From robin  Mon Jan  7 00:10:32 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 14:10:32 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised draft NCSG statement on staff's strawman proposal
Message-ID: <636C0FED-DE05-4D56-9FF0-3827EC177640@ipjustice.org>

Dear All:

Attached is the revised draft NCSG statement on staff's strawman  
proposal.

Big thanks to Kathy for her editing of the first draft.  I've removed  
the procedural concerns at the end of the previous draft and will  
submit them separately from me personally.

ICANN's deadline for comments is 15 January.  I'd like to submit  
NCSG's comments early this week.  Please send any additional comments  
and suggestions about the attached draft at your earliest convenience.

Thank you,
Robin

?


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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130106/f1472835/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft NCSG Strawman Response v3
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 71680 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130106/f1472835/attachment-0001.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130106/f1472835/attachment-0003.html>


From kleiman  Mon Jan  7 05:09:51 2013
From: kleiman (Kathryn Kleiman)
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 03:09:51 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised draft NCSG statement on staff's strawman
 proposal
In-Reply-To: <636C0FED-DE05-4D56-9FF0-3827EC177640@ipjustice.org>
References: <636C0FED-DE05-4D56-9FF0-3827EC177640@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24F392B7@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>

Great thanks to Robin for the excellent first draft - and for all her work, energy and conviction in this Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) area. These are powerful comments - tx Robin!

Kathy

From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 5:11 PM
To: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised draft NCSG statement on staff's strawman proposal

Dear All:

Attached is the revised draft NCSG statement on staff's strawman proposal.

Big thanks to Kathy for her editing of the first draft.  I've removed the procedural concerns at the end of the previous draft and will submit them separately from me personally.

ICANN's deadline for comments is 15 January.  I'd like to submit NCSG's comments early this week.  Please send any additional comments and suggestions about the attached draft at your earliest convenience.

Thank you,
Robin




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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130107/e6e14c84/attachment.html>


From Mary.Wong  Mon Jan  7 05:15:54 2013
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 22:15:54 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised draft NCSG statement on staff's strawman
 proposal
Message-ID: <50E9F7870200005B0009F09E@smtp.law.unh.edu>

Thanks Robin and Kathy for following up on the strawman proposal andfor
the detailed response. I think it's vitally important that NCSG submit
astrong comment/rebuttal on this, and am glad to support the draft.

I'm not sure that I completely understand the 90 days notice = intent
toinfringe/willfulness legal standard description on page 2. I agree
that anextended notice period increases the possibility that a
registrant could beaccused of willful trademark infringement (i.e.
he/she proceeded to register anidentically-matching domain
notwithstanding actual notice that this wouldinfringe a registered
trademark) but I don't quite get how the change from a60-day period
during which a Claims Service will be live to a 90-day
periodautomatically converts things to a higher legal standard of
willfulinfringement. 

Are we saying that the longer the Claims Service period runs, the higher
thepossibility that registrants will be exposed to the risk of
accusations ofwillful infringement should they proceed - on the basis
that proceeding with anexact match registration of a domain name for the
same goods or services isequivalent to infringing activity, possibly
willful, since the Claims Notice isthe same thing as actual notice of a
trademark registration? I'm not sure itcomes across as clearly to those
not familiar with trademark law, but maybe I'mjust reading it wrongly.

Also - what do you think of emphasizing the territoriality concept,
i.e.trademark law is territorial and trademark infringement involves a
nuanced andpotentially complex analysis, such that simply disallowing a
domain nameregistration not tied to a particular use or jurisdiction at
the outset on thebasis that it matches a trademark registered somewhere
amounts to additionalprotections for trademark owners not necessarily
justified by trademark law?

Hope this is helpful,
Mary

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584  

>>> Kathryn Kleiman  01/07/13 11:10 AM >>>
<!--/* Font Definitions */@font-face{font-family:Helvetica;panose-1:2 11
6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}@font-face{font-family:"Cambria Math";panose-1:2 4 5 3
5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2
4;}@font-face{font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}/* Style
Definitions */p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal,
div.MsoNormal{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times
New Roman","serif";}a:link,
span.MsoHyperlink{mso-style-priority:99;color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}a:visited,
span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed{mso-style-priority:99;color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}span.xapple-style-span{mso-style-name:x_apple-style-span;}span.EmailStyle18{mso-style-type:personal-reply;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;}.MsoChpDefault{mso-style-type:export-only;font-size:10.0pt;}@page
WordSection1{size:8.5in 11.0in;margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in
1.0in;}div.WordSection1{page:WordSection1;}-->Great thanks to Robin for
the excellent first draft * and for all her work, energy and conviction
in this Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) area. These are powerful comments
* tx Robin!
 
Kathy
 
From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org
[mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org]On Behalf Of Robin Gross
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 5:11 PM
To: NCSG-Policy 
Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised draft NCSG statement on staff's strawman
proposal


 
Dear All: 
 

Attached is the revised draft NCSG statement on staff's strawman
proposal.   

 

Big thanks to Kathy for her editing of the first draft.  I've removed
the procedural concerns at the end of the previous draft and will submit
them separately from me personally.

 

ICANN's deadline for comments is 15 January.  I'd like to submit NCSG's
comments early this week.  Please send any additional comments and
suggestions about the attached draft at your earliest convenience.

 

Thank you,

Robin





 

 

IP JUSTICE

Robin Gross, Executive Director

1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA

p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451

w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org

 

 




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130106/ca5c5aaf/attachment.html>


From konstantinos  Mon Jan  7 10:08:27 2013
From: konstantinos (konstantinos at komaitis.org)
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 08:08:27 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised draft NCSG statement on staff's strawman
 proposal
References: <50E9F7870200005B0009F09E@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <933829169.240305.1357546107509.JavaMail.mail@webmail12>

Yes - this is a great statement. Perhaps it would be valuable to include a bit on nominative use (see Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Farzad Tabari, et al. No. 07-55344 (9th Cir. July 8, 2010), Judge Kozinski gave a great analysis, I had blogged about it here: http://www.komaitis.org/1/post/2010/07/the-lessons-the-trademark-community-should-learn-from-judge-kozinskis-ruling-on-nominative-use.html). Also, on the issue of the GPML that is being sneaked in as blocking, I have written a bit on my book as to how it changes the face of trademark law - both in terms of territoriality as Mary suggests as well as on the basis of its philosophical foundations. 

Hope this helps.

KK



Jan 7, 2013 03:16:05 AM, Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu wrote:
















Thanks Robin and Kathy for following up on the strawman proposal and
for the detailed response. I think it  's vitally important that NCSG submit a
strong comment/rebuttal on this, and am glad to support the draft.
>

>
I  'm not sure that I completely understand the 90 days notice = intent to
infringe/willfulness legal standard description on page 2. I agree that an
extended notice period increases the possibility that a registrant could be
accused of willful trademark infringement (i.e. he/she proceeded to register an
identically-matching domain notwithstanding actual notice that this would
infringe a registered trademark) but I don  't quite get how the change from a
60-day period during which a Claims Service will be live to a 90-day period
automatically converts things to a higher legal standard of willful
infringement. 
>

>
Are we saying that the longer the Claims Service period runs, the higher the
possibility that registrants will be exposed to the risk of accusations of
willful infringement should they proceed - on the basis that proceeding with an
exact match registration of a domain name for the same goods or services is
equivalent to infringing activity, possibly willful, since the Claims Notice is
the same thing as actual notice of a trademark registration? I  'm not sure it
comes across as clearly to those not familiar with trademark law, but maybe I  'm
just reading it wrongly.
>

>
Also - what do you think of emphasizing the territoriality concept, i.e.
trademark law is territorial and trademark infringement involves a nuanced and
potentially complex analysis, such that simply disallowing a domain name
registration not tied to a particular use or jurisdiction at the outset on the
basis that it matches a trademark registered somewhere amounts to additional
protections for trademark owners not necessarily justified by trademark law?
>
>Hope this is helpful,
>Mary
>
>
>Mary W S Wong
>Professor of Law
>Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
>Chair, Graduate IP Programs
>UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
>Two White Street
>Concord, NH 03301
>USA
>Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
>Phone: 1-603-513-5143
>Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
>Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584  
>
>>>> Kathryn Kleiman  01/07/13 11:10 AM >>>
>








Great thanks to Robin for the excellent first draft ? and for all her work, energy and conviction in this Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) area. These are powerful
 comments ? tx Robin!

  ?

Kathy

  ?



From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org]
On Behalf Of Robin Gross
>
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 5:11 PM
>
To: NCSG-Policy PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>
Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised draft NCSG statement on staff  's strawman proposal



  ?


Dear All: 


  ?



Attached is the revised draft NCSG statement on staff  's strawman proposal.   ?  ?



  ?



Big thanks to Kathy for her editing of the first draft.   ?I  've removed the procedural concerns at the end of the previous draft and will submit them separately from me personally.



  ?



ICANN  's deadline for comments is 15 January.   ?I  'd like to submit NCSG  's comments early this week.   ?Please send any additional comments and suggestions about the attached draft at your earliest convenience.



  ?



Thank you,



Robin
>

>

>







  ?




  ?



IP JUSTICE



Robin Gross, Executive Director



1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  ? 94117  ? USA



p: +1-415-553-6261   ?   ?f: +1-415-462-6451



w: 
http://www.ipjustice.org  ?   ?   ?e:  ?robin at ipjustice.org


  ?


  ?








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



From nhklein  Mon Jan  7 11:10:27 2013
From: nhklein (Norbert Klein)
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2013 16:10:27 +0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised draft NCSG statement on staff's strawman
	proposal
In-Reply-To: <933829169.240305.1357546107509.JavaMail.mail@webmail12>
References: <50E9F7870200005B0009F09E@smtp.law.unh.edu>
	<933829169.240305.1357546107509.JavaMail.mail@webmail12>
Message-ID: <50EA9103.2090501@gmx.net>

On 7 1.2013 15:08, konstantinos at komaitis.org wrote:
> Yes - this is a great statement. Perhaps it would be valuable to include a bit on nominative use (see Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Farzad Tabari, et al. No. 07-55344 (9th Cir. July 8, 2010), Judge Kozinski gave a great analysis, I had blogged about it here: http://www.komaitis.org/1/post/2010/07/the-lessons-the-trademark-community-should-learn-from-judge-kozinskis-ruling-on-nominative-use.html). Also, on the issue of the GPML that is being sneaked in as blocking, I have written a bit on my book as to how it changes the face of trademark law - both in terms of territoriality as Mary suggests as well as on the basis of its philosophical foundations.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> KK
>
Thanks, Konstantinos, it really does.

for sharing and interpreting the US Ninth Circuit ruling by Judge Kozinski.
As a person not having been professionally educated in law, I often fail 
to understand some arguments presented in legal language. Maybe a 
similar situation prevents also others and the public from more clearly 
resisting the trend to increase trademark protection. But the text you 
refer to is so clear ? common sense and legal at the same time.
That is why I appreciate your presentation, saying:

    ?The ICANN community should really pay attention to this ruling and
    should learn from the excellent reasoning of Judge Kozinski. This
    decision is really a victory for many legitimate domain name holders
    who lose their domain names...?


I even want to quote here some more in full and highlight from what is 
under the URL you gave, in the hope that we all feel encouraged to state 
again what is important ? and what is legal, according to the ruling by 
the Judge Kozinski:

    ?Further, the Ninth Circuit upheld the importance of the First
    Amendment in the context of trademark law stating that ?Speakers are
    under no obligation to provide a disclaimer as a condition for
    engaging in truthful, non-misleading speech?. Judge Kozinski, even
    asserted that thousands of sites make ?nominative use? and, contrary
    to the way consumers are portrayed under ICANN?s trademark policies,
    in reality consumers are both sophisticated and not easily mislead.
    On the other hand, a number of sites make nominative use of
    trademarks in their domains but are not sponsored or endorsed by the
    trademark holder: You can preen about your Mercedes at
    mercedesforum.com and mercedestalk.net, read the latest about your
    double-skim-no-whip latte at starbucksgossip.com and find out what
    goodies the world?s greatest electronics store has on sale this week
    at fryselectronics-ads.com. Consumers who use the internet for
    shopping are generally quite sophisticated about such matters and
    won?t be fooled into thinking that the prestigious German car
    manufacturer sells boots at mercedesboots.com, or homes at
    mercedeshomes.com, or that comcastsucks.org is sponsored or endorsed
    by the TV cable company just because the string of letters making up
    its trademark appears in the domain?.?

    ?It is the wholesale prohibition of nominative use in domain names
    that would be unfair. It would be unfair to merchants seeking to
    communicate the nature of the service or product offered at their
    sites. And it would be unfair to consumers, who would be deprived of
    an increasingly important means of receiving such information. As
    noted, this would have serious First Amendment implications. The
    only winners would be companies like Toyota, which would acquire
    greater control over the markets for goods and services related to
    their trademarked brands, to the detriment of competition and
    consumers.?

Thanks, of course, also to all others who have contributed to the 
response to the Strawman Proposal.


Norbert Klein
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130107/be9e8502/attachment.html>


From robin  Wed Jan  9 02:06:20 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 16:06:20 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council
	Meeting 17 January 2013 at 20:00UTC
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD2110BBECB@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <F9EB5708-A6CE-46A7-92B9-5D5523947250@ipjustice.org>



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: January 8, 2013 9:49:51 AM PST
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 17  
> January 2013 at 20:00UTC
>
> FYI
>
> Dear Councillors,
>
> Please find the  draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 17  
> January 2013 at 20:00 UTC posted at:
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/calendar#jan
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-17jan13-en.htm
>
> And on the Wiki (where you will find the latest updates)
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda-17 
> +January+2013
>
> Tomorrow, 9 January 2013 is the deadline for motions and they will  
> be posted on page:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+-+17 
> +January+2013
> Draft Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 17 January 2013
> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating  
> Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and  
> updated.
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12- 
> en.pdf
> For convenience:
> An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is  
> provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
> An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the  
> absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of  
> this agenda.
> Meeting Times 20:00 UTC
> http://tinyurl.com/ado9n7t
> Coordinated Universal Time 20:00 UTC
> 12:00 Los Angeles; 15:00 Washington; 20:00 London; 21:00 Paris;  
> 09:00 Wellington (next day 14 January 2013)
>
> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members.  
> Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial  
> out call is needed.
> GNSO Council meeting audio cast
> http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
> Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
> 1.1 Roll Call
> 1.2 Statement of interest updates
> General updates and/or for specific current agenda items.
> 1.3 Review main changes.
> 1.4 Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per  
> the GNSO Operating Procedures:
> Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 20 December 2012 were approved  
> effective  2 January 2013.
> 1.5 GNSO Pending Projects List
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf
> Review main changes.
> Comments and/or questions.
> Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (5 minutes)
> Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics
> Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)
>
> Item 4: MOTION ? Any motion submitted by 09 January 2013 (10 minutes)
>
> Description of motion
>
> Link to motion
>
> 4.1 Reading of the motion (Proposer).
> 4.2 Discussion of motion and next steps.
> 4.3 Vote (Standard threshold: simple majority of each house).
>
> Item 5: MOTION ? Any additional motion submitted by 09 January 2013  
> (10 minutes)
>
> Description of motion
>
> Link to motion
>
> 5.1 Reading of the motion (Proposer).
> 5.2 Discussion of motion and next steps.
> 5.3 Vote (Standard threshold: simple majority of each house).
>
> Item 6: INFORMATION - GNSO Council Review and SIC Update (15 minutes)
>
> In Toronto, the Chair of the SIC provided an overview of a new  
> framework for future independent review efforts at ICANN.  The GNSO  
> was used as a case study to describe the effort because it is the  
> first Supporting Organization lined-up in the next review cycle.  
> Staff will brief the Council on the set of criteria metrics for  
> GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, and the work underway  
> to develop metrics for the Council and the Working Group Model of  
> policy.
> 6.1          Update from Staff (Rob Hogarth)
> 6.2          Discussion
> 6.3          Next Steps
>
> Item 7: UPDATE - Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Strawman Proposal  
> and Defensive Registrations Discussion (20 Minutes)
>
> ICANN?s CEO has requested GNSO Council input on the Strawman  
> Proposal  recently developed through the TMCH related  
> implementation discussions, which has been posted for public  
> comment.http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/ 
> announcement-30nov12-en.htm.  ICANN?s CEO additionally requested  
> Council input on the joint proposal from the Business Constituency/ 
> Intellectual Property Constituency (BC/IPC) for a ?limited  
> preventative registration mechanism? which is also currently  
> available for public comment.  A subsequent note (19 December 2012)  
> from ICANN?s CEO clarified the desired deadline for input to be no  
> later than 22 February 2013.
>
> Related to this discussion is the Staff briefing paper (http:// 
> gnso.icann.org/en/node/32287) to the GNSO Council on the topic of  
> defensive registrations at the second level, in response to a  
> previous request from the New GLTD Committee (2012.04.10.NG2).  The  
> New GTLD Committee requested the GNSO to consider whether  
> additional work on defensive registrations at the second level  
> should be undertaken.
>
> The Council is to continue to discuss: (i) a response to the ICANN  
> CEOs request, and (ii) to consider whether to undertake any  
> additional work related to the BC/IPC proposal and/or the Staff  
> briefing paper, on the topic of second level defensive registrations.
>
> 7.1          Update
> 7.2          Discussion
> 7.3          Next Steps
>
> Item 8: UPDATE - Response to the GAC Letter (20 minutes)
>
> The GAC has sent a letter  to the GNSO Council with regard to the  
> initiation of a PDP on the IGO/INGO issue, and specifically  
> requesting a rationale for undertaking a PDP i.e. an explanation as  
> to why GNSO believes this issue should be evaluated through a PDP  
> rather than simply executed as an implementation process. The  
> Council has sent an initial response and now needs to move ahead  
> with developing a full response.
>
> This is a discussion item.
>
> 8.1 Update
> 8.2 Discussion
> 8.3 Next steps
>
> Item 9: INFORMATION & DISCUSION ? Policy vs. Implementation (20  
> minutes)
>
> The recent letter from the GAC as well as activities relating to  
> work on the Trademark Clearinghouse, highlights a broader issue  
> regarding the boundary between policy development and  
> implementation work as well as the effective integration of policy  
> development and integration work from the outset.
>
> Recent discussions on the Council mailing list indicate that there  
> is an interest to undertake further work on this issue. At the same  
> time, ICANN Staff has published a paper (include link when  
> available) that is intended to facilitate further community  
> discussions on this topic.
>
> 9.1 Update from Staff (Marika Konings)
> 9.2 Discussion
> 9.3 Next steps
>
> Item 10: UPDATE - ATRT2 Developments (5 minutes)
>
> The call for applicants to serve on the next Accountability and  
> Transparency Review Team (ATRT) has been extended until 14 January  
> 2013.  (See: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/ 
> announcement-03dec12-en.htm ).   An update on the process and next  
> steps to provide GNSO Council endorsements of applicants will be  
> provided.
>
> This is a discussion item.
>
> 10.1 Update (Wolfe-Ulrich Knoben)
> 10.2 Discussion
> 10.3 Next steps
>
> Item 11:  Any Other Business (5 minutes)
>
> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article  
> X, Section 3)
> 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto,  
> or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a  
> GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple  
> majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below  
> shall apply to the following GNSO actions:
> a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more  
> than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
> b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as  
> described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than  
> one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one  
> House.
> c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of  
> GNSO Supermajority.
> d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an  
> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more  
> than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
> e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires  
> an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
> f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team  
> Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve  
> an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each  
> House.
> g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of  
> a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for  
> significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO  
> Supermajority Vote in favor of termination.
> h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority:  
> requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and  
> further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at  
> least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation.
> i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires  
> an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
> j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain  
> Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies  
> that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence  
> of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to  
> be met or exceeded.
> k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final  
> Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be  
> modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority  
> vote.
> l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the  
> Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one  
> House and a majority of the other House."
> Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4)
> 4.4.1 Applicability
> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of  
> Council motions or measures.
> a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
> b. Approve a PDP recommendation;
> c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or  
> ICANN Bylaws;
> d. Fill a Council position open for election.
> 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within  
> the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the  
> meeting?s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at  
> the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or  
> extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is  
> verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present.
> 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate  
> absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide  
> reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee  
> ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web- 
> based interface, or other technologies as may become available.
> 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements.  
> (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is  
> initiated.)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN  
> hemisphere
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> California, USA (PST) UTC-8+0DST 12:00
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 15:00
> Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 18:00
> Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 18:00
> Edinburgh, Scotland (BST) UTC+0DST 20:00
> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 20:00
> Abuja, Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 21:00
> Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 21:00
> Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00
> Ramat Hasharon, Israel (IST) UTC+2+0DST 22:00
> Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 01:00 - next day
> Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 04:00 - next day
> Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 04:00 ? next day
> Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 09:00 ? next day
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2013, 2:00 or 3:00  
> local time (with exceptions)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For other places see: http://www.timeanddate.com
> http://tinyurl.com/ado9n7t
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130108/2a8d7708/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Wed Jan  9 02:13:27 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 16:13:27 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO nominees to the ATRT2 team
References: <040101cded7c$4713f3f0$d53bdbd0$@ipracon.com>
Message-ID: <AED1355C-EE49-4610-A1B1-B24886E6F229@ipjustice.org>



Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
> Date: January 8, 2013 12:43:36 AM PST
> To: "Steve Crocker" <steve at shinkuro.com>,  
> <Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>, <jeannie.ellers at icann.org>
> Cc: <council at gnso.icann.org>, <marilynscade at hotmail.com>,  
> <krosette at cov.com>, "tony holmes" <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>,  
> "William Drake" <william.drake at uzh.ch>,  
> <alain.berranger at gmail.com>, <robin at ipjustice.org>, "'KEITH  
> DRAZEK'" <kdrazek at Verisign.com>, "Matt Serlin"  
> <matt.serlin at markmonitor.com>
> Subject: GNSO nominees to the ATRT2 team
>
> Dear Steve, Dear Heather,
>
>
>
> Please see attached letter regarding appointment of GNSO nominees  
> to the ATRT2 team.
>
>
>
> Thank-you for giving this matter your attention.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan Robinson
>
> Chair
>
> ICANN GNSO Council
>
>
>
> jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
>
> skype: jonathan.m.r
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
?



