From joy  Mon Jul  1 05:46:12 2013
From: joy (joy)
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 14:46:12 +1200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Mtg in Durban -- more regrets
In-Reply-To: <18A9F740-14E4-467A-9E0A-580219506206@ipjustice.org>
References: <BCAE1589-8D4F-485A-9C79-DF383F16C165@ipjustice.org>
	<DCB2FD59-084C-4293-B13A-C8E2B589B819@ella.com>
	<51CCAF47.2030904@seltzer.com>
	<AE39E830-A039-4A3B-9DF9-923A9B3C8290@uzh.ch>
	<18A9F740-14E4-467A-9E0A-580219506206@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <51D0ED74.1070007@apc.org>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
hi all - I will be in Durban and attending this meeting. Wendy, I wonder
if we could ask one of our NPOC colleagues to chair this meeting?
Joy
On 29/06/2013 7:02 a.m., Robin Gross wrote:
> Wendy,
>
> It is a bummer you won't be in Durban but I'll try to re-allocate your
travel slot to Durban to another NCSG member who can come on short
notice.  And if you would please let me know who you find to chair in
your place during the NCSG-PC meeting on Sunday in Durban, we can work
with them to get an agenda for the PC meeting together.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> On Jun 28, 2013, at 2:31 AM, William Drake wrote:
>
>> Bummer.  Wow, we are really going to be thinly represented in Durban.
>>
>> Wendy have you been in touch with Constituency Travel so they'll be
prepared to reallocate the slot if we can find someone?  Ed Morris just did.
>>
>> So NCSG needs heels and agenda for the PC meeting, plus topics for
Board and Alac meets?
>>
>> BD
>>
>> On Jun 27, 2013, at 11:31 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Because of a W3C face-to-face at the same time (and an increasing press
>>> of issues there) I will not be able to travel to Durban. I will work to
>>> participate remotely, especially over the weekend, but would welcome
>>> coordination assistance on the ground.
>>>
>>> Thanks, and apologies,
>>> --Wendy
>>>
>>> On 06/26/2013 11:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> As I noted before because of ATRT meetings, I will not be able to
attend the NCSG-PC meeting on Sunday.
>>>>
>>>> Also. how do you want us to handle the meeting with the Board.  Who
has to wear the heels?
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 26 Jun 2013, at 18:48, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Wendy, Avri, and All,
>>>>>
>>>>> As requested, the NCSG Policy Committee meeting has been moved to
Sunday 14 July 4:00-6:15pm in Durban.   I won't be able to attend the
Durban meeting due to other work commitments keeping me in CA, but I'm
sure things will run smoothly in Durban in any event. 
>>>>>
>>>>> As Chair the the PC, I presume Wendy will Chair the PC meeting on
Sunday in Durban -- is that right, Wendy?
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, Avri has agreed to Chair the NCSG Open Membership Meeting on
Tuesday afternoon in Durban, and Wolfgang has agreed to fill-in for me
as co-chair with Olivier in the NCSG-At-Large meeting in Durban.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> **********************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>  University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>>  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
>> william.drake at uzh.ch 
>> www.williamdrake.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
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR0O10AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqeT0IAKNMqp0VJIYCLmNtp5X1uTdo
hKfhen0MZAxxj4ugxikpoUzJQSNqRkPSo46T7ShxxWlnaGqrIRdV+BTHSYOwZm0f
3TLmL5hhKcgHWOnKO+vrBlGWJTIRum0iWx2u1IhPUkyKoVAwyWCjV/e7TAR34If+
ao01+0NmXwaz+TEs+XG1uJvG5UnIEU5vlP/fxg5id4YVrFeNhFYpIPRZABs+D+D3
OIE3twslH1N3+PUn3BncVl6OkQohw04MDtOwnCUQw3ImNoTw1MzEgYvqhkcTr4WK
0wirUsQnoKAkTvLaV9bZJqwO9KNkr7So09Tqp6geH+Vfy5JInLP2fLEyKwWBg9s=
=wEai
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




From robin  Tue Jul  2 21:59:03 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 11:59:03 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG letter to board RE: NomCom seat allocation to NPOC
Message-ID: <B64AC39C-024B-46C0-AF65-50B4BFA304E4@ipjustice.org>

Dear NCSG Policy Committee:

Since the NCSG is woefully under-represented on the ICANN Nominating Committee, and the "academic" non-commercial seat was another one of ICANN's empty promises, we should send a letter to the ICANN Board of Directors requesting ICANN change its bylaws so that the NCSG is represented equally to the CSG in this important Nominating Committee.  We should request and the Board should agree, at the very least, to provide NPOC with a seat on NomCom since it is a full-fledged NCSG constituency.  Thoughts to this proposal?

Thanks,
Robin


From robin  Tue Jul  2 22:25:29 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 12:25:29 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Meetings Plan for ICANN #47 in Durban
Message-ID: <26BB3CBE-7E4A-4A40-966E-3C07A0CC7817@ipjustice.org>


Keep track of NCSG's discussion topics proposed and meeting agendas as they develop for the Durban ICANN Meeting#47.

Link to NCSG Meetings in Durban Planning Document:
 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dEN6SHM2U2VZalQ4MXMzNWtneWJrWnc&usp=sharing

Thanks!
Robin


From maria.farrell  Tue Jul  2 23:05:41 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 21:05:41 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG letter to board RE: NomCom seat allocation to
	NPOC
In-Reply-To: <B64AC39C-024B-46C0-AF65-50B4BFA304E4@ipjustice.org>
References: <B64AC39C-024B-46C0-AF65-50B4BFA304E4@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdCH0jjATOyHufMPu_7jFgOgvP1NAO4vEbYRofFOdZqk=Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Robin,

I strongly agree. It is pretty tough-going to be the sole noncommercial
member of the NomCom, and horribly inadequate representation. Whatever the
rhetoric espoused about the committee's responsibility to ICANN as a whole,
and not the groups NomCom members come from, the reality is that it can be
very partisan.

I vaguely recall the academic position was filled in the early days by some
largely US-based committee or organisation of university tech people
descended from the Internet's network progenitors. Or at least that was the
intent, but it fell apart at some point, or they stopped being able to send
people or agree on it. I can't recall it, but there was a good faith effort
back in the mists of time. Anyway, that is only partly relevant to today's
issue that there is little or no countervailing force to the
over-represented commercial perspectives. (Remember, that RSG and RySG are
also almost entirely commercial.)

All the best, Maria


On 2 July 2013 19:59, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Dear NCSG Policy Committee:
>
> Since the NCSG is woefully under-represented on the ICANN Nominating
> Committee, and the "academic" non-commercial seat was another one of
> ICANN's empty promises, we should send a letter to the ICANN Board of
> Directors requesting ICANN change its bylaws so that the NCSG is
> represented equally to the CSG in this important Nominating Committee.  We
> should request and the Board should agree, at the very least, to provide
> NPOC with a seat on NomCom since it is a full-fledged NCSG constituency.
>  Thoughts to this proposal?
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130702/2c1925ee/attachment.html>


From pileleji  Tue Jul  2 23:14:06 2013
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 20:14:06 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG letter to board RE: NomCom seat allocation to
	NPOC
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdCH0jjATOyHufMPu_7jFgOgvP1NAO4vEbYRofFOdZqk=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <B64AC39C-024B-46C0-AF65-50B4BFA304E4@ipjustice.org>
	<CAC7qwdCH0jjATOyHufMPu_7jFgOgvP1NAO4vEbYRofFOdZqk=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAEux40u1sPSn-R0guKo1qHwP=Xf6EyNkeimbY4muSvdg2ULQ5A@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Robin and Colleagues,

Good day, this is a position, I highly welcome and concur, its relevance
cannot be understated in the new era of ICANN today, so am certain with
your proposal the board will see reason and approve it.

