duking
> it out with the IPC and At-Large familiars than doing anything else. If the
> rest of you have thoughts on the importance of having an NCSG co-chair, I
> would reconsider. Maybe having someone from the contracted parties would do
> instead?
>
> Avri?, I?m not sure if you?re on this WG, so apart from Maria, the NCSG
> members I?m aware of on this one are Stephanie, Roy, Wendy and myself. I am
> also not aware of any NPOC members on board. If I?m not mistaken,
> Marie-Laure, Rudi and Klaus are on this list (the PC list). Folks?, *please
> try to get at least one member from NPOC on this WG*.
>
> Having Don on this WG will also be great. He helped a great deal chairing
> the privacy sub-team on the ?thick? Whois PDP WG. He?s also a good choice
> to consider as co-chair along with a CSG member.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Nov 28, 2013, at 9:34 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Maria is this the group you are liaison for? If so that might be enough
> leadership and contribution to the neutral pool.
>
> Unless this is a group with lots of NCSG participants, we might want to
> give the neutralizing chair role a pass.
>
>
> Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> It looks like the first call of the P&P working group will be next
>> Tuesday at 1500 UTC. They'll be electing a chair / co-chairs. I'd talked to
>> registrars and IPC about this when I thought I might run for chair, and
>> they were happy with the idea of an NCSG and an IPC co-chair, both for some
>> notion of balance and also because it's a really large working group (30+
>> ppl already) and will likely be pretty intensive.
>>
>> Staff will send out note of the call in the next 24 hours.
>>
>> We should think in the meantime of who we may want to put forward as a co
>> chair. Amr? Stephanie?
>>
>> Wendy is also signed up to this group as well as Don Blumenthal who's obv
>> not a member but will be helpful. I'll continue to be in it and be the
>> liaison to the gnso council for it, basically just reporting back. I don't
>> remember if any NPOC ppl were signed up.
>>
>> Or we may decide we want to maximise our number of advocates in the group
>> and not lose one to chairing.
>>
>> Either way, we should decide and prepare.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Maria
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
> Avri Doria
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131202/7099b433/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Fri Dec  6 15:26:06 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 22:26:06 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Policy & Implementation - Request for Input
In-Reply-To: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F65E86FA1@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <CEC75179.2C314%marika.konings@icann.org>
	<C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F65E86FA1@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnxBaiqvbkQ0gsCzktPTRkD8eqR6ALAJ47gFtqxcq5-rg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi PC members,

I think that we need your input for this before asking the membership
feedback.
I think that Amr is member of this WG, who else? is it possible to get some
briefing about and what are the current issues there?

Best,

Rafik


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
Date: 2013/12/6
Subject: Policy & Implementation - Request for Input
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, William Drake <
william.drake at uzh.ch>
Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org" <gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org>, "
gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>






Dear SG/Constituency Chair:



We are the Chairs of the newly constituted Policy & Implementation Working
Group.  This Working Group (WG) has been tasked with providing the GNSO
Council with a set of recommendations on the following issues:

   - A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy implementation
   related discussions, taking into account existing GNSO procedures;
   - A process for developing gTLD policy, perhaps in the form of ?Policy
   Guidance,? including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use such
   a process (for a process developing something other than ?Consensus
   Policy?) instead of the GNSO Policy Development Process;
   - A framework for implementation related discussions associated with
   GNSO Policy recommendations;
   - Criteria to be used to determine when an action should be addressed by
   a policy process and when it should be considered implementation; and
   - Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams, as defined
   in the PDP Manual, are expected to function and operate.



As part of the effort, the WG wants to reach out at the beginning of our
efforts to the various GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies as we
have already done to other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees
to gain input to assist us in our efforts.  In this regard, we would ask
for your organization to consider the following questions which are set out
in the WG?s Charter and provide us with your input on any of these issues
by 31 January 2014.



   1. What guidance do the ICANN core values (Bylaws Article 1, Sec. 2)
   directly provide with regard to policy development work and policy
   implementation efforts? (e.g., multi-stakeholder participation).
   2.  What guidance do other ICANN core values provide that relate
   indirectly to policy development and policy implementation?  (e.g.,
   effective and timely process).
   3. ?Questions for Discussion? contained in the Policy versus
   Implementation Draft Framework prepared by ICANN staff.  (See,
   http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/policy-implementation-31jan13-en.htm
   ).
   4. What lessons can be learned from past experience?


   1. What are the consequences of action being considered ?policy? vs.
      ?implementation??
      2. Does it matter if something is ?policy? or ?implementation??  If
      so, why?
      3. Under what circumstances, if any, should the GNSO Council make
      recommendations or state positions to the Board on matters of policy and
      implementation as a representative of the GNSO as a whole?
      4. How do we avoid the current morass of outcome-derived labeling
      (i.e., I will call this ?policy? because I want certain consequences or
      ?handling instructions? to be attached to it?)
      5. Can we answer these questions so the definitions of ?policy? and
      ?implementation? matter less, if at all?


   1. What options are available for policy (?Consensus Policy? or other)
   and implementation efforts and what are the criteria for determining which
   should be used?


   1. Are ?policy? and ?implementation? on a spectrum rather than binary?
      2. What are the ?flavors? of policy and what consequences should
      attach to each ?flavor?
      3. What happens if you change those consequences?


   1. Who determines the choice of whether something is ?policy? or
   ?implementation??


   1. How is policy set/recommended/adopted and do different paths lead to
      different ?flavors??
      2. How is the ?policy? versus ?implementation? issue reviewed and
      approved?
      3. What happens if reviewing bodies come to a deadlock?


   1. What is the process by which this identification, analysis, review
   and approval work is done?


   1. How are ?policy and implementation? issues first identified (before,
      during and after implementation)?
      2. What is the role of the GNSO in implementation?
      3. In order to maintain the multi-stakeholder process, once policy
      moves to implementation, how should the community be involved in
a way that
      is meaningful and effective?
      4. Should policy staff be involved through the implementation process
      to facilitate continuity of the multi-stakeholder process that already
      occurred?



Alternatively, if you would prefer to set up an exchange of views by
teleconference, the Working Group would welcome such an approach as well.



Finally, we would like to remind you that the WG is open to the full
community and we welcome any additional members from your organization that
my wish to participate in this work. To review the current membership,
please see https://community.icann.org/x/81V-Ag.



Thank you in advance for your consideration.  Please do not hesitate to
reach out to either of us if you have any questions or if you require any
additional information.



Kind regards.



Chuck Gomes (cgomes at verisign.com)

J. Scott Evans (jscottevans at outlook.com)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131206/b18048bf/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Dec  9 15:09:04 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 22:09:04 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] Proposal for a Specification 13 to the
 ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects
 of ".Brand" New gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F65E87077@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F65E87077@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmweo-aGgxGt50D7vRrujUUVa8DBzKbj75dPkRd9yo=OA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello PC members,

that is another topic to cover, this time about dotbrand. shall NCSF
develop opinions about those changes and send statement? I observe that is
the process started as response to brand registry group.
is this group recognised within Registry SG r in any other group? it is
interesting that board respond to their request.

Best,

Rafik

ps we also have the comment about Policy and Implementation WG .
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
Date: 2013/12/8
Subject: [liaison6c] Proposal for a Specification 13 to the ICANN Registry
Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of ".Brand" New
gTLDs
To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>




http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/spec13-06dec13-en.htm
Proposal for a Specification 13 to the ICANN Registry Agreement to
Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of ".Brand" New gTLDs



Comment / Reply Periods (*)

Comment Open Date: 6 December 2013

Comment Close Date: 9 January 2014 - 23:59 UTC

Reply Open Date: 10 January 2014

Reply Close Date: 31 January 2014 - 23:59 UTC

Important Information Links

Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-06dec13-en.htm>

To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <comments-spec13-06dec13 at icann.org>

View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-spec13-06dec13/>

Brief Overview

Originating Organization:

ICANN

Categories/Tags:

   - Contracted Party Agreements
   - Legal/Regulatory
   - Top-Level Domains

Purpose (Brief):

ICANN is posting today for public comment a proposal requested by the Brand
Registry Group to incorporate a new Specification 13 to the new gTLD
Registry Agreement, which would be available to a Registry Operator that
operates a TLD that ICANN determines qualifies as a ".Brand TLD".

The proposed draft of Specification 13 and the concepts reflected therein
have not been approved by the New gTLD Program Committee of ICANN?s Board
of Directors. ICANN is seeking public comment on all aspects of the
proposal.

ICANN is also posting with the proposed draft of Specification 13 a
position statement of the Brand Registry Group in support of the proposed
draft.

Current Status:

Awaiting comments

Next Steps:

ICANN staff will review comments submitted by the community and will
provide a summary and analysis of these comments to ICANN management and
the New gTLD Program Committee of ICANN?s Board of Directors. ICANN
management and the Committee will review the feedback as well as the
additional research and analysis directed to inform its consideration of
the proposal.

Staff Contact:

Cyrus Namazi

Email Staff Contact<cyrus.namazi at icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Proposed%20Spec%2013%20public%20comment%20period>

Detailed Information

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose:

ICANN is seeking public comment on a proposal requested by the Brand
Registry Group to incorporate a new Specification 13 for the gTLD Registry
Agreement, which would be available to a Registry Operator that operates a
TLD that ICANN determines qualifies as a ?.Brand TLD?.  Specification 13
affords a .Brand TLD certain modifications to the gTLD Registry Agreement.
Stakeholder views are invited to help define and consider all aspects of
the proposal.  In particular, comments would be helpful in regard to the
following:

   - whether it is appropriate to classify certain TLDs as ?.Brand TLDs?;
   - whether the definition of ?.Brand TLD? is sufficiently narrow to
   capture only what is commonly recognized as a corporate brand;
   - whether there may be unintended consequences associated with the
   implementation of draft Specification 13;
   - whether it is appropriate to permit a Registry Operator for a .Brand
   TLD to limit its registrar use to one or more preferred ICANN accredited
   registrar(s); and
   - whether a two year ?cooling off? period prior to re-delegation of the
   .Brand TLD upon expiration or termination of the Registry Agreement is
   appropriate (subject to the limitations provided in the draft
   Specification).

Section II: Background:

The Brand Registry Group first engaged with ICANN regarding modifications
to the new gTLD registry agreement to address concerns of their
constituents at ICANN?s Beijing Conference in April 2013. Following the
Beijing Conference, numerous discussions where held telephonically leading
up to both ICANN?s Durban and Buenos Aires meetings. Following discussions
at ICANN?s Buenos Aires Conference, ICANN staff and the Brand Registry
Group agreed that posting a draft of Specification 13 would be helpful to
facilitate community input and discussion. If adopted, it is anticipated
that Registry Operators will apply for qualification as a ?.Brand TLD?
prior to executing a Registry Agreement.

Section III: Document and Resource Links:

   - Draft Specification
13<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-spec-13-proposed-06dec13-en.pdf>[PDF,
80 KB]
   - Brand Registry Group's supporting
statement<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/brand-spec-13-statement-06dec13-en.pdf>[PDF,
83 KB]

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/20131209/09767379/attachment.html>


From avri  Mon Dec  9 15:44:53 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 08:44:53 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] Proposal for a Specification 13 to
	the ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain
	Limited Aspects of ".Brand" New gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmweo-aGgxGt50D7vRrujUUVa8DBzKbj75dPkRd9yo=OA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F65E87077@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<CAH5sThmweo-aGgxGt50D7vRrujUUVa8DBzKbj75dPkRd9yo=OA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <bd3a5e06-ac76-4bc0-9b13-bec801c570f6@email.android.com>