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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130108/9a92fed0/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Letter to Selectors re ATRT2 07 January 2012.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 247731 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130108/9a92fed0/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130108/9a92fed0/attachment-0003.html>


From avri  Wed Jan  9 18:37:13 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 11:37:13 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] IPC response to Thick Whois
	WG template
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD2110BBF4F@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <7FB903E7-F91B-46A5-AF44-3F5ED9B9260F@acm.org>



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Subject: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] TR: IPC response to Thick Whois WG template 
> Date: 9 January 2013 11:17:26 EST
> To: "gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org>
> 
> FYI
>  
> De : Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met at msk.com] 
> Envoy? : mercredi 9 janvier 2013 16:43
> ? : gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> Cc : Marika Konings; Jonathan Zuck (jzuck at ACTonline.org) (jzuck at ACTonline.org); 'George, Christopher E'
> Objet : IPC response to Thick Whois WG template
>  
> Dear Glen and colleagues,
>  
> Attached please find the IPC?s response to the request for input from the Thick Whois PDP Working Group.  We have used the template provided and entered our comments in italics. 
>  
> Steve Metalitz, IPC Vice President
>  
>  
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130109/5821bbe9/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Thick Whois - IPC response to WG FINAL (5065340).DOC
Type: application/msword
Size: 51200 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130109/5821bbe9/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130109/5821bbe9/attachment-0003.html>


From kleiman  Wed Jan  9 18:49:52 2013
From: kleiman (Kathryn Kleiman)
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 16:49:52 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] IPC response to Thick
 Whois	WG template
In-Reply-To: <7FB903E7-F91B-46A5-AF44-3F5ED9B9260F@acm.org>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD2110BBF4F@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<7FB903E7-F91B-46A5-AF44-3F5ED9B9260F@acm.org>
Message-ID: <148036E1CF719E4C9B98C14612640AFE24F40E99@BY2PRD0610MB390.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>

Hi Avri.
Tx for this email. Quick question: how do the BC and IPC comments change or shape what we might say in our NCSG comments?

Best and tx,
Kathy

From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 11:37 AM
To: NCSG-Policy
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] IPC response to Thick Whois WG template



Begin forwarded message:


From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org<mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
Subject: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] TR: IPC response to Thick Whois WG template
Date: 9 January 2013 11:17:26 EST
To: "gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org>" <gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org>>


FYI

De : Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met at msk.com]
Envoy? : mercredi 9 janvier 2013 16:43
? : gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
Cc : Marika Konings; Jonathan Zuck (jzuck at ACTonline.org<mailto:jzuck at ACTonline.org>) (jzuck at ACTonline.org<mailto:jzuck at ACTonline.org>); 'George, Christopher E'
Objet : IPC response to Thick Whois WG template

Dear Glen and colleagues,

Attached please find the IPC?s response to the request for input from the Thick Whois PDP Working Group.  We have used the template provided and entered our comments in italics.

Steve Metalitz, IPC Vice President




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130109/569c4a8d/attachment.html>


From robin  Thu Jan 10 22:47:29 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:47:29 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Vice Chair Position
References: <BDBCC21442A22640A4ECE2C75A8E215A944B3D970E@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <4861BFEC-3C1B-4DEA-89A7-DDACC3E5B569@ipjustice.org>

fyi

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Chris LaHatte <chris.lahatte at icann.org>
> Date: January 8, 2013 7:24:12 PM PST
> To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>,  
> "'tonyarholmes at btinternet.com'" <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>,  
> "'marilynscade at hotmail.com'" <marilynscade at hotmail.com>, "'Rosette,  
> Kristina'" <krosette at cov.com>
> Cc: "'Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org)'" <robin at ipjustice.org>,  
> "'Avri Doria (avri at acm.org)'" <avri at acm.org>, "'Wendy Seltzer  
> (wendy at seltzer.com)'" <wendy at seltzer.com>
> Subject: RE: Vice Chair Position
>
> Dear Steve
>
> Thank you for the reply and I am grateful that this has been  
> raised. As I see this issue, you have responded by saying the  
> sharing of the Vice Chair Position was to be revisited, with review  
> after one rotation. The review did not happen however. I am not  
> sure if the NCSG thought that this review was needed before the  
> rotation however. It may be useful to have comment on that aspect.
>
> But we are in a position where the options are (not in any order of  
> priority):-
>
> 1                  Accept the arrangement to rotate, and let NCSG  
> candidate, Wendy Seltzer, be put forward
> 2                  Review the rotation after the election to see if  
> is still appropriate to continue
> 3                  Have an election between Wendy Seltzer and Brian  
> Winterfeldt as to who will be put forward, and no longer use the  
> rotation
>
> The rotation does appear to be an arrangement which gives each  
> Stakeholder Group the ability to place a member as Vice Chair in  
> alternate terms, spreading the interests and enabling equal shares  
> in decision making. The Vice Chair is however still a member of a  
> committee and does not have special power to overrule the others,  
> but is just another voice, albeit with some ability to set an  
> agenda and control a meeting when the vice chair is acting as the  
> chair.
>
> We could set up telephone discussion-I am available at any time.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Chris LaHatte
> Ombudsman
> Blog  https://omblog.icann.org/
> Facebook http://www.facebook.com/ICANNOmbudsman
> Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>
>
> Confidentiality
> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as  
> confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps  
> necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those  
> parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the  
> Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise  
> staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a  
> complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.   
> The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure  
> that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and  
> identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential  
> nature of such information, except as necessary to further the  
> resolution of a complaint
>
> From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met at msk.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 3:42 PM
> To: Chris LaHatte; 'tonyarholmes at btinternet.com';  
> 'marilynscade at hotmail.com'; 'Rosette, Kristina'
> Cc: 'Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org)'; 'Avri Doria  
> (avri at acm.org)'; 'Wendy Seltzer (wendy at seltzer.com)'
> Subject: RE: Vice Chair Position
>
> Hello Chris,
>
> I hope 2013 is off to a good start for you.
>
> Knowing how matters can slip off the table over the holidays, I  
> wanted to make sure that you (and the addressees and cc?s) had  
> received the message below.  We are interested in knowing the  
> response to our proposal. I?d welcome any suggestions you have for  
> bringing this matter to resolution.  Thanks!
>
> Steve Metalitz
> From: Metalitz, Steven
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 4:05 PM
> To: 'Chris LaHatte'; tonyarholmes at btinternet.com;  
> marilynscade at hotmail.com; 'Rosette, Kristina'
> Cc: Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org); Avri Doria (avri at acm.org);  
> Wendy Seltzer (wendy at seltzer.com)
> Subject: RE: Vice Chair Position
>
> Dear Chris,
>
> I am responding to your message of Dec. 18 on behalf of the  
> Commercial Stakeholder Group executive committee.  I apologize for  
> the delay in responding due to the impending holiday season in the US.
>
> CSG would be pleased to have your assistance in mediating this  
> dispute.
>
> We believe the summary in your Dec. 18 message requires some  
> modification.  The ?turn and turn about? arrangement for nominating  
> the GNSO Vice Chair from the Non-Contracted Parties House was  
> reached at the end of 2010, and was explicitly made subject to a  
> review after one rotation, i.e., in the run-up to the selection of  
> a Vice Chair to begin service after the ICANN Annual Meeting in  
> October 2012.  This is all documented in the e-mail chain pasted  
> below.
>
> That review did not occur.  Instead, each SG nominated a  
> candidate.  The Commercial Stakeholder Group nominated Brian  
> Winterfeldt.  The Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group nominated Wendy  
> Seltzer.  No election has yet been held.  (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben has  
> graciously agreed to continue as Vice Chair on an interim basis  
> even though his term has formally expired.)
>
> Our preference is that an election now be held between these two  
> nominees, Brian and Wendy, to select the Vice Chair.  There would  
> be 13 voters in this election (the 6 GNSO councilors from CSG, the  
> 6 GNSO councilors from NCSG, and the Nom Comm assignee to the  
> NCPH), and a simple majority of 7 votes would be required for  
> election.  We think this would accurately reflect that the ?turn  
> and turn about? arrangement has expired after two turns.
>
> We appreciate that the agreement between the SGs in 2010 did not  
> address the circumstance in which the contemplated review of the  
> arrangement had not occurred.  We note that, if the arrangement  
> were to be extended for another cycle, NCSG would have the  
> preferential option to nominate a candidate this time, but that  
> candidate would not be elected unless he or she obtained  
> affirmative votes from 8 of the 13 electors.
>
> Finally, however the matter is resolved, we believe it would be  
> essential to schedule a call in which the candidate or candidates  
> would present their qualifications and plans to both stakeholder  
> groups (and to the Nom Comm assignee), and would respond to  
> questions,  prior to a vote.
>
> Thank you again for your offer to mediate.  Please let me know if  
> we can provide further information or views, or otherwise expedite  
> a fair resolution.
>
> Steve Metalitz, Vice President of IPC, on behalf of CSG Executive  
> Committee
>
> Cc:       Tony Holmes, ISPC chair
>
>             Kristina Rosette, IPC President
>
>             Marilyn Cade, BC chair
>
> E-mail correspondence re Vice Chair selection process
>
>
>
> From: Metalitz, Steven
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 7:14 AM
> To: 'Robin Gross'
> Cc: Tony Holmes; Marilyn Cade
> Subject: RE: Election of GNSO council vice chair
>
>
>
> Thanks Robin.  Per the agreement confirmed last January, we will  
> review the process prior to the next election.
>
>
>
> Steve Metalitz
>
>
>
> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 5:49 AM
> To: Metalitz, Steven
> Cc: Tony Holmes; Marilyn Cade
> Subject: Re: Election of GNSO council vice chair
>
> Thank you for getting back to me, Steve.    Since CSG would like to  
> stick to the yearly rotation, we will support Wolf for VC, and then  
> next year's VC will come from the NCSG, as we agreed.
>
>
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Robin
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 24, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Robin,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your note.  We have considered this option but on  
> balance we would like to keep to the agreement struck last year.   
> Wolf is our CSG candidate and we think he should go through the  
> election process as agreed.  We believe he will do a good job for  
> all parts of our non-contracted party house.  I know he has reached  
> out to the non-commercial side and will continue to do so.  We also  
> think Mary, who is clearly an asset to the entire council, has much  
> to contribute in other important roles.  Thanks.
>
>
>
> Steve Metalitz
>
> for the CSG Executive Committee
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 10:21 AM
> To: Metalitz, Steven
> Subject: Re: Election of GNSO council vice chair
>
> Hello Steve,
>
>
>
> Thanks for the email.  Given the dominance the contracted parties  
> have historically had in the GNSO, and the need for the NCPH to  
> help set the agenda in the GNSO, I'm sure you agree that it is most  
> important to both our SG's that we have a VC who will be an  
> effective advocate for the entire NCPH.  Considering the excellent  
> job Mary has done for the entire NCPH in this last year, would the  
> CSG be willing to consider allowing her to stand for a 2nd term VC?
>
>
>
> I should note that we would be equally willing to consider  
> supporting extending the term of a really good CSG councilor, in a  
> subsequent year.
>
>
>
> I think it is in both our SG's interest to have the best VC that  
> the NCPH can produce (from either SG), so I don't want us to get  
> too bogged down in CSG candidate v. NCSG candidate thinking.   
> Rather, let's think about what will best advance the interests of  
> the entire NCPH, and a 2nd-year VC, when we've got an excellent  
> advocate for both our SG's, will serve us both well (and the entire  
> GNSO Council).
>
>
>
> What do you think?  Can CSG consider Mary for a 2nd term?   Next  
> year we can return to the rotation and CSG can put forth a VC.
>
>
>
> Thank you again,
>
> Robin
>
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Robin,
> At the time that our Non-Contracted Parties House last selected a  
> vice Chair of the GNSO Council, the NCSG proposed, and the CSG  
> agreed, that at the next election, the SG whose candidate did not  
> prevail would have the preferential option to nominate a candidate  
> for vice chair.  That nominee would undergo a vote (nominated  
> candidate v. none of above) and, if the candidate received 8 or  
> more votes, would be elected.  If not, then the same process as  
> used last time would be followed (nominations from both SGs, one or  
> more round of voting, etc.).  Please see below e-mail chain setting  
> forth this agreement.
>
> In accordance with this, on behalf of the CSG executive committee,  
> let me confirm that we have nominated Wolf-Ulrich Knoben as Vice  
> Chair.  May I suggest that you work with Marilyn Cade or Tony  
> Holmes, who are onsite in Dakar, to arrange either for a meeting  
> place, or for an e-mail ballot administered by the GNSO  
> secretariat, in order to conduct an election between Wolf and none  
> of the above before the GNSO council meeting on Wednesday.
>
> Thanks, and please let me know if any questions.
>
> Steve Metalitz
> For CSG Executive Committee
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 10:42 AM
> To: Metalitz, Steven; Glen de Saint Gery
> Subject: Re: Council vice chair was RE: [] Updated GNSO Council  
> agenda for 13 January
>
> Hi,
>
> Just confirming there was no objection in the NCSG Policy committee  
> to the CSG caveat.
>
> Glen: Please proceed with the vote at your convenience.
>
> thanks
>
> a.
>
> On 30 Dec 2010, at 10:03, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Steve, thanks for the reply.  I do not expect there will be any  
> problem accepting the CSG caveat, just want to give the NCSG Policy  
> group a day to review it.
>
> >
> > Glen, I think planning on sending out the ballots on Monday, or  
> whenever works out for you after that, should be fine.
>
> >
> > I will get back to you both,  should there be any issue.
> >
> > Thanks to you both and wishes for a great 2011.
> >
> > a.
> >
> >
> >
> > On 30 Dec 2010, at 09:35, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
> >
> >> Avri,
> >>
> >> The process you propose below now has the support of all of CSG,  
> with the caveat that we review the process after two iterations  
> (i.e., before the election for the term beginning after the last  
> ICANN meeting in 2012).
>
> >>
> >> By copy to Glen, and subject to Avri's confirmation on behalf of  
> NCSG, I ask her to distribute ballots to the 13 council  
> representatives from the CSG, NCSG, and NCA (Olga), to choose  
> between the following candidates for vice chair:
>
> >>
> >> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (CSG)
> >> Mary Wong (NCSG)
> >>
> >> I believe 7 calendar days would be an adequate time frame for  
> ballots to be returned to Glen.  If either candidate gets 8 votes,  
> then that candidate is the winner.  If not, the leader runs against  
> none of the above in a second round.   So if we do not have vice  
> chair in place by the time of the 1/13 council meeting, we will be  
> well on our way to doing so.
>
> >>
> >> Thanks to all for patience as we worked this through.
> >>
> >> And best wishes to all for a happy new year!
> >>
> >> Steve
> >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:22 PM
> >> To: Metalitz, Steven; Olga Cavalli
> >> Subject: Fwd: [] Updated GNSO Council agenda for 13 January
> >>
> >> Hi,,
> >>
> >>
> >> Begin forwarded message:
> >>
> >>> 9.1 Status of Vice Chair elections in the Non Contracted Party  
> House.
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Where are we at?
> >>
> >> I know we agreed that Olga serves interim, and I think that is  
> great.
> >>
> >> Is there any feedback on the NCSG suggestion that we just elect  
> following the general practice that was used for the Chair election?
>
> >>
> >> I repeat it below.
> >>
> >> thanks
> >> a.
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 6:15 PM
> >>> To: Metalitz, Steven
> >>> Cc: Marilyn Cade; Olga Cavalli; Holmes Tony
> >>> Subject: Re: update from the CSG side about progression toward
> >>> election process for V.Chair/House
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> We certainly accept Olga remaining while we figure this out,  
> which I
> >>> hope is soon, really soon.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, our candidate is Mary.
> >>>
> >>> I would like to counter propose.
> >>>
> >>> We follow the GCOT defined process for the chair.  it is, in
> >>> diplomatic speak, agreed language and would allow us to be done  
> with it.
> >>>
> >>> That means
> >>>
> >>> 1 candidate from each SG
> >>>
> >>> a. need 8 votes to win
> >>> b. if no one gets 8, person in the lead runs against none of the
> >>> above
> >>>
> >>> - From now on, we alternate with the SG who did not pick the
> >>> successful candidate, picking the v-chair candidate.  They can  
> pick
> >>> the person who is currently in the v-chair (assuming they are  
> doing
> >>> a good job, and are really neutral), someone from their group, or
> >>> the NCA (don't assume they would pick someone from the other group
> >>> who wasn't already v-chair but they could)
> >>>
> >>> This person would still have to endure a vote:
> >>>
> >>> - chosen candidate vs. none of the above
> >>>
> >>> Takes 8 to win.
> >>>
> >>> I/we hate the idea of having to do this again, so I am hoping  
> we can
> >>> find a way to just finalize this and move on.  especially since we
> >>> have Olga filling the spot while we discuss this, the hurry  
> probably
> >>> isn't as great.
> >>>
> >>> We accept that this does not prejudice the Board seat election,
> >>> though must say that the NCSG generally accepts staying with
> >>> accepted language, i.e. the same process as is already accepted  
> for the chair.
> >>>
> >>> a.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
>
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Chris LaHatte [mailto:chris.lahatte at icann.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:01 PM
> To: Metalitz, Steven; tonyarholmes at btinternet.com;  
> marilynscade at hotmail.com
> Cc: Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org); Avri Doria (avri at acm.org);  
> Wendy Seltzer (wendy at seltzer.com)
> Subject: Vice Chair Position
>
> Dear people
>
> I have been asked by the Policy Committee of the NCSG to discuss  
> the issue of nomination of the vice-chair from the non-contracted  
> parties house for the GNSO. I was specifically asked to see if I  
> could mediate a solution, rather than an ombudsman investigation,  
> because the NCSG values the working relationship, and does not want  
> a more formal approach. So my first query is whether you are happy  
> to mediate a solution to the issue, of why the turn for NCSG to put  
> forward Wendy Seltzer as the nominee, has not been accepted. As I  
> understand this, there has been an agreement, by an email exchange,  
> between NCSG and CSG, that the nomination for vice-chair would be  
> shared year and year about. However this has not been the case with  
> the current nomination from NCSG for Wendy. The first question is  
> whether this is just an oversight, or whether you do not agree that  
> she should be nominated. If the latter, then I am available to  
> mediate a solution, if that is the course which will resolve the  
> issue, and if you accept mediation, I can set this up.
>
> Can you please let me know your thoughts?
>
> Regards
>
>
> Chris LaHatte
> Ombudsman
> Blog  https://omblog.icann.org/
> Facebook http://www.facebook.com/ICANNOmbudsman
> Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>
>
> Confidentiality
> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as  
> confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps  
> necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those  
> parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the  
> Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise  
> staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a  
> complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.   
> The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure  
> that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and  
> identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential  
> nature of such information, except as necessary to further the  
> resolution of a complaint
>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130110/d35a2efc/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Thu Jan 10 22:56:20 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:56:20 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Vice Chair Position
In-Reply-To: <4861BFEC-3C1B-4DEA-89A7-DDACC3E5B569@ipjustice.org>
References: <BDBCC21442A22640A4ECE2C75A8E215A944B3D970E@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<4861BFEC-3C1B-4DEA-89A7-DDACC3E5B569@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <D7CCD40D-25C7-4EAE-942B-96F0D713910A@acm.org>

The crux of the matter is:

so far
did we do 1 rotation?
or 2 rotations?

I think we did 2 demi-rotations = 1 rotation and we have yet another rotation to go.  