Regards

Poncelet


On 2 July 2013 20:05, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Robin,
>
> I strongly agree. It is pretty tough-going to be the sole noncommercial
> member of the NomCom, and horribly inadequate representation. Whatever the
> rhetoric espoused about the committee's responsibility to ICANN as a whole,
> and not the groups NomCom members come from, the reality is that it can be
> very partisan.
>
> I vaguely recall the academic position was filled in the early days by
> some largely US-based committee or organisation of university tech people
> descended from the Internet's network progenitors. Or at least that was the
> intent, but it fell apart at some point, or they stopped being able to send
> people or agree on it. I can't recall it, but there was a good faith effort
> back in the mists of time. Anyway, that is only partly relevant to today's
> issue that there is little or no countervailing force to the
> over-represented commercial perspectives. (Remember, that RSG and RySG are
> also almost entirely commercial.)
>
> All the best, Maria
>
>
> On 2 July 2013 19:59, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear NCSG Policy Committee:
>>
>> Since the NCSG is woefully under-represented on the ICANN Nominating
>> Committee, and the "academic" non-commercial seat was another one of
>> ICANN's empty promises, we should send a letter to the ICANN Board of
>> Directors requesting ICANN change its bylaws so that the NCSG is
>> represented equally to the CSG in this important Nominating Committee.  We
>> should request and the Board should agree, at the very least, to provide
>> NPOC with a seat on NomCom since it is a full-fledged NCSG constituency.
>>  Thoughts to this proposal?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
*www.ymca.gm
www.waigf.org
www.aficta.org
www.itag.gm
www.npoc.org
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
*www.diplointernetgovernance.org

*
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130702/a1d9a92f/attachment.html>


From avri  Wed Jul  3 00:16:09 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 17:16:09 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG letter to board RE: NomCom seat allocation to
	NPOC
In-Reply-To: <B64AC39C-024B-46C0-AF65-50B4BFA304E4@ipjustice.org>
References: <B64AC39C-024B-46C0-AF65-50B4BFA304E4@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <5B8F6536-E752-4AF2-87C2-0418EAC7C76D@ella.com>

Hi,

Great Idea.  I think a simple letter from the Chair endorsed by the NCSG-PC would be the perfect thing.


avri

On 2 Jul 2013, at 14:59, Robin Gross wrote:

> Dear NCSG Policy Committee:
> 
> Since the NCSG is woefully under-represented on the ICANN Nominating Committee, and the "academic" non-commercial seat was another one of ICANN's empty promises, we should send a letter to the ICANN Board of Directors requesting ICANN change its bylaws so that the NCSG is represented equally to the CSG in this important Nominating Committee.  We should request and the Board should agree, at the very least, to provide NPOC with a seat on NomCom since it is a full-fledged NCSG constituency.  Thoughts to this proposal?
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From william.drake  Wed Jul  3 00:29:47 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 23:29:47 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG letter to board RE: NomCom seat allocation to
	NPOC
In-Reply-To: <5B8F6536-E752-4AF2-87C2-0418EAC7C76D@ella.com>
References: <B64AC39C-024B-46C0-AF65-50B4BFA304E4@ipjustice.org>
	<5B8F6536-E752-4AF2-87C2-0418EAC7C76D@ella.com>
Message-ID: <B25EE690-0D08-41F2-A55C-11737F924301@uzh.ch>

I thought we talked about and agreed all this like a month ago?

On Jul 2, 2013, at 11:16 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Great Idea.  I think a simple letter from the Chair endorsed by the NCSG-PC would be the perfect thing.
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> On 2 Jul 2013, at 14:59, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> Dear NCSG Policy Committee:
>> 
>> Since the NCSG is woefully under-represented on the ICANN Nominating Committee, and the "academic" non-commercial seat was another one of ICANN's empty promises, we should send a letter to the ICANN Board of Directors requesting ICANN change its bylaws so that the NCSG is represented equally to the CSG in this important Nominating Committee.  We should request and the Board should agree, at the very least, to provide NPOC with a seat on NomCom since it is a full-fledged NCSG constituency.  Thoughts to this proposal?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130702/a7d75c40/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Wed Jul  3 01:51:58 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 18:51:58 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG letter to board RE: NomCom seat allocation to
	NPOC
In-Reply-To: <B25EE690-0D08-41F2-A55C-11737F924301@uzh.ch>
References: <B64AC39C-024B-46C0-AF65-50B4BFA304E4@ipjustice.org>
	<5B8F6536-E752-4AF2-87C2-0418EAC7C76D@ella.com>
	<B25EE690-0D08-41F2-A55C-11737F924301@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <388731BA-1E6A-4292-8A8B-4EE00C4A1148@ella.com>

Hi,

I don't think we ever got so far as to know who was volunteering to do it.
As in write the letter.  

avri

On 2 Jul 2013, at 17:29, William Drake wrote:

> I thought we talked about and agreed all this like a month ago?
> 
> On Jul 2, 2013, at 11:16 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Great Idea.  I think a simple letter from the Chair endorsed by the NCSG-PC would be the perfect thing.
>> 
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 2 Jul 2013, at 14:59, Robin Gross wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear NCSG Policy Committee:
>>> 
>>> Since the NCSG is woefully under-represented on the ICANN Nominating Committee, and the "academic" non-commercial seat was another one of ICANN's empty promises, we should send a letter to the ICANN Board of Directors requesting ICANN change its bylaws so that the NCSG is represented equally to the CSG in this important Nominating Committee.  We should request and the Board should agree, at the very least, to provide NPOC with a seat on NomCom since it is a full-fledged NCSG constituency.  Thoughts to this proposal?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From dave  Wed Jul  3 06:58:41 2013
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 11:58:41 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG letter to board RE: NomCom seat allocation to
	NPOC
In-Reply-To: <388731BA-1E6A-4292-8A8B-4EE00C4A1148@ella.com>
References: <B64AC39C-024B-46C0-AF65-50B4BFA304E4@ipjustice.org>
	<5B8F6536-E752-4AF2-87C2-0418EAC7C76D@ella.com>
	<B25EE690-0D08-41F2-A55C-11737F924301@uzh.ch>
	<388731BA-1E6A-4292-8A8B-4EE00C4A1148@ella.com>
Message-ID: <39FDE428-D053-4463-AAB4-9E07356425AE@difference.com.au>

Yes, I think we all support an NPOC rep on NomCom. 

And further, I also support an NCSG letter to the board requesting that this be done.


Cheers

David

On 03/07/2013, at 6:51 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I don't think we ever got so far as to know who was volunteering to do it.
> As in write the letter.  
> 
> avri
> 
> On 2 Jul 2013, at 17:29, William Drake wrote:
> 
>> I thought we talked about and agreed all this like a month ago?
>> 
>> On Jul 2, 2013, at 11:16 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Great Idea.  I think a simple letter from the Chair endorsed by the NCSG-PC would be the perfect thing.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> On 2 Jul 2013, at 14:59, Robin Gross wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear NCSG Policy Committee:
>>>> 
>>>> Since the NCSG is woefully under-represented on the ICANN Nominating Committee, and the "academic" non-commercial seat was another one of ICANN's empty promises, we should send a letter to the ICANN Board of Directors requesting ICANN change its bylaws so that the NCSG is represented equally to the CSG in this important Nominating Committee.  We should request and the Board should agree, at the very least, to provide NPOC with a seat on NomCom since it is a full-fledged NCSG constituency.  Thoughts to this proposal?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From william.drake  Wed Jul  3 11:21:29 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 10:21:29 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG letter to board RE: NomCom seat allocation to
	NPOC
In-Reply-To: <388731BA-1E6A-4292-8A8B-4EE00C4A1148@ella.com>
References: <B64AC39C-024B-46C0-AF65-50B4BFA304E4@ipjustice.org>
	<5B8F6536-E752-4AF2-87C2-0418EAC7C76D@ella.com>
	<B25EE690-0D08-41F2-A55C-11737F924301@uzh.ch>
	<388731BA-1E6A-4292-8A8B-4EE00C4A1148@ella.com>
Message-ID: <2071A4CB-5CF4-4A1E-B2C5-F2617C6DF2EB@uzh.ch>

I saw no disagreement at the time with the suggestion,

On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:25 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> The Nomcom arrangements and NCUC bylaws antedate NPOC's arrival on the scene, and the defined processes don't reflect the current situation.  So sure, it'd make sense to consult with NPOC on the selection; as there are a number of NCUC members who are also involved in NPOC, including in leadership positions, I'd ask them to pass this along and solicit input.  More broadly, it would make sense NPOC and NCSG (with NCUC support) to lobby ICANN for an additional position on the NomCom at either the constituency of SG level; I believe there's a currently inactive 'academic' slot, maybe that could be repurposed.  The imbalance between commercial and noncommercial interests on Nomcom is after all pretty hard to deny?