Hi,

I would be surprised if we had anything close to consensus on this topic.
~~~
avri

Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>Hello PC members,
>
>that is another topic to cover, this time about dotbrand. shall NCSF
>develop opinions about those changes and send statement? I observe that
>is
>the process started as response to brand registry group.
>is this group recognised within Registry SG r in any other group? it is
>interesting that board respond to their request.
>
>Best,
>
>Rafik
>
>ps we also have the comment about Policy and Implementation WG .
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>Date: 2013/12/8
>Subject: [liaison6c] Proposal for a Specification 13 to the ICANN
>Registry
>Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of ".Brand"
>New
>gTLDs
>To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
>
>
>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/spec13-06dec13-en.htm
>Proposal for a Specification 13 to the ICANN Registry Agreement to
>Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of ".Brand" New gTLDs
>
>
>
>Comment / Reply Periods (*)
>
>Comment Open Date: 6 December 2013
>
>Comment Close Date: 9 January 2014 - 23:59 UTC
>
>Reply Open Date: 10 January 2014
>
>Reply Close Date: 31 January 2014 - 23:59 UTC
>
>Important Information Links
>
>Public Comment
>Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-06dec13-en.htm>
>
>To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <comments-spec13-06dec13 at icann.org>
>
>View Comments
>Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-spec13-06dec13/>
>
>Brief Overview
>
>Originating Organization:
>
>ICANN
>
>Categories/Tags:
>
>   - Contracted Party Agreements
>   - Legal/Regulatory
>   - Top-Level Domains
>
>Purpose (Brief):
>
>ICANN is posting today for public comment a proposal requested by the
>Brand
>Registry Group to incorporate a new Specification 13 to the new gTLD
>Registry Agreement, which would be available to a Registry Operator
>that
>operates a TLD that ICANN determines qualifies as a ".Brand TLD".
>
>The proposed draft of Specification 13 and the concepts reflected
>therein
>have not been approved by the New gTLD Program Committee of ICANN?s
>Board
>of Directors. ICANN is seeking public comment on all aspects of the
>proposal.
>
>ICANN is also posting with the proposed draft of Specification 13 a
>position statement of the Brand Registry Group in support of the
>proposed
>draft.
>
>Current Status:
>
>Awaiting comments
>
>Next Steps:
>
>ICANN staff will review comments submitted by the community and will
>provide a summary and analysis of these comments to ICANN management
>and
>the New gTLD Program Committee of ICANN?s Board of Directors. ICANN
>management and the Committee will review the feedback as well as the
>additional research and analysis directed to inform its consideration
>of
>the proposal.
>
>Staff Contact:
>
>Cyrus Namazi
>
>Email Staff
>Contact<cyrus.namazi at icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Proposed%20Spec%2013%20public%20comment%20period>
>
>Detailed Information
>
>Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose:
>
>ICANN is seeking public comment on a proposal requested by the Brand
>Registry Group to incorporate a new Specification 13 for the gTLD
>Registry
>Agreement, which would be available to a Registry Operator that
>operates a
>TLD that ICANN determines qualifies as a ?.Brand TLD?.  Specification
>13
>affords a .Brand TLD certain modifications to the gTLD Registry
>Agreement.
>Stakeholder views are invited to help define and consider all aspects
>of
>the proposal.  In particular, comments would be helpful in regard to
>the
>following:
>
> - whether it is appropriate to classify certain TLDs as ?.Brand TLDs?;
>   - whether the definition of ?.Brand TLD? is sufficiently narrow to
>   capture only what is commonly recognized as a corporate brand;
>   - whether there may be unintended consequences associated with the
>   implementation of draft Specification 13;
> - whether it is appropriate to permit a Registry Operator for a .Brand
>TLD to limit its registrar use to one or more preferred ICANN
>accredited
>   registrar(s); and
>- whether a two year ?cooling off? period prior to re-delegation of the
> .Brand TLD upon expiration or termination of the Registry Agreement is
>   appropriate (subject to the limitations provided in the draft
>   Specification).
>
>Section II: Background:
>
>The Brand Registry Group first engaged with ICANN regarding
>modifications
>to the new gTLD registry agreement to address concerns of their
>constituents at ICANN?s Beijing Conference in April 2013. Following the
>Beijing Conference, numerous discussions where held telephonically
>leading
>up to both ICANN?s Durban and Buenos Aires meetings. Following
>discussions
>at ICANN?s Buenos Aires Conference, ICANN staff and the Brand Registry
>Group agreed that posting a draft of Specification 13 would be helpful
>to
>facilitate community input and discussion. If adopted, it is
>anticipated
>that Registry Operators will apply for qualification as a ?.Brand TLD?
>prior to executing a Registry Agreement.
>
>Section III: Document and Resource Links:
>
>   - Draft Specification
>13<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-spec-13-proposed-06dec13-en.pdf>[PDF,
>80 KB]
>   - Brand Registry Group's supporting
>statement<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/brand-spec-13-statement-06dec13-en.pdf>[PDF,
>83 KB]
>
>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
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/20131209/b94ee000/attachment-0001.html>


From mllemineur  Mon Dec  9 17:33:42 2013
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 09:33:42 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Policy & Implementation - Request for Input
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnxBaiqvbkQ0gsCzktPTRkD8eqR6ALAJ47gFtqxcq5-rg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CEC75179.2C314%marika.konings@icann.org>
	<C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F65E86FA1@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<CAH5sThnxBaiqvbkQ0gsCzktPTRkD8eqR6ALAJ47gFtqxcq5-rg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqH+fZNqj7zXb0cQ8db=X=51phHxf+rCzNN0SVgDXBvdwg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

Amr is as well as Klaus Stoll and myself. I guess we can provide inputs
"live" tomorrow during the call.

Best,

mll


On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi PC members,
>
> I think that we need your input for this before asking the membership
> feedback.
> I think that Amr is member of this WG, who else? is it possible to get
> some briefing about and what are the current issues there?
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: 2013/12/6
> Subject: Policy & Implementation - Request for Input
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, William Drake <
> william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org" <gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org>,
> "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear SG/Constituency Chair:
>
>
>
> We are the Chairs of the newly constituted Policy & Implementation Working
> Group.  This Working Group (WG) has been tasked with providing the GNSO
> Council with a set of recommendations on the following issues:
>
>    - A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy
>    implementation related discussions, taking into account existing GNSO
>    procedures;
>    - A process for developing gTLD policy, perhaps in the form of ?Policy
>    Guidance,? including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use such
>    a process (for a process developing something other than ?Consensus
>    Policy?) instead of the GNSO Policy Development Process;
>    - A framework for implementation related discussions associated with
>    GNSO Policy recommendations;
>    - Criteria to be used to determine when an action should be addressed
>    by a policy process and when it should be considered implementation; and
>    - Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams, as defined
>    in the PDP Manual, are expected to function and operate.
>
>
>
> As part of the effort, the WG wants to reach out at the beginning of our
> efforts to the various GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies as we
> have already done to other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees
> to gain input to assist us in our efforts.  In this regard, we would ask
> for your organization to consider the following questions which are set out
> in the WG?s Charter and provide us with your input on any of these issues
> by 31 January 2014.
>
>
>
>    1. What guidance do the ICANN core values (Bylaws Article 1, Sec. 2)
>    directly provide with regard to policy development work and policy
>    implementation efforts? (e.g., multi-stakeholder participation).
>    2.  What guidance do other ICANN core values provide that relate
>    indirectly to policy development and policy implementation?  (e.g.,
>    effective and timely process).
>    3. ?Questions for Discussion? contained in the Policy versus
>    Implementation Draft Framework prepared by ICANN staff.  (See,
>    http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/policy-implementation-31jan13-en.htm
>    ).
>    4. What lessons can be learned from past experience?
>
>
>    1. What are the consequences of action being considered ?policy? vs.
>       ?implementation??
>       2. Does it matter if something is ?policy? or ?implementation??  If
>       so, why?
>       3. Under what circumstances, if any, should the GNSO Council make
>       recommendations or state positions to the Board on matters of policy and
>       implementation as a representative of the GNSO as a whole?
>       4. How do we avoid the current morass of outcome-derived labeling
>       (i.e., I will call this ?policy? because I want certain consequences or
>       ?handling instructions? to be attached to it?)
>       5. Can we answer these questions so the definitions of ?policy? and
>       ?implementation? matter less, if at all?
>
>
>    1. What options are available for policy (?Consensus Policy? or other)
>    and implementation efforts and what are the criteria for determining which
>    should be used?
>
>
>    1. Are ?policy? and ?implementation? on a spectrum rather than binary?
>       2. What are the ?flavors? of policy and what consequences should
>       attach to each ?flavor?
>       3. What happens if you change those consequences?
>
>
>    1. Who determines the choice of whether something is ?policy? or
>    ?implementation??
>
>
>    1. How is policy set/recommended/adopted and do different paths lead
>       to different ?flavors??
>       2. How is the ?policy? versus ?implementation? issue reviewed and
>       approved?
>       3. What happens if reviewing bodies come to a deadlock?
>
>
>    1. What is the process by which this identification, analysis, review
>    and approval work is done?
>
>
>    1. How are ?policy and implementation? issues first identified
>       (before, during and after implementation)?
>       2. What is the role of the GNSO in implementation?
>       3. In order to maintain the multi-stakeholder process, once policy
>       moves to implementation, how should the community be involved in a way that
>       is meaningful and effective?
>       4. Should policy staff be involved through the implementation
>       process to facilitate continuity of the multi-stakeholder process that
>       already occurred?
>
>
>
> Alternatively, if you would prefer to set up an exchange of views by
> teleconference, the Working Group would welcome such an approach as well.
>
>
>
> Finally, we would like to remind you that the WG is open to the full
> community and we welcome any additional members from your organization that
> my wish to participate in this work. To review the current membership,
> please see https://community.icann.org/x/81V-Ag.
>
>
>
> Thank you in advance for your consideration.  Please do not hesitate to
> reach out to either of us if you have any questions or if you require any
> additional information.
>
>
>
> Kind regards.
>
>
>
> Chuck Gomes (cgomes at verisign.com)
>
> J. Scott Evans (jscottevans at outlook.com)
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131209/459be1d1/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Dec  9 23:44:42 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 22:44:42 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [liaison6c] Proposal for a Specification 13 to the
	ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain
	Limited Aspects of ".Brand" New gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmweo-aGgxGt50D7vRrujUUVa8DBzKbj75dPkRd9yo=OA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F65E87077@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<CAH5sThmweo-aGgxGt50D7vRrujUUVa8DBzKbj75dPkRd9yo=OA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1B89C41B-2E0B-4F5E-98EE-2CD28D85F40A@egyptig.org>

Hi,

On Dec 9, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Hello PC members,
> 
> that is another topic to cover, this time about dotbrand. shall NCSF develop opinions about those changes and send statement? I observe that is the process started as response to brand registry group.
> is this group recognised within Registry SG r in any other group? it is interesting that board respond to their request.

Isn?t the applicant for .brands Melbourne IT? If they are, then they?re in the RrSG.

> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> ps we also have the comment about Policy and Implementation WG . 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: 2013/12/8
> Subject: [liaison6c] Proposal for a Specification 13 to the ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of ".Brand" New gTLDs
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> 
>  
> 
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/spec13-06dec13-en.htm
> Proposal for a Specification 13 to the ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of ".Brand" New gTLDs
> 
>  
> 
> Comment / Reply Periods (*)
> 
> Comment Open Date: 6 December 2013
> 
> Comment Close Date: 9 January 2014 - 23:59 UTC
> 
> Reply Open Date: 10 January 2014
> 
> Reply Close Date: 31 January 2014 - 23:59 UTC
> 
> Important Information Links
> 
> Public Comment Announcement
> 
> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)
> 
> View Comments Submitted
> 
> Brief Overview
> 
> Originating Organization: 
> 
> ICANN
> 
> Categories/Tags: 
> 
> Contracted Party Agreements
> Legal/Regulatory
> Top-Level Domains
> Purpose (Brief): 
> 
> ICANN is posting today for public comment a proposal requested by the Brand Registry Group to incorporate a new Specification 13 to the new gTLD Registry Agreement, which would be available to a Registry Operator that operates a TLD that ICANN determines qualifies as a ".Brand TLD".
> 
> The proposed draft of Specification 13 and the concepts reflected therein have not been approved by the New gTLD Program Committee of ICANN?s Board of Directors. ICANN is seeking public comment on all aspects of the proposal.
> 
> ICANN is also posting with the proposed draft of Specification 13 a position statement of the Brand Registry Group in support of the proposed draft.
> 
> Current Status: 
> 
> Awaiting comments
> 
> Next Steps: 
> 
> ICANN staff will review comments submitted by the community and will provide a summary and analysis of these comments to ICANN management and the New gTLD Program Committee of ICANN?s Board of Directors. ICANN management and the Committee will review the feedback as well as the additional research and analysis directed to inform its consideration of the proposal.
> 
> Staff Contact: 
> 
> Cyrus Namazi
> 
> Email Staff Contact
> 
> Detailed Information
> 
> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: 
> 
> ICANN is seeking public comment on a proposal requested by the Brand Registry Group to incorporate a new Specification 13 for the gTLD Registry Agreement, which would be available to a Registry Operator that operates a TLD that ICANN determines qualifies as a ?.Brand TLD?.  Specification 13 affords a .Brand TLD certain modifications to the gTLD Registry Agreement.  Stakeholder views are invited to help define and consider all aspects of the proposal.  In particular, comments would be helpful in regard to the following:
> 
> whether it is appropriate to classify certain TLDs as ?.Brand TLDs?;
> whether the definition of ?.Brand TLD? is sufficiently narrow to capture only what is commonly recognized as a corporate brand;
> whether there may be unintended consequences associated with the implementation of draft Specification 13;
> whether it is appropriate to permit a Registry Operator for a .Brand TLD to limit its registrar use to one or more preferred ICANN accredited registrar(s); and
> whether a two year ?cooling off? period prior to re-delegation of the .Brand TLD upon expiration or termination of the Registry Agreement is appropriate (subject to the limitations provided in the draft Specification).
> Section II: Background: 
> 
> The Brand Registry Group first engaged with ICANN regarding modifications to the new gTLD registry agreement to address concerns of their constituents at ICANN?s Beijing Conference in April 2013. Following the Beijing Conference, numerous discussions where held telephonically leading up to both ICANN?s Durban and Buenos Aires meetings. Following discussions at ICANN?s Buenos Aires Conference, ICANN staff and the Brand Registry Group agreed that posting a draft of Specification 13 would be helpful to facilitate community input and discussion. If adopted, it is anticipated that Registry Operators will apply for qualification as a ?.Brand TLD? prior to executing a Registry Agreement.
> 
> Section III: Document and Resource Links: 
> 
> Draft Specification 13 [PDF, 80 KB]
> Brand Registry Group's supporting statement [PDF, 83 KB]
> 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
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131209/14b367dc/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Dec  9 23:49:23 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 22:49:23 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [liaison6c] Proposal for a Specification 13 to the
	ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain
	Limited Aspects of ".Brand" New gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <1B89C41B-2E0B-4F5E-98EE-2CD28D85F40A@egyptig.org>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F65E87077@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<CAH5sThmweo-aGgxGt50D7vRrujUUVa8DBzKbj75dPkRd9yo=OA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1B89C41B-2E0B-4F5E-98EE-2CD28D85F40A@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <15A331D7-6261-4E39-B075-0262F8D12D33@egyptig.org>

Ignore my last comment. It was irrelevant to the question. Apologies.

Thanks.

Amr

On Dec 9, 2013, at 10:44 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Dec 9, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
>> Hello PC members,
>> 
>> that is another topic to cover, this time about dotbrand. shall NCSF develop opinions about those changes and send statement? I observe that is the process started as response to brand registry group.
>> is this group recognised within Registry SG r in any other group? it is interesting that board respond to their request.
> 
> Isn?t the applicant for .brands Melbourne IT? If they are, then they?re in the RrSG.
> 
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> ps we also have the comment about Policy and Implementation WG . 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>> Date: 2013/12/8
>> Subject: [liaison6c] Proposal for a Specification 13 to the ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of ".Brand" New gTLDs
>> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/spec13-06dec13-en.htm
>> Proposal for a Specification 13 to the ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of ".Brand" New gTLDs
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Comment / Reply Periods (*)
>> 
>> Comment Open Date: 6 December 2013
>> 
>> Comment Close Date: 9 January 2014 - 23:59 UTC
>> 
>> Reply Open Date: 10 January 2014
>> 
>> Reply Close Date: 31 January 2014 - 23:59 UTC
>> 
>> Important Information Links
>> 
>> Public Comment Announcement
>> 
>> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)
>> 
>> View Comments Submitted
>> 
>> Brief Overview
>> 
>> Originating Organization: 
>> 
>> ICANN
>> 
>> Categories/Tags: 
>> 
>> Contracted Party Agreements
>> Legal/Regulatory
>> Top-Level Domains
>> Purpose (Brief): 
>> 
>> ICANN is posting today for public comment a proposal requested by the Brand Registry Group to incorporate a new Specification 13 to the new gTLD Registry Agreement, which would be available to a Registry Operator that operates a TLD that ICANN determines qualifies as a ".Brand TLD".
>> 
>> The proposed draft of Specification 13 and the concepts reflected therein have not been approved by the New gTLD Program Committee of ICANN?s Board of Directors. ICANN is seeking public comment on all aspects of the proposal.
>> 
>> ICANN is also posting with the proposed draft of Specification 13 a position statement of the Brand Registry Group in support of the proposed draft.
>> 
>> Current Status: 
>> 
>> Awaiting comments
>> 
>> Next Steps: 
>> 
>> ICANN staff will review comments submitted by the community and will provide a summary and analysis of these comments to ICANN management and the New gTLD Program Committee of ICANN?s Board of Directors. ICANN management and the Committee will review the feedback as well as the additional research and analysis directed to inform its consideration of the proposal.
>> 
>> Staff Contact: 
>> 
>> Cyrus Namazi
>> 
>> Email Staff Contact
>> 
>> Detailed Information
>> 
>> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: 
>> 
>> ICANN is seeking public comment on a proposal requested by the Brand Registry Group to incorporate a new Specification 13 for the gTLD Registry Agreement, which would be available to a Registry Operator that operates a TLD that ICANN determines qualifies as a ?.Brand TLD?.  Specification 13 affords a .Brand TLD certain modifications to the gTLD Registry Agreement.  Stakeholder views are invited to help define and consider all aspects of the proposal.  In particular, comments would be helpful in regard to the following:
>> 
>> whether it is appropriate to classify certain TLDs as ?.Brand TLDs?;
>> whether the definition of ?.Brand TLD? is sufficiently narrow to capture only what is commonly recognized as a corporate brand;
>> whether there may be unintended consequences associated with the implementation of draft Specification 13;
>> whether it is appropriate to permit a Registry Operator for a .Brand TLD to limit its registrar use to one or more preferred ICANN accredited registrar(s); and
>> whether a two year ?cooling off? period prior to re-delegation of the .Brand TLD upon expiration or termination of the Registry Agreement is appropriate (subject to the limitations provided in the draft Specification).
>> Section II: Background: 
>> 
>> The Brand Registry Group first engaged with ICANN regarding modifications to the new gTLD registry agreement to address concerns of their constituents at ICANN?s Beijing Conference in April 2013. Following the Beijing Conference, numerous discussions where held telephonically leading up to both ICANN?s Durban and Buenos Aires meetings. Following discussions at ICANN?s Buenos Aires Conference, ICANN staff and the Brand Registry Group agreed that posting a draft of Specification 13 would be helpful to facilitate community input and discussion. If adopted, it is anticipated that Registry Operators will apply for qualification as a ?.Brand TLD? prior to executing a Registry Agreement.
>> 
>> Section III: Document and Resource Links: 
>> 
>> Draft Specification 13 [PDF, 80 KB]
>> Brand Registry Group's supporting statement [PDF, 83 KB]
>> 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
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20131209/a051cb08/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Dec 10 14:50:48 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 21:50:48 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] Proposal for a Specification 13 to
 the ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain Limited
 Aspects of ".Brand" New gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <bd3a5e06-ac76-4bc0-9b13-bec801c570f6@email.android.com>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F65E87077@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<CAH5sThmweo-aGgxGt50D7vRrujUUVa8DBzKbj75dPkRd9yo=OA@mail.gmail.com>
	<bd3a5e06-ac76-4bc0-9b13-bec801c570f6@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkoTwrM9ZFdq_a9fq5h66P6weEP8UDpsJ-3c_UPk+fhXA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

at least a minimal set of comments which can get consensus? or express the
diversity of the opinions if there is.

Best,

Rafik


2013/12/9 Avri Doria <avri at ella.com>

> Hi,
>
> I would be surprised if we had anything close to consensus on this topic.
> ~~~
> avri
>
> Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Hello PC members,
>>
>> that is another topic to cover, this time about dotbrand. shall NCSF
>> develop opinions about those changes and send statement? I observe that is
>> the process started as response to brand registry group.
>> is this group recognised within Registry SG r in any other group? it is
>> interesting that board respond to their request.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> ps we also have the comment about Policy and Implementation WG .
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>> Date: 2013/12/8
>> Subject: [liaison6c] Proposal for a Specification 13 to the ICANN
>> Registry Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of
>> ".Brand" New gTLDs
>> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/spec13-06dec13-en.htm
>> Proposal for a Specification 13 to the ICANN Registry Agreement to
>> Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of ".Brand" New gTLDs
>>
>>
>>
>> Comment / Reply Periods (*)
>>
>> Comment Open Date: 6 December 2013
>>
>> Comment Close Date: 9 January 2014 - 23:59 UTC
>>
>> Reply Open Date: 10 January 2014
>>
>> Reply Close Date: 31 January 2014 - 23:59 UTC
>>
>> Important Information Links
>>
>> Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-06dec13-en.htm>
>>
>> To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <comments-spec13-06dec13 at icann.org>
>>
>> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-spec13-06dec13/>
>>
>> Brief Overview
>>
>> Originating Organization:
>>
>> ICANN
>>
>> Categories/Tags:
>>
>>    - Contracted Party Agreements
>>    - Legal/Regulatory
>>    - Top-Level Domains
>>
>> Purpose (Brief):
>>
>> ICANN is posting today for public comment a proposal requested by the
>> Brand Registry Group to incorporate a new Specification 13 to the new gTLD
>> Registry Agreement, which would be available to a Registry Operator that
>> operates a TLD that ICANN determines qualifies as a ".Brand TLD".
>>
>> The proposed draft of Specification 13 and the concepts reflected therein
>> have not been approved by the New gTLD Program Committee of ICANN?s Board
>> of Directors. ICANN is seeking public comment on all aspects of the
>> proposal.
>>
>> ICANN is also posting with the proposed draft of Specification 13 a
>> position statement of the Brand Registry Group in support of the proposed
>> draft.
>>
>> Current Status:
>>
>> Awaiting comments
>>
>> Next Steps:
>>
>> ICANN staff will review comments submitted by the community and will
>> provide a summary and analysis of these comments to ICANN management and
>> the New gTLD Program Committee of ICANN?s Board of Directors. ICANN
>> management and the Committee will review the feedback as well as the
>> additional research and analysis directed to inform its consideration of
>> the proposal.
>>
>> Staff Contact:
>>
>> Cyrus Namazi
>>
>> Email Staff Contact<cyrus.namazi at icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Proposed%20Spec%2013%20public%20comment%20period>
>>
>> Detailed Information
>>
>> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose:
>>
>> ICANN is seeking public comment on a proposal requested by the Brand
>> Registry Group to incorporate a new Specification 13 for the gTLD Registry
>> Agreement, which would be available to a Registry Operator that operates a
>> TLD that ICANN determines qualifies as a ?.Brand TLD?.  Specification 13
>> affords a .Brand TLD certain modifications to the gTLD Registry Agreement.
>> Stakeholder views are invited to help define and consider all aspects of
>> the proposal.  In particular, comments would be helpful in regard to the
>> following:
>>
>>    - whether it is appropriate to classify certain TLDs as ?.Brand TLDs?;
>>    - whether the definition of ?.Brand TLD? is sufficiently narrow to
>>    capture only what is commonly recognized as a corporate brand;
>>    - whether there may be unintended consequences associated with the
>>    implementation of draft Specification 13;
>>    - whether it is appropriate to permit a Registry Operator for a
>>    .Brand TLD to limit its registrar use to one or more preferred ICANN
>>    accredited registrar(s); and
>>    - whether a two year ?cooling off? period prior to re-delegation of
>>    the .Brand TLD upon expiration or termination of the Registry Agreement is
>>    appropriate (subject to the limitations provided in the draft
>>    Specification).
>>
>> Section II: Background:
>>
>> The Brand Registry Group first engaged with ICANN regarding modifications
>> to the new gTLD registry agreement to address concerns of their
>> constituents at ICANN?s Beijing Conference in April 2013. Following the
>> Beijing Conference, numerous discussions where held telephonically leading
>> up to both ICANN?s Durban and Buenos Aires meetings. Following discussions
>> at ICANN?s Buenos Aires Conference, ICANN staff and the Brand Registry
>> Group agreed that posting a draft of Specification 13 would be helpful to
>> facilitate community input and discussion. If adopted, it is anticipated
>> that Registry Operators will apply for qualification as a ?.Brand TLD?
>> prior to executing a Registry Agreement.
>>
>> Section III: Document and Resource Links:
>>
>>    - Draft Specification 13<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-spec-13-proposed-06dec13-en.pdf>[PDF, 80 KB]
>>    - Brand Registry Group's supporting statement<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/brand-spec-13-statement-06dec13-en.pdf>[PDF, 83 KB]
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> 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/20131210/e96a31cd/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Dec 10 15:04:33 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:04:33 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Todays policy meeting
Message-ID: <eba53f0c-3e86-468b-a0d6-f35077f8272a@email.android.com>

Hi,

Unfortunately I have an ATRT2 meeting at the same time. I had thought the ATRT mtg was Thursday  but I was wrong.
Will listen to recording.

Apologies
Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131210/d950230a/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Dec 10 15:05:01 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:05:01 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] Proposal for a Specification 13 to
	the ICANN Registry Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain
	Limited Aspects of ".Brand" New gTLDs
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkoTwrM9ZFdq_a9fq5h66P6weEP8UDpsJ-3c_UPk+fhXA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F65E87077@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<CAH5sThmweo-aGgxGt50D7vRrujUUVa8DBzKbj75dPkRd9yo=OA@mail.gmail.com>
	<bd3a5e06-ac76-4bc0-9b13-bec801c570f6@email.android.com>
	<CAH5sThkoTwrM9ZFdq_a9fq5h66P6weEP8UDpsJ-3c_UPk+fhXA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <703653f3-fc2c-4cff-a3c6-0fa20ee4633b@email.android.com>

Go for it.