I also beleive that the CSG is being sneaky, redefining what a rotation means, and is backing out on yet another agreement.

avri


On 10 Jan 2013, at 15:47, Robin Gross wrote:

> fyi
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Chris LaHatte <chris.lahatte at icann.org>
>> Date: January 8, 2013 7:24:12 PM PST
>> To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>, "'tonyarholmes at btinternet.com'" <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "'marilynscade at hotmail.com'" <marilynscade at hotmail.com>, "'Rosette, Kristina'" <krosette at cov.com>
>> Cc: "'Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org)'" <robin at ipjustice.org>, "'Avri Doria (avri at acm.org)'" <avri at acm.org>, "'Wendy Seltzer (wendy at seltzer.com)'" <wendy at seltzer.com>
>> Subject: RE: Vice Chair Position
>> 
>> Dear Steve
>>  
>> Thank you for the reply and I am grateful that this has been raised. As I see this issue, you have responded by saying the sharing of the Vice Chair Position was to be revisited, with review after one rotation. The review did not happen however. I am not sure if the NCSG thought that this review was needed before the rotation however. It may be useful to have comment on that aspect.
>>  
>> But we are in a position where the options are (not in any order of priority):-
>>  
>> 1                  Accept the arrangement to rotate, and let NCSG candidate, Wendy Seltzer, be put forward
>> 2                  Review the rotation after the election to see if is still appropriate to continue
>> 3                  Have an election between Wendy Seltzer and Brian Winterfeldt as to who will be put forward, and no longer use the rotation
>>  
>> The rotation does appear to be an arrangement which gives each Stakeholder Group the ability to place a member as Vice Chair in alternate terms, spreading the interests and enabling equal shares in decision making. The Vice Chair is however still a member of a committee and does not have special power to overrule the others, but is just another voice, albeit with some ability to set an agenda and control a meeting when the vice chair is acting as the chair.
>>  
>> We could set up telephone discussion-I am available at any time.
>>  
>> Regards
>>  
>>  
>> Chris LaHatte
>> Ombudsman
>> Blog  https://omblog.icann.org/
>> Facebook http://www.facebook.com/ICANNOmbudsman
>> Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>  
>>  
>> Confidentiality
>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.  The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint
>>  
>> From: Metalitz, Steven [mailto:met at msk.com] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 3:42 PM
>> To: Chris LaHatte; 'tonyarholmes at btinternet.com'; 'marilynscade at hotmail.com'; 'Rosette, Kristina'
>> Cc: 'Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org)'; 'Avri Doria (avri at acm.org)'; 'Wendy Seltzer (wendy at seltzer.com)'
>> Subject: RE: Vice Chair Position
>>  
>> Hello Chris,
>>  
>> I hope 2013 is off to a good start for you. 
>>  
>> Knowing how matters can slip off the table over the holidays, I wanted to make sure that you (and the addressees and cc?s) had received the message below.  We are interested in knowing the response to our proposal. I?d welcome any suggestions you have for bringing this matter to resolution.  Thanks!
>>  
>> Steve Metalitz
>> From: Metalitz, Steven 
>> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 4:05 PM
>> To: 'Chris LaHatte'; tonyarholmes at btinternet.com; marilynscade at hotmail.com; 'Rosette, Kristina'
>> Cc: Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org); Avri Doria (avri at acm.org); Wendy Seltzer (wendy at seltzer.com)
>> Subject: RE: Vice Chair Position
>>  
>> Dear Chris,
>> 
>> I am responding to your message of Dec. 18 on behalf of the Commercial Stakeholder Group executive committee.  I apologize for the delay in responding due to the impending holiday season in the US. 
>> 
>> CSG would be pleased to have your assistance in mediating this dispute. 
>> 
>> We believe the summary in your Dec. 18 message requires some modification.  The ?turn and turn about? arrangement for nominating the GNSO Vice Chair from the Non-Contracted Parties House was reached at the end of 2010, and was explicitly made subject to a review after one rotation, i.e., in the run-up to the selection of a Vice Chair to begin service after the ICANN Annual Meeting in October 2012.  This is all documented in the e-mail chain pasted below. 
>> 
>> That review did not occur.  Instead, each SG nominated a candidate.  The Commercial Stakeholder Group nominated Brian Winterfeldt.  The Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group nominated Wendy Seltzer.  No election has yet been held.  (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben has graciously agreed to continue as Vice Chair on an interim basis even though his term has formally expired.) 
>> 
>> Our preference is that an election now be held between these two nominees, Brian and Wendy, to select the Vice Chair.  There would be 13 voters in this election (the 6 GNSO councilors from CSG, the 6 GNSO councilors from NCSG, and the Nom Comm assignee to the NCPH), and a simple majority of 7 votes would be required for election.  We think this would accurately reflect that the ?turn and turn about? arrangement has expired after two turns. 
>> 
>> We appreciate that the agreement between the SGs in 2010 did not address the circumstance in which the contemplated review of the arrangement had not occurred.  We note that, if the arrangement were to be extended for another cycle, NCSG would have the preferential option to nominate a candidate this time, but that candidate would not be elected unless he or she obtained affirmative votes from 8 of the 13 electors. 
>> 
>> Finally, however the matter is resolved, we believe it would be essential to schedule a call in which the candidate or candidates would present their qualifications and plans to both stakeholder groups (and to the Nom Comm assignee), and would respond to questions,  prior to a vote. 
>> 
>> Thank you again for your offer to mediate.  Please let me know if we can provide further information or views, or otherwise expedite a fair resolution.
>> 
>> Steve Metalitz, Vice President of IPC, on behalf of CSG Executive Committee
>> 
>> Cc:       Tony Holmes, ISPC chair
>> 
>>             Kristina Rosette, IPC President
>> 
>>             Marilyn Cade, BC chair
>> 
>> E-mail correspondence re Vice Chair selection process
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Metalitz, Steven 
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 7:14 AM
>> To: 'Robin Gross'
>> Cc: Tony Holmes; Marilyn Cade
>> Subject: RE: Election of GNSO council vice chair
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks Robin.  Per the agreement confirmed last January, we will review the process prior to the next election. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Steve Metalitz
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2011 5:49 AM
>> To: Metalitz, Steven
>> Cc: Tony Holmes; Marilyn Cade
>> Subject: Re: Election of GNSO council vice chair
>> 
>> Thank you for getting back to me, Steve.    Since CSG would like to stick to the yearly rotation, we will support Wolf for VC, and then next year's VC will come from the NCSG, as we agreed.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks again,
>> 
>> Robin
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Oct 24, 2011, at 3:34 PM, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Hi Robin,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks for your note.  We have considered this option but on balance we would like to keep to the agreement struck last year.  Wolf is our CSG candidate and we think he should go through the election process as agreed.  We believe he will do a good job for all parts of our non-contracted party house.  I know he has reached out to the non-commercial side and will continue to do so.  We also think Mary, who is clearly an asset to the entire council, has much to contribute in other important roles.  Thanks.     
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Steve Metalitz
>> 
>> for the CSG Executive Committee
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
>> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 10:21 AM
>> To: Metalitz, Steven
>> Subject: Re: Election of GNSO council vice chair
>> 
>> Hello Steve,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thanks for the email.  Given the dominance the contracted parties have historically had in the GNSO, and the need for the NCPH to help set the agenda in the GNSO, I'm sure you agree that it is most important to both our SG's that we have a VC who will be an effective advocate for the entire NCPH.  Considering the excellent job Mary has done for the entire NCPH in this last year, would the CSG be willing to consider allowing her to stand for a 2nd term VC?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I should note that we would be equally willing to consider supporting extending the term of a really good CSG councilor, in a subsequent year. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I think it is in both our SG's interest to have the best VC that the NCPH can produce (from either SG), so I don't want us to get too bogged down in CSG candidate v. NCSG candidate thinking.  Rather, let's think about what will best advance the interests of the entire NCPH, and a 2nd-year VC, when we've got an excellent advocate for both our SG's, will serve us both well (and the entire GNSO Council).
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> What do you think?  Can CSG consider Mary for a 2nd term?   Next year we can return to the rotation and CSG can put forth a VC.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thank you again,
>> 
>> Robin
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Oct 23, 2011, at 7:25 PM, Metalitz, Steven wrote:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Dear Robin, 
>> At the time that our Non-Contracted Parties House last selected a vice Chair of the GNSO Council, the NCSG proposed, and the CSG agreed, that at the next election, the SG whose candidate did not prevail would have the preferential option to nominate a candidate for vice chair.  That nominee would undergo a vote (nominated candidate v. none of above) and, if the candidate received 8 or more votes, would be elected.  If not, then the same process as used last time would be followed (nominations from both SGs, one or more round of voting, etc.).  Please see below e-mail chain setting forth this agreement. 
>> 
>> In accordance with this, on behalf of the CSG executive committee, let me confirm that we have nominated Wolf-Ulrich Knoben as Vice Chair.  May I suggest that you work with Marilyn Cade or Tony Holmes, who are onsite in Dakar, to arrange either for a meeting place, or for an e-mail ballot administered by the GNSO secretariat, in order to conduct an election between Wolf and none of the above before the GNSO council meeting on Wednesday. 
>> 
>> Thanks, and please let me know if any questions.
>> 
>> Steve Metalitz 
>> For CSG Executive Committee
>> 
>> -----Original Message----- 
>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] 
>> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 10:42 AM 
>> To: Metalitz, Steven; Glen de Saint Gery 
>> Subject: Re: Council vice chair was RE: [] Updated GNSO Council agenda for 13 January
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Just confirming there was no objection in the NCSG Policy committee to the CSG caveat. 
>> 
>> Glen: Please proceed with the vote at your convenience.
>> 
>> thanks
>> 
>> a.
>> 
>> On 30 Dec 2010, at 10:03, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>> > Hi, 
>> > 
>> > Steve, thanks for the reply.  I do not expect there will be any problem accepting the CSG caveat, just want to give the NCSG Policy group a day to review it.
>> 
>> > 
>> > Glen, I think planning on sending out the ballots on Monday, or whenever works out for you after that, should be fine. 
>> 
>> > 
>> > I will get back to you both,  should there be any issue. 
>> > 
>> > Thanks to you both and wishes for a great 2011. 
>> > 
>> > a. 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 30 Dec 2010, at 09:35, Metalitz, Steven wrote: 
>> > 
>> >> Avri, 
>> >> 
>> >> The process you propose below now has the support of all of CSG, with the caveat that we review the process after two iterations (i.e., before the election for the term beginning after the last ICANN meeting in 2012).
>> 
>> >> 
>> >> By copy to Glen, and subject to Avri's confirmation on behalf of NCSG, I ask her to distribute ballots to the 13 council representatives from the CSG, NCSG, and NCA (Olga), to choose between the following candidates for vice chair: 
>> 
>> >> 
>> >> Wolf-Ulrich Knoben (CSG) 
>> >> Mary Wong (NCSG) 
>> >> 
>> >> I believe 7 calendar days would be an adequate time frame for ballots to be returned to Glen.  If either candidate gets 8 votes, then that candidate is the winner.  If not, the leader runs against none of the above in a second round.   So if we do not have vice chair in place by the time of the 1/13 council meeting, we will be well on our way to doing so. 
>> 
>> >> 
>> >> Thanks to all for patience as we worked this through. 
>> >> 
>> >> And best wishes to all for a happy new year! 
>> >> 
>> >> Steve 
>> >> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] 
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 2:22 PM 
>> >> To: Metalitz, Steven; Olga Cavalli 
>> >> Subject: Fwd: [] Updated GNSO Council agenda for 13 January 
>> >> 
>> >> Hi,, 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> Begin forwarded message: 
>> >> 
>> >>> 9.1 Status of Vice Chair elections in the Non Contracted Party House. 
>> >> 
>> >> Hi, 
>> >> 
>> >> Where are we at? 
>> >> 
>> >> I know we agreed that Olga serves interim, and I think that is great. 
>> >> 
>> >> Is there any feedback on the NCSG suggestion that we just elect following the general practice that was used for the Chair election?
>> 
>> >> 
>> >> I repeat it below. 
>> >> 
>> >> thanks 
>> >> a. 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >>> -----Original Message----- 
>> >>> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] 
>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 6:15 PM 
>> >>> To: Metalitz, Steven 
>> >>> Cc: Marilyn Cade; Olga Cavalli; Holmes Tony 
>> >>> Subject: Re: update from the CSG side about progression toward 
>> >>> election process for V.Chair/House 
>> >>> 
>> >>> Hi, 
>> >>> 
>> >>> We certainly accept Olga remaining while we figure this out, which I 
>> >>> hope is soon, really soon. 
>> >>> 
>> >>> Yes, our candidate is Mary. 
>> >>> 
>> >>> I would like to counter propose. 
>> >>> 
>> >>> We follow the GCOT defined process for the chair.  it is, in 
>> >>> diplomatic speak, agreed language and would allow us to be done with it. 
>> >>> 
>> >>> That means 
>> >>> 
>> >>> 1 candidate from each SG 
>> >>> 
>> >>> a. need 8 votes to win 
>> >>> b. if no one gets 8, person in the lead runs against none of the 
>> >>> above 
>> >>> 
>> >>> - From now on, we alternate with the SG who did not pick the 
>> >>> successful candidate, picking the v-chair candidate.  They can pick 
>> >>> the person who is currently in the v-chair (assuming they are doing 
>> >>> a good job, and are really neutral), someone from their group, or 
>> >>> the NCA (don't assume they would pick someone from the other group 
>> >>> who wasn't already v-chair but they could) 
>> >>> 
>> >>> This person would still have to endure a vote: 
>> >>> 
>> >>> - chosen candidate vs. none of the above 
>> >>> 
>> >>> Takes 8 to win. 
>> >>> 
>> >>> I/we hate the idea of having to do this again, so I am hoping we can 
>> >>> find a way to just finalize this and move on.  especially since we 
>> >>> have Olga filling the spot while we discuss this, the hurry probably 
>> >>> isn't as great. 
>> >>> 
>> >>> We accept that this does not prejudice the Board seat election, 
>> >>> though must say that the NCSG generally accepts staying with 
>> >>> accepted language, i.e. the same process as is already accepted for the chair. 
>> >>> 
>> >>> a. 
>> >>> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >>
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> IP JUSTICE
>> 
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> 
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> 
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> From: Chris LaHatte [mailto:chris.lahatte at icann.org] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 8:01 PM
>> To: Metalitz, Steven; tonyarholmes at btinternet.com; marilynscade at hotmail.com
>> Cc: Robin Gross (robin at ipjustice.org); Avri Doria (avri at acm.org); Wendy Seltzer (wendy at seltzer.com)
>> Subject: Vice Chair Position
>>  
>> Dear people
>>  
>> I have been asked by the Policy Committee of the NCSG to discuss the issue of nomination of the vice-chair from the non-contracted parties house for the GNSO. I was specifically asked to see if I could mediate a solution, rather than an ombudsman investigation, because the NCSG values the working relationship, and does not want a more formal approach. So my first query is whether you are happy to mediate a solution to the issue, of why the turn for NCSG to put forward Wendy Seltzer as the nominee, has not been accepted. As I understand this, there has been an agreement, by an email exchange, between NCSG and CSG, that the nomination for vice-chair would be shared year and year about. However this has not been the case with the current nomination from NCSG for Wendy. The first question is whether this is just an oversight, or whether you do not agree that she should be nominated. If the latter, then I am available to mediate a solution, if that is the course which will resolve the issue, and if you accept mediation, I can set this up.
>>  
>> Can you please let me know your thoughts?
>>  
>> Regards
>>  
>>  
>> Chris LaHatte
>> Ombudsman
>> Blog  https://omblog.icann.org/
>> Facebook http://www.facebook.com/ICANNOmbudsman
>> Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>  
>>  
>> Confidentiality
>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.  The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint
>>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From wendy  Fri Jan 11 23:47:21 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:47:21 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Advice requested by the ICANN Board /
	Consumer Trust
In-Reply-To: <000e01cdf03a$e0d75430$a285fc90$@ipracon.com>
References: <000e01cdf03a$e0d75430$a285fc90$@ipracon.com>
Message-ID: <50F08869.6020007@seltzer.com>

Hi NCSG,

We dissented from this recommendation in Council, but were outvoted. Do
we want to send a letter of our own to the Board?

Here was a letter I wrote to the drafting team, that we could repurpose
for the Board:

I write because I continue to have strong disagreement with the "trust"
metrics and their presentation. Since I have been unable to make the
calls due to persistent scheduling conflicts, I wanted to spell out the
concerns I discussed with several of you in Prague. I appreciate the
work that has gone into the metrics, but believe that the "trust"
metrics rely on a faulty premise, that gTLDs should be predictable,
rather than open to innovative and unexpected new uses.

The current draft mistakes a platform, a gTLD, for an end-product. A key
value of a platform is its generativity -- its ability to be used and
leveraged by third parties for new, unexpected purposes. Precisely
because much innovation is unanticipated, it cannot be predicted for a
chart of measures. Moreover, incentives on the intermediaries to control
their platforms translate into restrictions on end-users' free
expression and innovation.

Just as we would not want to speak about "trust" in a pad of printing
paper, on which anyone could make posters, and we don't ask a road
system to interrogate what its drivers plan to do when they reach their
destinations, I think we shouldn't judge DNS registries on their users'
activities.

ICANN's planned reviews of and targets for gTLD success should not
interfere with market decisions about the utility of various offerings.

In particular, I disagree with the second group of "trust" metrics, the
" Measures related to confidence that TLD operators are fulfilling
promises and complying with ICANN policies and applicable national
laws:" namely,
* Relative incidence of UDRP & URS Complaints; Relative incidence of
UDRP & URS Decisions against registrant;
* Quantity and relative incidence of intellectual property claims
relating to Second Level domain names, and relative cost of overall
domain name policing measured at: immediately prior to new gTLD
delegation and at 1 and 3 years after delegation;
* Quantity of Compliance Concerns w/r/t Applicable National Laws,
including reported data security breaches;
* Quantity and relative incidence of Domain Takedowns;
* Quantity of spam received by a "honeypot" email address in each new gTLD;
* Quantity and relative incidence of fraudulent transactions caused by
phishing sites in new gTLDs;
* Quantity and relative incidence of detected phishing sites using new
gTLDs;
* Quantity and relative incidence of detected botnets and malware using
new gTLDs
* Quantity and relative incidence of sites found to be dealing in or
distributing identities and account information used in identity fraud; and
* Quantity and relative incidence of complaints regarding inaccurate,
invalid, or suspect WHOIS records in new gTLD

Separately, I disagree with the targets for the "redirection,"
"duplicates," and "traffic" measures. All of these presume that the use
for new gTLDs is to provide the same type of service to different
parties, while some might be used to provide different services to
parties including existing registrants.

Thanks,
--Wendy



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Advice requested by the ICANN Board
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:33:05 -0000
From: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
To: Steve Crocker <steve at shinkuro.com>
CC: <bruce.tonkin at icann.org>, "Bill Graham" <bill.graham at icann.org>,
    <diane.schroeder at icann.org>, "Bill Graham" <bill.graham at icann.org>,
       "'Glen de Saint G?ry'" <Glen at icann.org>,
<council at gnso.icann.org>

Dear Steve,



Please see the attached regarding consumer trust, consumer choice and
competition in the context of the domain name system per the 10 December
2010 ICANN board approved resolution (2010.12.10.06).



Best wishes,





Jonathan







Jonathan Robinson

Chair

ICANN GNSO Council



 <mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com> jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com

skype: jonathan.m.r








-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Letter to ICANN Board re CTCC - 11 January 2013.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 202673 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130111/f20fce86/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Consumer_Metrics_Advice_FINAL_v4.0_clean.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 369543 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130111/f20fce86/attachment-0003.pdf>


From robin  Mon Jan 14 19:00:59 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:00:59 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Attendance at week's GNSO Council Meeting
Message-ID: <DFC3D72A-9291-440A-8104-A0F174143CB4@ipjustice.org>

Hi there,

Are there any GNSO Councilors who will not be able to participate in  
Thursday's GNSO Council meeting and will need a replacement/proxy?

Thanks,
Robin




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130114/16dc7ef0/attachment.html>


From nhklein  Mon Jan 14 19:13:29 2013
From: nhklein (Norbert Klein)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 00:13:29 +0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Attendance at week's GNSO Council Meeting
In-Reply-To: <DFC3D72A-9291-440A-8104-A0F174143CB4@ipjustice.org>
References: <DFC3D72A-9291-440A-8104-A0F174143CB4@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <50F43CB9.4060004@gmx.net>

On 15 1.2013 0:00, Robin Gross wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Are there any GNSO Councilors who will not be able to participate in 
> Thursday's GNSO Council meeting and will need a replacement/proxy?
>
> Thanks,
> Robin

I plan to be there on Thursday.

Any special advice for the meeting?


Norbert



From maria.farrell  Mon Jan 14 19:22:31 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:22:31 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Attendance at week's GNSO Council Meeting
In-Reply-To: <50F43CB9.4060004@gmx.net>
References: <DFC3D72A-9291-440A-8104-A0F174143CB4@ipjustice.org>
	<50F43CB9.4060004@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdAK1qgQuOi9xfZX1ZTf3BqNSFnVb=C_gUx14ZO_TXW0ew@mail.gmail.com>

Somewhat indirect response, Robin, but I just wanted to confirm that I am
back in action and will be at Thursday's meeting, and also the NCSG policy
call.