Which to me meant NPOC and NCSG write a letter and NCUC signs off.  So I thought that was happening already, and was surprised to be revisiting.  But I guess my phraseology didn't seen clearly operational enough in orientation?

Bill


On Jul 3, 2013, at 12:51 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I don't think we ever got so far as to know who was volunteering to do it.
> As in write the letter.  
> 
> avri
> 
> On 2 Jul 2013, at 17:29, William Drake wrote:
> 
>> I thought we talked about and agreed all this like a month ago?





From avri  Wed Jul  3 14:59:17 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 07:59:17 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG letter to board RE: NomCom seat allocation to
	NPOC
In-Reply-To: <2071A4CB-5CF4-4A1E-B2C5-F2617C6DF2EB@uzh.ch>
References: <B64AC39C-024B-46C0-AF65-50B4BFA304E4@ipjustice.org>
	<5B8F6536-E752-4AF2-87C2-0418EAC7C76D@ella.com>
	<B25EE690-0D08-41F2-A55C-11737F924301@uzh.ch>
	<388731BA-1E6A-4292-8A8B-4EE00C4A1148@ella.com>
	<2071A4CB-5CF4-4A1E-B2C5-F2617C6DF2EB@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <AFA1EC93-2319-4792-BDBF-F24F7997C640@ella.com>



Hi,

> But I guess my phraseology didn't seen clearly operational enough in orientation?

I did not realize you were giving directions.  Please forgive me for not having understood our instructions.

Perhaps if you had also fed us the letter, we would have known what to do with it.


avri

On 3 Jul 2013, at 04:21, William Drake wrote:

> I saw no disagreement at the time with the suggestion,
> 
> On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:25 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> The Nomcom arrangements and NCUC bylaws antedate NPOC's arrival on the scene, and the defined processes don't reflect the current situation.  So sure, it'd make sense to consult with NPOC on the selection; as there are a number of NCUC members who are also involved in NPOC, including in leadership positions, I'd ask them to pass this along and solicit input.  More broadly, it would make sense NPOC and NCSG (with NCUC support) to lobby ICANN for an additional position on the NomCom at either the constituency of SG level; I believe there's a currently inactive 'academic' slot, maybe that could be repurposed.  The imbalance between commercial and noncommercial interests on Nomcom is after all pretty hard to deny?
> 
> Which to me meant NPOC and NCSG write a letter and NCUC signs off.  So I thought that was happening already, and was surprised to be revisiting.  But I guess my phraseology didn't seen clearly operational enough in orientation?
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> On Jul 3, 2013, at 12:51 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I don't think we ever got so far as to know who was volunteering to do it.
>> As in write the letter.  
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 2 Jul 2013, at 17:29, William Drake wrote:
>> 
>>> I thought we talked about and agreed all this like a month ago?
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From avri  Wed Jul  3 15:27:51 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 08:27:51 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG letter to board RE: NomCom seat allocation to
	NPOC
In-Reply-To: <AFA1EC93-2319-4792-BDBF-F24F7997C640@ella.com>
References: <B64AC39C-024B-46C0-AF65-50B4BFA304E4@ipjustice.org>
	<5B8F6536-E752-4AF2-87C2-0418EAC7C76D@ella.com>
	<B25EE690-0D08-41F2-A55C-11737F924301@uzh.ch>
	<388731BA-1E6A-4292-8A8B-4EE00C4A1148@ella.com>
	<2071A4CB-5CF4-4A1E-B2C5-F2617C6DF2EB@uzh.ch>
	<AFA1EC93-2319-4792-BDBF-F24F7997C640@ella.com>
Message-ID: <BBA03EF9-99E4-4EB5-98EA-7D1E3819EEA5@ella.com>

Hi,

Perhaps the reason I did not sit down to write it I don't know what to say.  I do not know how to frame the argument so that I fell comfortable with having written it.

I agree with the need of NPOC to get a seat on NomCom.  I want them to have their proper seat as a constituency - it is part of the bottom-up agreement.  I find it inappropriate that they are being denied this seat by the ICANN Board.  They felt it was important enough to have the Constituency, but did not think it worth giving them full constituency status.  It is not like we are asking for double representation that way the BC has it.

I think that it is pathetic, that the best solution we came up with is a gaming that uses the academic seat instead of getting them their own seat.  They change the bylaws all the time, so that is trivial.  And as an excuse it is a spin.

And finally, after watching the Board dither on what to do with this seat before, I doubt they will do as we ask.  But I have been wrong about the Board will do, especially this one that has its own set of rules for ICANN*. 

So every time I thought about this letter, I thought, it is ridiculous that we should need to do this.
And thus I never wrote it.  

Of course I never volunteered to write it, but being one of the volunteers of last resort in NCSG, I guess I feel a little bad about not having fulfilled this seemingly simple task.

I am sure others in the PC had their own reasons for not having stepped forward to write the letter.
I think it is harder to write than the proponent feels.

Perhaps NPOC, or the NPOC reps to the PC, can write the letter and give it to the PC to endorse and send on their behalf.
Alternatively, if NCUC want to present such a letter to the group, I am sure that the PC-NCSG and NCSG chair would send it formally.

I just don't have it in me to write this one.
(though i could have called it bandwidth.)

avri

*  I never would have beleived that a board could do so much to destroy the fabric of ICANN


On 3 Jul 2013, at 07:59, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> But I guess my phraseology didn't seen clearly operational enough in orientation?
> 
> I did not realize you were giving directions.  Please forgive me for not having understood our instructions.
> 
> Perhaps if you had also fed us the letter, we would have known what to do with it.
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> On 3 Jul 2013, at 04:21, William Drake wrote:
> 
>> I saw no disagreement at the time with the suggestion,
>> 
>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:25 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> The Nomcom arrangements and NCUC bylaws antedate NPOC's arrival on the scene, and the defined processes don't reflect the current situation.  So sure, it'd make sense to consult with NPOC on the selection; as there are a number of NCUC members who are also involved in NPOC, including in leadership positions, I'd ask them to pass this along and solicit input.  More broadly, it would make sense NPOC and NCSG (with NCUC support) to lobby ICANN for an additional position on the NomCom at either the constituency of SG level; I believe there's a currently inactive 'academic' slot, maybe that could be repurposed.  The imbalance between commercial and noncommercial interests on Nomcom is after all pretty hard to deny?
>> 
>> Which to me meant NPOC and NCSG write a letter and NCUC signs off.  So I thought that was happening already, and was surprised to be revisiting.  But I guess my phraseology didn't seen clearly operational enough in orientation?
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 3, 2013, at 12:51 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I don't think we ever got so far as to know who was volunteering to do it.
>>> As in write the letter.  
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> On 2 Jul 2013, at 17:29, William Drake wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I thought we talked about and agreed all this like a month ago?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From avri  Wed Jul  3 15:28:34 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 08:28:34 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG letter to board RE: NomCom seat allocation to
	NPOC
In-Reply-To: <AFA1EC93-2319-4792-BDBF-F24F7997C640@ella.com>
References: <B64AC39C-024B-46C0-AF65-50B4BFA304E4@ipjustice.org>
	<5B8F6536-E752-4AF2-87C2-0418EAC7C76D@ella.com>
	<B25EE690-0D08-41F2-A55C-11737F924301@uzh.ch>
	<388731BA-1E6A-4292-8A8B-4EE00C4A1148@ella.com>
	<2071A4CB-5CF4-4A1E-B2C5-F2617C6DF2EB@uzh.ch>
	<AFA1EC93-2319-4792-BDBF-F24F7997C640@ella.com>
Message-ID: <F3DD9489-0ACB-48D4-B392-7238D5E61F52@acm.org>

Hi,

Perhaps the reason I did not sit down to write it I don't know what to say.  I do not know how to frame the argument so that I fell comfortable with having written it.

I agree with the need of NPOC to get a seat on NomCom.  I want them to have their proper seat as a constituency - it is part of the bottom-up agreement.  I find it inappropriate that they are being denied this seat by the ICANN Board.  They felt it was important enough to have the Constituency, but did not think it worth giving them full constituency status.  It is not like we are asking for double representation that way the BC has it.