~~~
avri

Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi Avri,
>
>at least a minimal set of comments which can get consensus? or express
>the
>diversity of the opinions if there is.
>
>Best,
>
>Rafik
>
>
>2013/12/9 Avri Doria <avri at ella.com>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would be surprised if we had anything close to consensus on this
>topic.
>> ~~~
>> avri
>>
>> Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hello PC members,
>>>
>>> that is another topic to cover, this time about dotbrand. shall NCSF
>>> develop opinions about those changes and send statement? I observe
>that is
>>> the process started as response to brand registry group.
>>> is this group recognised within Registry SG r in any other group? it
>is
>>> interesting that board respond to their request.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> ps we also have the comment about Policy and Implementation WG .
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>>> Date: 2013/12/8
>>> Subject: [liaison6c] Proposal for a Specification 13 to the ICANN
>>> Registry Agreement to Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects
>of
>>> ".Brand" New gTLDs
>>> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/spec13-06dec13-en.htm
>>> Proposal for a Specification 13 to the ICANN Registry Agreement to
>>> Contractually Reflect Certain Limited Aspects of ".Brand" New gTLDs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Comment / Reply Periods (*)
>>>
>>> Comment Open Date: 6 December 2013
>>>
>>> Comment Close Date: 9 January 2014 - 23:59 UTC
>>>
>>> Reply Open Date: 10 January 2014
>>>
>>> Reply Close Date: 31 January 2014 - 23:59 UTC
>>>
>>> Important Information Links
>>>
>>> Public Comment
>Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-06dec13-en.htm>
>>>
>>> To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <comments-spec13-06dec13 at icann.org>
>>>
>>> View Comments
>Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-spec13-06dec13/>
>>>
>>> Brief Overview
>>>
>>> Originating Organization:
>>>
>>> ICANN
>>>
>>> Categories/Tags:
>>>
>>>    - Contracted Party Agreements
>>>    - Legal/Regulatory
>>>    - Top-Level Domains
>>>
>>> Purpose (Brief):
>>>
>>> ICANN is posting today for public comment a proposal requested by
>the
>>> Brand Registry Group to incorporate a new Specification 13 to the
>new gTLD
>>> Registry Agreement, which would be available to a Registry Operator
>that
>>> operates a TLD that ICANN determines qualifies as a ".Brand TLD".
>>>
>>> The proposed draft of Specification 13 and the concepts reflected
>therein
>>> have not been approved by the New gTLD Program Committee of ICANN?s
>Board
>>> of Directors. ICANN is seeking public comment on all aspects of the
>>> proposal.
>>>
>>> ICANN is also posting with the proposed draft of Specification 13 a
>>> position statement of the Brand Registry Group in support of the
>proposed
>>> draft.
>>>
>>> Current Status:
>>>
>>> Awaiting comments
>>>
>>> Next Steps:
>>>
>>> ICANN staff will review comments submitted by the community and will
>>> provide a summary and analysis of these comments to ICANN management
>and
>>> the New gTLD Program Committee of ICANN?s Board of Directors. ICANN
>>> management and the Committee will review the feedback as well as the
>>> additional research and analysis directed to inform its
>consideration of
>>> the proposal.
>>>
>>> Staff Contact:
>>>
>>> Cyrus Namazi
>>>
>>> Email Staff
>Contact<cyrus.namazi at icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Proposed%20Spec%2013%20public%20comment%20period>
>>>
>>> Detailed Information
>>>
>>> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose:
>>>
>>> ICANN is seeking public comment on a proposal requested by the Brand
>>> Registry Group to incorporate a new Specification 13 for the gTLD
>Registry
>>> Agreement, which would be available to a Registry Operator that
>operates a
>>> TLD that ICANN determines qualifies as a ?.Brand TLD?. 
>Specification 13
>>> affords a .Brand TLD certain modifications to the gTLD Registry
>Agreement.
>>> Stakeholder views are invited to help define and consider all
>aspects of
>>> the proposal.  In particular, comments would be helpful in regard to
>the
>>> following:
>>>
>>>    - whether it is appropriate to classify certain TLDs as ?.Brand
>TLDs?;
>>>    - whether the definition of ?.Brand TLD? is sufficiently narrow
>to
>>>    capture only what is commonly recognized as a corporate brand;
>>>    - whether there may be unintended consequences associated with
>the
>>>    implementation of draft Specification 13;
>>>    - whether it is appropriate to permit a Registry Operator for a
>>>    .Brand TLD to limit its registrar use to one or more preferred
>ICANN
>>>    accredited registrar(s); and
>>>    - whether a two year ?cooling off? period prior to re-delegation
>of
>>>    the .Brand TLD upon expiration or termination of the Registry
>Agreement is
>>>    appropriate (subject to the limitations provided in the draft
>>>    Specification).
>>>
>>> Section II: Background:
>>>
>>> The Brand Registry Group first engaged with ICANN regarding
>modifications
>>> to the new gTLD registry agreement to address concerns of their
>>> constituents at ICANN?s Beijing Conference in April 2013. Following
>the
>>> Beijing Conference, numerous discussions where held telephonically
>leading
>>> up to both ICANN?s Durban and Buenos Aires meetings. Following
>discussions
>>> at ICANN?s Buenos Aires Conference, ICANN staff and the Brand
>Registry
>>> Group agreed that posting a draft of Specification 13 would be
>helpful to
>>> facilitate community input and discussion. If adopted, it is
>anticipated
>>> that Registry Operators will apply for qualification as a ?.Brand
>TLD?
>>> prior to executing a Registry Agreement.
>>>
>>> Section III: Document and Resource Links:
>>>
>>>    - Draft Specification
>13<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/base-agreement-spec-13-proposed-06dec13-en.pdf>[PDF,
>80 KB]
>>>    - Brand Registry Group's supporting
>statement<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/brand-spec-13-statement-06dec13-en.pdf>[PDF,
>83 KB]
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> 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/20131210/552ece1a/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Dec 10 15:09:02 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:09:02 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Todays policy meeting
In-Reply-To: <eba53f0c-3e86-468b-a0d6-f35077f8272a@email.android.com>
References: <eba53f0c-3e86-468b-a0d6-f35077f8272a@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmuU=FsW4ODgBV4L+XGP2CxdQBCVMMeLqPjp2FgEn+wRw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

that is pity, I guess that will be challenging to find free time slot and
the GNSO calendar doesn't include all sessions.
Thanks for the notification .

Best,

Rafik


2013/12/10 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>

> Hi,
>
> Unfortunately I have an ATRT2 meeting at the same time. I had thought the
> ATRT mtg was Thursday but I was wrong.
> Will listen to recording.
>
> Apologies
> Avri Doria
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131210/a5619ee3/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Dec 10 15:44:15 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:44:15 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] (Se) electing a new Chair and Alternate Chair
Message-ID: <dd9ddbcd-ecb3-498e-b01c-8b33ec704de3@email.android.com>

Hi,

With a new policy committee, it is time to elect a new chair/alt-chair combo.


As the outgoing alt-chair who does not wish to remain in a chairing role, I am making a few suggestions.


I would like to suggest that we fill these roles with one person from NPOC and one person from NCUC.

I suggest that we pick these two and then let them decide between themselves which will take what role. Alternatively the committee as a whole could decide using rough consensus.

I would like to suggest that we consider asking Maria and Rudy to take on the policy committee leadership for the next year.



Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131210/8e51de0d/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Dec 10 15:47:54 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 08:47:54 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Todays policy meeting
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmuU=FsW4ODgBV4L+XGP2CxdQBCVMMeLqPjp2FgEn+wRw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <eba53f0c-3e86-468b-a0d6-f35077f8272a@email.android.com>
	<CAH5sThmuU=FsW4ODgBV4L+XGP2CxdQBCVMMeLqPjp2FgEn+wRw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2c8ff981-1dc7-47e5-b410-6ec81f8c5032@email.android.com>

Well that would be one advantage of rotating meeting schedules. 
Personally I know I currently have no middle of the night meetings so my schedule is completely open in those time frames.

Avri Doria

Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi Avri,
>
>that is pity, I guess that will be challenging to find free time slot
>and
>the GNSO calendar doesn't include all sessions.
>Thanks for the notification .
>
>Best,
>
>Rafik
>
>
>2013/12/10 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Unfortunately I have an ATRT2 meeting at the same time. I had thought
>the
>> ATRT mtg was Thursday but I was wrong.
>> Will listen to recording.
>>
>> Apologies
>> Avri Doria
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>PC-NCSG mailing list
>PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131210/61464013/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Dec 10 15:53:37 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:53:37 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Todays policy meeting
In-Reply-To: <2c8ff981-1dc7-47e5-b410-6ec81f8c5032@email.android.com>
References: <eba53f0c-3e86-468b-a0d6-f35077f8272a@email.android.com>
	<CAH5sThmuU=FsW4ODgBV4L+XGP2CxdQBCVMMeLqPjp2FgEn+wRw@mail.gmail.com>
	<2c8ff981-1dc7-47e5-b410-6ec81f8c5032@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkVPnL58Q0Dd_W1n7W3QAHtqytWn5t2eJcdEZcKcve_Ew@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

yes I am keeping the rotation for meetings time, even if they are mostly
unfriendly to me now but I will figure out. I guess maybe new doodle poll
to check when we have the most availability.