Maria

On 14 January 2013 17:13, Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:

> On 15 1.2013 0:00, Robin Gross wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> Are there any GNSO Councilors who will not be able to participate in
>> Thursday's GNSO Council meeting and will need a replacement/proxy?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>
> I plan to be there on Thursday.
>
> Any special advice for the meeting?
>
>
> Norbert
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/**listinfo/pc-ncsg<http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130114/e6461918/attachment.html>


From robin  Mon Jan 14 20:33:20 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:33:20 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Thick Whois WG Comments - with some
	proposed edits
In-Reply-To: <1057AF31-28CA-4854-B99B-6B8EDCDDBD99@egyptig.org>
References: <50F2FB1E.3040203@kathykleiman.com>
	<50F375DF.7020502@kathykleiman.com>
	<06EF7F5E019BB34DB01EDC2DB0588A9F0F2A0E50@BL2PRD0810MB349.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
	<1057AF31-28CA-4854-B99B-6B8EDCDDBD99@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <4B265B9B-8846-400B-ACB5-C1238EF30B10@ipjustice.org>

Thanks, Amr.  FYI: It is the NCSG Policy Committee, which decides to  
endorse statements on behalf of NCSG.  It would be great if the NCSG- 
PC could agree to endorse this statement before the deadline (or  
suggest any changes to it).

Thanks again!
Robin


On Jan 14, 2013, at 9:24 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:

> Thanks Kathy and Roy. If there are any more comments that members  
> would like included, please post them today. The next Thick Whois  
> WG call is scheduled for tomorrow at 15:00 UTC (right before the  
> NCSG Policy meeting). We will need to submit our response to the WG  
> prior to this call.
>
> It would also be great if NPOC could endorse the response, making  
> it a response by NCSG instead of NCUC. As far as I know, NPOC has  
> not submitted anything so far.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Balleste, Roy wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> Kathy was kind enough to unify all responses so far, I have (with  
>> her consent) unified mine with all others.
>> Please find attached.
>>
>> Roy Balleste, J.S.D.
>> Professor of Law
>> Law Library Director
>> St. Thomas University
>> 16401 NW 37th Avenue
>> Miami Gardens, FL 33054  USA
>> 1-305-623-2341
>>
>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On  
>> Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
>> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 10:05 PM
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Thick Whois WG Comments - with some  
>> proposed edits
>>
>> Hi All,
>> Great thanks to Amr for the first draft of comments to the Thick  
>> Whois PDP Working Group. As you know, the question on the table is  
>> whether a ?thick Whois model? ? one in which all Whois data is  
>> held and made available by the Registry (e.g., Verisign) and not  
>> the Registrar ? should be the model for all existing and all new  
>> gTLDs.
>> For .COM, it's a huge issue. It is a ?thin? registry, and 100  
>> million+ Whois records are stored by the registrar pursuant to  
>> local laws (including local privacy and free speech laws). Whether  
>> we can convert these 100 million+ records to a single database ?  
>> and whether we want to ? are questions for this group.
>> Further, the issue of ?Whois? data, service and protocol are all  
>> up in the air. If someday we reach agreement that this very  
>> personal data ? that can expose individuals and organizations to  
>> threat for what they say and share online (including political,  
>> religious and ethnic minority views and dissent, including non- 
>> commercial activity) ? should be private, then a single  
>> centralized Registry Whois database creates a single point of  
>> access. That means that should Registries be cozy with their local  
>> governments, all of this data may be relinquished without due  
>> process, or even subject to criminal laws that are non-standard in  
>> the world (e.g., Syria, N.Korea, China).
>> The fact is that registrants know their registrars and it is to  
>> their registrars that the Whois information is provided. Most  
>> registrants will think they are protected under those rules.  
>> Despite the fact that New gTLDs (for this round, at least) require  
>> a centralized Whois ? with the Registry ? I remain deeply  
>> concerned about the consolidation of the massive .COM Whois (if  
>> it's even legal ? see below) and the standard set for all future  
>> registries and TLDs ? regardless of their political, social, or  
>> religious uses.
>>
>> If NPOC shares these concerns, I urge you to sign on ? with thanks!
>>
>> Best,  Kathy Kleiman (veteran of far too many Whois task forces  
>> and review teams...)
>> p.s. All of Amr's comments kept, and I added on and filled in some  
>> sections...
>> <Edits to Thick Whois PDP WG Initial Comments.2.doc>
>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130114/ac790045/attachment-0001.html>


From magaly.pazello  Mon Jan 14 20:38:33 2013
From: magaly.pazello (Magaly Pazello)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 16:38:33 -0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Attendance at week's GNSO Council Meeting
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdAK1qgQuOi9xfZX1ZTf3BqNSFnVb=C_gUx14ZO_TXW0ew@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DFC3D72A-9291-440A-8104-A0F174143CB4@ipjustice.org>
	<50F43CB9.4060004@gmx.net>
	<CAC7qwdAK1qgQuOi9xfZX1ZTf3BqNSFnVb=C_gUx14ZO_TXW0ew@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+dOKfAHP-A3LC+J0HENGUWo2jXdt_szB=9oHdasSShe2EaG+A@mail.gmail.com>

Me too!
Magaly

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Somewhat indirect response, Robin, but I just wanted to confirm that I am
> back in action and will be at Thursday's meeting, and also the NCSG policy
> call.
>
> Maria
>
>
> On 14 January 2013 17:13, Norbert Klein <nhklein at gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 15 1.2013 0:00, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> Are there any GNSO Councilors who will not be able to participate in
>>> Thursday's GNSO Council meeting and will need a replacement/proxy?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>
>>
>> I plan to be there on Thursday.
>>
>> Any special advice for the meeting?
>>
>>
>> Norbert
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



From wendy  Mon Jan 14 20:56:19 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:56:19 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Thick Whois WG Comments - with some
 proposed edits
In-Reply-To: <4B265B9B-8846-400B-ACB5-C1238EF30B10@ipjustice.org>
References: <50F2FB1E.3040203@kathykleiman.com>
	<50F375DF.7020502@kathykleiman.com>
	<06EF7F5E019BB34DB01EDC2DB0588A9F0F2A0E50@BL2PRD0810MB349.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
	<1057AF31-28CA-4854-B99B-6B8EDCDDBD99@egyptig.org>
	<4B265B9B-8846-400B-ACB5-C1238EF30B10@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <50F454D3.3020008@seltzer.com>

On 01/14/2013 01:33 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> Thanks, Amr.  FYI: It is the NCSG Policy Committee, which decides to
> endorse statements on behalf of NCSG.  It would be great if the NCSG-PC
> could agree to endorse this statement before the deadline (or suggest
> any changes to it).

I support this statement.  Thanks Amr, Kathy, and Roy for your work.

--Wendy

> 
> Thanks again!
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Jan 14, 2013, at 9:24 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Kathy and Roy. If there are any more comments that members
>> would like included, please post them today. The next Thick Whois WG
>> call is scheduled for tomorrow at 15:00 UTC (right before the NCSG
>> Policy meeting). We will need to submit our response to the WG prior
>> to this call.
>>
>> It would also be great if NPOC could endorse the response, making it a
>> response by NCSG instead of NCUC. As far as I know, NPOC has not
>> submitted anything so far.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Balleste, Roy wrote:
>>
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> Kathy was kind enough to unify all responses so far, I have (with her
>>> consent) unified mine with all others.
>>> Please find attached.
>>>
>>> Roy Balleste, J.S.D.
>>> Professor of Law
>>> Law Library Director
>>> St. Thomas University
>>> 16401 NW 37th Avenue
>>> Miami Gardens, FL 33054  USA
>>> 1-305-623-2341
>>>
>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf
>>> Of Kathy Kleiman
>>> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 10:05 PM
>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Thick Whois WG Comments - with some proposed
>>> edits
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>> Great thanks to Amr for the first draft of comments to the Thick
>>> Whois PDP Working Group. As you know, the question on the table is
>>> whether a ?thick Whois model? ? one in which all Whois data is held
>>> and made available by the Registry (e.g., Verisign) and not the
>>> Registrar ? should be the model for all existing and all new gTLDs.
>>> For .COM, it's a huge issue. It is a ?thin? registry, and 100
>>> million+ Whois records are stored by the registrar pursuant to local
>>> laws (including local privacy and free speech laws). Whether we can
>>> convert these 100 million+ records to a single database ? and whether
>>> we want to ? are questions for this group.
>>> Further, the issue of ?Whois? data, service and protocol are all up
>>> in the air. If someday we reach agreement that this very personal
>>> data ? that can expose individuals and organizations to threat for
>>> what they say and share online (including political, religious and
>>> ethnic minority views and dissent, including non-commercial activity)
>>> ? should be private, then a single centralized Registry Whois
>>> database creates a single point of access. That means that should
>>> Registries be cozy with their local governments, all of this data may
>>> be relinquished without due process, or even subject to criminal laws
>>> that are non-standard in the world (e.g., Syria, N.Korea, China).
>>> The fact is that registrants know their registrars and it is to their
>>> registrars that the Whois information is provided. Most registrants
>>> will think they are protected under those rules. Despite the fact
>>> that New gTLDs (for this round, at least) require a centralized Whois
>>> ? with the Registry ? I remain deeply concerned about the
>>> consolidation of the massive .COM Whois (if it's even legal ? see
>>> below) and the standard set for all future registries and TLDs ?
>>> regardless of their political, social, or religious uses.
>>>
>>> If NPOC shares these concerns, I urge you to sign on ? with thanks!
>>>
>>> Best,  Kathy Kleiman (veteran of far too many Whois task forces and
>>> review teams...)
>>> p.s. All of Amr's comments kept, and I added on and filled in some
>>> sections...
>>> <Edits to Thick Whois PDP WG Initial Comments.2.doc>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
http://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/



From robin  Mon Jan 14 20:59:49 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:59:49 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Thick Whois WG Comments - with some
	proposed edits
In-Reply-To: <50F454D3.3020008@seltzer.com>
References: <50F2FB1E.3040203@kathykleiman.com>
	<50F375DF.7020502@kathykleiman.com>
	<06EF7F5E019BB34DB01EDC2DB0588A9F0F2A0E50@BL2PRD0810MB349.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
	<1057AF31-28CA-4854-B99B-6B8EDCDDBD99@egyptig.org>
	<4B265B9B-8846-400B-ACB5-C1238EF30B10@ipjustice.org>
	<50F454D3.3020008@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <2C2A159E-BF69-49B6-969D-F41421749243@ipjustice.org>

Thanks very much, Wendy.  Given the deadline, I'd suggest any  
comments or suggested edits be made to this NCSG-PC list by the end  
of business today so the stmt can be posted in time.

Thanks again,
Robin

On Jan 14, 2013, at 10:56 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> On 01/14/2013 01:33 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> Thanks, Amr.  FYI: It is the NCSG Policy Committee, which decides to
>> endorse statements on behalf of NCSG.  It would be great if the  
>> NCSG-PC
>> could agree to endorse this statement before the deadline (or suggest
>> any changes to it).
>
> I support this statement.  Thanks Amr, Kathy, and Roy for your work.
>
> --Wendy
>
>>
>> Thanks again!
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On Jan 14, 2013, at 9:24 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Kathy and Roy. If there are any more comments that members
>>> would like included, please post them today. The next Thick Whois WG
>>> call is scheduled for tomorrow at 15:00 UTC (right before the NCSG
>>> Policy meeting). We will need to submit our response to the WG prior
>>> to this call.
>>>
>>> It would also be great if NPOC could endorse the response, making  
>>> it a
>>> response by NCSG instead of NCUC. As far as I know, NPOC has not
>>> submitted anything so far.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Balleste, Roy wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello!
>>>>
>>>> Kathy was kind enough to unify all responses so far, I have  
>>>> (with her
>>>> consent) unified mine with all others.
>>>> Please find attached.
>>>>
>>>> Roy Balleste, J.S.D.
>>>> Professor of Law
>>>> Law Library Director
>>>> St. Thomas University
>>>> 16401 NW 37th Avenue
>>>> Miami Gardens, FL 33054  USA
>>>> 1-305-623-2341
>>>>
>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf
>>>> Of Kathy Kleiman
>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 10:05 PM
>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Thick Whois WG Comments - with some  
>>>> proposed
>>>> edits
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> Great thanks to Amr for the first draft of comments to the Thick
>>>> Whois PDP Working Group. As you know, the question on the table is
>>>> whether a ?thick Whois model? ? one in which all Whois data is held
>>>> and made available by the Registry (e.g., Verisign) and not the
>>>> Registrar ? should be the model for all existing and all new gTLDs.
>>>> For .COM, it's a huge issue. It is a ?thin? registry, and 100
>>>> million+ Whois records are stored by the registrar pursuant to  
>>>> local
>>>> laws (including local privacy and free speech laws). Whether we can
>>>> convert these 100 million+ records to a single database ? and  
>>>> whether
>>>> we want to ? are questions for this group.
>>>> Further, the issue of ?Whois? data, service and protocol are all up
>>>> in the air. If someday we reach agreement that this very personal
>>>> data ? that can expose individuals and organizations to threat for
>>>> what they say and share online (including political, religious and
>>>> ethnic minority views and dissent, including non-commercial  
>>>> activity)
>>>> ? should be private, then a single centralized Registry Whois
>>>> database creates a single point of access. That means that should
>>>> Registries be cozy with their local governments, all of this  
>>>> data may
>>>> be relinquished without due process, or even subject to criminal  
>>>> laws
>>>> that are non-standard in the world (e.g., Syria, N.Korea, China).
>>>> The fact is that registrants know their registrars and it is to  
>>>> their
>>>> registrars that the Whois information is provided. Most registrants
>>>> will think they are protected under those rules. Despite the fact
>>>> that New gTLDs (for this round, at least) require a centralized  
>>>> Whois
>>>> ? with the Registry ? I remain deeply concerned about the
>>>> consolidation of the massive .COM Whois (if it's even legal ? see
>>>> below) and the standard set for all future registries and TLDs ?
>>>> regardless of their political, social, or religious uses.
>>>>
>>>> If NPOC shares these concerns, I urge you to sign on ? with thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Best,  Kathy Kleiman (veteran of far too many Whois task forces and
>>>> review teams...)
>>>> p.s. All of Amr's comments kept, and I added on and filled in some
>>>> sections...
>>>> <Edits to Thick Whois PDP WG Initial Comments.2.doc>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>
>
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130114/4e89c665/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Mon Jan 14 22:35:57 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:35:57 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] revised draft NCSG statement on staff's strawman
	proposal
In-Reply-To: <50EA9103.2090501@gmx.net>
References: <50E9F7870200005B0009F09E@smtp.law.unh.edu>
	<933829169.240305.1357546107509.JavaMail.mail@webmail12>
	<50EA9103.2090501@gmx.net>
Message-ID: <F569E28F-BD1F-42A7-9330-05E3B7FFF1A6@ipjustice.org>

Thanks all for the comments and support.  I've added language about  
the territoriality point that Konstantinos and Mary make and attached  
is the final draft, which I'll now submit to the comment forum.  The  
trademark lobby is getting comments in now too...

Thanks again for all the suggestions to this text.  The comment  
period closes tomorrow, but then the reply comment period will be  
open until 5 Feb.

Best,
Robin

?


On Jan 7, 2013, at 1:10 AM, Norbert Klein wrote:

> On 7 1.2013 15:08, konstantinos at komaitis.org wrote:
>> Yes - this is a great statement. Perhaps it would be valuable to  
>> include a bit on nominative use (see Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,  
>> Inc. v. Farzad Tabari, et al. No. 07-55344 (9th Cir. July 8,  
>> 2010), Judge Kozinski gave a great analysis, I had blogged about  
>> it here: http://www.komaitis.org/1/post/2010/07/the-lessons-the- 
>> trademark-community-should-learn-from-judge-kozinskis-ruling-on- 
>> nominative-use.html). Also, on the issue of the GPML that is being  
>> sneaked in as blocking, I have written a bit on my book as to how  
>> it changes the face of trademark law - both in terms of  
>> territoriality as Mary suggests as well as on the basis of its  
>> philosophical foundations.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> KK
>>
> Thanks, Konstantinos, it really does.
>
> for sharing and interpreting the US Ninth Circuit ruling by Judge  
> Kozinski.
> As a person not having been professionally educated in law, I often  
> fail to understand some arguments presented in legal language.  
> Maybe a similar situation prevents also others and the public from  
> more clearly resisting the trend to increase trademark protection.  
> But the text you refer to is so clear ? common sense and legal at  
> the same time.
> That is why I appreciate your presentation, saying:
>
> ?The ICANN community should really pay attention to this ruling  
> and should learn from the excellent reasoning of Judge Kozinski.  
> This decision is really a victory for many legitimate domain name  
> holders who lose their domain names...?
>
> I even want to quote here some more in full and highlight from what  
> is under the URL you gave, in the hope that we all feel encouraged  
> to state again what is important ? and what is legal, according to  
> the ruling by the Judge Kozinski:
>
> ?Further, the Ninth Circuit upheld the importance of the First  
> Amendment in the context of trademark law stating that ?Speakers  
> are under no obligation to provide a disclaimer as a condition for  
> engaging in truthful, non-misleading speech?. Judge Kozinski, even  
> asserted that thousands of sites make ?nominative use? and,  
> contrary to the way consumers are portrayed under ICANN?s  
> trademark policies, in reality consumers are both sophisticated and  
> not easily mislead. On the other hand, a number of sites make  
> nominative use of trademarks in their domains but are not sponsored  
> or endorsed by the trademark holder: You can preen about your  
> Mercedes at mercedesforum.com and mercedestalk.net, read the latest  
> about your double-skim-no-whip latte at starbucksgossip.com and  
> find out what goodies the world?s greatest electronics store has  
> on sale this week at fryselectronics-ads.com. Consumers who use the  
> internet for shopping are generally quite sophisticated about such  
> matters and won?t be fooled into thinking that the prestigious  
> German car manufacturer sells boots at mercedesboots.com, or homes  
> at mercedeshomes.com, or that comcastsucks.org is sponsored or  
> endorsed by the TV cable company just because the string of letters  
> making up its trademark appears in the domain?.?
>
> ?It is the wholesale prohibition of nominative use in domain names  
> that would be unfair. It would be unfair to merchants seeking to  
> communicate the nature of the service or product offered at their  
> sites. And it would be unfair to consumers, who would be deprived  
> of an increasingly important means of receiving such information.  
> As noted, this would have serious First Amendment implications. The  
> only winners would be companies like Toyota, which would acquire  
> greater control over the markets for goods and services related to  
> their trademarked brands, to the detriment of competition and  
> consumers.?
> Thanks, of course, also to all others who have contributed to the  
> response to the Strawman Proposal.
>
>
> Norbert Klein
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130114/ef8b5252/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG-Strawman-Response.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 56320 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130114/ef8b5252/attachment-0001.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130114/ef8b5252/attachment-0003.html>


From Mary.Wong  Mon Jan 14 23:24:52 2013
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 16:24:52 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Thick Whois WG Comments - with some
 proposed edits
In-Reply-To: <2C2A159E-BF69-49B6-969D-F41421749243@ipjustice.org>
References: <50F2FB1E.3040203@kathykleiman.com>
	<50F375DF.7020502@kathykleiman.com>
	<06EF7F5E019BB34DB01EDC2DB0588A9F0F2A0E50@BL2PRD0810MB349.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
	<1057AF31-28CA-4854-B99B-6B8EDCDDBD99@egyptig.org>
	<4B265B9B-8846-400B-ACB5-C1238EF30B10@ipjustice.org>
	<50F454D3.3020008@seltzer.com>
	<2C2A159E-BF69-49B6-969D-F41421749243@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <50F431540200005B0009FA2B@smtp.law.unh.edu>


Hi and thanks to all involved. As a member of the NCSG PC I'm happy to
have us endorse this as an NCSG statement.  

Cheers 
Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584  


>>> 


From:  
Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> 

To: 
"NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>" <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> 

CC: 
Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> 

Date:  
1/14/2013 2:00 PM 

Subject:  
Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Thick Whois WG Comments - with some
proposed edits 

Thanks very much, Wendy.  Given the deadline, I'd suggest any comments
or suggested edits be made to this NCSG-PC list by the end of business
today so the stmt can be posted in time. 



Thanks again, 

Robin 



On Jan 14, 2013, at 10:56 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote: 





On 01/14/2013 01:33 PM, Robin Gross wrote: 



Thanks, Amr.  FYI: It is the NCSG Policy Committee, which decides to 

endorse statements on behalf of NCSG.  It would be great if the NCSG-PC


could agree to endorse this statement before the deadline (or suggest 

any changes to it). 
 


I support this statement.  Thanks Amr, Kathy, and Roy for your work. 



--Wendy 







Thanks again! 

Robin 





On Jan 14, 2013, at 9:24 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: 





Thanks Kathy and Roy. If there are any more comments that members 

would like included, please post them today. The next Thick Whois WG 

call is scheduled for tomorrow at 15:00 UTC (right before the NCSG 

Policy meeting). We will need to submit our response to the WG prior 

to this call. 



It would also be great if NPOC could endorse the response, making it a


response by NCSG instead of NCUC. As far as I know, NPOC has not 

submitted anything so far. 



Thanks. 