I think that it is pathetic, that the best solution we came up with is a gaming that uses the academic seat instead of getting them their own seat.  They change the bylaws all the time, so that is trivial.  And as an excuse it is a spin.

And finally, after watching the Board dither on what to do with this seat before, I doubt they will do as we ask.  But I have been wrong about the Board will do, especially this one that has its own set of rules for ICANN*. 

So every time I thought about this letter, I thought, it is ridiculous that we should need to do this.
And thus I never wrote it.  

Of course I never volunteered to write it, but being one of the volunteers of last resort in NCSG, I guess I feel a little bad about not having fulfilled this seemingly simple task.

I am sure others in the PC had their own reasons for not having stepped forward to write the letter.
I think it is harder to write than the proponent feels.

Perhaps NPOC, or the NPOC reps to the PC, can write the letter and give it to the PC to endorse and send on their behalf.
Alternatively, if NCUC want to present such a letter to the group, I am sure that the PC-NCSG and NCSG chair would send it formally.

I just don't have it in me to write this one.
(though i could have called it bandwidth.)

avri

*  I never would have beleived that a board could do so much to destroy the fabric of ICANN


On 3 Jul 2013, at 07:59, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> But I guess my phraseology didn't seen clearly operational enough in orientation?
> 
> I did not realize you were giving directions.  Please forgive me for not having understood our instructions.
> 
> Perhaps if you had also fed us the letter, we would have known what to do with it.
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> On 3 Jul 2013, at 04:21, William Drake wrote:
> 
>> I saw no disagreement at the time with the suggestion,
>> 
>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:25 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> The Nomcom arrangements and NCUC bylaws antedate NPOC's arrival on the scene, and the defined processes don't reflect the current situation.  So sure, it'd make sense to consult with NPOC on the selection; as there are a number of NCUC members who are also involved in NPOC, including in leadership positions, I'd ask them to pass this along and solicit input.  More broadly, it would make sense NPOC and NCSG (with NCUC support) to lobby ICANN for an additional position on the NomCom at either the constituency of SG level; I believe there's a currently inactive 'academic' slot, maybe that could be repurposed.  The imbalance between commercial and noncommercial interests on Nomcom is after all pretty hard to deny?
>> 
>> Which to me meant NPOC and NCSG write a letter and NCUC signs off.  So I thought that was happening already, and was surprised to be revisiting.  But I guess my phraseology didn't seen clearly operational enough in orientation?
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 3, 2013, at 12:51 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I don't think we ever got so far as to know who was volunteering to do it.
>>> As in write the letter.  
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> On 2 Jul 2013, at 17:29, William Drake wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I thought we talked about and agreed all this like a month ago?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From william.drake  Wed Jul  3 17:38:45 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 16:38:45 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG letter to board RE: NomCom seat allocation to
	NPOC
In-Reply-To: <AFA1EC93-2319-4792-BDBF-F24F7997C640@ella.com>
References: <B64AC39C-024B-46C0-AF65-50B4BFA304E4@ipjustice.org>
	<5B8F6536-E752-4AF2-87C2-0418EAC7C76D@ella.com>
	<B25EE690-0D08-41F2-A55C-11737F924301@uzh.ch>
	<388731BA-1E6A-4292-8A8B-4EE00C4A1148@ella.com>
	<2071A4CB-5CF4-4A1E-B2C5-F2617C6DF2EB@uzh.ch>
	<AFA1EC93-2319-4792-BDBF-F24F7997C640@ella.com>
Message-ID: <0A9460F6-D4D1-4AE8-9035-816C53FC1E87@uzh.ch>




On Jul 3, 2013, at 1:59 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> But I guess my phraseology didn't seen clearly operational enough in orientation?
> 
> I did not realize you were giving directions.

I wasn't.  And didn't say I was.  I made a suggestion

>  Please forgive me for not having understood our instructions.
> 
> Perhaps if you had also fed us the letter, we would have known what to do with it.
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> On 3 Jul 2013, at 04:21, William Drake wrote:
> 
>> I saw no disagreement at the time with the suggestion,
>> 
>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:25 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> The Nomcom arrangements and NCUC bylaws antedate NPOC's arrival on the scene, and the defined processes don't reflect the current situation.  So sure, it'd make sense to consult with NPOC on the selection; as there are a number of NCUC members who are also involved in NPOC, including in leadership positions, I'd ask them to pass this along and solicit input.  More broadly, it would make sense NPOC and NCSG (with NCUC support) to lobby ICANN for an additional position on the NomCom at either the constituency of SG level; I believe there's a currently inactive 'academic' slot, maybe that could be repurposed.  The imbalance between commercial and noncommercial interests on Nomcom is after all pretty hard to deny?
>> 
>> Which to me meant NPOC and NCSG write a letter and NCUC signs off.  So I thought that was happening already, and was surprised to be revisiting.  But I guess my phraseology didn't seen clearly operational enough in orientation?
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 3, 2013, at 12:51 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I don't think we ever got so far as to know who was volunteering to do it.
>>> As in write the letter.  
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> On 2 Jul 2013, at 17:29, William Drake wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I thought we talked about and agreed all this like a month ago?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130703/e5fc9a83/attachment.html>


From avri  Wed Jul  3 15:28:34 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2013 08:28:34 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG letter to board RE: NomCom seat allocation to
	NPOC
In-Reply-To: <AFA1EC93-2319-4792-BDBF-F24F7997C640@ella.com>
References: <B64AC39C-024B-46C0-AF65-50B4BFA304E4@ipjustice.org>
	<5B8F6536-E752-4AF2-87C2-0418EAC7C76D@ella.com>
	<B25EE690-0D08-41F2-A55C-11737F924301@uzh.ch>
	<388731BA-1E6A-4292-8A8B-4EE00C4A1148@ella.com>
	<2071A4CB-5CF4-4A1E-B2C5-F2617C6DF2EB@uzh.ch>
	<AFA1EC93-2319-4792-BDBF-F24F7997C640@ella.com>
Message-ID: <F3DD9489-0ACB-48D4-B392-7238D5E61F52@acm.org>

Hi,

Perhaps the reason I did not sit down to write it I don't know what to say.  I do not know how to frame the argument so that I fell comfortable with having written it.

I agree with the need of NPOC to get a seat on NomCom.  I want them to have their proper seat as a constituency - it is part of the bottom-up agreement.  I find it inappropriate that they are being denied this seat by the ICANN Board.  They felt it was important enough to have the Constituency, but did not think it worth giving them full constituency status.  It is not like we are asking for double representation that way the BC has it.

I think that it is pathetic, that the best solution we came up with is a gaming that uses the academic seat instead of getting them their own seat.  They change the bylaws all the time, so that is trivial.  And as an excuse it is a spin.

And finally, after watching the Board dither on what to do with this seat before, I doubt they will do as we ask.  But I have been wrong about the Board will do, especially this one that has its own set of rules for ICANN*. 

So every time I thought about this letter, I thought, it is ridiculous that we should need to do this.
And thus I never wrote it.  

Of course I never volunteered to write it, but being one of the volunteers of last resort in NCSG, I guess I feel a little bad about not having fulfilled this seemingly simple task.

I am sure others in the PC had their own reasons for not having stepped forward to write the letter.
I think it is harder to write than the proponent feels.

Perhaps NPOC, or the NPOC reps to the PC, can write the letter and give it to the PC to endorse and send on their behalf.
Alternatively, if NCUC want to present such a letter to the group, I am sure that the PC-NCSG and NCSG chair would send it formally.