Best,

Rafik


2013/12/10 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>

> Well that would be one advantage of rotating meeting schedules.
> Personally I know I currently have no middle of the night meetings so my
> schedule is completely open in those time frames.
>
> Avri Doria
>
>
> Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Avri,
>>
>> that is pity, I guess that will be challenging to find free time slot and
>> the GNSO calendar doesn't include all sessions.
>> Thanks for the notification .
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/10 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Unfortunately I have an ATRT2 meeting at the same time. I had thought
>>> the ATRT mtg was Thursday but I was wrong.
>>> Will listen to recording.
>>>
>>> Apologies
>>> Avri Doria
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131210/171871d3/attachment.html>


From rudi.vansnick  Tue Dec 10 17:15:50 2013
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:15:50 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] (Se) electing a new Chair and Alternate Chair
In-Reply-To: <dd9ddbcd-ecb3-498e-b01c-8b33ec704de3@email.android.com>
References: <dd9ddbcd-ecb3-498e-b01c-8b33ec704de3@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <EF9A9C48-9D72-4686-B8C7-15433C9B567C@isoc.be>

Hi Avri,

With the NCSG monthly meeting in front of us (in about 1 hour) I think we can get consensus today.
I?m willing to take seat, but will of course allow Maria to respond also to this request.

See you in 1 hour.

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

Op 10-dec.-2013, om 14:44 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> het volgende geschreven:

> Hi,
> 
> With a new policy committee, it is time to elect a new chair/alt-chair combo.
> 
> 
> As the outgoing alt-chair who does not wish to remain in a chairing role, I am making a few suggestions.
> 
> 
> I would like to suggest that we fill these roles with one person from NPOC and one person from NCUC.
> 
> I suggest that we pick these two and then let them decide between themselves which will take what role. Alternatively the committee as a whole could decide using rough consensus.
> 
> I would like to suggest that we consider asking Maria and Rudy to take on the policy committee leadership for the next year.
> 
> 
> 
> Avri Doria_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131210/256b1d87/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Dec 10 17:24:31 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 00:24:31 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] (Se) electing a new Chair and Alternate Chair
In-Reply-To: <EF9A9C48-9D72-4686-B8C7-15433C9B567C@isoc.be>
References: <dd9ddbcd-ecb3-498e-b01c-8b33ec704de3@email.android.com>
	<EF9A9C48-9D72-4686-B8C7-15433C9B567C@isoc.be>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=q1w121Qc4_f6SgrPZNX8MahUB8w5=MFWU15ewEP57TA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

my understanding that PC members decide about chairs , as Avri explained.
and we should give people enough time to think and decide.I am not sure
that everybody can make it for today call.



Rafik


2013/12/11 Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>

> Hi Avri,
>
> With the NCSG monthly meeting in front of us (in about 1 hour) I think we
> can get consensus today.
> I?m willing to take seat, but will of course allow Maria to respond also
> to this request.
>
> See you in 1 hour.
>
>  Rudi Vansnick
> NPOC chair Policy Committee
> NPOC treasurer
> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
> www.npoc.org
>
> Op 10-dec.-2013, om 14:44 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> Hi,
>
> With a new policy committee, it is time to elect a new chair/alt-chair
> combo.
>
>
> As the outgoing alt-chair who does not wish to remain in a chairing role,
> I am making a few suggestions.
>
>
> I would like to suggest that we fill these roles with one person from NPOC
> and one person from NCUC.
>
> I suggest that we pick these two and then let them decide between
> themselves which will take what role. Alternatively the committee as a
> whole could decide using rough consensus.
>
> I would like to suggest that we consider asking Maria and Rudy to take on
> the policy committee leadership for the next year.
>
>
>
> Avri Doria_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131211/69475b6d/attachment.html>


From maria.farrell  Tue Dec 10 17:50:09 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:50:09 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] (Se) electing a new Chair and Alternate Chair
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=q1w121Qc4_f6SgrPZNX8MahUB8w5=MFWU15ewEP57TA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <dd9ddbcd-ecb3-498e-b01c-8b33ec704de3@email.android.com>
	<EF9A9C48-9D72-4686-B8C7-15433C9B567C@isoc.be>
	<CAH5sTh=q1w121Qc4_f6SgrPZNX8MahUB8w5=MFWU15ewEP57TA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdCcDdwkmB6VGNyjzifzQhDxcfMyWzpMKoGqw6HhJOBP4g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all and thanks Avri,

I'm happy to put my name forward with Rudi's for this.

cheers, m


On 10 December 2013 15:24, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> my understanding that PC members decide about chairs , as Avri explained.
> and we should give people enough time to think and decide.I am not sure
> that everybody can make it for today call.
>
>
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2013/12/11 Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>
>
>> Hi Avri,
>>
>> With the NCSG monthly meeting in front of us (in about 1 hour) I think we
>> can get consensus today.
>> I?m willing to take seat, but will of course allow Maria to respond also
>> to this request.
>>
>> See you in 1 hour.
>>
>>  Rudi Vansnick
>> NPOC chair Policy Committee
>> NPOC treasurer
>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>> www.npoc.org
>>
>> Op 10-dec.-2013, om 14:44 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> het volgende
>> geschreven:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> With a new policy committee, it is time to elect a new chair/alt-chair
>> combo.
>>
>>
>> As the outgoing alt-chair who does not wish to remain in a chairing role,
>> I am making a few suggestions.
>>
>>
>> I would like to suggest that we fill these roles with one person from
>> NPOC and one person from NCUC.
>>
>> I suggest that we pick these two and then let them decide between
>> themselves which will take what role. Alternatively the committee as a
>> whole could decide using rough consensus.
>>
>> I would like to suggest that we consider asking Maria and Rudy to take on
>> the policy committee leadership for the next year.
>>
>>
>>
>> Avri Doria_______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131210/6c586df4/attachment.html>


From avri  Fri Dec 13 15:36:47 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 08:36:47 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] (Se) electing a new Chair and Alternate Chair
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdCcDdwkmB6VGNyjzifzQhDxcfMyWzpMKoGqw6HhJOBP4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <dd9ddbcd-ecb3-498e-b01c-8b33ec704de3@email.android.com>	<EF9A9C48-9D72-4686-B8C7-15433C9B567C@isoc.be>	<CAH5sTh=q1w121Qc4_f6SgrPZNX8MahUB8w5=MFWU15ewEP57TA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAC7qwdCcDdwkmB6VGNyjzifzQhDxcfMyWzpMKoGqw6HhJOBP4g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52AB0D6F.8020504@ella.com>

Hi,

Ok, so we have two people willing to stand for Chair/Alternate chair.

- anyone else interested or can i close the nomination process in 24 hours.

Also in that time period please let the list know whether you are 
comfortable, assuming we have only 2 candidates, to let them work out 
roles for themselves.

If we are not, or if we have more than 2 candidates, I would then 
suggest a online poll (ysing doodle or some such) where we could vote, 
with the top vote getter being chair, and the second vote getter being 
alternate chair.

Though, given we are a rough consensus sort of body, if we can find a 
solution without needing to poll, that would seem good to me.

avri
acting as alternate-chair

On 12/10/2013 10:50 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:
> Hi all and thanks Avri,
>
> I'm happy to put my name forward with Rudi's for this.
>
> cheers, m
>
>
> On 10 December 2013 15:24, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     my understanding that PC members decide about chairs , as Avri
>     explained. and we should give people enough time to think and
>     decide.I am not sure that everybody can make it for today call.
>
>
>
>     Rafik
>
>
>     2013/12/11 Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
>     <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>
>
>         Hi Avri,
>
>         With the NCSG monthly meeting in front of us (in about 1 hour)
>         I think we can get consensus today.
>         I'm willing to take seat, but will of course allow Maria to
>         respond also to this request.
>
>         See you in 1 hour.
>
>         Rudi Vansnick
>         NPOC chair Policy Committee
>         NPOC treasurer
>         rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>         Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>         Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>         <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>         www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
>
>         Op 10-dec.-2013, om 14:44 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>         <mailto:avri at acm.org>> het volgende geschreven:
>
>>         Hi,
>>
>>         With a new policy committee, it is time to elect a new
>>         chair/alt-chair combo.
>>
>>
>>         As the outgoing alt-chair who does not wish to remain in a
>>         chairing role, I am making a few suggestions.
>>
>>
>>         I would like to suggest that we fill these roles with one
>>         person from NPOC and one person from NCUC.
>>
>>         I suggest that we pick these two and then let them decide
>>         between themselves which will take what role. Alternatively
>>         the committee as a whole could decide using rough consensus.
>>
>>         I would like to suggest that we consider asking Maria and
>>         Rudy to take on the policy committee leadership for the next
>>         year.
>>
>>
>>
>>         Avri Doria_______________________________________________
>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131213/1dbf5f78/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Fri Dec 13 16:05:12 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 15:05:12 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] (Se) electing a new Chair and Alternate Chair
In-Reply-To: <52AB0D6F.8020504@ella.com>
References: <dd9ddbcd-ecb3-498e-b01c-8b33ec704de3@email.android.com>
	<EF9A9C48-9D72-4686-B8C7-15433C9B567C@isoc.be>
	<CAH5sTh=q1w121Qc4_f6SgrPZNX8MahUB8w5=MFWU15ewEP57TA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAC7qwdCcDdwkmB6VGNyjzifzQhDxcfMyWzpMKoGqw6HhJOBP4g@mail.gmail.com>
	<52AB0D6F.8020504@ella.com>
Message-ID: <24CE4994-5B73-47B9-9B68-EE047FA13EB9@egyptig.org>

Hi Avri,

The NCSG charter doesn't limit the number of PC alternate chairs. If others are agreeable, I suggest having two alternates. Perhaps one from each constituency. 

Thanks. 

Amr

Sent from mobile

> On Dec 13, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Ok, so we have two people willing to stand for Chair/Alternate chair.
> 
> - anyone else interested or can i close the nomination process in 24 hours.
> 
> Also in that time period please let the list know whether you are comfortable, assuming we have only 2 candidates, to let them work out roles for themselves.
> 
> If we are not, or if we have more than 2 candidates, I would then suggest a online poll (ysing doodle or some such) where we could vote, with the top vote getter being chair, and the second vote getter being alternate chair.
> 
> Though, given we are a rough consensus sort of body, if we can find a solution without needing to poll, that would seem good to me.
> 
> avri
> acting as alternate-chair
> 
>> On 12/10/2013 10:50 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:
>> Hi all and thanks Avri,
>> 
>> I'm happy to put my name forward with Rudi's for this.
>> 
>> cheers, m
>> 
>> 
>> On 10 December 2013 15:24, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> my understanding that PC members decide about chairs , as Avri explained. and we should give people enough time to think and decide.I am not sure that everybody can make it for today call.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Rafik 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2013/12/11 Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>
>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>> 
>>>> With the NCSG monthly meeting in front of us (in about 1 hour) I think we can get consensus today.
>>>> I?m willing to take seat, but will of course allow Maria to respond also to this request.
>>>> 
>>>> See you in 1 hour.
>>>> 
>>>> Rudi Vansnick
>>>> NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>> NPOC treasurer
>>>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
>>>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>>>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>> www.npoc.org
>>>> 
>>>>> Op 10-dec.-2013, om 14:44 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> With a new policy committee, it is time to elect a new chair/alt-chair combo.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> As the outgoing alt-chair who does not wish to remain in a chairing role, I am making a few suggestions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would like to suggest that we fill these roles with one person from NPOC and one person from NCUC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I suggest that we pick these two and then let them decide between themselves which will take what role. Alternatively the committee as a whole could decide using rough consensus.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I would like to suggest that we consider asking Maria and Rudy to take on the policy committee leadership for the next year.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Avri Doria_______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20131213/611642db/attachment-0001.html>


From maria.farrell  Fri Dec 13 16:20:30 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 14:20:30 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] (Se) electing a new Chair and Alternate Chair
In-Reply-To: <24CE4994-5B73-47B9-9B68-EE047FA13EB9@egyptig.org>
References: <dd9ddbcd-ecb3-498e-b01c-8b33ec704de3@email.android.com>
	<EF9A9C48-9D72-4686-B8C7-15433C9B567C@isoc.be>
	<CAH5sTh=q1w121Qc4_f6SgrPZNX8MahUB8w5=MFWU15ewEP57TA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAC7qwdCcDdwkmB6VGNyjzifzQhDxcfMyWzpMKoGqw6HhJOBP4g@mail.gmail.com>
	<52AB0D6F.8020504@ella.com>
	<24CE4994-5B73-47B9-9B68-EE047FA13EB9@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdAwoPix9hBcgWa0kQXPEVzKpG1_xHrTw+SR7sU8et+pEw@mail.gmail.com>

I'd be really happy to be an alternate.

cheers, m


On 13 December 2013 14:05, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi Avri,
>
> The NCSG charter doesn't limit the number of PC alternate chairs. If
> others are agreeable, I suggest having two alternates. Perhaps one from
> each constituency.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> Sent from mobile
>
> On Dec 13, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Ok, so we have two people willing to stand for Chair/Alternate chair.
>
> - anyone else interested or can i close the nomination process in 24 hours.
>
> Also in that time period please let the list know whether you are
> comfortable, assuming we have only 2 candidates, to let them work out roles
> for themselves.
>
> If we are not, or if we have more than 2 candidates, I would then suggest
> a online poll (ysing doodle or some such) where we could vote, with the top
> vote getter being chair, and the second vote getter being alternate chair.
>
> Though, given we are a rough consensus sort of body, if we can find a
> solution without needing to poll, that would seem good to me.
>
> avri
> acting as alternate-chair
>
> On 12/10/2013 10:50 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:
>
>  Hi all and thanks Avri,
>
>  I'm happy to put my name forward with Rudi's for this.
>
> cheers, m
>
>
> On 10 December 2013 15:24, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>  my understanding that PC members decide about chairs , as Avri
>> explained. and we should give people enough time to think and decide.I am
>> not sure that everybody can make it for today call.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/11 Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>
>>
>>> Hi Avri,
>>>
>>>  With the NCSG monthly meeting in front of us (in about 1 hour) I think
>>> we can get consensus today.
>>> I?m willing to take seat, but will of course allow Maria to respond also
>>> to this request.
>>>
>>>  See you in 1 hour.
>>>
>>>   Rudi Vansnick
>>>  NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>  NPOC treasurer
>>>  rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
>>>  Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 <%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>>  Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 <%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>>>  www.npoc.org
>>>
>>>  Op 10-dec.-2013, om 14:44 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> het volgende
>>> geschreven:
>>>
>>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> With a new policy committee, it is time to elect a new chair/alt-chair
>>> combo.
>>>
>>>
>>> As the outgoing alt-chair who does not wish to remain in a chairing
>>> role, I am making a few suggestions.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to suggest that we fill these roles with one person from
>>> NPOC and one person from NCUC.
>>>
>>> I suggest that we pick these two and then let them decide between
>>> themselves which will take what role. Alternatively the committee as a
>>> whole could decide using rough consensus.
>>>
>>> I would like to suggest that we consider asking Maria and Rudy to take
>>> on the policy committee leadership for the next year.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Avri Doria_______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://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/20131213/5bd8dcb7/attachment.html>


From avri  Fri Dec 13 16:23:15 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:23:15 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] (Se) electing a new Chair and Alternate Chair
In-Reply-To: <24CE4994-5B73-47B9-9B68-EE047FA13EB9@egyptig.org>
References: <dd9ddbcd-ecb3-498e-b01c-8b33ec704de3@email.android.com>
	<EF9A9C48-9D72-4686-B8C7-15433C9B567C@isoc.be>
	<CAH5sTh=q1w121Qc4_f6SgrPZNX8MahUB8w5=MFWU15ewEP57TA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAC7qwdCcDdwkmB6VGNyjzifzQhDxcfMyWzpMKoGqw6HhJOBP4g@mail.gmail.com>
	<52AB0D6F.8020504@ella.com>
	<24CE4994-5B73-47B9-9B68-EE047FA13EB9@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <52AB1853.4070300@acm.org>

Hi,

True only the chair role is mandated.  We insitituted the alternate 
chair last year just to make sure the work got done by somebody. But 
looking at our work performance, perhasp 2 alternates are indeed necessary.