Amr 



On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Balleste, Roy wrote: 





Hello! 



Kathy was kind enough to unify all responses so far, I have (with her 

consent) unified mine with all others. 

Please find attached. 



Roy Balleste, J.S.D. 

Professor of Law 

Law Library Director 

St. Thomas University 

16401 NW 37th Avenue 

Miami Gardens, FL 33054  USA 

1-305-623-2341 



From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf 

Of Kathy Kleiman 

Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 10:05 PM 

To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU 

Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Thick Whois WG Comments - with some proposed 

edits 



Hi All, 

Great thanks to Amr for the first draft of comments to the Thick 

Whois PDP Working Group. As you know, the question on the table is 

whether a ?thick Whois model? ? one in which all Whois data is held 

and made available by the Registry (e.g., Verisign) and not the 

Registrar ? should be the model for all existing and all new gTLDs. 

For .COM, it's a huge issue. It is a ?thin? registry, and 100 

million+ Whois records are stored by the registrar pursuant to local 

laws (including local privacy and free speech laws). Whether we can 

convert these 100 million+ records to a single database ? and whether 

we want to ? are questions for this group. 

Further, the issue of ?Whois? data, service and protocol are all up 

in the air. If someday we reach agreement that this very personal 

data ? that can expose individuals and organizations to threat for 

what they say and share online (including political, religious and 

ethnic minority views and dissent, including non-commercial activity) 

? should be private, then a single centralized Registry Whois 

database creates a single point of access. That means that should 

Registries be cozy with their local governments, all of this data may 

be relinquished without due process, or even subject to criminal laws 

that are non-standard in the world (e.g., Syria, N.Korea, China). 

The fact is that registrants know their registrars and it is to their 

registrars that the Whois information is provided. Most registrants 

will think they are protected under those rules. Despite the fact 

that New gTLDs (for this round, at least) require a centralized Whois 

? with the Registry ? I remain deeply concerned about the 

consolidation of the massive .COM Whois (if it's even legal ? see 

below) and the standard set for all future registries and TLDs ? 

regardless of their political, social, or religious uses. 



If NPOC shares these concerns, I urge you to sign on ? with thanks! 



Best,  Kathy Kleiman (veteran of far too many Whois task forces and 

review teams...) 

p.s. All of Amr's comments kept, and I added on and filled in some 

sections... 

<Edits to Thick Whois PDP WG Initial Comments.2.doc> 
 

 








IP JUSTICE 

Robin Gross, Executive Director 

1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA 

p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451 

w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org 













_______________________________________________ 

PC-NCSG mailing list 

PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org 

http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg 


 




--  

Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 

Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) 

Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University 

Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project 

http://wendy.seltzer.org/ 

https://www.chillingeffects.org/ 

https://www.torproject.org/ 

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ 


 








IP JUSTICE 

Robin Gross, Executive Director 

1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA 

p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451 

w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org 





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130114/9a1d574f/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Tue Jan 15 01:18:34 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:18:34 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Thick Whois WG Comments - with some
	proposed edits
In-Reply-To: <50F431540200005B0009FA2B@smtp.law.unh.edu>
References: <50F2FB1E.3040203@kathykleiman.com>
	<50F375DF.7020502@kathykleiman.com>
	<06EF7F5E019BB34DB01EDC2DB0588A9F0F2A0E50@BL2PRD0810MB349.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
	<1057AF31-28CA-4854-B99B-6B8EDCDDBD99@egyptig.org>
	<4B265B9B-8846-400B-ACB5-C1238EF30B10@ipjustice.org>
	<50F454D3.3020008@seltzer.com>
	<2C2A159E-BF69-49B6-969D-F41421749243@ipjustice.org>
	<50F431540200005B0009FA2B@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <9F45AB75-5EF6-46D1-B217-C9A8A6C45857@acm.org>


I support it though it needs an edit - the voice needs to be made consistent.

- Sometime it is a NCUC stmt 
- and sometimes it is an NCSG stmt.

It needs to be written as one.

If this gets NCSG approval great.
otherwise it should go as NCUC - which is what the WG was asking for.



avri

On 14 Jan 2013, at 16:24, <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> <Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu> wrote:

> Hi and thanks to all involved. As a member of the NCSG PC I'm happy to have us endorse this as an NCSG statement.
> 
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> 
> Mary W S Wong
> 
> 
> Professor of Law
> 
> 
> Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
> 
> 
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> 
> 
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
> 
> 
> Two White Street
> 
> 
> Concord, NH 03301
> 
> 
> USA
> 
> 
> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
> 
> 
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> 
> 
> Webpage: 
> http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
> 
> 
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>>
> From:
> Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> To:
> "NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>" <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> CC:
> Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>
> Date:
> 1/14/2013 2:00 PM
> Subject:
> Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Thick Whois WG Comments - with some proposed edits
> Thanks very much, Wendy.  Given the deadline, I'd suggest any comments or suggested edits be made to this NCSG-PC list by the end of business today so the stmt can be posted in time.
> 
> Thanks again,
> Robin
> 
> On Jan 14, 2013, at 10:56 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> 
>> On 01/14/2013 01:33 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>> Thanks, Amr.  FYI: It is the NCSG Policy Committee, which decides to
>>> endorse statements on behalf of NCSG.  It would be great if the NCSG-PC
>>> could agree to endorse this statement before the deadline (or suggest
>>> any changes to it).
>> 
>> I support this statement.  Thanks Amr, Kathy, and Roy for your work.
>> 
>> --Wendy
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks again!
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jan 14, 2013, at 9:24 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Thanks Kathy and Roy. If there are any more comments that members
>>>> would like included, please post them today. The next Thick Whois WG
>>>> call is scheduled for tomorrow at 15:00 UTC (right before the NCSG
>>>> Policy meeting). We will need to submit our response to the WG prior
>>>> to this call.
>>>> 
>>>> It would also be great if NPOC could endorse the response, making it a
>>>> response by NCSG instead of NCUC. As far as I know, NPOC has not
>>>> submitted anything so far.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 14, 2013, at 7:15 PM, Balleste, Roy wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hello!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Kathy was kind enough to unify all responses so far, I have (with her
>>>>> consent) unified mine with all others.
>>>>> Please find attached.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Roy Balleste, J.S.D.
>>>>> Professor of Law
>>>>> Law Library Director
>>>>> St. Thomas University
>>>>> 16401 NW 37th Avenue
>>>>> Miami Gardens, FL 33054  USA
>>>>> 1-305-623-2341
>>>>> 
>>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf
>>>>> Of Kathy Kleiman
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 10:05 PM
>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Thick Whois WG Comments - with some proposed
>>>>> edits
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>> Great thanks to Amr for the first draft of comments to the Thick
>>>>> Whois PDP Working Group. As you know, the question on the table is
>>>>> whether a ?thick Whois model? ? one in which all Whois data is held
>>>>> and made available by the Registry (e.g., Verisign) and not the
>>>>> Registrar ? should be the model for all existing and all new gTLDs.
>>>>> For .COM, it's a huge issue. It is a ?thin? registry, and 100
>>>>> million+ Whois records are stored by the registrar pursuant to local
>>>>> laws (including local privacy and free speech laws). Whether we can
>>>>> convert these 100 million+ records to a single database ? and whether
>>>>> we want to ? are questions for this group.
>>>>> Further, the issue of ?Whois? data, service and protocol are all up
>>>>> in the air. If someday we reach agreement that this very personal
>>>>> data ? that can expose individuals and organizations to threat for
>>>>> what they say and share online (including political, religious and
>>>>> ethnic minority views and dissent, including non-commercial activity)
>>>>> ? should be private, then a single centralized Registry Whois
>>>>> database creates a single point of access. That means that should
>>>>> Registries be cozy with their local governments, all of this data may
>>>>> be relinquished without due process, or even subject to criminal laws
>>>>> that are non-standard in the world (e.g., Syria, N.Korea, China).
>>>>> The fact is that registrants know their registrars and it is to their
>>>>> registrars that the Whois information is provided. Most registrants
>>>>> will think they are protected under those rules. Despite the fact
>>>>> that New gTLDs (for this round, at least) require a centralized Whois
>>>>> ? with the Registry ? I remain deeply concerned about the
>>>>> consolidation of the massive .COM Whois (if it's even legal ? see
>>>>> below) and the standard set for all future registries and TLDs ?
>>>>> regardless of their political, social, or religious uses.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If NPOC shares these concerns, I urge you to sign on ? with thanks!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,  Kathy Kleiman (veteran of far too many Whois task forces and
>>>>> review teams...)
>>>>> p.s. All of Amr's comments kept, and I added on and filled in some
>>>>> sections...
>>>>> <Edits to Thick Whois PDP WG Initial Comments.2.doc>
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> IP JUSTICE
>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
>> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
>> Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
>> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
>> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
>> https://www.torproject.org/
>> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From robin  Tue Jan 15 04:08:10 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:08:10 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] GNSO Council Meeting Agenda Thursday,
	17 January 2013 at 20:00UTC:
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD2110BC177@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <5A1EA6E5-BDAA-449F-9BE4-6F667A1ADB51@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: January 14, 2013 2:39:44 PM PST
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] GNSO Council Meeting Agenda Thursday, 17  
> January 2013 at 20:00UTC:
>
>
> Dear Councillors,
> Please find the updated draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting  
> on Thursday, 17 January 2013 at 20:00UTC:
> The main updates are the description of the  two motions, Items 4 &  
> 5 and the addition of Item 11: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Whois Privacy  
> and Proxy Relay and Reveal Study (10 minutes)
> The agenda is published on pages:
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jan
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-17jan13-en.htm
>
> On the Wiki at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda-17 
> +January+2013
> and the motions can be viewed at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+-+17 
> +January+2013
> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating  
> Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and  
> updated.
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12- 
> en.pdf
> For convenience:
> An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is  
> provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
> An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the  
> absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of  
> this agenda.
> Meeting Times 20:00 UTC
> http://tinyurl.com/ado9n7t
> Coordinated Universal Time 20:00 UTC
> 12:00 Los Angeles; 15:00 Washington; 20:00 London; 21:00 Paris;  
> 09:00 Wellington (next day 14 January 2013)
>
> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members.  
> Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial  
> out call is needed.
> GNSO Council meeting audio cast
> http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
> Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
> 1.1 Roll Call
> 1.2 Statement of interest updates
> General updates and/or for specific current agenda items.
> 1.3 Review main changes.
> 1.4 Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per  
> the GNSO Operating Procedures:
> Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 20 December 2012 were approved  
> effective  2 January 2013.
> 1.5 GNSO Pending Projects List
> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf
> Review main changes.
> Comments and/or questions.
> Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (5 minutes)
> Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics
> Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)
>
> Item 4: MOTION ? Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP)  
> on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D (10 minutes)
>
> The Council requested an Issue Report on Inter-Registrar Transfer  
> Policy (IRTP) Part D at its meeting on 17 October 2012. The Final  
> Issue Report was submitted to the GNSO Council on 8 January 2013.  
> The Council is now requested to consider the initiation of a PDP on  
> the issues outlined in the Final Issue Report.
>
> Link to motion
>
> 4.1 Reading of the motion (Mason Cole).
> 4.2 Discussion of motion and next steps.
> 4.3 Vote (Initiate a PDP: an affirmative vote of more than one- 
> third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)
>
> Item 5: MOTION ? Motion for Approval of a Charter for the Inter- 
> Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D Working Group (WG) (10  
> minutes)
>
> Normally, when a PDP is initiated, the Council convenes a DT to  
> draft a charter for the work to be carried out. In this instance,  
> in the interest of efficiency and because the issues laid out in  
> the IRTP-D Final Issues Report are very precise, it is being  
> suggested that the Council adopt the charter as proposed and  
> request that this work be started by a WG asap. A motion is being  
> made to that effect, to be considered only if the first IRTP-D  
> motion passes.
>
> Link to motion
>
> 5.1 Reading of the motion (Mason Cole).
> 5.2 Discussion of motion and next steps.
> 5.3 Vote (Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP within Scope:  
> requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each  
> House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House)
>
> Item 6: INFORMATION & DISCUSSION - GNSO Council Review and SIC  
> Update (15 minutes)
>
> In Toronto, the Chair of the SIC provided an overview of a new  
> framework for future independent review efforts at ICANN.  The GNSO  
> was used as a case study to describe the effort because it is the  
> first Supporting Organization lined-up in the next review cycle.  
> Staff will brief the Council on the set of criteria metrics for  
> GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, and the work underway  
> to develop metrics for the Council and the Working Group Model of  
> policy.
> 6.1          Update from Staff (Rob Hogarth)
> 6.2          Discussion
> 6.3          Next Steps
>
> Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH)  
> Strawman Proposal and Defensive Registrations Discussion (20 Minutes)
>
> ICANN?s CEO has requested GNSO Council input on the Strawman  
> Proposal  recently developed through the TMCH related  
> implementation discussions, which has been posted for public  
> comment.http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/ 
> announcement-30nov12-en.htm.  ICANN?s CEO additionally requested  
> Council input on the joint proposal from the Business Constituency/ 
> Intellectual Property Constituency (BC/IPC) for a ?limited  
> preventative registration mechanism? which is also currently  
> available for public comment.  A subsequent note (19 December 2012)  
> from ICANN?s CEO clarified the desired deadline for input to be no  
> later than 22 February 2013.
>
> Related to this discussion is the Staff briefing paper (http:// 
> gnso.icann.org/en/node/32287) to the GNSO Council on the topic of  
> defensive registrations at the second level, in response to a  
> previous request from the New GLTD Committee (2012.04.10.NG2).  The  
> New GTLD Committee requested the GNSO to consider whether  
> additional work on defensive registrations at the second level  
> should be undertaken.
>
> The Council is to continue to discuss: (i) a response to the ICANN  
> CEOs request, and (ii) to consider whether to undertake any  
> additional work related to the BC/IPC proposal and/or the Staff  
> briefing paper, on the topic of second level defensive registrations.
>
> 7.1          Update
> 7.2          Discussion
> 7.3          Next Steps
>
> Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Response to the GAC Letter (20 minutes)
>
> The GAC has sent a letter  to the GNSO Council with regard to the  
> initiation of a PDP on the IGO/INGO issue, and specifically  
> requesting a rationale for undertaking a PDP i.e. an explanation as  
> to why GNSO believes this issue should be evaluated through a PDP  
> rather than simply executed as an implementation process. The  
> Council has sent an initial response and now needs to move ahead  
> with developing a full response.
>
> This is a discussion item.
>
> 8.1 Update
> 8.2 Discussion
> 8.3 Next steps
>
> Item 9: INFORMATION & DISCUSION ? Policy vs. Implementation (20  
> minutes)
>
> The recent letter from the GAC as well as activities relating to  
> work on the Trademark Clearinghouse, highlights a broader issue  
> regarding the boundary between policy development and  
> implementation work as well as the effective integration of policy  
> development and integration work from the outset.
>
> Recent discussions on the Council mailing list indicate that there  
> is an interest to undertake further work on this issue. At the same  
> time, ICANN Staff has published a paper (http://gnso.icann.org/en/ 
> node/36239) that is intended to facilitate further community  
> discussions on this topic.
>
> 9.1 Update from Staff (Marika Konings)
> 9.2 Discussion
> 9.3 Next steps
>
> Item 10: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - ATRT2 Developments (5 minutes)
>
> The call for applicants to serve on the next Accountability and  
> Transparency Review Team (ATRT) has been extended until 14 January  
> 2013.  (See: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/ 
> announcement-03dec12-en.htm ).   An update on the process and next  
> steps to provide GNSO Council endorsements of applicants will be  
> provided.
>
> This is a discussion item.
>
> 10.1 Update (Wolfe-Ulrich Knoben)
> 10.2 Discussion
> 10.3 Next steps
>
> Item 11: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Whois Privacy and Proxy Relay and  
> Reveal Study (10 minutes)
>
> At the ICANN Meeting in Toronto, Lyman Chapin presented the results  
> of the survey that evaluated the feasibility of conducting a future  
> in-depth study into communication Relay and identity Reveal  
> requests sent for gTLD domain names registered using Proxy and  
> Privacy services (include link to presentation). The Council should  
> consider whether to go ahead with the study.
>
> 11.1 ? Update from Staff (Barbara Roseman)
> 11.2 ? Discussion
> 11.3 ? Next steps
>
> Item 12:  Any Other Business (5 minutes)
> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article  
> X, Section 3)
> 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto,  
> or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a  
> GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple  
> majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below  
> shall apply to the following GNSO actions:
> a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more  
> than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
> b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as  
> described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than  
> one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one  
> House.
> c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of  
> GNSO Supermajority.
> d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an  
> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more  
> than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
> e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires  
> an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
> f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team  
> Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve  
> an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each  
> House.
> g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of  
> a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for  
> significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO  
> Supermajority Vote in favor of termination.
> h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority:  
> requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and  
> further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at  
> least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation.
> i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires  
> an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
> j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain  
> Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies  
> that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence  
> of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to  
> be met or exceeded.
> k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final  
> Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be  
> modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority  
> vote.
> l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the  
> Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one  
> House and a majority of the other House."
> Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4)
> 4.4.1 Applicability
> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of  
> Council motions or measures.
> a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
> b. Approve a PDP recommendation;
> c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or  
> ICANN Bylaws;
> d. Fill a Council position open for election.
> 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within  
> the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the  
> meeting?s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at  
> the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or  
> extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is  
> verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present.
> 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate  
> absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide  
> reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee  
> ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web- 
> based interface, or other technologies as may become available.
> 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements.  
> (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is  
> initiated.)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN  
> hemisphere
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 20:00
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> California, USA (PST) UTC-8+0DST 12:00
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 15:00
> Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 18:00
> Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 18:00
> Edinburgh, Scotland (BST) UTC+0DST 20:00
> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 20:00
> Abuja, Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 21:00
> Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 21:00
> Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 21:00
> Ramat Hasharon, Israel (IST) UTC+2+0DST 22:00
> Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 01:00 - next day
> Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 04:00 - next day
> Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 04:00 ? next day
> Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 09:00 ? next day
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2013, 2:00 or 3:00  
> local time (with exceptions)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For other places see: http://www.timeanddate.com
> http://tinyurl.com/ado9n7t
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
> Glen
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130114/c902097e/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Tue Jan 15 20:10:13 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 10:10:13 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Revised Version of NCUC Response to the Thick Whois
	PDP WG Questions
In-Reply-To: <A5521C33-AC1C-4271-9C15-762DD151B7C3@EGYPTIG.ORG>
References: <A5521C33-AC1C-4271-9C15-762DD151B7C3@EGYPTIG.ORG>
Message-ID: <F6350F1E-E521-476D-9E51-28C01C491EDF@ipjustice.org>

Why isn't this going out as NCSG statement as was discussed on the  
NCSG PC list yesterday?

No NCSG-PC members objected to its content in the timeframe given, so  
I thought it was to be a NCSG statement.

Thanks,
Robin

On Jan 15, 2013, at 1:01 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've attached a copy of the answers revised for consistency in the  
> language used as requested. Mainly to make sure that the responses  
> are consistently from NCUC, not NCSG (except for references to the  
> NCSG email list and Policy Committee) in addition to consistencies  
> in the use of upper and lower case letters and so forth.
>
> Unless there are any reasons to the contrary, I think this document  
> can be forwarded to Glen as NCUC's response to the WG's questions.
>
> Thank you all.
>
> Amr<thick Whois - SG - C Input Template - Final 5 December 2012 -  
> NCUC Response.doc>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130115/1769f254/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Jan 15 20:23:53 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 13:23:53 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Revised Version of NCUC Response to the Thick Whois
	PDP WG Questions
In-Reply-To: <F6350F1E-E521-476D-9E51-28C01C491EDF@ipjustice.org>
References: <A5521C33-AC1C-4271-9C15-762DD151B7C3@EGYPTIG.ORG>
	<F6350F1E-E521-476D-9E51-28C01C491EDF@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <73EFB4D7-A321-49F0-B30E-3ED52579DC4D@ACM.ORG>

Hi,

I think it is safest to send it out as a NCUC stmt and to send an NCSG stmt endorsing it if we are sure we have the endorsement.  