I just don't have it in me to write this one.
(though i could have called it bandwidth.)

avri

*  I never would have beleived that a board could do so much to destroy the fabric of ICANN


On 3 Jul 2013, at 07:59, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> But I guess my phraseology didn't seen clearly operational enough in orientation?
> 
> I did not realize you were giving directions.  Please forgive me for not having understood our instructions.
> 
> Perhaps if you had also fed us the letter, we would have known what to do with it.
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> On 3 Jul 2013, at 04:21, William Drake wrote:
> 
>> I saw no disagreement at the time with the suggestion,
>> 
>> On Jun 9, 2013, at 9:25 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> The Nomcom arrangements and NCUC bylaws antedate NPOC's arrival on the scene, and the defined processes don't reflect the current situation.  So sure, it'd make sense to consult with NPOC on the selection; as there are a number of NCUC members who are also involved in NPOC, including in leadership positions, I'd ask them to pass this along and solicit input.  More broadly, it would make sense NPOC and NCSG (with NCUC support) to lobby ICANN for an additional position on the NomCom at either the constituency of SG level; I believe there's a currently inactive 'academic' slot, maybe that could be repurposed.  The imbalance between commercial and noncommercial interests on Nomcom is after all pretty hard to deny?
>> 
>> Which to me meant NPOC and NCSG write a letter and NCUC signs off.  So I thought that was happening already, and was surprised to be revisiting.  But I guess my phraseology didn't seen clearly operational enough in orientation?
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 3, 2013, at 12:51 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I don't think we ever got so far as to know who was volunteering to do it.
>>> As in write the letter.  
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> On 2 Jul 2013, at 17:29, William Drake wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I thought we talked about and agreed all this like a month ago?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From avri  Thu Jul  4 19:10:30 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 12:10:30 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Letter to Board re NPOC seat on Nomcom
Message-ID: <0FC8B03D-717A-4D0A-9692-CA82B8B3B9D0@acm.org>

Having said I wasn't going to write it,
How about something like:


Dear ICANN Board,

It has come to the NCSG's attention that NPOC, one of our Stakeholder Group constituencies, still has not been given a seat on the NomCom.  While we understand that a By-Laws change is required for this, we would have expected the Board to have taken care of this within a year of having created a mechanism for the creation of new constituencies and having approved the creation of NPOC. It has been much longer and we understand that NPOC has tried to get this taken care of.

We also understand that there is no time for the Board to do so in time for this year's Nomcom, please get this done before next year's Nomcom.

We are currently faced with a NomCom where NPOC is not represented.  We understand that the Board has the ability to appoint an academic representative to the NomCom.  We urgently request that the Board immediately appoint that academic representative from the NPOC.

This urgent request has been endorsed by the NCSG Executive and Policy Committees

Signed

NCSG Chair






From pileleji  Thu Jul  4 19:24:09 2013
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 16:24:09 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Letter to Board re NPOC seat on Nomcom
In-Reply-To: <0FC8B03D-717A-4D0A-9692-CA82B8B3B9D0@acm.org>
References: <0FC8B03D-717A-4D0A-9692-CA82B8B3B9D0@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAEux40tt9cW7EKihDNkH3yehdB1OsB=vfw-uj6JUX5oD+BtHWQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Avri,

Good day, I concur with your letter to the board, straight to the point.

Regards

Poncelet


On 4 July 2013 16:10, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Having said I wasn't going to write it,
> How about something like:
>
>
> Dear ICANN Board,
>
> It has come to the NCSG's attention that NPOC, one of our Stakeholder
> Group constituencies, still has not been given a seat on the NomCom.  While
> we understand that a By-Laws change is required for this, we would have
> expected the Board to have taken care of this within a year of having
> created a mechanism for the creation of new constituencies and having
> approved the creation of NPOC. It has been much longer and we understand
> that NPOC has tried to get this taken care of.
>
> We also understand that there is no time for the Board to do so in time
> for this year's Nomcom, please get this done before next year's Nomcom.
>
> We are currently faced with a NomCom where NPOC is not represented.  We
> understand that the Board has the ability to appoint an academic
> representative to the NomCom.  We urgently request that the Board
> immediately appoint that academic representative from the NPOC.
>
> This urgent request has been endorsed by the NCSG Executive and Policy
> Committees
>
> Signed
>
> NCSG Chair
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
*www.ymca.gm
www.waigf.org
www.aficta.org
www.itag.gm
www.npoc.org
http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
*www.diplointernetgovernance.org

*
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130704/055536ac/attachment.html>


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter  Thu Jul  4 20:01:57 2013
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2013 19:01:57 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Letter to Board re NPOC seat on Nomcom
References: <0FC8B03D-717A-4D0A-9692-CA82B8B3B9D0@acm.org>
Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331C6B@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Very clear. 1++
 
wolfgang

________________________________

Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Do 04.07.2013 18:10
An: NCSG-Policy Policy
Betreff: [PC-NCSG] Letter to Board re NPOC seat on Nomcom



Having said I wasn't going to write it,
How about something like:


Dear ICANN Board,

It has come to the NCSG's attention that NPOC, one of our Stakeholder Group constituencies, still has not been given a seat on the NomCom.  While we understand that a By-Laws change is required for this, we would have expected the Board to have taken care of this within a year of having created a mechanism for the creation of new constituencies and having approved the creation of NPOC. It has been much longer and we understand that NPOC has tried to get this taken care of.

We also understand that there is no time for the Board to do so in time for this year's Nomcom, please get this done before next year's Nomcom.

We are currently faced with a NomCom where NPOC is not represented.  We understand that the Board has the ability to appoint an academic representative to the NomCom.  We urgently request that the Board immediately appoint that academic representative from the NPOC.

This urgent request has been endorsed by the NCSG Executive and Policy Committees

Signed

NCSG Chair




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





From william.drake  Fri Jul  5 10:42:18 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 09:42:18 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Letter to Board re NPOC seat on Nomcom
In-Reply-To: <0FC8B03D-717A-4D0A-9692-CA82B8B3B9D0@acm.org>
References: <0FC8B03D-717A-4D0A-9692-CA82B8B3B9D0@acm.org>
Message-ID: <2FFB3B5A-B21A-4CF7-A911-282CAFF24965@uzh.ch>

Letter's good, although I 'd have thought the initiative should have been taken by the key party to the claim

BD

On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> Having said I wasn't going to write it,
> How about something like:
> 
> 
> Dear ICANN Board,
> 
> It has come to the NCSG's attention that NPOC, one of our Stakeholder Group constituencies, still has not been given a seat on the NomCom.  While we understand that a By-Laws change is required for this, we would have expected the Board to have taken care of this within a year of having created a mechanism for the creation of new constituencies and having approved the creation of NPOC. It has been much longer and we understand that NPOC has tried to get this taken care of.
> 
> We also understand that there is no time for the Board to do so in time for this year's Nomcom, please get this done before next year's Nomcom.
> 
> We are currently faced with a NomCom where NPOC is not represented.  We understand that the Board has the ability to appoint an academic representative to the NomCom.  We urgently request that the Board immediately appoint that academic representative from the NPOC.
> 
> This urgent request has been endorsed by the NCSG Executive and Policy Committees
> 
> Signed
> 
> NCSG Chair
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

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




From rafik.dammak  Fri Jul  5 10:56:52 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 16:56:52 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Letter to Board re NPOC seat on Nomcom
In-Reply-To: <2FFB3B5A-B21A-4CF7-A911-282CAFF24965@uzh.ch>
References: <0FC8B03D-717A-4D0A-9692-CA82B8B3B9D0@acm.org>
	<2FFB3B5A-B21A-4CF7-A911-282CAFF24965@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkHU473s9iQkW2w5J44JLqNWqSVkEY2kVUbPvpSq7n3zA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi ,

maybe I am misunderstanding but I thought the goal is to ask Board to
change the bylaws quickly and activate two nomcom rep seat: one for NPOC
and one for academic.

Best Regards,

Rafik

2013/7/5 William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>

> Letter's good, although I 'd have thought the initiative should have been
> taken by the key party to the claim
>
> BD
>
> On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>
> > Having said I wasn't going to write it,
> > How about something like:
> >
> >
> > Dear ICANN Board,
> >
> > It has come to the NCSG's attention that NPOC, one of our Stakeholder
> Group constituencies, still has not been given a seat on the NomCom.  While
> we understand that a By-Laws change is required for this, we would have
> expected the Board to have taken care of this within a year of having
> created a mechanism for the creation of new constituencies and having
> approved the creation of NPOC. It has been much longer and we understand
> that NPOC has tried to get this taken care of.
> >
> > We also understand that there is no time for the Board to do so in time
> for this year's Nomcom, please get this done before next year's Nomcom.
> >
> > We are currently faced with a NomCom where NPOC is not represented.  We
> understand that the Board has the ability to appoint an academic
> representative to the NomCom.  We urgently request that the Board
> immediately appoint that academic representative from the NPOC.
> >
> > This urgent request has been endorsed by the NCSG Executive and Policy
> Committees
> >
> > Signed
> >
> > NCSG Chair
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> **********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch
> www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130705/3723db98/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Fri Jul  5 11:53:23 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 10:53:23 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Meetings Plan for ICANN #47 in Durban
In-Reply-To: <26BB3CBE-7E4A-4A40-966E-3C07A0CC7817@ipjustice.org>
References: <26BB3CBE-7E4A-4A40-966E-3C07A0CC7817@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <7217A24B-5B21-49A5-92B6-9D5026AA3613@uzh.ch>

Hi Folks

I can't write to NCSG EC, which was copied on the original (someone could forward please?) but I can write to NCUC EC, so copied here.