Did you have a nominee / volunteer in mind?

As for balancing between constituencies, if we balance with 2,then we 
unbalance with 3.
Too bad we don't have either more constituencies or more affiliated NCSG 
members.

avri

On 12/13/2013 9:05 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi Avri,
>
> The NCSG charter doesn't limit the number of PC alternate chairs. If 
> others are agreeable, I suggest having two alternates. Perhaps one 
> from each constituency.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> Sent from mobile
>
> On Dec 13, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com 
> <mailto:avri at ella.com>> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Ok, so we have two people willing to stand for Chair/Alternate chair.
>>
>> - anyone else interested or can i close the nomination process in 24 
>> hours.
>>
>> Also in that time period please let the list know whether you are 
>> comfortable, assuming we have only 2 candidates, to let them work out 
>> roles for themselves.
>>
>> If we are not, or if we have more than 2 candidates, I would then 
>> suggest a online poll (ysing doodle or some such) where we could 
>> vote, with the top vote getter being chair, and the second vote 
>> getter being alternate chair.
>>
>> Though, given we are a rough consensus sort of body, if we can find a 
>> solution without needing to poll, that would seem good to me.
>>
>> avri
>> acting as alternate-chair
>>
>> On 12/10/2013 10:50 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:
>>> Hi all and thanks Avri,
>>>
>>> I'm happy to put my name forward with Rudi's for this.
>>>
>>> cheers, m
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10 December 2013 15:24, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hi,
>>>
>>>     my understanding that PC members decide about chairs , as Avri
>>>     explained. and we should give people enough time to think and
>>>     decide.I am not sure that everybody can make it for today call.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>>     2013/12/11 Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
>>>     <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>
>>>
>>>         Hi Avri,
>>>
>>>         With the NCSG monthly meeting in front of us (in about 1
>>>         hour) I think we can get consensus today.
>>>         I?m willing to take seat, but will of course allow Maria to
>>>         respond also to this request.
>>>
>>>         See you in 1 hour.
>>>
>>>         Rudi Vansnick
>>>         NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>         NPOC treasurer
>>>         rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>>         Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>>         Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>         <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>>>         www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
>>>
>>>         Op 10-dec.-2013, om 14:44 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>         <mailto:avri at acm.org>> het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>>>         Hi,
>>>>
>>>>         With a new policy committee, it is time to elect a new
>>>>         chair/alt-chair combo.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         As the outgoing alt-chair who does not wish to remain in a
>>>>         chairing role, I am making a few suggestions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         I would like to suggest that we fill these roles with one
>>>>         person from NPOC and one person from NCUC.
>>>>
>>>>         I suggest that we pick these two and then let them decide
>>>>         between themselves which will take what role. Alternatively
>>>>         the committee as a whole could decide using rough consensus.
>>>>
>>>>         I would like to suggest that we consider asking Maria and
>>>>         Rudy to take on the policy committee leadership for the
>>>>         next year.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         Avri Doria_______________________________________________
>>>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto: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/20131213/789dc135/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Fri Dec 13 16:43:51 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 15:43:51 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] (Se) electing a new Chair and Alternate Chair
In-Reply-To: <52AB1853.4070300@acm.org>
References: <dd9ddbcd-ecb3-498e-b01c-8b33ec704de3@email.android.com>
	<EF9A9C48-9D72-4686-B8C7-15433C9B567C@isoc.be>
	<CAH5sTh=q1w121Qc4_f6SgrPZNX8MahUB8w5=MFWU15ewEP57TA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAC7qwdCcDdwkmB6VGNyjzifzQhDxcfMyWzpMKoGqw6HhJOBP4g@mail.gmail.com>
	<52AB0D6F.8020504@ella.com>
	<24CE4994-5B73-47B9-9B68-EE047FA13EB9@egyptig.org>
	<52AB1853.4070300@acm.org>
Message-ID: <B17FCC93-D168-478D-963F-1B9F061981C5@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Distribution of work amongst a team of three was my reasoning for the suggestion. However, balance was honestly not what I was taking into consideration.

My hope is that two alternate chairs from the two constituencies would ensure more robust input to policy statements, either for or against NCSG endorsement. We've had a problem with that in the past. 

Sorry for the short notes. I'm typing on my phone in the middle of a snowy day. :)

Thanks. 

Amr

Sent from mobile

> On Dec 13, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> True only the chair role is mandated.  We insitituted the alternate chair last year just to make sure the work got done by somebody.  But looking at our work performance, perhasp 2 alternates are indeed necessary.
> 
> Did you have a nominee / volunteer in mind?
> 
> As for balancing between constituencies, if we balance with 2,then we unbalance with 3.
> Too bad we don't have either more constituencies or more affiliated NCSG members.
> 
> avri
> 
>> On 12/13/2013 9:05 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi Avri,
>> 
>> The NCSG charter doesn't limit the number of PC alternate chairs. If others are agreeable, I suggest having two alternates. Perhaps one from each constituency. 
>> 
>> Thanks. 
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> Sent from mobile
>> 
>> On Dec 13, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Ok, so we have two people willing to stand for Chair/Alternate chair.
>>> 
>>> - anyone else interested or can i close the nomination process in 24 hours.
>>> 
>>> Also in that time period please let the list know whether you are comfortable, assuming we have only 2 candidates, to let them work out roles for themselves.
>>> 
>>> If we are not, or if we have more than 2 candidates, I would then suggest a online poll (ysing doodle or some such) where we could vote, with the top vote getter being chair, and the second vote getter being alternate chair.
>>> 
>>> Though, given we are a rough consensus sort of body, if we can find a solution without needing to poll, that would seem good to me.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> acting as alternate-chair
>>> 
>>>> On 12/10/2013 10:50 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:
>>>> Hi all and thanks Avri,
>>>> 
>>>> I'm happy to put my name forward with Rudi's for this.
>>>> 
>>>> cheers, m
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 10 December 2013 15:24, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> my understanding that PC members decide about chairs , as Avri explained. and we should give people enough time to think and decide.I am not sure that everybody can make it for today call.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2013/12/11 Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>
>>>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> With the NCSG monthly meeting in front of us (in about 1 hour) I think we can get consensus today.
>>>>>> I?m willing to take seat, but will of course allow Maria to respond also to this request.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> See you in 1 hour.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rudi Vansnick
>>>>>> NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>>>> NPOC treasurer
>>>>>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
>>>>>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>>>>>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>>>> www.npoc.org
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Op 10-dec.-2013, om 14:44 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> With a new policy committee, it is time to elect a new chair/alt-chair combo.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As the outgoing alt-chair who does not wish to remain in a chairing role, I am making a few suggestions.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I would like to suggest that we fill these roles with one person from NPOC and one person from NCUC.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I suggest that we pick these two and then let them decide between themselves which will take what role. Alternatively the committee as a whole could decide using rough consensus.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I would like to suggest that we consider asking Maria and Rudy to take on the policy committee leadership for the next year.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Avri Doria_______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/20131213/ce53ef76/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Fri Dec 13 17:28:42 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:28:42 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] (Se) electing a new Chair and Alternate Chair
In-Reply-To: <B17FCC93-D168-478D-963F-1B9F061981C5@egyptig.org>
References: <dd9ddbcd-ecb3-498e-b01c-8b33ec704de3@email.android.com>
	<EF9A9C48-9D72-4686-B8C7-15433C9B567C@isoc.be>
	<CAH5sTh=q1w121Qc4_f6SgrPZNX8MahUB8w5=MFWU15ewEP57TA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAC7qwdCcDdwkmB6VGNyjzifzQhDxcfMyWzpMKoGqw6HhJOBP4g@mail.gmail.com>
	<52AB0D6F.8020504@ella.com>
	<24CE4994-5B73-47B9-9B68-EE047FA13EB9@egyptig.org>
	<52AB1853.4070300@acm.org>
	<B17FCC93-D168-478D-963F-1B9F061981C5@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <0437E5D9-0896-454E-BFD5-D2A6323F45D4@egyptig.org>

Hello again,

To answer a few other questions that I failed to on my mobile earlier:

1. I would be willing to be a third candidate for either the chair or alternate chair duties. If we decide to only have a team of two, I would prefer to not be one of them.
2. I know Rudi volunteered to be on the PC leadership team, but I have a thought on this; Rudi is already the NPOC PC chair. To have him be a chair or alternate chair for the NCSG PC would be (IMHO) somewhat redundant. I say this because (for example) in a situation where we are looking for urgent NPOC input on a policy statement; if Rudi is not available for any reason, then his duties on both PCs will be compromised. I suggest (and this is only a suggestion to be decided by Rudi and other NCSG PC members from NPOC) that another NPOC candidate be nominated.
3. I am fine with either the online polling/voting or the rough consensus methods Avri suggested.

At this point, I would appreciate hearing more from the rest of the PC members on their opinions regarding a team of three vs. a team of two and how we will decide. If Rudi and NPOC folks would weigh in on my suggestion on the NPOC candidate, I?d also be grateful.

Thanks everyone.

Amr

On Dec 13, 2013, at 3:43 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Distribution of work amongst a team of three was my reasoning for the suggestion. However, balance was honestly not what I was taking into consideration.
> 
> My hope is that two alternate chairs from the two constituencies would ensure more robust input to policy statements, either for or against NCSG endorsement. We've had a problem with that in the past. 
> 
> Sorry for the short notes. I'm typing on my phone in the middle of a snowy day. :)
> 
> Thanks. 
> 
> Amr
> 
> Sent from mobile
> 
> On Dec 13, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> True only the chair role is mandated.  We insitituted the alternate chair last year just to make sure the work got done by somebody.  But looking at our work performance, perhasp 2 alternates are indeed necessary.
>> 
>> Did you have a nominee / volunteer in mind?
>> 
>> As for balancing between constituencies, if we balance with 2,then we unbalance with 3.
>> Too bad we don't have either more constituencies or more affiliated NCSG members.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 12/13/2013 9:05 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi Avri,
>>> 
>>> The NCSG charter doesn't limit the number of PC alternate chairs. If others are agreeable, I suggest having two alternates. Perhaps one from each constituency. 
>>> 
>>> Thanks. 
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> Sent from mobile
>>> 
>>> On Dec 13, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Ok, so we have two people willing to stand for Chair/Alternate chair.
>>>> 
>>>> - anyone else interested or can i close the nomination process in 24 hours.
>>>> 
>>>> Also in that time period please let the list know whether you are comfortable, assuming we have only 2 candidates, to let them work out roles for themselves.
>>>> 
>>>> If we are not, or if we have more than 2 candidates, I would then suggest a online poll (ysing doodle or some such) where we could vote, with the top vote getter being chair, and the second vote getter being alternate chair.
>>>> 
>>>> Though, given we are a rough consensus sort of body, if we can find a solution without needing to poll, that would seem good to me.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> acting as alternate-chair
>>>> 
>>>> On 12/10/2013 10:50 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:
>>>>> Hi all and thanks Avri,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm happy to put my name forward with Rudi's for this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> cheers, m
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 10 December 2013 15:24, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> my understanding that PC members decide about chairs , as Avri explained. and we should give people enough time to think and decide.I am not sure that everybody can make it for today call.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2013/12/11 Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>
>>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>>> 
>>>>> With the NCSG monthly meeting in front of us (in about 1 hour) I think we can get consensus today.
>>>>> I?m willing to take seat, but will of course allow Maria to respond also to this request.
>>>>> 
>>>>> See you in 1 hour.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rudi Vansnick
>>>>> NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>>> NPOC treasurer
>>>>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
>>>>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>>>>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>>> www.npoc.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> Op 10-dec.-2013, om 14:44 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> With a new policy committee, it is time to elect a new chair/alt-chair combo.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As the outgoing alt-chair who does not wish to remain in a chairing role, I am making a few suggestions.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would like to suggest that we fill these roles with one person from NPOC and one person from NCUC.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I suggest that we pick these two and then let them decide between themselves which will take what role. Alternatively the committee as a whole could decide using rough consensus.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would like to suggest that we consider asking Maria and Rudy to take on the policy committee leadership for the next year.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Avri Doria_______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/20131213/80784885/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Fri Dec 13 17:32:02 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 10:32:02 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Actions/Next Meeting is
	17 December
In-Reply-To: <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF272197A6EFC@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
References: <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF272197A6EFC@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
Message-ID: <52AB2872.2070808@acm.org>


Opinions?

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Actions/Next Meeting is 17 December
Date: 	Thu, 5 Dec 2013 00:31:47 +0000
From: 	Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan at reedsmith.com>
To: 	'Julie Hedlund' <julie.hedlund at icann.org>,
gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>




All:

I have attached clean and ?track changes? versions of the revised
proposal on Resubmission of a Motion, reflecting yesterday?s discussion
(see no. 2 in Julie?s email).  I look forward to any comments you all
may have and then getting this to the constituencies for their feedback.

Best regards,

Greg

Gregory S. Shatan
Partner
*Reed Smith LLP*
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
212.549.0275 (Phone)
917.816.6428 (Mobile)
212.521.5450 (Fax)
gshatan at reedsmith.com
www.reedsmith.com

*From:*owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
[mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund
*Sent:* Tuesday, December 03, 2013 4:09 PM
*To:* gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
*Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions/Next Meeting is 17 December
*Importance:* High

Dear SCI members,

Please see the actions from the meeting on 03 December 2013. Our next
meeting is scheduled for 17 December 20:00 UTC for 1 hour (12:00 PST ,
15:00 EST,  20:00 London, 21:00 CET ? a separate notice will be sent
with teleconference information).  As agreed in Buenos Aires the SCI
will revert to a 2-week schedule when it has outstanding items, although
to avoid the New Year holiday the meeting following 17 December will be
on 07 January.

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director

1.  Working Group Self-Assessment:  Mikey O'Conner and Ron Andruff will
enage Ken to draft a message for Mikey to send to the WG to retake the
survey and set a deadline for 2 weeks (17 December).  Julie Hedlund will
send the summary of the previous survey to the SCI list (done).

2  Re-Submitting a Motion: Greg Shatan will re-write B Limitations and
Exceptions #4 to change "tabled" to "deferred" and make other
adjustments as discussed.  SCI members will send the revised language to
their constituencies to get feedback by a 2-week deadline (17 December).
   Continue discussion on whether "consent" is needed before "agenda" in
item A Rule, #3.

3.  Voting by Email:  Avri Doria and Thomas Rickert will work on an
approach.

4.  Waiver/Exception to GNSO Operating Procedures:  Continue discussion
on the next call and on the list.

5.  AOB: Next meeting is 17 December and the SCI will move back to a
2-week schedule when it has outstanding items (excepting meetings that
fall on holidays).

* * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and
may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you
are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy
it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
person. Thank you for your cooperation.

* * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you
that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice
contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
(1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable
state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending
to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.

Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Addressing the Resubmission of a Motion.DOCX
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 40527 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131213/eb17fbc8/attachment-0002.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Addressing the Resubmission of a Motion - Addressing the Resubmission of a Motion.DOCX
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 30372 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131213/eb17fbc8/attachment-0003.docx>


From mllemineur  Fri Dec 13 20:09:03 2013
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 12:09:03 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] (Se) electing a new Chair and Alternate Chair
In-Reply-To: <52AB0D6F.8020504@ella.com>
References: <dd9ddbcd-ecb3-498e-b01c-8b33ec704de3@email.android.com>
	<EF9A9C48-9D72-4686-B8C7-15433C9B567C@isoc.be>
	<CAH5sTh=q1w121Qc4_f6SgrPZNX8MahUB8w5=MFWU15ewEP57TA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAC7qwdCcDdwkmB6VGNyjzifzQhDxcfMyWzpMKoGqw6HhJOBP4g@mail.gmail.com>
	<52AB0D6F.8020504@ella.com>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqGwaMbCYjpWPaiJ94k4=M2btM0cNJRy_oU3gSvwanHnvg@mail.gmail.com>

hi,

Before I give my opinions about the  proposed ideas, I would like to first
suggest that we take  some extra time to get organize. Even if this is
important to take a final decision  asap, we need to discuss this/ share
ideas and thoughts internally within the NPOC EC  (and even look for
alternative candidates if we were to decide that we want to proceed this
way) and also need to organize the poll at NCSG level, in case we decide
that there is need for it. Anyhow, all this requires  having a little extra
room especially if we want to include in the discussion colleagues who have
the time to answer back after office hours or during the weekend :)

Would it be acceptable to all of you if we fix as deadline  the end of the
day Monday or Tuesday?

best,
mll



On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> Ok, so we have two people willing to stand for Chair/Alternate chair.
>
> - anyone else interested or can i close the nomination process in 24 hours.
>
> Also in that time period please let the list know whether you are
> comfortable, assuming we have only 2 candidates, to let them work out roles
> for themselves.
>
> If we are not, or if we have more than 2 candidates, I would then suggest
> a online poll (ysing doodle or some such) where we could vote, with the top
> vote getter being chair, and the second vote getter being alternate chair.
>
> Though, given we are a rough consensus sort of body, if we can find a
> solution without needing to poll, that would seem good to me.
>
> avri
> acting as alternate-chair
>
>
> On 12/10/2013 10:50 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:
>
>  Hi all and thanks Avri,
>
>  I'm happy to put my name forward with Rudi's for this.
>
> cheers, m
>
>
> On 10 December 2013 15:24, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>  my understanding that PC members decide about chairs , as Avri
>> explained. and we should give people enough time to think and decide.I am
>> not sure that everybody can make it for today call.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2013/12/11 Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>
>>
>>> Hi Avri,
>>>
>>>  With the NCSG monthly meeting in front of us (in about 1 hour) I think
>>> we can get consensus today.
>>> I?m willing to take seat, but will of course allow Maria to respond also
>>> to this request.
>>>
>>>  See you in 1 hour.
>>>
>>>   Rudi Vansnick
>>>  NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>  NPOC treasurer
>>>  rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
>>>  Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 <%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>>  Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 <%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>>>  www.npoc.org
>>>
>>>  Op 10-dec.-2013, om 14:44 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> het volgende
>>> geschreven:
>>>
>>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> With a new policy committee, it is time to elect a new chair/alt-chair
>>> combo.
>>>
>>>
>>> As the outgoing alt-chair who does not wish to remain in a chairing
>>> role, I am making a few suggestions.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to suggest that we fill these roles with one person from
>>> NPOC and one person from NCUC.
>>>
>>> I suggest that we pick these two and then let them decide between
>>> themselves which will take what role. Alternatively the committee as a
>>> whole could decide using rough consensus.
>>>
>>> I would like to suggest that we consider asking Maria and Rudy to take
>>> on the policy committee leadership for the next year.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Avri Doria_______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://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/20131213/cff1c54b/attachment.html>


From avri  Fri Dec 13 20:48:14 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 13:48:14 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] (Se) electing a new Chair and Alternate Chair
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqGwaMbCYjpWPaiJ94k4=M2btM0cNJRy_oU3gSvwanHnvg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <dd9ddbcd-ecb3-498e-b01c-8b33ec704de3@email.android.com>	<EF9A9C48-9D72-4686-B8C7-15433C9B567C@isoc.be>	<CAH5sTh=q1w121Qc4_f6SgrPZNX8MahUB8w5=MFWU15ewEP57TA@mail.gmail.com>	<CAC7qwdCcDdwkmB6VGNyjzifzQhDxcfMyWzpMKoGqw6HhJOBP4g@mail.gmail.com>	<52AB0D6F.8020504@ella.com>
	<CAD3sNqGwaMbCYjpWPaiJ94k4=M2btM0cNJRy_oU3gSvwanHnvg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52AB566E.2050202@acm.org>

Hi,

Of course we can take more time.  But, please, not too much as I am 
eager to cease being alternate chair.

In fact NCUC may want to make sure it replaces me as the NCUC Rep as i 
am now a member of PC by virtue of NCSG election to the Council and as 
with all NCSG Council members need to take the overall SG perspective 
and not a individual constituency perspective.

I do not understand what you mean by organizing a poll at the NCSG 
level.  This is a committee formed by Council members, 2 reps per 
council and our NCSG chair and observers as invited by the PC. Those are 
the people who determine the leadership accorging to the charter, if i 
understand it properly.

avri


On 13-Dec-13 13:09, marie-laure Lemineur wrote:
> hi,
>
> Before I give my opinions about the  proposed ideas, I would like to 
> first suggest that we take  some extra time to get organize. Even if 
> this is important to take a final decision  asap, we need to discuss 
> this/ share ideas and thoughts internally within the NPOC EC  (and 
> even look for alternative candidates if we were to decide that we want 
> to proceed this way) and also need to organize the poll at NCSG level, 
> in case we decide that there is need for it. Anyhow, all this requires 
>  having a little extra room especially if we want to include in the 
> discussion colleagues who have the time to answer back after office 
> hours or during the weekend :)
>
> Would it be acceptable to all of you if we fix as deadline  the end of 
> the day Monday or Tuesday?
>
> best,
> mll
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com 
> <mailto:avri at ella.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Ok, so we have two people willing to stand for Chair/Alternate chair.
>
>     - anyone else interested or can i close the nomination process in
>     24 hours.
>
>     Also in that time period please let the list know whether you are
>     comfortable, assuming we have only 2 candidates, to let them work
>     out roles for themselves.
>
>     If we are not, or if we have more than 2 candidates, I would then
>     suggest a online poll (ysing doodle or some such) where we could
>     vote, with the top vote getter being chair, and the second vote
>     getter being alternate chair.
>
>     Though, given we are a rough consensus sort of body, if we can
>     find a solution without needing to poll, that would seem good to me.
>
>     avri
>     acting as alternate-chair
>
>
>     On 12/10/2013 10:50 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:
>>     Hi all and thanks Avri,
>>
>>     I'm happy to put my name forward with Rudi's for this.
>>
>>     cheers, m
>>
>>
>>     On 10 December 2013 15:24, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         Hi,
>>
>>         my understanding that PC members decide about chairs , as
>>         Avri explained. and we should give people enough time to
>>         think and decide.I am not sure that everybody can make it for
>>         today call.
>>
>>
>>
>>         Rafik
>>
>>
>>         2013/12/11 Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
>>         <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>
>>
>>             Hi Avri,
>>
>>             With the NCSG monthly meeting in front of us (in about 1
>>             hour) I think we can get consensus today.
>>             I?m willing to take seat, but will of course allow Maria
>>             to respond also to this request.
>>
>>             See you in 1 hour.
>>
>>             Rudi Vansnick
>>             NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>             NPOC treasurer
>>             rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>             Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>>             <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>             Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>             <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>>             www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
>>
>>             Op 10-dec.-2013, om 14:44 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>             <mailto:avri at acm.org>> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>>             Hi,
>>>
>>>             With a new policy committee, it is time to elect a new
>>>             chair/alt-chair combo.
>>>
>>>
>>>             As the outgoing alt-chair who does not wish to remain in
>>>             a chairing role, I am making a few suggestions.
>>>
>>>
>>>             I would like to suggest that we fill these roles with
>>>             one person from NPOC and one person from NCUC.
>>>
>>>             I suggest that we pick these two and then let them
>>>             decide between themselves which will take what role.
>>>             Alternatively the committee as a whole could decide
>>>             using rough consensus.
>>>
>>>             I would like to suggest that we consider asking Maria
>>>             and Rudy to take on the policy committee leadership for
>>>             the next year.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>             Avri Doria_______________________________________________
>>>             PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>             PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>             http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>             _______________________________________________
>>             PC-NCSG mailing list
>>             PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>             http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org  <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto: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/20131213/ca896758/attachment-0001.html>


From mllemineur  Fri Dec 13 21:18:50 2013
From: mllemineur (Marie Laure Lemineur)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 13:18:50 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] (Se) electing a new Chair and Alternate Chair
In-Reply-To: <52AB566E.2050202@acm.org>
References: <dd9ddbcd-ecb3-498e-b01c-8b33ec704de3@email.android.com>
	<EF9A9C48-9D72-4686-B8C7-15433C9B567C@isoc.be>
	<CAH5sTh=q1w121Qc4_f6SgrPZNX8MahUB8w5=MFWU15ewEP57TA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAC7qwdCcDdwkmB6VGNyjzifzQhDxcfMyWzpMKoGqw6HhJOBP4g@mail.gmail.com>
	<52AB0D6F.8020504@ella.com>
	<CAD3sNqGwaMbCYjpWPaiJ94k4=M2btM0cNJRy_oU3gSvwanHnvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52AB566E.2050202@acm.org>
Message-ID: <449856AA-B215-4E73-BB63-EE7538EC745A@gmail.com>

Hi, 

Understood and understandable. Re the poll, it was in reference to your idea if online poll if needed. 
Best
Mll

Enviado desde mi iPhone.
Favor disculpar errores ortogr?ficos.

Sent from my IPhone.
Please excuse any spelling errors. 

> El 13/12/2013, a las 12:48, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> escribi?:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Of course we can take more time.  But, please, not too much as I am eager to cease being alternate chair.
> 
> In fact NCUC may want to make sure it replaces me as the NCUC Rep as i am now a member of PC by virtue of NCSG election to the Council and as with all NCSG Council members need to take the overall SG perspective and not a individual constituency perspective.
> 
> I do not understand what you mean by organizing a poll at the NCSG level.  This is a committee formed by Council members, 2 reps per council and our NCSG chair and observers as invited by the PC.  Those are the people who determine the leadership accorging to the charter, if i understand it properly.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
>> On 13-Dec-13 13:09, marie-laure Lemineur wrote:
>> hi,
>> 
>> Before I give my opinions about the  proposed ideas, I would like to first suggest that we take  some extra time to get organize. Even if this is important to take a final decision  asap, we need to discuss this/ share ideas and thoughts internally within the NPOC EC  (and even look for alternative candidates if we were to decide that we want to proceed this way) and also need to organize the poll at NCSG level, in case we decide that there is need for it. Anyhow, all this requires  having a little extra room especially if we want to include in the discussion colleagues who have the time to answer back after office hours or during the weekend :)
>> 
>> Would it be acceptable to all of you if we fix as deadline  the end of the day Monday or Tuesday?
>> 
>> best,
>> mll
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Ok, so we have two people willing to stand for Chair/Alternate chair.
>>> 
>>> - anyone else interested or can i close the nomination process in 24 hours.
>>> 
>>> Also in that time period please let the list know whether you are comfortable, assuming we have only 2 candidates, to let them work out roles for themselves.
>>> 
>>> If we are not, or if we have more than 2 candidates, I would then suggest a online poll (ysing doodle or some such) where we could vote, with the top vote getter being chair, and the second vote getter being alternate chair.
>>> 
>>> Though, given we are a rough consensus sort of body, if we can find a solution without needing to poll, that would seem good to me.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> acting as alternate-chair
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 12/10/2013 10:50 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:
>>>> Hi all and thanks Avri,
>>>> 
>>>> I'm happy to put my name forward with Rudi's for this.
>>>> 
>>>> cheers, m
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 10 December 2013 15:24, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> my understanding that PC members decide about chairs , as Avri explained. and we should give people enough time to think and decide.I am not sure that everybody can make it for today call.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2013/12/11 Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>
>>>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> With the NCSG monthly meeting in front of us (in about 1 hour) I think we can                                           get consensus today.
>>>>>> I?m willing to take seat, but will of course allow Maria to respond also to this request.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> See you in 1 hour.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rudi Vansnick
>>>>>> NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>>>> NPOC treasurer
>>>>>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
>>>>>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>>>>>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>>>> www.npoc.org
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Op 10-dec.-2013, om 14:44 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> With a new policy committee, it is time to elect a new chair/alt-chair combo.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As the outgoing alt-chair who does not wish to remain in a chairing role, I am making a few suggestions.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I would like to suggest that we fill these roles with one person from NPOC and one person from NCUC.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I suggest that we pick these two and then let them decide between themselves which will take what role. Alternatively the                                                   committee as a whole could decide using rough consensus.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I would like to suggest that we consider asking Maria and Rudy to take on                                                   the policy committee leadership for the next year.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Avri Doria_______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/20131213/9098ee5a/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Fri Dec 13 22:01:55 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 21:01:55 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] (Se) electing a new Chair and Alternate Chair
In-Reply-To: <449856AA-B215-4E73-BB63-EE7538EC745A@gmail.com>
References: <dd9ddbcd-ecb3-498e-b01c-8b33ec704de3@email.android.com>
	<EF9A9C48-9D72-4686-B8C7-15433C9B567C@isoc.be>
	<CAH5sTh=q1w121Qc4_f6SgrPZNX8MahUB8w5=MFWU15ewEP57TA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAC7qwdCcDdwkmB6VGNyjzifzQhDxcfMyWzpMKoGqw6HhJOBP4g@mail.gmail.com>
	<52AB0D6F.8020504@ella.com>
	<CAD3sNqGwaMbCYjpWPaiJ94k4=M2btM0cNJRy_oU3gSvwanHnvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<52AB566E.2050202@acm.org>
	<449856AA-B215-4E73-BB63-EE7538EC745A@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <04564B80-07A6-4263-BD63-4A9A8DF513A6@egyptig.org>

I think the poll was only intended for the PC members, unless I misunderstood. But yes..., we are missing an NCUC appointee to the PC. 

Thanks. 