Personally, I do not want to take a chance of having someone state that their constituency never agreed to it.  So I would like for the NCSG-PC endorsement to be explicit.  Ie. whoever is our PC Chair to do a rough consensus call and explicitly ask the members of the NCSG-PC to support a specific stmt.

avri



On 15 Jan 2013, at 13:10, Robin Gross wrote:

> Why isn't this going out as NCSG statement as was discussed on the NCSG PC list yesterday?
> 
> No NCSG-PC members objected to its content in the timeframe given, so I thought it was to be a NCSG statement.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> On Jan 15, 2013, at 1:01 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I've attached a copy of the answers revised for consistency in the language used as requested. Mainly to make sure that the responses are consistently from NCUC, not NCSG (except for references to the NCSG email list and Policy Committee) in addition to consistencies in the use of upper and lower case letters and so forth.
>> 
>> Unless there are any reasons to the contrary, I think this document can be forwarded to Glen as NCUC's response to the WG's questions.
>> 
>> Thank you all.
>> 
>> Amr<thick Whois - SG - C Input Template - Final 5 December 2012 - NCUC Response.doc>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
> 
> 
> 




From robin  Tue Jan 15 20:51:15 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 10:51:15 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Revised Version of NCUC Response to the Thick Whois
	PDP WG Questions
In-Reply-To: <73EFB4D7-A321-49F0-B30E-3ED52579DC4D@ACM.ORG>
References: <A5521C33-AC1C-4271-9C15-762DD151B7C3@EGYPTIG.ORG>
	<F6350F1E-E521-476D-9E51-28C01C491EDF@ipjustice.org>
	<73EFB4D7-A321-49F0-B30E-3ED52579DC4D@ACM.ORG>
Message-ID: <76B43E13-66DA-4B29-8105-8E015F48E36E@ipjustice.org>

All NCSG-PC members have a responsibility to read these documents and  
participate in these discussions that formulate NCSG positions.  We  
are not going to say we don't have a NCSG statement because some  
members of the PC have not voiced any opinion, when they have been  
asked and been given time to do so.  We must have PC members paying  
attention and voicing their views.  Silence will be taken as agreement.

Thanks,
Robin


On Jan 15, 2013, at 10:23 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I think it is safest to send it out as a NCUC stmt and to send an  
> NCSG stmt endorsing it if we are sure we have the endorsement.
>
> Personally, I do not want to take a chance of having someone state  
> that their constituency never agreed to it.  So I would like for  
> the NCSG-PC endorsement to be explicit.  Ie. whoever is our PC  
> Chair to do a rough consensus call and explicitly ask the members  
> of the NCSG-PC to support a specific stmt.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 15 Jan 2013, at 13:10, Robin Gross wrote:
>
>> Why isn't this going out as NCSG statement as was discussed on the  
>> NCSG PC list yesterday?
>>
>> No NCSG-PC members objected to its content in the timeframe given,  
>> so I thought it was to be a NCSG statement.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>> On Jan 15, 2013, at 1:01 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've attached a copy of the answers revised for consistency in  
>>> the language used as requested. Mainly to make sure that the  
>>> responses are consistently from NCUC, not NCSG (except for  
>>> references to the NCSG email list and Policy Committee) in  
>>> addition to consistencies in the use of upper and lower case  
>>> letters and so forth.
>>>
>>> Unless there are any reasons to the contrary, I think this  
>>> document can be forwarded to Glen as NCUC's response to the WG's  
>>> questions.
>>>
>>> Thank you all.
>>>
>>> Amr<thick Whois - SG - C Input Template - Final 5 December 2012 -  
>>> NCUC Response.doc>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>>
>>
>>
>
>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130115/3d97d17e/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Jan 15 21:01:52 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:01:52 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Revised Version of NCUC Response to the Thick Whois
	PDP WG Questions
In-Reply-To: <76B43E13-66DA-4B29-8105-8E015F48E36E@ipjustice.org>
References: <A5521C33-AC1C-4271-9C15-762DD151B7C3@EGYPTIG.ORG>
	<F6350F1E-E521-476D-9E51-28C01C491EDF@ipjustice.org>
	<73EFB4D7-A321-49F0-B30E-3ED52579DC4D@ACM.ORG>
	<76B43E13-66DA-4B29-8105-8E015F48E36E@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <DC32D121-AAF1-4FD2-88B6-49DFD029EE05@ACM.ORG>

Hi,

Yes, but ...

If you say you are doing 48 call on a statement and that silence during this period will be taken as agreement, 
and acknowledging that the NCSG-PC is a rough consensus not full-consensus committee, we will be in a stronger position when we claim NCSG support.

To just say that someone never said anything, is a weaker argument with a last call.

And to have someone come in at the last minute and say, but you did not get our view is a real recipe for continued failure to state a common view when we have a common view.

avri


On 15 Jan 2013, at 13:51, Robin Gross wrote:

> All NCSG-PC members have a responsibility to read these documents and participate in these discussions that formulate NCSG positions.  We are not going to say we don't have a NCSG statement because some members of the PC have not voiced any opinion, when they have been asked and been given time to do so.  We must have PC members paying attention and voicing their views.  Silence will be taken as agreement.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Jan 15, 2013, at 10:23 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I think it is safest to send it out as a NCUC stmt and to send an NCSG stmt endorsing it if we are sure we have the endorsement.  
>> 
>> Personally, I do not want to take a chance of having someone state that their constituency never agreed to it.  So I would like for the NCSG-PC endorsement to be explicit.  Ie. whoever is our PC Chair to do a rough consensus call and explicitly ask the members of the NCSG-PC to support a specific stmt.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 15 Jan 2013, at 13:10, Robin Gross wrote:
>> 
>>> Why isn't this going out as NCSG statement as was discussed on the NCSG PC list yesterday?
>>> 
>>> No NCSG-PC members objected to its content in the timeframe given, so I thought it was to be a NCSG statement.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> On Jan 15, 2013, at 1:01 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I've attached a copy of the answers revised for consistency in the language used as requested. Mainly to make sure that the responses are consistently from NCUC, not NCSG (except for references to the NCSG email list and Policy Committee) in addition to consistencies in the use of upper and lower case letters and so forth.
>>>> 
>>>> Unless there are any reasons to the contrary, I think this document can be forwarded to Glen as NCUC's response to the WG's questions.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you all.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr<thick Whois - SG - C Input Template - Final 5 December 2012 - NCUC Response.doc>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> IP JUSTICE
>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
> 
> 
> 




From avri  Tue Jan 15 21:39:27 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 14:39:27 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Revised Version of NCUC Response to the Thick Whois
	PDP WG Questions
In-Reply-To: <307E3764-FD2D-42E9-9794-5208FE49A8F1@EGYPTIG.ORG>
References: <A5521C33-AC1C-4271-9C15-762DD151B7C3@EGYPTIG.ORG>
	<F6350F1E-E521-476D-9E51-28C01C491EDF@ipjustice.org>
	<73EFB4D7-A321-49F0-B30E-3ED52579DC4D@ACM.ORG>
	<76B43E13-66DA-4B29-8105-8E015F48E36E@ipjustice.org>
	<307E3764-FD2D-42E9-9794-5208FE49A8F1@EGYPTIG.ORG>
Message-ID: <EB5D5756-FAE2-4D82-930F-2B98A6E88AFF@ACM.ORG>

Hi,

I also said I supported it with edits (which you did) on the NCSG-PC list.

Even if i was recommending the NCUC put it out and the NCSG endorse it.

avri

On 15 Jan 2013, at 13:17, Amr Elsadr wrote:

> Hi Robin,
> 
> I couldn't find a Web-archive for the PC mail list, so I had no way of knowing what discussions were taking place. I'm pretty sure my emails aren't getting through to the PC since I am not authorized to post messages there, so my thinking was pretty much in line with Avri's.
> 
> The only PC members I saw indicating that they support this statement are Wendy, Mary and yourself on the NCSG-discuss list. That's just three out of ten (including our reps on the council).
> 
> Alain had previously indicated that he is in favor of a joint NCUC/NPOC response, but I have not heard from him or Marie-Laure (or anyone from NPOC) since.
> 
> I would personally prefer an NCSG statement to NCUC, especially since it appears we cannot count on anyone else's support (at least so far). I was hoping ALAC would provide a different response, or at least a minority view that is opposed to their more popular ones. I'll keep my fingers crossed pending feedback from registries and registrars.
> 
> In any case, if we have an extension to the 23rd, then we have a little more time. I would be more than glad to change the statement to an NCSG response instead of NCUC if so advised.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Jan 15, 2013, at 8:51 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> All NCSG-PC members have a responsibility to read these documents and participate in these discussions that formulate NCSG positions.  We are not going to say we don't have a NCSG statement because some members of the PC have not voiced any opinion, when they have been asked and been given time to do so.  We must have PC members paying attention and voicing their views.  Silence will be taken as agreement.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 15, 2013, at 10:23 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I think it is safest to send it out as a NCUC stmt and to send an NCSG stmt endorsing it if we are sure we have the endorsement.  
>>> 
>>> Personally, I do not want to take a chance of having someone state that their constituency never agreed to it.  So I would like for the NCSG-PC endorsement to be explicit.  Ie. whoever is our PC Chair to do a rough consensus call and explicitly ask the members of the NCSG-PC to support a specific stmt.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 15 Jan 2013, at 13:10, Robin Gross wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Why isn't this going out as NCSG statement as was discussed on the NCSG PC list yesterday?
>>>> 
>>>> No NCSG-PC members objected to its content in the timeframe given, so I thought it was to be a NCSG statement.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 15, 2013, at 1:01 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've attached a copy of the answers revised for consistency in the language used as requested. Mainly to make sure that the responses are consistently from NCUC, not NCSG (except for references to the NCSG email list and Policy Committee) in addition to consistencies in the use of upper and lower case letters and so forth.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Unless there are any reasons to the contrary, I think this document can be forwarded to Glen as NCUC's response to the WG's questions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you all.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr<thick Whois - SG - C Input Template - Final 5 December 2012 - NCUC Response.doc>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> IP JUSTICE
>>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>>>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 




From robin  Tue Jan 15 21:55:26 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:55:26 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Revised Version of NCUC Response to the Thick Whois
	PDP WG Questions
In-Reply-To: <EB5D5756-FAE2-4D82-930F-2B98A6E88AFF@ACM.ORG>
References: <A5521C33-AC1C-4271-9C15-762DD151B7C3@EGYPTIG.ORG>
	<F6350F1E-E521-476D-9E51-28C01C491EDF@ipjustice.org>
	<73EFB4D7-A321-49F0-B30E-3ED52579DC4D@ACM.ORG>
	<76B43E13-66DA-4B29-8105-8E015F48E36E@ipjustice.org>
	<307E3764-FD2D-42E9-9794-5208FE49A8F1@EGYPTIG.ORG>
	<EB5D5756-FAE2-4D82-930F-2B98A6E88AFF@ACM.ORG>
Message-ID: <115B7AB5-A939-453C-B5E5-ABEBC31F37B2@ipjustice.org>

I am perfectly fine with this going out as NCUC statement that NCSG  
subsequently endorses.

My point is simply that we are not going to let inaction by some  
members of the PC prevent the NCSG from getting its work done  
(including making statements).  The burden and responsibility is on  
the PC members to engage (or be replaced by those they represent).   
Either way, NCSG work goes forward.

Thanks,
Robin


On Jan 15, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I also said I supported it with edits (which you did) on the NCSG- 
> PC list.
>
> Even if i was recommending the NCUC put it out and the NCSG endorse  
> it.
>
> avri
>
> On 15 Jan 2013, at 13:17, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
>> Hi Robin,
>>
>> I couldn't find a Web-archive for the PC mail list, so I had no  
>> way of knowing what discussions were taking place. I'm pretty sure  
>> my emails aren't getting through to the PC since I am not  
>> authorized to post messages there, so my thinking was pretty much  
>> in line with Avri's.
>>
>> The only PC members I saw indicating that they support this  
>> statement are Wendy, Mary and yourself on the NCSG-discuss list.  
>> That's just three out of ten (including our reps on the council).
>>
>> Alain had previously indicated that he is in favor of a joint NCUC/ 
>> NPOC response, but I have not heard from him or Marie-Laure (or  
>> anyone from NPOC) since.
>>
>> I would personally prefer an NCSG statement to NCUC, especially  
>> since it appears we cannot count on anyone else's support (at  
>> least so far). I was hoping ALAC would provide a different  
>> response, or at least a minority view that is opposed to their  
>> more popular ones. I'll keep my fingers crossed pending feedback  
>> from registries and registrars.
>>
>> In any case, if we have an extension to the 23rd, then we have a  
>> little more time. I would be more than glad to change the  
>> statement to an NCSG response instead of NCUC if so advised.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Jan 15, 2013, at 8:51 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>
>>> All NCSG-PC members have a responsibility to read these documents  
>>> and participate in these discussions that formulate NCSG  
>>> positions.  We are not going to say we don't have a NCSG  
>>> statement because some members of the PC have not voiced any  
>>> opinion, when they have been asked and been given time to do so.   
>>> We must have PC members paying attention and voicing their  
>>> views.  Silence will be taken as agreement.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 15, 2013, at 10:23 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I think it is safest to send it out as a NCUC stmt and to send  
>>>> an NCSG stmt endorsing it if we are sure we have the endorsement.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I do not want to take a chance of having someone  
>>>> state that their constituency never agreed to it.  So I would  
>>>> like for the NCSG-PC endorsement to be explicit.  Ie. whoever is  
>>>> our PC Chair to do a rough consensus call and explicitly ask the  
>>>> members of the NCSG-PC to support a specific stmt.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 15 Jan 2013, at 13:10, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Why isn't this going out as NCSG statement as was discussed on  
>>>>> the NCSG PC list yesterday?
>>>>>
>>>>> No NCSG-PC members objected to its content in the timeframe  
>>>>> given, so I thought it was to be a NCSG statement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 15, 2013, at 1:01 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've attached a copy of the answers revised for consistency in  
>>>>>> the language used as requested. Mainly to make sure that the  
>>>>>> responses are consistently from NCUC, not NCSG (except for  
>>>>>> references to the NCSG email list and Policy Committee) in  
>>>>>> addition to consistencies in the use of upper and lower case  
>>>>>> letters and so forth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless there are any reasons to the contrary, I think this  
>>>>>> document can be forwarded to Glen as NCUC's response to the  
>>>>>> WG's questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amr<thick Whois - SG - C Input Template - Final 5 December  
>>>>>> 2012 - NCUC Response.doc>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IP JUSTICE
>>>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>>>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>>>>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>>>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IP JUSTICE
>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130115/ab4bb29f/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Tue Jan 15 22:33:21 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 12:33:21 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH Mtg strategy session - doodle link for your
	availability next Wed-Thur
Message-ID: <63E49C7B-6479-4548-8E59-0F4E78654D03@ipjustice.org>

There was some discussion on the NCSG call today to hold a strategy  
call next week regarding plans for the NCPH Mtg in LA later this month.

How does next Wed-Thur January (23-24) look for people's schedule?   
Perhaps we can select from the doodle, depending on what works for  
most people's schedule?

http://www.doodle.com/ec3cbqhupynamcy4

Please mark your availability before Thursday 17 January 18:00 PST  
when the doodle closes and the time will be finalized.

Thank you very much!
Robin


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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130115/4618691c/attachment.html>


From avri  Wed Jan 16 00:15:01 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:15:01 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Revised Version of NCUC Response to the Thick Whois
	PDP WG Questions
In-Reply-To: <BF38B28E-B868-4BEF-84C3-60846DF33581@EGYPTIG.ORG>
References: <A5521C33-AC1C-4271-9C15-762DD151B7C3@EGYPTIG.ORG>
	<F6350F1E-E521-476D-9E51-28C01C491EDF@ipjustice.org>
	<73EFB4D7-A321-49F0-B30E-3ED52579DC4D@ACM.ORG>
	<76B43E13-66DA-4B29-8105-8E015F48E36E@ipjustice.org>
	<307E3764-FD2D-42E9-9794-5208FE49A8F1@EGYPTIG.ORG>
	<EB5D5756-FAE2-4D82-930F-2B98A6E88AFF@ACM.ORG>
	<BF38B28E-B868-4BEF-84C3-60846DF33581@EGYPTIG.ORG>
Message-ID: <E47D379F-41DB-487F-BABC-5DAD2167489D@ACM.ORG>

hi,

no problem.  easy to be confused.

i had originally missed the announcement that I was on it and a full month almost went by when I would have sworn i was not on the NCSG-PC.

but according to the WIKI list <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG-PC>  and an announcement Bill made in the last week on DISCUSS, it turns out that I am.

avri

On 15 Jan 2013, at 13:53, Amr Elsadr wrote:

> On Jan 15, 2013, at 9:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I also said I supported it with edits (which you did) on the NCSG-PC list.
>> 
>> Even if i was recommending the NCUC put it out and the NCSG endorse it.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
> 
> Sorry, Avri. I know you said you supported it. I just didn't realize you are on the PC. Is the list on this page outdated?
> 
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg
> 
> Amr
> 




From william.drake  Wed Jan 16 14:00:14 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:00:14 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Revised Version of NCUC Response to the Thick Whois
	PDP WG Questions
In-Reply-To: <FD007C36-EB7A-41C0-90B9-62328CD6EB7D@EGYPTIG.ORG>
References: <A5521C33-AC1C-4271-9C15-762DD151B7C3@EGYPTIG.ORG>
	<F6350F1E-E521-476D-9E51-28C01C491EDF@ipjustice.org>
	<73EFB4D7-A321-49F0-B30E-3ED52579DC4D@ACM.ORG>
	<76B43E13-66DA-4B29-8105-8E015F48E36E@ipjustice.org>
	<307E3764-FD2D-42E9-9794-5208FE49A8F1@EGYPTIG.ORG>
	<EB5D5756-FAE2-4D82-930F-2B98A6E88AFF@ACM.ORG>
	<BF38B28E-B868-4BEF-84C3-60846DF33581@EGYPTIG.ORG>
	<E47D379F-41DB-487F-BABC-5DAD2167489D@ACM.ORG>
	<FD007C36-EB7A-41C0-90B9-62328CD6EB7D@EGYPTIG.ORG>
Message-ID: <E0DD194E-FBF7-4C4E-B0AA-ABC3EAFBA930@UZH.CH>

Hi Amr


On Jan 16, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:

> You're right, Avri?, I do remember Bill listing the PC members with your name on the list. That should have raised a flag.
> 
> So what's the final word? Are we submitting the response to the WG? Should I go ahead and do that on behalf of NCUC, or should Bill?
> 
> ?, or are we going to submit it as an NCSG statement, in which case some changes will have to be made again? Would be happy to get them done. I didn't bring any of this up on yesterday's call because I thought it was all settled.


I agree with Robin's solution:


On Jan 15, 2013, at 8:55 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> I am perfectly fine with this going out as NCUC statement that NCSG subsequently endorses.  
> 
> My point is simply that we are not going to let inaction by some members of the PC prevent the NCSG from getting its work done (including making statements).  The burden and responsibility is on the PC members to engage (or be replaced by those they represent).  Either way, NCSG work goes forward.




This seems appropriate if all the people who participated in the WG did so as NCUC, the WG asked for constituency inputs, and there's no particularly compelling reason for it to be a SG statement if NPOC hasn't responded etc.


You don't need the chair to submit a doc like this, you're the WG members?.


If it's a UC statement, it would also be really good to get it posted on ncuc.org.  Both SG and UC ought to keep track of and leverage their outputs visibility-wise.  

The UC site alas doesn't currently have a main section for Positions and Statements; it would be good to create one and pull together all our stuff there.  The other constituencies all have these, e.g. http://www.bizconst.org/positions.htm 


Cheers

BD

> 
> 
> On Jan 16, 2013, at 12:15 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> hi,
>> 
>> no problem.  easy to be confused.
>> 
>> i had originally missed the announcement that I was on it and a full month almost went by when I would have sworn i was not on the NCSG-PC.
>> 
>> but according to the WIKI list <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG-PC>  and an announcement Bill made in the last week on DISCUSS, it turns out that I am.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 15 Jan 2013, at 13:53, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> 
>>> On Jan 15, 2013, at 9:39 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I also said I supported it with edits (which you did) on the NCSG-PC list.
>>>> 
>>>> Even if i was recommending the NCUC put it out and the NCSG endorse it.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sorry, Avri. I know you said you supported it. I just didn't realize you are on the PC. Is the list on this page outdated?
>>> 
>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>> 
> 




From robin  Fri Jan 18 02:42:55 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:42:55 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] first draft of NCSG response on IGO / INGO input form
Message-ID: <84D28465-E27D-4D01-B0A9-71EF97F0116F@ipjustice.org>

Hi there,

Please see the attached draft of the NCSG response to the IGO / INGO  
working group questions.  I've tried to take a stab at answering the  
questions, but this input could be filled out much more completely,  
so please make suggested edits and additions as needed.   We should  
submit this input form early next week, so please contribute to the  
development of these positions in the coming days.

Thanks much!
Robin


?



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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130117/a6189ba6/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGO-INGO_Input_Request_NCSG_v1.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 72192 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130117/a6189ba6/attachment-0001.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130117/a6189ba6/attachment-0003.html>


From robin  Fri Jan 18 03:52:59 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:52:59 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NonCommercial Users NCPH Mtg planning discussion 24 Jan
	16:00 UTC
Message-ID: <13A87654-4088-4D27-BF8C-AA10BB918CBB@ipjustice.org>

Dear Participants of the Non-Contracted Parties House Meeting:

The doodle poll returned a time of Thursday 24 January at 16:00 UTC  
for our strategy meeting.  So please block that hour off on your  
calendar for our discussion.

I'll send out a discussion agenda for our planning meeting - we can  
go over the issues to be addressed in LA, how we want to approach  
them, and what we want to do with our time to ourselves.  I hope Rob  
Hoggarth sends out an updated discussion agenda in the next few  
days.  I'll also send details with dial-in info when I have that  
confirmed from ICANN staff.

Thank you.  I look forward for speaking with you all soon.