Amr

Sent from mobile

> On Dec 13, 2013, at 8:18 PM, Marie Laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi, 
> 
> Understood and understandable. Re the poll, it was in reference to your idea if online poll if needed. 
> Best
> Mll
> 
> Enviado desde mi iPhone.
> Favor disculpar errores ortogr?ficos.
> 
> Sent from my IPhone.
> Please excuse any spelling errors. 
> 
>> El 13/12/2013, a las 12:48, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> escribi?:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Of course we can take more time.  But, please, not too much as I am eager to cease being alternate chair.
>> 
>> In fact NCUC may want to make sure it replaces me as the NCUC Rep as i am now a member of PC by virtue of NCSG election to the Council and as with all NCSG Council members need to take the overall SG perspective and not a individual constituency perspective.
>> 
>> I do not understand what you mean by organizing a poll at the NCSG level.  This is a committee formed by Council members, 2 reps per council and our NCSG chair and observers as invited by the PC.  Those are the people who determine the leadership accorging to the charter, if i understand it properly.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>>> On 13-Dec-13 13:09, marie-laure       Lemineur wrote:
>>> hi,
>>> 
>>> Before I give my opinions about the  proposed ideas, I would like to first suggest that we take  some extra time to get organize. Even if this is important to take a final decision  asap, we need to discuss this/ share ideas and thoughts internally within the NPOC EC  (and even look for alternative candidates if we were to decide that we want to proceed this way) and also need to organize the poll at NCSG level, in case we decide that there is need for it. Anyhow, all this requires  having a little extra room especially if we want to include in the discussion colleagues who have the time to answer back after office hours or during the weekend :)
>>> 
>>> Would it be acceptable to all of you if we fix as deadline  the end of the day Monday or Tuesday?
>>> 
>>> best,
>>> mll
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 7:36 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Ok, so we have two people willing to stand for Chair/Alternate chair.
>>>> 
>>>> - anyone else interested or can i close the nomination process in 24 hours.
>>>> 
>>>> Also in that time period please let the list know whether you are comfortable, assuming we have only 2 candidates, to let them work out roles for themselves.
>>>> 
>>>> If we are not, or if we have more than 2 candidates, I would then suggest a online poll (ysing doodle or some such) where we could vote, with the top vote getter being chair, and the second vote getter being alternate chair.
>>>> 
>>>> Though, given we are a rough consensus sort of body, if we can find a solution without needing to poll, that would seem good to me.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> acting as alternate-chair
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 12/10/2013 10:50 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:
>>>>> Hi all and thanks Avri,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I'm happy to put my name forward with Rudi's for this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> cheers, m
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 10 December 2013 15:24, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> my understanding that PC members decide about chairs , as Avri explained. and we should give people enough time to think and decide.I am not sure that everybody can make it for today call.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rafik 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2013/12/11 Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>
>>>>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> With the NCSG monthly meeting in front of us (in about 1 hour) I think we can get consensus today.
>>>>>>> I?m willing to take seat, but will of course allow Maria to respond also to this request.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> See you in 1 hour.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Rudi Vansnick
>>>>>>> NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>>>>> NPOC treasurer
>>>>>>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
>>>>>>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>>>>>>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>>>>> www.npoc.org
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Op 10-dec.-2013, om 14:44 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> With a new policy committee, it is time to elect a new chair/alt-chair combo.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> As the outgoing alt-chair who does not wish to remain in a chairing role, I am making a few suggestions.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I would like to suggest that we fill these roles with one person from NPOC and one person from NCUC.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I suggest that we pick these two and then let them decide between themselves which will take what role. Alternatively the committee as a whole could decide using rough consensus.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I would like to suggest that we consider asking Maria and Rudy to take on the policy committee leadership for the next year.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Avri Doria_______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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/20131213/37ae5f99/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Sat Dec 14 16:52:40 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 14:52:40 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] (Se) electing a new Chair and Alternate Chair
In-Reply-To: <0437E5D9-0896-454E-BFD5-D2A6323F45D4@egyptig.org>
References: <dd9ddbcd-ecb3-498e-b01c-8b33ec704de3@email.android.com>
	<EF9A9C48-9D72-4686-B8C7-15433C9B567C@isoc.be>
	<CAH5sTh=q1w121Qc4_f6SgrPZNX8MahUB8w5=MFWU15ewEP57TA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAC7qwdCcDdwkmB6VGNyjzifzQhDxcfMyWzpMKoGqw6HhJOBP4g@mail.gmail.com>
	<52AB0D6F.8020504@ella.com>
	<24CE4994-5B73-47B9-9B68-EE047FA13EB9@egyptig.org>
	<52AB1853.4070300@acm.org>
	<B17FCC93-D168-478D-963F-1B9F061981C5@egyptig.org>
	<0437E5D9-0896-454E-BFD5-D2A6323F45D4@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <3E77C68F-835D-4C72-B462-E47F203B0242@uzh.ch>


Hi

And actually, EC finishes an election Tuesday, and the first order of business for the new EC will be to fill appointed slots.  So if we could please hold off a couple days and give members a chance to put their hats in the ring before the EC selects, that would be procedurally preferable to a few of us deciding here.

Thanks

Bill

On Dec 13, 2013, at 3:28 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:

> Hello again,
> 
> To answer a few other questions that I failed to on my mobile earlier:
> 
> 1. I would be willing to be a third candidate for either the chair or alternate chair duties. If we decide to only have a team of two, I would prefer to not be one of them.
> 2. I know Rudi volunteered to be on the PC leadership team, but I have a thought on this; Rudi is already the NPOC PC chair. To have him be a chair or alternate chair for the NCSG PC would be (IMHO) somewhat redundant. I say this because (for example) in a situation where we are looking for urgent NPOC input on a policy statement; if Rudi is not available for any reason, then his duties on both PCs will be compromised. I suggest (and this is only a suggestion to be decided by Rudi and other NCSG PC members from NPOC) that another NPOC candidate be nominated.
> 3. I am fine with either the online polling/voting or the rough consensus methods Avri suggested.
> 
> At this point, I would appreciate hearing more from the rest of the PC members on their opinions regarding a team of three vs. a team of two and how we will decide. If Rudi and NPOC folks would weigh in on my suggestion on the NPOC candidate, I?d also be grateful.
> 
> Thanks everyone.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Dec 13, 2013, at 3:43 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Distribution of work amongst a team of three was my reasoning for the suggestion. However, balance was honestly not what I was taking into consideration.
>> 
>> My hope is that two alternate chairs from the two constituencies would ensure more robust input to policy statements, either for or against NCSG endorsement. We've had a problem with that in the past. 
>> 
>> Sorry for the short notes. I'm typing on my phone in the middle of a snowy day. :)
>> 
>> Thanks. 
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> Sent from mobile
>> 
>> On Dec 13, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> True only the chair role is mandated.  We insitituted the alternate chair last year just to make sure the work got done by somebody.  But looking at our work performance, perhasp 2 alternates are indeed necessary.
>>> 
>>> Did you have a nominee / volunteer in mind?
>>> 
>>> As for balancing between constituencies, if we balance with 2,then we unbalance with 3.
>>> Too bad we don't have either more constituencies or more affiliated NCSG members.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> On 12/13/2013 9:05 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>> 
>>>> The NCSG charter doesn't limit the number of PC alternate chairs. If others are agreeable, I suggest having two alternates. Perhaps one from each constituency. 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks. 
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from mobile
>>>> 
>>>> On Dec 13, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ok, so we have two people willing to stand for Chair/Alternate chair.
>>>>> 
>>>>> - anyone else interested or can i close the nomination process in 24 hours.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Also in that time period please let the list know whether you are comfortable, assuming we have only 2 candidates, to let them work out roles for themselves.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If we are not, or if we have more than 2 candidates, I would then suggest a online poll (ysing doodle or some such) where we could vote, with the top vote getter being chair, and the second vote getter being alternate chair.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Though, given we are a rough consensus sort of body, if we can find a solution without needing to poll, that would seem good to me.
>>>>> 
>>>>> avri
>>>>> acting as alternate-chair
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 12/10/2013 10:50 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:
>>>>>> Hi all and thanks Avri,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm happy to put my name forward with Rudi's for this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> cheers, m
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 10 December 2013 15:24, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> my understanding that PC members decide about chairs , as Avri explained. and we should give people enough time to think and decide.I am not                       sure that everybody can make it for today call.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rafik 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2013/12/11 Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>
>>>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> With the NCSG monthly meeting in front of us (in about 1 hour) I think we can get consensus today.
>>>>>> I?m willing to take seat, but will of course allow Maria to respond also to this request.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> See you in 1 hour.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rudi Vansnick
>>>>>> NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>>>> NPOC treasurer
>>>>>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
>>>>>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>>>>>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>>>> www.npoc.org
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Op 10-dec.-2013, om 14:44 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> With a new policy committee, it is time to elect a new chair/alt-chair combo.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As the outgoing alt-chair who does not wish to remain in a chairing role, I am making a few suggestions.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I would like to suggest that we fill these roles with one person from NPOC and one person from NCUC.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I suggest that we pick these two and then let them decide between themselves which will take what role. Alternatively the committee as a whole could decide using rough consensus.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I would like to suggest that we consider asking Maria and Rudy to take on the policy committee leadership for the next year.
>>>>>>> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131214/a7070f02/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Sat Dec 14 17:11:58 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 16:11:58 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] (Se) electing a new Chair and Alternate Chair
In-Reply-To: <3E77C68F-835D-4C72-B462-E47F203B0242@uzh.ch>
References: <dd9ddbcd-ecb3-498e-b01c-8b33ec704de3@email.android.com>
	<EF9A9C48-9D72-4686-B8C7-15433C9B567C@isoc.be>
	<CAH5sTh=q1w121Qc4_f6SgrPZNX8MahUB8w5=MFWU15ewEP57TA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAC7qwdCcDdwkmB6VGNyjzifzQhDxcfMyWzpMKoGqw6HhJOBP4g@mail.gmail.com>
	<52AB0D6F.8020504@ella.com>
	<24CE4994-5B73-47B9-9B68-EE047FA13EB9@egyptig.org>
	<52AB1853.4070300@acm.org>
	<B17FCC93-D168-478D-963F-1B9F061981C5@egyptig.org>
	<0437E5D9-0896-454E-BFD5-D2A6323F45D4@egyptig.org>
	<3E77C68F-835D-4C72-B462-E47F203B0242@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <5D0BC4DC-735E-48FA-A433-AC97045F8B19@egyptig.org>

That makes sense to me. Looking forward to the election results. 

Thanks. 

Amr

Sent from mobile

> On Dec 14, 2013, at 3:52 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> And actually, EC finishes an election Tuesday, and the first order of business for the new EC will be to fill appointed slots.  So if we could please hold off a couple days and give members a chance to put their hats in the ring before the EC selects, that would be procedurally preferable to a few of us deciding here.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Bill
> 
>> On Dec 13, 2013, at 3:28 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:
>> 
>> Hello again,
>> 
>> To answer a few other questions that I failed to on my mobile earlier:
>> 
>> 1. I would be willing to be a third candidate for either the chair or alternate chair duties. If we decide to only have a team of two, I would prefer to not be one of them.
>> 2. I know Rudi volunteered to be on the PC leadership team, but I have a thought on this; Rudi is already the NPOC PC chair. To have him be a chair or alternate chair for the NCSG PC would be (IMHO) somewhat redundant. I say this because (for example) in a situation where we are looking for urgent NPOC input on a policy statement; if Rudi is not available for any reason, then his duties on both PCs will be compromised. I suggest (and this is only a suggestion to be decided by Rudi and other NCSG PC members from NPOC) that another NPOC candidate be nominated.
>> 3. I am fine with either the online polling/voting or the rough consensus methods Avri suggested.
>> 
>> At this point, I would appreciate hearing more from the rest of the PC members on their opinions regarding a team of three vs. a team of two and how we will decide. If Rudi and NPOC folks would weigh in on my suggestion on the NPOC candidate, I?d also be grateful.
>> 
>> Thanks everyone.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>>> On Dec 13, 2013, at 3:43 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Distribution of work amongst a team of three was my reasoning for the suggestion. However, balance was honestly not what I was taking into consideration.
>>> 
>>> My hope is that two alternate chairs from the two constituencies would ensure more robust input to policy statements, either for or against NCSG endorsement. We've had a problem with that in the past. 
>>> 
>>> Sorry for the short notes. I'm typing on my phone in the middle of a snowy day. :)
>>> 
>>> Thanks. 
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> Sent from mobile
>>> 
>>>> On Dec 13, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> True only the chair role is mandated.  We insitituted the alternate chair last year just to make sure the work got done by somebody.  But looking at our work performance, perhasp 2 alternates are indeed necessary.
>>>> 
>>>> Did you have a nominee / volunteer in mind?
>>>> 
>>>> As for balancing between constituencies, if we balance with 2,then we unbalance with 3.
>>>> Too bad we don't have either more constituencies or more affiliated NCSG members.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>>> On 12/13/2013 9:05 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>>> 
>>>>> The NCSG charter doesn't limit the number of PC alternate chairs. If others are agreeable, I suggest having two alternates. Perhaps one from each constituency. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sent from mobile
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Dec 13, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ok, so we have two people willing to stand for Chair/Alternate chair.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> - anyone else interested or can i close the nomination process in 24 hours.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also in that time period please let the list know whether you are comfortable, assuming we have only 2 candidates, to let them work out roles for themselves.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If we are not, or if we have more than 2 candidates, I would then suggest a online poll (ysing doodle or some such) where we could vote, with the top vote getter being chair, and the           second vote getter being alternate chair.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Though, given we are a rough consensus sort of body, if we can find a solution without needing to poll, that would seem good to me.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> avri
>>>>>> acting as alternate-chair
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 12/10/2013 10:50 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi all and thanks Avri,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I'm happy to put my name forward with Rudi's for this.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> cheers, m
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 10 December 2013 15:24, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> my understanding that PC members decide about chairs , as Avri explained. and we should give people enough time to think and decide.I am not sure that everybody can make it for today call.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Rafik 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2013/12/11 Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> With the NCSG monthly meeting in front of us (in about 1 hour) I think we can get consensus today.
>>>>>>>>> I?m willing to take seat, but will of course allow Maria to respond also to this request.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> See you in 1 hour.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Rudi Vansnick
>>>>>>>>> NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>>>>>>> NPOC treasurer
>>>>>>>>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
>>>>>>>>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>>>>>>>>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>>>>>>> www.npoc.org
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Op 10-dec.-2013, om 14:44 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> With a new policy committee, it is time to elect a new chair/alt-chair combo.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> As the outgoing alt-chair who does not wish to remain in a chairing role, I am making a few suggestions.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I would like to suggest that we fill these roles with one person from NPOC and one person from NCUC.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I suggest that we pick these two and then let them decide between themselves which will take what role. Alternatively the committee as a whole could decide using rough consensus.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I would like to suggest that we consider asking Maria and Rudy to take on the policy committee leadership for the next year.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131214/001768c9/attachment.html>


From avri  Sat Dec 14 18:13:03 2013
From: avri (avri)
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 11:13:03 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] (Se) electing a new Chair and Alternate Chair
Message-ID: <ynsunewq04iyvy3jhhnhgok2.1387037583193@email.android.com>

Hi,

Other than that meaning I remain alternate chair a while longer, I too think it is the right thing to do.

But ?going forward I would appreciate the efforts of those who would be chairs and alternate chairs in terms of starting to get things back into gear from where the old functionaries sort of let it go to seed. For example we need to update tables of outstanding comments and who is working on then. And we need to make sure we know who the NCSG members of wgs are so we know who can keep track, who can report and where they are gaps.

With TART2 being in its last weeks and consuming every breath until Sylvester, I can do little more for ncsg beyond running this selection process, g-council cruft, and continuing wg work.


avri

Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

-------- Original message --------
From: Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> 
Date: 12/14/2013  10:11  (GMT-05:00) 
To: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> 
Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org> 
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] (Se) electing a new Chair and Alternate Chair 
 
That makes sense to me. Looking forward to the election results.?

Thanks.?

Amr

Sent from mobile

On Dec 14, 2013, at 3:52 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:


Hi

And actually, EC finishes an election Tuesday, and the first order of business for the new EC will be to fill appointed slots. ?So if we could please hold off a couple days and give members a chance to put their hats in the ring before the EC selects, that would be procedurally preferable to a few of us deciding here.

Thanks

Bill

On Dec 13, 2013, at 3:28 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:

Hello again,

To answer a few other questions that I failed to on my mobile earlier:

1. I would be willing to be a third candidate for either the chair or alternate chair duties. If we decide to only have a team of two, I would prefer to not be one of them.
2. I know Rudi volunteered to be on the PC leadership team, but I have a thought on this; Rudi is already the NPOC PC chair. To have him be a chair or alternate chair for the NCSG PC would be (IMHO) somewhat redundant. I say this because (for example) in a situation where we are looking for urgent NPOC input on a policy statement; if Rudi is not available for any reason, then his duties on both PCs will be compromised. I suggest (and this is only a suggestion to be decided by Rudi and other NCSG PC members from NPOC) that another NPOC candidate be nominated.
3. I am fine with either the online polling/voting or the rough consensus methods Avri suggested.

At this point, I would appreciate hearing more from the rest of the PC members on their opinions regarding a team of three vs. a team of two and how we will decide. If Rudi and NPOC folks would weigh in on my suggestion on the NPOC candidate, I?d also be grateful.

Thanks everyone.

Amr

On Dec 13, 2013, at 3:43 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

Hi,

Distribution of work amongst a team of three was my reasoning for the suggestion. However, balance was honestly not what I was taking into consideration.

My hope is that two alternate chairs from the two constituencies would ensure more robust input to policy statements, either for or against NCSG endorsement. We've had a problem with that in the past.

Sorry for the short notes. I'm typing on my phone in the middle of a snowy day. :)

Thanks.

Amr

Sent from mobile

On Dec 13, 2013, at 3:23 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

True only the chair role is mandated. We insitituted the alternate chair last year just to make sure the work got done by somebody. But looking at our work performance, perhasp 2 alternates are indeed necessary.

Did you have a nominee / volunteer in mind?

As for balancing between constituencies, if we balance with 2,then we unbalance with 3.
Too bad we don't have either more constituencies or more affiliated NCSG members.

avri

On 12/13/2013 9:05 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
Hi Avri,

The NCSG charter doesn't limit the number of PC alternate chairs. If others are agreeable, I suggest having two alternates. Perhaps one from each constituency.

Thanks.

Amr

Sent from mobile

On Dec 13, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

Hi,

Ok, so we have two people willing to stand for Chair/Alternate chair.

- anyone else interested or can i close the nomination process in 24 hours.

Also in that time period please let the list know whether you are comfortable, assuming we have only 2 candidates, to let them work out roles for themselves.

If we are not, or if we have more than 2 candidates, I would then suggest a online poll (ysing doodle or some such) where we could vote, with the top vote getter being chair, and the second vote getter being alternate chair.

Though, given we are a rough consensus sort of body, if we can find a solution without needing to poll, that would seem good to me.

avri
acting as alternate-chair

On 12/10/2013 10:50 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:
Hi all and thanks Avri,

I'm happy to put my name forward with Rudi's for this.

cheers, m


On 10 December 2013 15:24, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,

my understanding that PC members decide about chairs , as Avri explained. and we should give people enough time to think and decide.I am not sure that everybody can make it for today call.



Rafik


2013/12/11 Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>
Hi Avri,

With the NCSG monthly meeting in front of us (in about 1 hour) I think we can get consensus today.
I?m willing to take seat, but will of course allow Maria to respond also to this request.

See you in 1 hour.

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

Op 10-dec.-2013, om 14:44 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> het volgende geschreven:

Hi,

With a new policy committee, it is time to elect a new chair/alt-chair combo.


As the outgoing alt-chair who does not wish to remain in a chairing role, I am making a few suggestions.


I would like to suggest that we fill these roles with one person from NPOC and one person from NCUC.

I suggest that we pick these two and then let them decide between themselves which will take what role. Alternatively the committee as a whole could decide using rough consensus.

I would like to suggest that we consider asking Maria and Rudy to take on the policy committee leadership for the next year.


_______________________________________________
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/20131214/d0fc12d3/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Dec 17 15:32:48 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 22:32:48 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] Public Comment Period: New gTLD Auction
	Rules
In-Reply-To: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F65FE8635@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F65FE8635@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmO9Lbh+pHdp7Om54OTkSSscdrf_6aM9=ysZxs9KXHhww@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

I think another public comment to handle if we have interest on the topic.

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
Date: 2013/12/17
Subject: [liaison6c] Public Comment Period: New gTLD Auction Rules
To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>




http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-17dec13-en.htm
New gTLD Auction Rules

Comment / Reply Periods (*)

Comment Open Date: 17 December 2013

Comment Close Date: 14 January 2014 - 23:59 UTC

Reply Open Date: 15 January 2014

Reply Close Date: 4 February 2014 - 23:59 UTC

Important Information Links

Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-17dec13-en.htm>

To Submit Your Comments
(Forum)<comments-new-gtld-auction-rules-16dec13 at icann.org>

View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-new-gtld-auction-rules-16dec13/>

Brief Overview

Originating Organization:

Global Domains Division

Categories/Tags:

   - New gTLD Auctions

Purpose (Brief):

To gather community input regarding the detailed rules and processes for
Auctions to resolve string contention sets in the New gTLD Program.

Current Status:

The Auction Rules (version 2013.12.12) have been updated since the
publication of the Preliminary Auction Rules on 1 Nov 2013 based on
community feedback, including feedback received in Webinars and sessions at
the ICANN 48 meeting in Buenos Aires. Additionally the Bidder?s Agreement,
Bidder forms, and a Draft Auction Schedule have been published for
community input.

Next Steps:

Based on public comment feedback, a final set of Auction Rules and Bidder?s
Agreement will be published and New gTLD Auctions to resolve string
contention sets will be implemented and executed per the rules.

Staff Contact:

Russ Weinstein

Email Staff Contact<russ.weinstein at icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20New%20gTLD%20Auction%20Rules%20public%20comment%20period>

Detailed Information

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose:

ICANN is pleased to announce the publication of an updated version
(2013.12.12) of the Auction Rules, the Bidder Agreement, the Bidder Forms,
and a Draft Auction Schedule for community review. The Auction Rules have
been updated since the initial release of the Preliminary Auction Rules on
1 Nov 2013 based on feedback received including during the Auctions Webinar
on 7 November 2013 and the ICANN 48 Meeting in Buenos Aires. The documents
being published for comment are:

?        Auction Rules version 2013.12.12 ? provides a detailed insight
into all facets of the Auctions program, including eligibility, scheduling
considerations, preparation procedures, deposits, bidding limits, bidding
procedures, the conclusion of auctions, payments and refunds. This version
of the Auction Rules only addresses Contention Sets with direct contention
relationships; an update or addendum will be published at later time to
address Contention Sets with both direct and indirect contention
relationships.

?        Bidder Forms ? allows an applicant to designate itself or another
entity to act as the bidder on its behalf. These forms will be used by
ICANN and Power Auctions (the Auction Manager) to perform due diligence,
set up a bank subaccount and a user account on the Auction Site. The bidder
forms must be completed for each application participating in an Auction.

?        Bidder Agreement ? an agreement between the Applicant and/or
Bidder and Power Auctions, detailing the roles and responsibilities of each
of these parties in the Auction process. The Bidder Agreement must be
executed at least one time for each Applicant, and if an applicant utilizes
a Designated Bidder, the agreement must be executed for each unique
configuration of Applicant and Designated Bidder.

?        Draft Auction Schedule ? Using the preliminary contention sets
which do not include the effect any objection determinations may have, a
Draft Auction Schedule has been created. This schedule utilizes the
scheduling criteria defined in the Auction Rules but, due to the dynamic
nature of application status, does not take into account the eligibility
requirements for a contention set to be sent to Auction by ICANN as defined
in the Applicant Guide Book and the Auction Rules. Should contention sets
either resolve prior to their scheduled Auction or not yet be eligible for
an Auction, ICANN will adjust the schedule in attempt to maintain
approximately 20 contention sets per Auction.

ICANN intends to publish a Master Escrow agreement between ICANN, Power
Auctions and the Escrow Provider for informational purposes prior to the
conclusion of the public comment period. It is not envisioned that Bidders
will execute an agreement with the Escrow Provider; rather the Bidder's
Agreement will create a relationship where the Bidder will be a third party
beneficiary to the Escrow Agreement. The Escrow provider will establish
accounts by Bidder to securely hold deposits, issue refunds to Bidders
based on the Auction Results, and collect winning fees on behalf of ICANN.

All feedback will be taken into account, but community feedback on the
following topics will be especially helpful.

   - The pace and schedule of auctions to resolve all outstanding
   contention sets
   - The duration of auction rounds and recesses between rounds
   - The effects of the Name Collision issues on the eligibility for
   auction of a contention set

With the input from the community in this public comment period, ICANN will
complete and publish the Auction Rules, Bidder's Agreement, Bidder Forms
and move forward to administer Auctions to resolve string contention sets
on the new gTLD program.

Section II: Background:

Section 4.3 of the Applicant Guidebook describes auctions as the last
resort method to resolve string contention sets. This section provides for
an Ascending Clock Auction methodology and provides an overview of the
process and simplified illustrations of the execution of a contention set
auction. On 1 November 2013, a preliminary version of the Auction rules was
published. The Auction Rules were published as preliminary because there
were several aspects related to scheduling that would benefit from
community feedback prior to finalization and execution of the Auction
program. The Auction Rules have since been updated to provide more details
of the Auction processes and procedures as well as to incorporate community
feedback received since the initial publication.

Section III: Document and Resource Links:

Applicant Guide Book section
4.3<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/string-contention-procedures-04jun12-en.pdf>[PDF,
429 KB]

New gTLD Auction Rules
2013.12.12<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/rules-12dec13-en.pdf>[PDF,
323 KB]

New gTLD Auction
Rules_1Nov13<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/prelim-rules-31oct13-en.pdf>[PDF,
235 KB] (Preliminary)

Redline of Auction Rules 2013.12.12 to
2013.11.01<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/rules-redline-12dec13-en.pdf>[PDF,
352 KB] (Comparison of current version to preliminary)

Draft Auction Schedule
2013.12.16<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/draft-schedule-16dec13-en.pdf>[PDF,
308 KB]

New gTLD Auction Bidder
Agreement<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/bidder-agreement-12dec13-en.pdf>[PDF,
171 KB]

New gTLD Auction Bidder
Forms<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/bidder-designation-form-16dec13-en.pdf>[PDF,
241 KB]

Section IV: Additional Information:

N/A
------------------------------

(*) 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 <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>*
*http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131217/9d29bda2/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Dec 17 23:19:34 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 22:19:34 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Actions/Next Meeting is
	17 December
In-Reply-To: <52AB2872.2070808@acm.org>
References: <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF272197A6EFC@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
	<52AB2872.2070808@acm.org>
Message-ID: <E130C007-F9E9-4BFF-9871-739D634E9E2E@egyptig.org>

Hi Avri,

Apologies for not getting back to you sooner on this. We?ve discussed this at length over email and quite a few SCI meetings, and I am personally happy with this recommendation now. I will also forward a copy of it to the NCUC list.

Thanks.

Amr

On Dec 13, 2013, at 4:32 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> 
> Opinions?
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] RE: Actions/Next Meeting is 17 December
> Date: 	Thu, 5 Dec 2013 00:31:47 +0000
> From: 	Shatan, Gregory S. <GShatan at reedsmith.com>
> To: 	'Julie Hedlund' <julie.hedlund at icann.org>,
> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All:
> 
> I have attached clean and ?track changes? versions of the revised
> proposal on Resubmission of a Motion, reflecting yesterday?s discussion
> (see no. 2 in Julie?s email).  I look forward to any comments you all
> may have and then getting this to the constituencies for their feedback.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Greg
> 
> Gregory S. Shatan
> Partner
> *Reed Smith LLP*
> 599 Lexington Avenue
> New York, NY 10022
> 212.549.0275 (Phone)
> 917.816.6428 (Mobile)
> 212.521.5450 (Fax)
> gshatan at reedsmith.com
> www.reedsmith.com
> 
> *From:*owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
> [mailto:owner-gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Julie Hedlund
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 03, 2013 4:09 PM
> *To:* gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org
> *Subject:* [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Actions/Next Meeting is 17 December
> *Importance:* High
> 
> Dear SCI members,
> 
> Please see the actions from the meeting on 03 December 2013. Our next
> meeting is scheduled for 17 December 20:00 UTC for 1 hour (12:00 PST ,
> 15:00 EST,  20:00 London, 21:00 CET ? a separate notice will be sent
> with teleconference information).  As agreed in Buenos Aires the SCI
> will revert to a 2-week schedule when it has outstanding items, although
> to avoid the New Year holiday the meeting following 17 December will be
> on 07 January.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Julie
> 
> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
> 
> 1.  Working Group Self-Assessment:  Mikey O'Conner and Ron Andruff will
> enage Ken to draft a message for Mikey to send to the WG to retake the
> survey and set a deadline for 2 weeks (17 December).  Julie Hedlund will
> send the summary of the previous survey to the SCI list (done).
> 
> 2  Re-Submitting a Motion: Greg Shatan will re-write B Limitations and
> Exceptions #4 to change "tabled" to "deferred" and make other
> adjustments as discussed.  SCI members will send the revised language to
> their constituencies to get feedback by a 2-week deadline (17 December).
>  Continue discussion on whether "consent" is needed before "agenda" in
> item A Rule, #3.
> 
> 3.  Voting by Email:  Avri Doria and Thomas Rickert will work on an
> approach.
> 
> 4.  Waiver/Exception to GNSO Operating Procedures:  Continue discussion
> on the next call and on the list.
> 
> 5.  AOB: Next meeting is 17 December and the SCI will move back to a
> 2-week schedule when it has outstanding items (excepting meetings that
> fall on holidays).
> 
> * * *
> 
> This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and
> may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you
> are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply
> e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy
> it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other
> person. Thank you for your cooperation.
> 
> * * *
> 
> To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you
> that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice
> contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not
> intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
> (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable
> state and local provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending
> to another party any tax-related matters addressed herein.
> 
> Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00
> 
> 
> 
> <Addressing the Resubmission of a Motion.DOCX><Addressing the Resubmission of a Motion - Addressing the Resubmission of a Motion.DOCX>_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From mllemineur  Wed Dec 18 00:58:50 2013
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:58:50 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call by 08 Jan
 2014 on Resubmitting a Motion
In-Reply-To: <CED628DC.19E46%julie.hedlund@icann.org>
References: <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF272197BE649@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
	<CED628DC.19E46%julie.hedlund@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqG_a_qqFOfKCirsbpoRp49hsm5UEDr8qL7tj1bABvWKEA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

The email below refers to a specific issue we are dealing with in the
Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation also known as SCI.  At
this stage we, members of the SCI, are suppose to approve the final version
of the language of  the operating procedure about the resubmission of a
GNSO motion.

I just have asked the SCI Chair during our earlier call if there was a
 standard procedure when the SCI members have to approve a particular
language, on  how  each constituency and SG rep should consult its
respective members in order to be able to approve what the SCI works on and
proposes? In summary, the answer I received has been that each community
organizes itself as it pleases and in accordance with it charter.

I believe we never has the opportunity to discuss this internally as a
constituency, thus this would be a good moment to do so and to officially
establish an NPOC  mechanism or a rule regarding how, each time the NPOC
representative  in the SCI will be asked to agree upon a reformed
procedural GNSO rule,  he or she should be consulting back NPOC membership
 for approval ?

Thus, what do you think should be the proper mechanism ? Do you reckon it
should be taken to the EC, to the policy committee or to our full
membership for approval?   And then, once send for approval, if there is no
objection or no response (silence),  shall it be interpreted as approved ?

I would appreciate your ideas, opinion and comments so that we can take a
decision.

Additionally, while we decide upon which mechanism we prefer to use, we
also need to approve the language of the text I am forwarding and that all
SCI members are required to approve it by January 8th at the latest,
otherwise it will be  presumed to have been be accepted by full consensus.

Please also bear in mind that the SCI deals with procedural key issues
within the GNSO. To provide a clearer idea about the SCI work, to those who
are not familiar with its mandate, the kind of items we are working on at
the moment are  the procedure for re-submitting a motion as illustrated
below, the establishment of a waiver mechanism for the GNSO Chair to be
able to  waive procedural rules, a procedure for Councilors to be able to
use the electronic voting, etc.  To those of  you who wish to have more
information about the SCI,  please click on

https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/Home


Thank you very much,

Best,

Marie-laure

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
Date: Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:22 PM
Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call by 08 Jan 2014 on
Resubmitting a Motion
To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>


Dear SCI members,

Note that per the SCI Charter, "Unless otherwise determined by the SCI
members, committee decisions will be made by ?full consensus? process as
described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (see section 3.6)."  Thus,
as agreed at the SCI meeting today, staff is requesting a consensus call on
the language provided by Greg Shatan concerning changes to the GNSO Council
Operating Procedures on resubmitting a motion.  Please see the attached
redlined and clean versions of the language.  Please review this language
in your Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups if you have not already done
so.

*If there are no objections or changes to the language received by
Wednesday, 08 January 2014, the language will be presumed to be accepted by
full consensus.*

If the language is approved the next step will be for staff to prepare a
redlined version of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures that will be put
out for public comment for 21 days.  However, as noted on today's call this
may be combined with changes to the GNSO Working Group Guidelines relating
to the working group self-assessment survey (as being prepared by Ken Bour).

Best regards,

Julie

Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131217/03ba41a1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Addressing the Resubmission of a Motion.DOCX
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 40682 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131217/03ba41a1/attachment-0002.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Addressing the Resubmission of a Motion - Addressing the Resubmission of a Motion.DOCX
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 30492 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131217/03ba41a1/attachment-0003.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5041 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131217/03ba41a1/attachment-0001.p7s>