Best,
Robin




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130117/642cee81/attachment.html>


From robin  Fri Jan 18 16:49:42 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 06:49:42 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] GNSO Council Meeting Agenda Monday,
	21 January 2013 at 15:00UTC:
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD2110BC36D@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <ED9C802D-42C6-4774-98B2-EE61DC8D4CF9@ipjustice.org>




Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: January 18, 2013 5:55:08 AM PST
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] GNSO Council Meeting Agenda Monday, 21 January 2013 at 15:00UTC:
> 

> Dear Councillors,
> 
> Please find the draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on Monday, 21 January 2013 at 15:00UTC:
> 
> The agenda is published on pages:
> 
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#jan
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-21jan13-en.htm
> 
> On the Wiki at:
> 
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+21+January+2013
> 
> Agenda for the Special GNSO Council Meeting on 21 January 2012
> 
> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and updated.
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf
> 
> For convenience:
> 
> An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
> An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda.
> Meeting Times 15:00 UTC
> http://tinyurl.com/a5z86y3
> 
> Coordinated Universal Time 15:00 UTC
> 07:00 Los Angeles; 10:00 Washington; 15:00 London; 16:00 Paris; 04:00 Wellington
> 
> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed.
> 
> GNSO Council meeting audio cast
> 
> http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
> 
> Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
> 
> 1.1  Roll Call
> 
> 1.2  Statement of interest updates
> 
> 1.3  Review/amend agenda
> 
> Item 2: Review and potentially add endorsements to the list of SG endorsed GNSO applicants to the ATRT (20 minutes)
> 
> The call for applicants to serve on the next Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) has closed.  ICANN has forwarded all applications received to the GNSO Council and placed them on a web site for inspection by the four GNSO stakeholder groups.  According to the Process for GNSO Endorsement of Nominees to the Affirmation of Commitments Review Teams, each stakeholder group (SG) may endorse one applicant to serve as a representative in a given review team. The Council must consider the resulting list of up to four nominees. If the list does not meet the required diversity objectives, the Council as a whole may choose to endorse up to two additional candidates from the applicant pool, who will help to give the list of GNSO nominees the desired balance. In this case, the Council will hold a vote, with sixty percent support of both houses represented in the Council being required for endorsement. If no candidate obtains that level of support, the list of endorsements obtained via the bottom-up process of stakeholder group nominations will be deemed final and forwarded to ICANN.
> 
> 2.1 Review SG endorsed applicants against specfied diversity requirements
> 2.2 Consider additional candidates 
> 2.4 Vote on addtional candidates
> (To approve the addition of a candidate/s to the list of endorsed candidates in order to meet geographic and/or gender diversity coondition: An affirmative vote of 60% or more of each House).
> 
> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3)
> 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions:
> 
> a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
> 
> b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
> 
> c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority.
> 
> d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
> 
> e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
> 
> f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House.
> 
> g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination.
> 
> h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation.
> 
> i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
> 
> j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded.
> 
> k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote.
> 
> l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House."
> 
> Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4)
> 4.4.1 Applicability
> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures.
> a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
> b. Approve a PDP recommendation;
> c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws;
> d. Fill a Council position open for election.
> 
> 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting?s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present.
> 
> 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available.
> 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 15:00 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> California, USA (PST) UTC-8+0DST 07:00
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+0DST 10:00
> Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 13:00
> Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 13:00
> Edinburgh, Scotland (BST) UTC+0DST 11:00
> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 15:00 
> Abuja, Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 16:00
> Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 
> Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00 
> Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+0DST 17:00
> Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 20:00 
> Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 23:00 
> Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 23:00 
> Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 04:00 ? next day 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2013, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com
> http://tinyurl.com/a5z86y3
> 
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
> 
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
> Glen
> 
> 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/20130118/da80925c/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Fri Jan 18 22:43:07 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:43:07 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-igo-ingo] TR: RySG comments on IGO-INGO
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD2110BC3AC@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <A37E0C4A-3F62-4032-B03F-2D1C4BE69296@ipjustice.org>

I like the RySG's response to Q. 2 on the inapplicability of  
international trademark treaties as having special bearing on DNS  
registration.

BTW: how is the Universal Postal Union (UPU) a member of the RySG and  
able to file a minority stmt?  Anyway...

Robin

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: January 18, 2013 12:22:12 PM PST
> To: Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>, "gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org"  
> <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] TR: RySG comments on IGO-INGO
>
> Respectfully submitted on behalf of:
> De : Paul Diaz
> Envoy? : vendredi 18 janvier 2013 21:18
> ? : gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> Objet : RySG comments on IGO-INGO
>
> Hello Glen,
>
> On behalf of the RySG, please forward the attached IGO-INGO  
> comments to the WG.
>
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>
????????



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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130118/18d50350/attachment-0009.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RySG Comments on IGO-INGO.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 110758 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130118/18d50350/attachment-0004.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130118/18d50350/attachment-0010.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130118/18d50350/attachment-0004.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130118/18d50350/attachment-0011.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGO common position paper 04 05 2012.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 297567 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130118/18d50350/attachment-0005.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130118/18d50350/attachment-0012.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130118/18d50350/attachment-0005.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130118/18d50350/attachment-0013.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: igo-counsels-to-beckstrom-et-al-13dec11-en.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 135431 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130118/18d50350/attachment-0006.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130118/18d50350/attachment-0014.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130118/18d50350/attachment-0006.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130118/18d50350/attachment-0015.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: UPU Comments to the Unredacted Paper 05 Sep 12.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 378923 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130118/18d50350/attachment-0007.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130118/18d50350/attachment-0016.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130118/18d50350/attachment-0007.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130118/18d50350/attachment-0017.html>


From Mary.Wong  Fri Jan 18 22:49:25 2013
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 15:49:25 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-igo-ingo] TR: RySG comments on IGO-INGO
In-Reply-To: <A37E0C4A-3F62-4032-B03F-2D1C4BE69296@ipjustice.org>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD2110BC3AC@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<A37E0C4A-3F62-4032-B03F-2D1C4BE69296@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <50F96F050200005B0009FFF2@smtp.law.unh.edu>


Thanks, Robin - it will be interesting to see what the Registrars will
say. Besides them and us, I think the IPC indicated it would submit
comments as well; not sure if the BC will (the ISPC already did, right?)


Isn't the UPU a member of the Ry SG because they're the operator of the
.post TLD - is that even running? 

Cheers 
Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network
(SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584  


>>> 


From:  
Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> 

To: 
David Opderbeck <dopderbeck at gmail.com>, Lea Bishop Shaver
<lbshaver at iupui.edu>, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>, Mary Wong
<mwong at piercelaw.edu>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>, William Drake
<william.drake at UZH.CH>, Milton Mueller <Mueller at syr.edu>, Wolfgang
Kleinw?chter<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>,
Konstantinos Komaitis <konstantinos at komaitis.org> 

CC: 
"NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>" <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> 

Date:  
1/18/2013 3:45 PM 

Subject:  
[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-igo-ingo] TR: RySG comments on IGO-INGO 

I like the RySG's response to Q. 2 on the inapplicability of
international trademark treaties as having special bearing on DNS
registration. 



BTW: how is the Universal Postal Union (UPU) a member of the RySG and
able to file a minority stmt?  Anyway... 



Robin



Begin forwarded message: 





From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org> 

Date: January 18, 2013 12:22:12 PM PST 

To: Thomas Rickert <rickert at anwaelte.de>, "gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org"
<gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org> 

Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] TR: RySG comments on IGO-INGO 



Respectfully submitted on behalf of: 

De : Paul Diaz  

Envoy? : vendredi 18 janvier 2013 21:18 

? : gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org 

Objet : RySG comments on IGO-INGO 



Hello Glen, 



On behalf of the RySG, please forward the attached IGO-INGO comments to
the WG. 





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/20130118/c56677e4/attachment.html>


From avri  Fri Jan 18 22:51:35 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 15:51:35 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [gnso-igo-ingo] TR: RySG comments on IGO-INGO
In-Reply-To: <A37E0C4A-3F62-4032-B03F-2D1C4BE69296@ipjustice.org>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD2110BC3AC@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<A37E0C4A-3F62-4032-B03F-2D1C4BE69296@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <FC68FE20-9153-40F8-A097-67FC698216CF@acm.org>


On 18 Jan 2013, at 15:43, Robin Gross wrote:

> BTW: how is the Universal Postal Union (UPU) a member of the RySG and able to file a minority stmt?  Anyway...


.post




From avri  Sun Jan 20 21:47:02 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:47:02 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Policy Pages on ICANN Wiki
Message-ID: <F540B6D4-0408-4314-B59C-68A39A3504AE@acm.org>

Hi,

NCSG has a set of policy pages on the ICANN wiki 

Does anyone object if I start updating those pages to be current pointers to what is going on in NCSG Policy space?

I will be neutral about it  and you can yell at me if i don't seem to be.

cheers,

avri


Ps, I also have some updates to do the the Turkwel pages, but I am not asking permission to do that.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130120/9122e363/attachment.html>


From robin  Sun Jan 20 21:56:03 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 11:56:03 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Policy Pages on ICANN Wiki
In-Reply-To: <F540B6D4-0408-4314-B59C-68A39A3504AE@acm.org>
References: <F540B6D4-0408-4314-B59C-68A39A3504AE@acm.org>
Message-ID: <0B3A6B98-494D-4320-93F2-FD956072F7AC@ipjustice.org>

Thanks very much, Avri!  Please don't be shy about updating these  
pages.  All NCSG-PC members are encouraged to update these pages  
(especially the pages on the issue where that member tends to take a  
policy lead on).

ICANN will be providing us with some training on managing the  
confluence wiki and I'd encourage folks to do it if they aren't sure  
how to post to this site so we can have a more robust web presence.

BTW:  NCSG will rework the wiki page so make it more user-friendly.   
ICANN has built a new test site for us:
   https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomuserconst/NCSG-Wiki 
+Home

So if there are any changes we'd like to this new framework, we can  
have them made before we make the transition.  ICANN said it would  
move the content for us, so it shouldn't be any extra work, except  
for providing input into the design and overall framework.  So let me  
know if you have suggestions for the new site as well.

Thanks,
Robin

On Jan 20, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
>
> NCSG has a set of policy pages on the ICANN wiki
>
> Does anyone object if I start updating those pages to be current  
> pointers to what is going on in NCSG Policy space?
>
> I will be neutral about it  and you can yell at me if i don't seem  
> to be.
>
> cheers,
>
> avri
>
>
> Ps, I also have some updates to do the the Turkwel pages, but I am  
> not asking permission to do that.
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130120/c03f2067/attachment.html>


From robin  Sun Jan 20 22:56:47 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 12:56:47 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] final deadline for NCSG endorsement to ATRT2?
Message-ID: <317F4F10-FE12-4F48-8FF6-5A3B25A1B0B6@ipjustice.org>

Dear Jonathan,

I am writing to inquire as to the deadline by which you need the name  
of the person endorsed by NCSG to participate in the ATRT2.  We have  
several excellent candidates and so were planning to hold a candidacy  
call (or email interview) before making NCSG's final determination  
for endorsement.  Thank you for any further info you can provide on  
this.

Best,
Robin

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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130120/fadfe65d/attachment.html>


From robin  Sun Jan 20 23:03:11 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:03:11 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Policy Pages on ICANN Wiki
In-Reply-To: <0B3A6B98-494D-4320-93F2-FD956072F7AC@ipjustice.org>
References: <F540B6D4-0408-4314-B59C-68A39A3504AE@acm.org>
	<0B3A6B98-494D-4320-93F2-FD956072F7AC@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <8E5B0939-BBA5-4DE5-BE50-2AAB64CA2B30@ipjustice.org>

I should also note that to obtain "edit" privileges on the ICANN  
confluence wiki, one must send a note to Glen at ICANN.org to request  
edit privilege and she will provide you with editing privileges.

Thanks,
Robin

On Jan 20, 2013, at 11:56 AM, Robin Gross wrote:

> Thanks very much, Avri!  Please don't be shy about updating these  
> pages.  All NCSG-PC members are encouraged to update these pages  
> (especially the pages on the issue where that member tends to take  
> a policy lead on).
>
> ICANN will be providing us with some training on managing the  
> confluence wiki and I'd encourage folks to do it if they aren't  
> sure how to post to this site so we can have a more robust web  
> presence.
>
> BTW:  NCSG will rework the wiki page so make it more user- 
> friendly.  ICANN has built a new test site for us:
>   https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomuserconst/NCSG-Wiki 
> +Home
>
> So if there are any changes we'd like to this new framework, we can  
> have them made before we make the transition.  ICANN said it would  
> move the content for us, so it shouldn't be any extra work, except  
> for providing input into the design and overall framework.  So let  
> me know if you have suggestions for the new site as well.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> On Jan 20, 2013, at 11:47 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> NCSG has a set of policy pages on the ICANN wiki
>>
>> Does anyone object if I start updating those pages to be current  
>> pointers to what is going on in NCSG Policy space?
>>
>> I will be neutral about it  and you can yell at me if i don't seem  
>> to be.
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> Ps, I also have some updates to do the the Turkwel pages, but I am  
>> not asking permission to do that.
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130120/16652676/attachment.html>


From robin  Mon Jan 21 01:11:17 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:11:17 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] final deadline for NCSG endorsement to ATRT2?
In-Reply-To: <00ee01cdf758$6dd8cd40$498a67c0$@ipracon.com>
References: <317F4F10-FE12-4F48-8FF6-5A3B25A1B0B6@ipjustice.org>
	<00ee01cdf758$6dd8cd40$498a67c0$@ipracon.com>
Message-ID: <C6929523-76A5-47E4-B7E9-DA18EE08D7DE@ipjustice.org>

Thank you, Jonathan.  Unfortunately I don't think we can come to a  
single determination before the council meets tomorrow, since we are  
considering the endorsement of 2 excellent candidates (Marie-Laure  
and Avri).  We only received word of our need to provide endorsements  
on 16 Jan. and we've had to discuss putting a process in place for  
making a selection for a single candidate.  If council wanted to  
select both of our candidates, we would not need to pare it down to  
only a single endorsement.

As there are these other gender and diversity issues to consider,  
could NCSG endorse the 2 above candidates since Council may need to  
add some additional participants to meet the gender and other  
diversity requirements?

Thanks,
Robin

On Jan 20, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:

> Dear Robin,
>
> We have a meeting scheduled tomorrow, Monday 21st January 15h00  
> UTC, at which we were intending to review endorsed candidates.
>
> The process provides for a very limited role for the Council i.e.  
> we review the SG endorsed candidates against gender and geographic  
> diversity requirements.
> If the SG endorsed candidates do not meet these requirements, we  
> seek to meet these by adding up to two additional candidates to the  
> GNSO endorsed list.
>
> I?ll forward you previous correspondence / information so that you  
> have that to hand.
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
> Sent: 20 January 2013 20:57
> To: Jonathan Robinson
> Cc: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: final deadline for NCSG endorsement to ATRT2?
>
> Dear Jonathan,
>
> I am writing to inquire as to the deadline by which you need the  
> name of the person endorsed by NCSG to participate in the ATRT2.   
> We have several excellent candidates and so were planning to hold a  
> candidacy call (or email interview) before making NCSG's final  
> determination for endorsement.  Thank you for any further info you  
> can provide on this.
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130120/9e48aa78/attachment-0001.html>


From william.drake  Mon Jan 21 10:24:47 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:24:47 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] final deadline for NCSG endorsement to ATRT2?
In-Reply-To: <C6929523-76A5-47E4-B7E9-DA18EE08D7DE@ipjustice.org>
References: <317F4F10-FE12-4F48-8FF6-5A3B25A1B0B6@ipjustice.org>
	<00ee01cdf758$6dd8cd40$498a67c0$@ipracon.com>
	<C6929523-76A5-47E4-B7E9-DA18EE08D7DE@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <7D63C5DF-86B1-418C-8778-D16783AE91F3@uzh.ch>

Hi

On Jan 21, 2013, at 12:11 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Thank you, Jonathan.  Unfortunately I don't think we can come to a single determination before the council meets tomorrow, since we are considering the endorsement of 2 excellent candidates (Marie-Laure and Avri).  We only received word of our need to provide endorsements on 16 Jan. and we've had to discuss putting a process in place for making a selection for a single candidate.  If council wanted to select both of our candidates, we would not need to pare it down to only a single endorsement.
> 
> As there are these other gender and diversity issues to consider, could NCSG endorse the 2 above candidates since Council may need to add some additional participants to meet the gender and other diversity requirements?

Assuming the Council is following the rules of the Endorsement Process it formally adopted after a great deal of negotiating, renegotiating, drafting and revising, then no that would not be an option (helpfully buried at the URL http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-agenda-15mar10-en.htm).  If it is not following its own rules that would presumably be problematic, not to mention a bit depressing to those of us that blew a lot of time on this.  BTW NCSG was among those that insisted on one per to ensure parity across SGs and avoid the situation that arose in the initial phase where some of the industry SGs were looking to have multiple representatives nominated.

Under the process there would be another option, as "up to two additional nominees will be selected by a simple majority vote of each house.  One slot will be open to applicants of any kind. The other slot will be reserved for candidates who do not self-identify with any particular stakeholder group, including NomCom appointees [more on self-identification below]. Prior to the vote, an Evaluation Team comprising one Councilor from each stakeholder group plus one NomCom appointee will assess the applications for these two slots and report to the Council."  There are also additional requirements intended inter alia to advance gender and geo diversity, so that could help here.

In addition, I don't recall exactly how the selectors and ICANN staff are handling the Independent Experts category, but I believe someone who put themselves forward for GNSO nomination and didn't get it can still be considered for selection as an IE.   I noticed an ALAC member has already put herself forward as an IE, potentially increasing its representation beyond its allotment.

Best,

Bill

> 
> On Jan 20, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
> 
>> Dear Robin,
>>  
>> We have a meeting scheduled tomorrow, Monday 21st January 15h00 UTC, at which we were intending to review endorsed candidates.
>>  
>> The process provides for a very limited role for the Council i.e. we review the SG endorsed candidates against gender and geographic diversity requirements.
>> If the SG endorsed candidates do not meet these requirements, we seek to meet these by adding up to two additional candidates to the GNSO endorsed list.
>>  
>> I?ll forward you previous correspondence / information so that you have that to hand.
>>  
>> Best wishes,
>>  
>> 
>> Jonathan
>>  
>> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
>> Sent: 20 January 2013 20:57
>> To: Jonathan Robinson
>> Cc: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> Subject: final deadline for NCSG endorsement to ATRT2?
>>  
>> Dear Jonathan,
>>  
>> I am writing to inquire as to the deadline by which you need the name of the person endorsed by NCSG to participate in the ATRT2.  We have several excellent candidates and so were planning to hold a candidacy call (or email interview) before making NCSG's final determination for endorsement.  Thank you for any further info you can provide on this.
>>  
>> Best,
>> Robin
>>  
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>> 
>> 
>>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130121/cc4f374e/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Mon Jan 21 10:41:44 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 09:41:44 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] final deadline for NCSG endorsement to ATRT2?
	[CORRECTION]
In-Reply-To: <7D63C5DF-86B1-418C-8778-D16783AE91F3@uzh.ch>
References: <317F4F10-FE12-4F48-8FF6-5A3B25A1B0B6@ipjustice.org>
	<00ee01cdf758$6dd8cd40$498a67c0$@ipracon.com>
	<C6929523-76A5-47E4-B7E9-DA18EE08D7DE@ipjustice.org>
	<7D63C5DF-86B1-418C-8778-D16783AE91F3@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <F68D290A-5F0D-42EA-82D5-FEF67EE82FF4@uzh.ch>

Please disregard the below, after I hit Send the coffee finally kicked in and I remembered that the process I pointed to was just the first one we agreed.  We then went back and changed it in light of the first experience, and the final was agreed June 2010 http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/other/aoc-reviews.  The original  "up to two additional nominees will be selected" mechanism was replaced because people were unhappy with how that played out.  So the final is each SG gets one nomination, BUT "The Council will consider the resulting list of up to four nominees at its next teleconference. If the list does not meet the above mentioned diversity objectives, the Council as a whole may choose to endorse up to two additional candidates from the applicant pool who would help to give the list of GNSO nominees the desired balance. In this case, the Council would hold a vote during its teleconference, with sixty percent support of both houses represented in the Council being required for endorsement. If no candidate obtains that level of support, the list of endorsements obtained via the bottom-up process of stakeholder group nominations will be deemed final and forwarded to ICANN."

So after there's four names, if there's inadequate diversity, the NCSG candidate not initially endorsed could be added subject to a Council vote.  

And the IE option might still be live??

Bill

On Jan 21, 2013, at 9:24 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> On Jan 21, 2013, at 12:11 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> 
>> Thank you, Jonathan.  Unfortunately I don't think we can come to a single determination before the council meets tomorrow, since we are considering the endorsement of 2 excellent candidates (Marie-Laure and Avri).  We only received word of our need to provide endorsements on 16 Jan. and we've had to discuss putting a process in place for making a selection for a single candidate.  If council wanted to select both of our candidates, we would not need to pare it down to only a single endorsement.
>> 
>> As there are these other gender and diversity issues to consider, could NCSG endorse the 2 above candidates since Council may need to add some additional participants to meet the gender and other diversity requirements?
> 
> Assuming the Council is following the rules of the Endorsement Process it formally adopted after a great deal of negotiating, renegotiating, drafting and revising, then no that would not be an option (helpfully buried at the URL http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/gnso-agenda-15mar10-en.htm).  If it is not following its own rules that would presumably be problematic, not to mention a bit depressing to those of us that blew a lot of time on this.  BTW NCSG was among those that insisted on one per to ensure parity across SGs and avoid the situation that arose in the initial phase where some of the industry SGs were looking to have multiple representatives nominated.
> 
> Under the process there would be another option, as "up to two additional nominees will be selected by a simple majority vote of each house.  One slot will be open to applicants of any kind. The other slot will be reserved for candidates who do not self-identify with any particular stakeholder group, including NomCom appointees [more on self-identification below]. Prior to the vote, an Evaluation Team comprising one Councilor from each stakeholder group plus one NomCom appointee will assess the applications for these two slots and report to the Council."  There are also additional requirements intended inter alia to advance gender and geo diversity, so that could help here.
> 
> In addition, I don't recall exactly how the selectors and ICANN staff are handling the Independent Experts category, but I believe someone who put themselves forward for GNSO nomination and didn't get it can still be considered for selection as an IE.   I noticed an ALAC member has already put herself forward as an IE, potentially increasing its representation beyond its allotment.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
> 
>> 
>> On Jan 20, 2013, at 1:52 PM, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear Robin,
>>>  
>>> We have a meeting scheduled tomorrow, Monday 21st January 15h00 UTC, at which we were intending to review endorsed candidates.
>>>  
>>> The process provides for a very limited role for the Council i.e. we review the SG endorsed candidates against gender and geographic diversity requirements.
>>> If the SG endorsed candidates do not meet these requirements, we seek to meet these by adding up to two additional candidates to the GNSO endorsed list.
>>>  
>>> I?ll forward you previous correspondence / information so that you have that to hand.
>>>  
>>> Best wishes,
>>>  
>>> 
>>> Jonathan
>>>  
>>> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
>>> Sent: 20 January 2013 20:57
>>> To: Jonathan Robinson
>>> Cc: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> Subject: final deadline for NCSG endorsement to ATRT2?
>>>  
>>> Dear Jonathan,
>>>  
>>> I am writing to inquire as to the deadline by which you need the name of the person endorsed by NCSG to participate in the ATRT2.  We have several excellent candidates and so were planning to hold a candidacy call (or email interview) before making NCSG's final determination for endorsement.  Thank you for any further info you can provide on this.
>>>  
>>> Best,
>>> Robin
>>>  
>>> IP JUSTICE
>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130121/299d8500/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Mon Jan 21 21:43:29 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:43:29 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Accountability & Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2)
	- GNSO Endorsement of Candidates
References: <024801cdf7ee$589a5980$09cf0c80$@ipracon.com>
Message-ID: <6A98ADAE-B15A-45EA-B3E3-EE81A5236FB5@ipjustice.org>

As NCSG has 2 candidates (cc'd here) seeking NCSG endorsement for the  
ATRT team and NCSG has until Wed. 24 Jan. to make its endorsements, I  
propose we do the following:

Provide each of the 2 candidate's stmts to the NCSG list today and  
invite the membership to ask them questions for 24-hours.  The  
members can also begin to raise the issues of concern that they wish  
for the NCSG reps to take into ATRT.

The NCSG will endorse 1 candidate as our primary recommendation and a  
2nd candidate as an additional endorsement (as it says we may do  
below).  The GNSO should endorse NCSG's first choice without  
question, and stands a good chance of selecting our 2nd candidate if  
it would help to meet gender and geographic diversity requirements.

Any objection to this plan forward for making our ATRT selections?   
Time is short, but we have 2 great candidates and may be able to get  
them both appointed to the ATRT this way.

Thanks,
Robin


Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
> Date: January 21, 2013 7:45:21 AM PST
> To: <marilynscade at hotmail.com>, <krosette at cov.com>, "tony holmes"  
> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "William Drake"  
> <william.drake at uzh.ch>, <alain.berranger at gmail.com>,  
> <robin at ipjustice.org>, "'KEITH DRAZEK'" <kdrazek at Verisign.com>,  
> "Matt Serlin" <matt.serlin at markmonitor.com>
> Cc: <council at gnso.icann.org>, Glen de Saint G?ry <gnso- 
> secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: Accountability & Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2) -  
> GNSO Endorsement of Candidates
>
> Dear All,
>
> The GNSO Council met today in order to consider the list of GNSO SG  
> endorsed applicants to the ATRT.
>
> In fact, prior to the meeting,  we had only formally received the  
> endorsement of the Registrars SG in writing and we received the  
> Registries SG endorsement during the course of the meeting.
>
> Given that,  in our original communication, we indicated that the  
> 24th January would be the deadline, we have now set a final  
> deadline for SG endorsements of 23h59 UTC on 24 January.
>
> Please can you ensure that your SG provides an endorsed candidate  
> and , if appropriate, the SG support of up to 2 additional  
> candidates whom you wish to be considered for GNSO endorsement.
> The additional candidates will only be considered  as part of the  
> GNSO agreed diversity criteria (should they be required) and will  
> need the support of 60% of both houses in order to be added to the  
> slate of GNSO endorsed candidates.
>
> Please send your endorsements to gnso-secretariat at gnso.icann.org as  
> soon as possible.
>
> Please note that if your SG does not endorse a candidate, the GNSO  
> may be endorsing fewer than four nominees.
>
> Thank-you for your assistance with this.
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Jonathan Robinson
>
> ----------------
>
> Jonathan Robinson
> Chair
> ICANN GNSO Council
>
> jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
> skype: jonathan.m.r
>
>
>
>
> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com]
> Sent: 16 January 2013 11:12
> To: 'marilynscade at hotmail.com' (marilynscade at hotmail.com);  
> krosette at cov.com; tony holmes (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com);  
> William Drake (william.drake at uzh.ch); alain.berranger at gmail.com;  
> robin at ipjustice.org; 'KEITH DRAZEK (kdrazek at Verisign.com)'; Matt  
> Serlin (matt.serlin at markmonitor.com)
> Cc: council at gnso.icann.org GNSO (council at gnso.icann.org); Glen de  
> Saint G?ry (gnso-secretariat at gnso.icann.org)
> Subject: RE: Accountability & Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2)
>
> Dear All,
>
> Following up on my letter of 7th January 2013.  The Call for  
> Applicants is now closed and therefore we now have the complete  
> list of applicants arising from within the GNSO.
> GNSO Council Vice Chair Wolf-Ulrich Knoben has kindly prepared a  
> summary of the GNSO applicants (attached).
>
> According to the previously agreed procedure (attached), the  
> Council now needs to consider the resulting list of up to four  
> nominees (endorsed by the four stakeholder groups).  The deadline  
> for declaration of SO/AC endorsement  is tight (28 January 2013)  
> and the next GNSO Council teleconference is scheduled for tomorrow,  
> 17th January 2013.  Therefore, we have scheduled an additional  
> teleconference on 21 January 2013 in order to specifically deal  
> with this issue, if we have not been able to deal with it on 17  
> January 2013.
>
> Accordingly, if your stakeholder group is intending to endorse a  
> candidate from the pool, please can you complete the process (by  
> sending you endorsements to the GNSO secretariat) as soon as  
> possible (and in any event before the 21 January 2013) so that the  
> Council can complete the Process for GNSO Endorsement.
>
> Please note that if your SG does not endorse a candidate, the GNSO  
> may be endorsing fewer than four nominees.
>
> Thank-you for your assistance with this.
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Jonathan Robinson
>
>
> Jonathan Robinson
> Chair
> ICANN GNSO Council
>
> jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
> skype: jonathan.m.r
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Jonathan Robinson [mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com]
> Sent: 07 January 2013 14:15
> To: 'marilynscade at hotmail.com' (marilynscade at hotmail.com);  
> krosette at cov.com; tony holmes (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com);  
> William Drake (william.drake at uzh.ch); alain.berranger at gmail.com;  
> robin at ipjustice.org; 'KEITH DRAZEK (kdrazek at Verisign.com)'; Matt  
> Serlin (matt.serlin at markmonitor.com)
> Subject: Accountability & Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT 2)
>
> Dear All,
>
> Please see the attached letter and supporting document regarding  
> GNSO participation in the Accountability & Transparency Review Team  
> 2 (ATRT 2) for your consideration.
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> Jonathan Robinson
> Chair
> ICANN GNSO Council
>
> jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
> skype: jonathan.m.r
>
>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130121/d86ae6d5/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Tue Jan 22 01:56:20 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 15:56:20 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] first draft of NCSG response on IGO / INGO input form
In-Reply-To: <84D28465-E27D-4D01-B0A9-71EF97F0116F@ipjustice.org>
References: <84D28465-E27D-4D01-B0A9-71EF97F0116F@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <2E8B9772-8234-469C-AED2-052896CFFDCC@ipjustice.org>

Reminder:  Please provide feedback and additional views in the  
attached draft NCSG stmt.  NCSG should submit its stmt in the next  
couple of days to the Working Group.

Thanks,
Robin


On Jan 17, 2013, at 4:42 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> Hi there,
>
> Please see the attached draft of the NCSG response to the IGO /  
> INGO working group questions.  I've tried to take a stab at  
> answering the questions, but this input could be filled out much  
> more completely, so please make suggested edits and additions as  
> needed.   We should submit this input form early next week, so  
> please contribute to the development of these positions in the  
> coming days.
>
> Thanks much!
> Robin
>
>
> <IGO-INGO_Input_Request_NCSG_v1.doc>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


?


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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130121/b181cd8d/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGO-INGO_Input_Request_NCSG_v1.doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 72192 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130121/b181cd8d/attachment-0001.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130121/b181cd8d/attachment-0003.html>


From dave  Tue Jan 22 04:45:36 2013
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 10:45:36 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] first draft of NCSG response on IGO / INGO input form
In-Reply-To: <2E8B9772-8234-469C-AED2-052896CFFDCC@ipjustice.org>
References: <84D28465-E27D-4D01-B0A9-71EF97F0116F@ipjustice.org>
	<2E8B9772-8234-469C-AED2-052896CFFDCC@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <3BC17A31-699C-4B7E-90E4-75C06A3CF666@difference.com.au>


	I would add to the response to question 4 something about the widely varying legal basis of the protection claims.

	Question 7 I would suggest some thing like 'Even if there is found to be a need and legal basis for rights protection for the RCRC and IOC as part of this policy process, the current existing restrictions where not developed based on that process and should be replaced with mechanisms that are. '

	Regards

		David


From robin  Thu Jan 24 02:04:04 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:04:04 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG reps in the team drafting response to strawman?
Message-ID: <2D6F1BBD-6932-4481-B44C-D6F895B38404@ipjustice.org>

I wonder if one of the NCSG GNSO Councilors would be interested to  
participate in the small drafting team to craft a council response to  
the strawman (presumably it is only for councilors?)?  I see the CSG  
has 2 reps in that group to respond on the strawman.   Any takers?

Thanks,
Robin


http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14108.html

[...]

6. Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Strawman Proposal and Defensive  
Registrations Discussion

Action Item:

?         Councillors are invited to join the  small group of  
volunteers,
Mason Cole, Zahid Jamil, and Brian Winterfeldt to work together on
formulating a substantive response with the emphasis on the role of  
the GNSO
Council and attempting to answer some of the questions  either by  
providing
input in the letter or indicating how the GNSO Council might respond by
developing appropriate policy.

?         The time line is end of February 2013
http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/36087

[...]


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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130123/2b44439e/attachment.html>


From maria.farrell  Thu Jan 24 02:14:42 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 00:14:42 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG reps in the team drafting response to strawman?
In-Reply-To: <2D6F1BBD-6932-4481-B44C-D6F895B38404@ipjustice.org>
References: <2D6F1BBD-6932-4481-B44C-D6F895B38404@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdAKxZCL3i-Hen-jKZ6rPePAO5QKOBb0hZHu2W0g_vtumA@mail.gmail.com>

Weird, I thought I'd volunteered whilst on the call. At least I know I did,
but I guess it got missed. I'll fix that and ask to be on the team.

Maria

On 24 January 2013 00:04, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> I wonder if one of the NCSG GNSO Councilors would be interested to
> participate in the small drafting team to craft a council response to the
> strawman (presumably it is only for councilors?)?  I see the CSG has 2 reps
> in that group to respond on the strawman.   Any takers?
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14108.html
>
> [...]
>
> 6. Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) Strawman Proposal and
> Defensive Registrations Discussion
>
> Action Item:
>
> ?         Councillors are invited to join the  small group of volunteers,
> Mason Cole, Zahid Jamil, and Brian Winterfeldt to work together on
> formulating a substantive response with the emphasis on the role of the
> GNSO
> Council and attempting to answer some of the questions  either by providing
> input in the letter or indicating how the GNSO Council might respond by
> developing appropriate policy.
>
> ?         The time line is end of February 2013
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/node/36087
>
> [...]
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130124/d91bc852/attachment.html>


From wendy  Thu Jan 31 01:12:17 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:12:17 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consumer Metrics Dissent letter to the Board
Message-ID: <5109A8D1.3000703@seltzer.com>

I propose we send this to the Board, as discussed earlier here, at
Council, and on NCSG-Discuss.

Thanks,
--Wendy
-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
http://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ConsumerTrust-NCSG-dissent.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 20480 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130130/498a3960/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ConsumerTrust-NCSG-dissent.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 46229 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130130/498a3960/attachment-0001.pdf>


From robin  Thu Jan 31 01:20:23 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:20:23 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consumer Metrics Dissent letter to the Board
In-Reply-To: <5109A8D1.3000703@seltzer.com>
References: <5109A8D1.3000703@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <76C12985-4DFE-4F98-9368-702775E6898A@ipjustice.org>

Great, Wendy!   Let's send this in asap.  Thanks for the drafting this.

Best,
Robin

On Jan 30, 2013, at 3:12 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> I propose we send this to the Board, as discussed earlier here, at
> Council, and on NCSG-Discuss.
>
> Thanks,
> --Wendy
> --  
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/<ConsumerTrust-NCSG- 
> dissent.doc><ConsumerTrust-NCSG- 
> dissent.pdf>_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130130/86885f47/attachment.html>


From dave  Thu Jan 31 01:36:48 2013
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:36:48 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consumer Metrics Dissent letter to the Board
In-Reply-To: <5109A8D1.3000703@seltzer.com>
References: <5109A8D1.3000703@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <680B7AFD-83D9-46A9-9CDC-A58980EA6BF3@difference.com.au>

Looks great. Lets send it. 
Regards
	David

On 30/01/2013, at 3:12 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:

> I propose we send this to the Board, as discussed earlier here, at
> Council, and on NCSG-Discuss.
> 
> Thanks,
> --Wendy
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
> <ConsumerTrust-NCSG-dissent.doc><ConsumerTrust-NCSG-dissent.pdf>_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From maria.farrell  Thu Jan 31 02:18:22 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 16:18:22 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consumer Metrics Dissent letter to the Board
In-Reply-To: <680B7AFD-83D9-46A9-9CDC-A58980EA6BF3@difference.com.au>
References: <5109A8D1.3000703@seltzer.com>
	<680B7AFD-83D9-46A9-9CDC-A58980EA6BF3@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdDH23EZoJdQS_rF7P2OOZaqYJzLLx5BOCUMWYVehifXxg@mail.gmail.com>

+1

Couple of drafting points:

"Precisely because much innovation is unanticipated" - change unanticipated
to unpredictable. We anticipate innovation, we just don't know what it will
look like.

 "Just as we would not want to speak about ?trust? in a pad of printing
paper, on which anyone could make posters, and we don't ask a road system
to interrogate what its drivers plan to do when they reach their
destinations, <delete>I think </delete> we shouldn't judge DNS registries
on their users? activities."



On 30 January 2013 15:36, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

> Looks great. Lets send it.
> Regards
>         David
>
> On 30/01/2013, at 3:12 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:
>
> > I propose we send this to the Board, as discussed earlier here, at
> > Council, and on NCSG-Discuss.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --Wendy
> > --
> > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
> > Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> > Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> > http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> > https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> > https://www.torproject.org/
> > http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
> >
> <ConsumerTrust-NCSG-dissent.doc><ConsumerTrust-NCSG-dissent.pdf>_______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130130/65c0316f/attachment.html>


From wendy  Thu Jan 31 03:27:00 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 20:27:00 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consumer Metrics Dissent letter to the Board
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdDH23EZoJdQS_rF7P2OOZaqYJzLLx5BOCUMWYVehifXxg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5109A8D1.3000703@seltzer.com>
	<680B7AFD-83D9-46A9-9CDC-A58980EA6BF3@difference.com.au>
	<CAC7qwdDH23EZoJdQS_rF7P2OOZaqYJzLLx5BOCUMWYVehifXxg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5109C864.8030204@seltzer.com>

Good catches, Maria.  Here's an updated PDF, also containing a subject
line.

Robin, would you send it as chair?

--Wendy

On 01/30/2013 07:18 PM, Maria Farrell wrote:
> +1
> 
> Couple of drafting points:
> 
> "Precisely because much innovation is unanticipated" - change unanticipated
> to unpredictable. We anticipate innovation, we just don't know what it will
> look like.
> 
>  "Just as we would not want to speak about ?trust? in a pad of printing
> paper, on which anyone could make posters, and we don't ask a road system
> to interrogate what its drivers plan to do when they reach their
> destinations, <delete>I think </delete> we shouldn't judge DNS registries
> on their users? activities."
> 
> 
> 
> On 30 January 2013 15:36, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> 
>> Looks great. Lets send it.
>> Regards
>>         David
>>
>> On 30/01/2013, at 3:12 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I propose we send this to the Board, as discussed earlier here, at
>>> Council, and on NCSG-Discuss.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> --Wendy
>>> --
>>> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
>>> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>>> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
>>> Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
>>> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
>>> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
>>> https://www.torproject.org/
>>> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>>>
>> <ConsumerTrust-NCSG-dissent.doc><ConsumerTrust-NCSG-dissent.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
> 


-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
http://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ConsumerTrust-NCSG-dissent.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 46526 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130130/075e437a/attachment-0001.pdf>


From robin  Thu Jan 31 04:00:48 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:00:48 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consumer Metrics Dissent letter to the Board
In-Reply-To: <5109C864.8030204@seltzer.com>
References: <5109A8D1.3000703@seltzer.com>
	<680B7AFD-83D9-46A9-9CDC-A58980EA6BF3@difference.com.au>
	<CAC7qwdDH23EZoJdQS_rF7P2OOZaqYJzLLx5BOCUMWYVehifXxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5109C864.8030204@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <2997C4E1-096E-4524-8A34-A3CF42DAFDD1@ipjustice.org>

Yes I will now.  What is address to send to?

Thanks again!
Robin


On Jan 30, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:

> Good catches, Maria.  Here's an updated PDF, also containing a subject
> line.
> 
> Robin, would you send it as chair?
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> On 01/30/2013 07:18 PM, Maria Farrell wrote:
>> +1
>> 
>> Couple of drafting points:
>> 
>> "Precisely because much innovation is unanticipated" - change unanticipated
>> to unpredictable. We anticipate innovation, we just don't know what it will
>> look like.
>> 
>> "Just as we would not want to speak about ?trust? in a pad of printing
>> paper, on which anyone could make posters, and we don't ask a road system
>> to interrogate what its drivers plan to do when they reach their
>> destinations, <delete>I think </delete> we shouldn't judge DNS registries
>> on their users? activities."
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 30 January 2013 15:36, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>> 
>>> Looks great. Lets send it.
>>> Regards
>>>        David
>>> 
>>> On 30/01/2013, at 3:12 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I propose we send this to the Board, as discussed earlier here, at
>>>> Council, and on NCSG-Discuss.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> --Wendy
>>>> --
>>>> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
>>>> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>>>> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
>>>> Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
>>>> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
>>>> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
>>>> https://www.torproject.org/
>>>> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>>>> 
>>> <ConsumerTrust-NCSG-dissent.doc><ConsumerTrust-NCSG-dissent.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
> <ConsumerTrust-NCSG-dissent.pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From robin  Thu Jan 31 04:12:47 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:12:47 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Consumer Metrics letter to the ICANN Board of
	Directors
References: <5109C864.8030204@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <F64B9775-E1EA-4026-8DA8-F4337E4BCC3B@ipjustice.org>

Dear Dr. Crocker,

Attached herewith please find NCSG's letter on the Consumer Metrics  
issue to explain noncommercial users' dissenting view on this issue.   
Please share our letter with the entire board.  NCSG stands ready to  
discuss our views with the board further.

Thank you,
Robin Gross, NCSG Chair

?


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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130130/5c09f8e7/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ConsumerTrust-NCSG-dissent.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 46527 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130130/5c09f8e7/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130130/5c09f8e7/attachment-0003.html>