Since the constituency-level stuff is slighter and easier, I'm pretty much ready to send out an integrated listing of NCUC activities, but with one big caveat?the SG level stuff UC people should be encouraged to participate in seems to be in varying states of organization.  Shall we try to have a little focused conversation to nail stuff down for announcement?  After all we arrive at the Hilton in a week.

On Jul 2, 2013, at 9:25 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> 
> Link to NCSG Meetings in Durban Planning Document:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dEN6SHM2U2VZalQ4MXMzNWtneWJrWnc&usp=sharing

This is really useful and someday may I should do the same.  For now, extracting the action points:

--------

Sunday

NCSG Policy Cmte 16-18:00

No chair named.  Can I propose David?

Possible Discussion Topics:	
Prep. for Thursday's G-Council Mtg
Prep. for NCSG w/Board Mtg on Tuesday
Directory Services
*If there's the intention to propose a PDP re: the recon, that that would seem like something that might eat much of the hour.

*Any other pressing stuff?  Otherwise I suspect we'll need less than 2hrs.


18:15 NCSG Cocktails with ICANN Board of Directors

One would guess some of them might ask what our next steps on Recon are.  Do we just wing it or want a messaging plan? Anything else we'll like to stick in their eares?
	

Tuesday

NCSG meeting, 13:30-15:30

Avri chair

Possible Discussion Topics:	
Update from constituencies on morning meeting
Prep. for NCSG w/Board Mtg on Tuesday	
Q: This seems a bit thin for two hours?  And item 2's already been covered in the PC. Could add NomCom letter. Anything else?  Or seems a short meeting


15:30-16:30 Discussion with Board

Avri again

Possible Discussion Topics:	
the question ICANN's committment to the bottom-up community-led model for Internet governance	
Inclusive outreach strategy / scaling participation in ICANN	
GNSO Review / Restructuring	
policy movements toward censorship (control of Internet content via DNS)	
These seem ok although one can easily imagine the guarded answers we'll be getting.  Is there an intent to push the Recons stuff specifically?  Do we need a division of labor by topic or just leave it all in Avri's lap to introduce and frame each piece?


1830-19:30 CSG Drink

Any agenda items to push or just schmooze?  Do we either want to bother with why no House meeting questions?


Thursday

Public Forum

Possible interventions:	

the question ICANN's committment to the bottom-up community-led model for Internet governance	
Inclusive outreach strategy / scaling participation in ICANN	
Q: I'd think a statement with ALAC on Friday would fit here. Anything else?


Some Unidentified Time

Discussion with At-Large

co-chair WK

Process of adoption of TM+50 policy
Request for return of Friday meetings during ICANN week
Possible common policy goals for new gtlds
Policy v Implementation
Joint Statement Delivered in Thursday's Public Forum

Q: some more focused and action-oriented than others.  Olivier tends to prefer actionable items to let's chat items.  Should we press them on whether they'd support whatever we're doing on Recon?  Could some Councilors lead on that discussion item?



	
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130705/f40ed597/attachment.html>


From maria.farrell  Fri Jul  5 13:38:19 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 11:38:19 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Letter to Board re NPOC seat on Nomcom
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkHU473s9iQkW2w5J44JLqNWqSVkEY2kVUbPvpSq7n3zA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0FC8B03D-717A-4D0A-9692-CA82B8B3B9D0@acm.org>
	<2FFB3B5A-B21A-4CF7-A911-282CAFF24965@uzh.ch>
	<CAH5sThkHU473s9iQkW2w5J44JLqNWqSVkEY2kVUbPvpSq7n3zA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <64326B91-3257-46AB-8A6D-C6F7218F0A4B@gmail.com>

I support avri's letter, too. I think it would be a mistake to tie in the academic seat - background too murky, will cause delay in this letter & open up opportunity to board to obfuscate by saying it 's too difficult or complicated, or external parties should be drawn in, etc etc.

Maria

Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Jul 2013, at 08:56, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi ,
> 
> maybe I am misunderstanding but I thought the goal is to ask Board to change the bylaws quickly and activate two nomcom rep seat: one for NPOC and one for academic.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 2013/7/5 William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>> Letter's good, although I 'd have thought the initiative should have been taken by the key party to the claim
>> 
>> BD
>> 
>> On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>> 
>> > Having said I wasn't going to write it,
>> > How about something like:
>> >
>> >
>> > Dear ICANN Board,
>> >
>> > It has come to the NCSG's attention that NPOC, one of our Stakeholder Group constituencies, still has not been given a seat on the NomCom.  While we understand that a By-Laws change is required for this, we would have expected the Board to have taken care of this within a year of having created a mechanism for the creation of new constituencies and having approved the creation of NPOC. It has been much longer and we understand that NPOC has tried to get this taken care of.
>> >
>> > We also understand that there is no time for the Board to do so in time for this year's Nomcom, please get this done before next year's Nomcom.
>> >
>> > We are currently faced with a NomCom where NPOC is not represented.  We understand that the Board has the ability to appoint an academic representative to the NomCom.  We urgently request that the Board immediately appoint that academic representative from the NPOC.
>> >
>> > This urgent request has been endorsed by the NCSG Executive and Policy Committees
>> >
>> > Signed
>> >
>> > NCSG Chair
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > PC-NCSG mailing list
>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> **********************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>> www.williamdrake.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/20130705/df8e36c1/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Fri Jul  5 14:28:44 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 07:28:44 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Letter to Board re NPOC seat on Nomcom
In-Reply-To: <64326B91-3257-46AB-8A6D-C6F7218F0A4B@gmail.com>
References: <0FC8B03D-717A-4D0A-9692-CA82B8B3B9D0@acm.org>
	<2FFB3B5A-B21A-4CF7-A911-282CAFF24965@uzh.ch>
	<CAH5sThkHU473s9iQkW2w5J44JLqNWqSVkEY2kVUbPvpSq7n3zA@mail.gmail.com>
	<64326B91-3257-46AB-8A6D-C6F7218F0A4B@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <33A8D232-EA7E-4224-9AEC-6CD2C535E590@acm.org>

Hi,

I am confused.  You support the leeter, I appreciate that, but I am following Bill Drake's suggestion that the academic seat be filled with someone from NPOC.  Is that the 'tie in the academic seat' you write about?

Rafik, changing the bylaws takes at least as long as a comment period.  It is too late for that now, isn't it?

avri



On 5 Jul 2013, at 06:38, Maria Farrell wrote:

> I support avri's letter, too. I think it would be a mistake to tie in the academic seat - background too murky, will cause delay in this letter & open up opportunity to board to obfuscate by saying it 's too difficult or complicated, or external parties should be drawn in, etc etc.
> 
> Maria
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 5 Jul 2013, at 08:56, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi ,
>> 
>> maybe I am misunderstanding but I thought the goal is to ask Board to change the bylaws quickly and activate two nomcom rep seat: one for NPOC and one for academic.
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> 
>> Rafik 
>> 
>> 2013/7/5 William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>> Letter's good, although I 'd have thought the initiative should have been taken by the key party to the claim
>> 
>> BD
>> 
>> On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>> 
>> > Having said I wasn't going to write it,
>> > How about something like:
>> >
>> >
>> > Dear ICANN Board,
>> >
>> > It has come to the NCSG's attention that NPOC, one of our Stakeholder Group constituencies, still has not been given a seat on the NomCom.  While we understand that a By-Laws change is required for this, we would have expected the Board to have taken care of this within a year of having created a mechanism for the creation of new constituencies and having approved the creation of NPOC. It has been much longer and we understand that NPOC has tried to get this taken care of.
>> >
>> > We also understand that there is no time for the Board to do so in time for this year's Nomcom, please get this done before next year's Nomcom.
>> >
>> > We are currently faced with a NomCom where NPOC is not represented.  We understand that the Board has the ability to appoint an academic representative to the NomCom.  We urgently request that the Board immediately appoint that academic representative from the NPOC.
>> >
>> > This urgent request has been endorsed by the NCSG Executive and Policy Committees
>> >
>> > Signed
>> >
>> > NCSG Chair
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > PC-NCSG mailing list
>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> **********************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>> www.williamdrake.org
>> ***********************************************************
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From maria.farrell  Fri Jul  5 18:33:15 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 16:33:15 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Letter to Board re NPOC seat on Nomcom
In-Reply-To: <33A8D232-EA7E-4224-9AEC-6CD2C535E590@acm.org>
References: <0FC8B03D-717A-4D0A-9692-CA82B8B3B9D0@acm.org>
	<2FFB3B5A-B21A-4CF7-A911-282CAFF24965@uzh.ch>
	<CAH5sThkHU473s9iQkW2w5J44JLqNWqSVkEY2kVUbPvpSq7n3zA@mail.gmail.com>
	<64326B91-3257-46AB-8A6D-C6F7218F0A4B@gmail.com>
	<33A8D232-EA7E-4224-9AEC-6CD2C535E590@acm.org>
Message-ID: <AE1DE393-0F83-42F2-8302-2F0C2F152430@gmail.com>

Sorry, Avri, I thought it was about creating a new seat from scratch. Personally I think that's more straightforward than resurrecting an old one and arguing that npoc should get it,  but my bad on losing the thread. I still support your letter.

Cheers, m


Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Jul 2013, at 12:28, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I am confused.  You support the leeter, I appreciate that, but I am following Bill Drake's suggestion that the academic seat be filled with someone from NPOC.  Is that the 'tie in the academic seat' you write about?
> 
> Rafik, changing the bylaws takes at least as long as a comment period.  It is too late for that now, isn't it?
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 5 Jul 2013, at 06:38, Maria Farrell wrote:
> 
>> I support avri's letter, too. I think it would be a mistake to tie in the academic seat - background too murky, will cause delay in this letter & open up opportunity to board to obfuscate by saying it 's too difficult or complicated, or external parties should be drawn in, etc etc.
>> 
>> Maria
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On 5 Jul 2013, at 08:56, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi ,
>>> 
>>> maybe I am misunderstanding but I thought the goal is to ask Board to change the bylaws quickly and activate two nomcom rep seat: one for NPOC and one for academic.
>>> 
>>> Best Regards,
>>> 
>>> Rafik 
>>> 
>>> 2013/7/5 William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>>> Letter's good, although I 'd have thought the initiative should have been taken by the key party to the claim
>>> 
>>> BD
>>> 
>>> On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Having said I wasn't going to write it,
>>>> How about something like:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Dear ICANN Board,
>>>> 
>>>> It has come to the NCSG's attention that NPOC, one of our Stakeholder Group constituencies, still has not been given a seat on the NomCom.  While we understand that a By-Laws change is required for this, we would have expected the Board to have taken care of this within a year of having created a mechanism for the creation of new constituencies and having approved the creation of NPOC. It has been much longer and we understand that NPOC has tried to get this taken care of.
>>>> 
>>>> We also understand that there is no time for the Board to do so in time for this year's Nomcom, please get this done before next year's Nomcom.
>>>> 
>>>> We are currently faced with a NomCom where NPOC is not represented.  We understand that the Board has the ability to appoint an academic representative to the NomCom.  We urgently request that the Board immediately appoint that academic representative from the NPOC.
>>>> 
>>>> This urgent request has been endorsed by the NCSG Executive and Policy Committees
>>>> 
>>>> Signed
>>>> 
>>>> NCSG Chair
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> **********************************************************
>>> William J. Drake
>>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>>  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>>  University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>>>  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
>>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>>> www.williamdrake.org
>>> ***********************************************************
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From avri  Fri Jul  5 19:51:25 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 12:51:25 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Letter to Board re NPOC seat on Nomcom
In-Reply-To: <AE1DE393-0F83-42F2-8302-2F0C2F152430@gmail.com>
References: <0FC8B03D-717A-4D0A-9692-CA82B8B3B9D0@acm.org>
	<2FFB3B5A-B21A-4CF7-A911-282CAFF24965@uzh.ch>
	<CAH5sThkHU473s9iQkW2w5J44JLqNWqSVkEY2kVUbPvpSq7n3zA@mail.gmail.com>
	<64326B91-3257-46AB-8A6D-C6F7218F0A4B@gmail.com>
	<33A8D232-EA7E-4224-9AEC-6CD2C535E590@acm.org>
	<AE1DE393-0F83-42F2-8302-2F0C2F152430@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8947CC87-7B35-442D-AEEC-685591B212BC@acm.org>

Hi,

I totally agree that they should have their own seat.  Since that take a bylaws change they haven't been able to get done since the creation of NPOC, to expect it to happen in time for next year's Nomcom is optimistic.  The Board should have taken care of this more than a year ago.  But it wasn't a priority, I guess.

Bill suggested a one time use, i beleive it was a one time use, of the Ed seat for NPOC.  I agreed it was worth a try.  The can always cut the knot by appointing an academic from NPOC.  That is why I wrote the last line a bit ambiguously.  At least I think it is a bit ambiguous.

Wendy, is it safe to say we have PC consensus?  people from both Constituencies have spoken in favor and no one has spoken against.

Robin: Is there EC agreement?  You cool with sending it?  I think the sooner the better at this point.

thanks


avri



On 5 Jul 2013, at 11:33, Maria Farrell wrote:

> Sorry, Avri, I thought it was about creating a new seat from scratch. Personally I think that's more straightforward than resurrecting an old one and arguing that npoc should get it,  but my bad on losing the thread. I still support your letter.
> 
> Cheers, m
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> On 5 Jul 2013, at 12:28, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I am confused.  You support the leeter, I appreciate that, but I am following Bill Drake's suggestion that the academic seat be filled with someone from NPOC.  Is that the 'tie in the academic seat' you write about?
>> 
>> Rafik, changing the bylaws takes at least as long as a comment period.  It is too late for that now, isn't it?
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 5 Jul 2013, at 06:38, Maria Farrell wrote:
>> 
>>> I support avri's letter, too. I think it would be a mistake to tie in the academic seat - background too murky, will cause delay in this letter & open up opportunity to board to obfuscate by saying it 's too difficult or complicated, or external parties should be drawn in, etc etc.
>>> 
>>> Maria
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On 5 Jul 2013, at 08:56, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi ,
>>>> 
>>>> maybe I am misunderstanding but I thought the goal is to ask Board to change the bylaws quickly and activate two nomcom rep seat: one for NPOC and one for academic.
>>>> 
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik 
>>>> 
>>>> 2013/7/5 William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>>>> Letter's good, although I 'd have thought the initiative should have been taken by the key party to the claim
>>>> 
>>>> BD
>>>> 
>>>> On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Having said I wasn't going to write it,
>>>>> How about something like:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear ICANN Board,
>>>>> 
>>>>> It has come to the NCSG's attention that NPOC, one of our Stakeholder Group constituencies, still has not been given a seat on the NomCom.  While we understand that a By-Laws change is required for this, we would have expected the Board to have taken care of this within a year of having created a mechanism for the creation of new constituencies and having approved the creation of NPOC. It has been much longer and we understand that NPOC has tried to get this taken care of.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We also understand that there is no time for the Board to do so in time for this year's Nomcom, please get this done before next year's Nomcom.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We are currently faced with a NomCom where NPOC is not represented.  We understand that the Board has the ability to appoint an academic representative to the NomCom.  We urgently request that the Board immediately appoint that academic representative from the NPOC.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This urgent request has been endorsed by the NCSG Executive and Policy Committees
>>>>> 
>>>>> Signed
>>>>> 
>>>>> NCSG Chair
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> **********************************************************
>>>> William J. Drake
>>>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>>>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org
>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>>>> www.williamdrake.org
>>>> ***********************************************************
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From robin  Sun Jul  7 04:09:06 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 18:09:06 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
References: <20130707010551.CC69A5CEA5F@sjc-wfweb05>
Message-ID: <B4517C4D-6DD9-4A04-B1F5-8692A82272A5@ipjustice.org>

fyi:

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Confirmation Message" <no-reply at wufoo.com>
> Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
> Date: July 6, 2013 6:05:51 PM PDT
> To: robin at ipjustice.org
> Reply-To: no-reply at icann.org
> 
> GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
> Name of Officer: *	Robin Gross
> Officer Email Address: *	robin at ipjustice.org
> Date Prepared: *	Saturday, July 6, 2013
> GNSO Organization: *	
> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
> Officer Position or Title: *	
> NCSG Chair
> Voting Remedy: *	
> Temporary Alternate
> Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: *	
> Maria Farrell will be absent during the GNSO Council discussions during the ICANN #47 Meeting in Durban and therefore Roy Balleste will serve in Maria's place to represent NCSG in the GNSO Council discussions in Durban during the dates 13-18 July 2013.
> Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: *	
> Any and all.
> Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate:
> [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat]*	Thursday, July 18, 2013
> Please identify the individual (cannot be a current GNSO Councilor) who will serve as the abstaining Councilor's Temporary Alternate.
> [Note: if not already published and available, a short bio and Statement/Disclosure of Interest should be prepared by the Temporary Alternate and delivered to the GNSO Secretariat in advance of any discussion or voting scheduled to take place]. *	Roy Balleste
> Temporary Alternate Email Address: *	rballeste at stu.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130706/6602f80e/attachment.html>


From robin  Sun Jul  7 04:09:18 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2013 18:09:18 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
References: <20130707010817.CB7D9F8C5B3@sjc-wfweb07>
Message-ID: <6789E169-C93F-4408-B13F-F2F38C2203A6@ipjustice.org>

fyi:

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Confirmation Message" <no-reply at wufoo.com>
> Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
> Date: July 6, 2013 6:08:17 PM PDT
> To: robin at ipjustice.org
> Reply-To: no-reply at icann.org
> 
> GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
> Name of Officer: *	Robin Gross
> Officer Email Address: *	robin at ipjustice.org
> Date Prepared: *	Saturday, July 6, 2013
> GNSO Organization: *	
> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
> Officer Position or Title: *	
> NCSG Chair
> Voting Remedy: *	
> Temporary Alternate
> Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: *	
> Wendy Seltzer will be absent during the GNSO Council discussions during the ICANN #47 Meeting in Durban and therefore Marie-laue Lemineur will serve in Wendy's place to represent NCSG in the GNSO Council discussions in Durban during the dates 13-18 July 2013.
> Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: *	
> Any and all.
> Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate:
> [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat]*	Thursday, July 18, 2013
> Please identify the individual (cannot be a current GNSO Councilor) who will serve as the abstaining Councilor's Temporary Alternate.
> [Note: if not already published and available, a short bio and Statement/Disclosure of Interest should be prepared by the Temporary Alternate and delivered to the GNSO Secretariat in advance of any discussion or voting scheduled to take place]. *	Marie-laure Lemineur
> Temporary Alternate Email Address: *	mllemineur at gmail.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130706/df9ded96/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Sun Jul  7 23:35:16 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 13:35:16 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Skype session for Durban meeting planning - 8 July
Message-ID: <1CAB1A77-6FE0-4BFF-BA4D-CF819D9EFC0C@ipjustice.org>

Hi,

I'm trying to set up a skype chat with Marie-laue and Wendy and anyone else interested for early this week to discuss the Durban meeting and GNSO Council temporary alternates.

How does Monday 8 July at 19:00 UTC for for folks?

Thanks!
Robin


From rudi.vansnick  Sun Jul  7 23:59:29 2013
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 22:59:29 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Skype session for Durban meeting planning - 8 July
In-Reply-To: <1CAB1A77-6FE0-4BFF-BA4D-CF819D9EFC0C@ipjustice.org>
References: <1CAB1A77-6FE0-4BFF-BA4D-CF819D9EFC0C@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <48443C9F-160A-4F7A-A0A6-8F698989FD08@isoc.be>

Dear Robin,

I'll participate in this call. My skypeID ruudisoc

Kind regards,

Rudi Vansnick
NPOC policy committee
NPOC acting treasurer
rudi.vansnick at isoc.be



Op 7-jul.-2013, om 22:35 heeft Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> het volgende geschreven:

> Hi,
> 
> I'm trying to set up a skype chat with Marie-laue and Wendy and anyone else interested for early this week to discuss the Durban meeting and GNSO Council temporary alternates.
> 
> How does Monday 8 July at 19:00 UTC for for folks?
> 
> Thanks!
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130707/42b1ee87/attachment.html>


From robin  Mon Jul  8 02:27:53 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 16:27:53 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Meetings Plan for ICANN #47 in Durban
In-Reply-To: <7217A24B-5B21-49A5-92B6-9D5026AA3613@uzh.ch>
References: <26BB3CBE-7E4A-4A40-966E-3C07A0CC7817@ipjustice.org>
	<7217A24B-5B21-49A5-92B6-9D5026AA3613@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <F060B024-4AD4-44DE-B6E5-3358672781BC@ipjustice.org>

Thanks, Bill and all.  A few comments below.

On Jul 5, 2013, at 1:53 AM, William Drake wrote:

> Hi Folks
> 
> I can't write to NCSG EC, which was copied on the original (someone could forward please?) but I can write to NCUC EC, so copied here.
> 
> Since the constituency-level stuff is slighter and easier, I'm pretty much ready to send out an integrated listing of NCUC activities, but with one big caveat?the SG level stuff UC people should be encouraged to participate in seems to be in varying states of organization.  Shall we try to have a little focused conversation to nail stuff down for announcement?  After all we arrive at the Hilton in a week.
> 
> On Jul 2, 2013, at 9:25 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Link to NCSG Meetings in Durban Planning Document:
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dEN6SHM2U2VZalQ4MXMzNWtneWJrWnc&usp=sharing
> 
> This is really useful and someday may I should do the same.  For now, extracting the action points:
> 
> --------
> 
> Sunday
> 
> NCSG Policy Cmte 16-18:00
> 
> No chair named.  Can I propose David?

Yes, - I've asked David if he can chair this discussion.
> 
> Possible Discussion Topics:	
> Prep. for Thursday's G-Council Mtg
> Prep. for NCSG w/Board Mtg on Tuesday
> Directory Services
> *If there's the intention to propose a PDP re: the recon, that that would seem like something that might eat much of the hour.

Will add PDP on TM+50
> 
> *Any other pressing stuff?  Otherwise I suspect we'll need less than 2hrs.

Topics 1 and 2 will have a dozen sub-parts.  The various meaty issues we discuss with the board makes the PC mtg a meatier discussion than what it may seem above.  This PC mtg time should be used for the PC to get their ducks in a row for the board discussion on a number of meaty topics, like recon request, article 29 letter, policy movements toward censorship, etc.  And again to get the PC ducks in a row for the GNSO Council votes and discussions on Wed. 
> 
> 
> 18:15 NCSG Cocktails with ICANN Board of Directors
> 
> One would guess some of them might ask what our next steps on Recon are.  Do we just wing it or want a messaging plan? Anything else we'll like to stick in their eares?

I'd suggest a message over the need to preserve bottom-up, community-led policy for Internet governance.  Insist that staff follow the rules.  The Board should stop sucking up to GAC, etc.

> 	
> 
> Tuesday
> 
> NCSG meeting, 13:30-15:30
> 
> Avri chair
> 
> Possible Discussion Topics:	
> Update from constituencies on morning meeting
> Prep. for NCSG w/Board Mtg on Tuesday	
> Q: This seems a bit thin for two hours?  And item 2's already been covered in the PC. Could add NomCom letter. Anything else?  Or seems a short meeting

Wasn't meant to be a complete agenda - just a start.  But do we need to talk about the NomCom letter?  How about we send it before the 14th?  I think we just do it now.
> 
> 
> 15:30-16:30 Discussion with Board
> 
> Avri again
> 
> Possible Discussion Topics:	
> the question ICANN's committment to the bottom-up community-led model for Internet governance	
> Inclusive outreach strategy / scaling participation in ICANN	
> GNSO Review / Restructuring	
> policy movements toward censorship (control of Internet content via DNS)	
> These seem ok although one can easily imagine the guarded answers we'll be getting.  Is there an intent to push the Recons stuff specifically?  Do we need a division of labor by topic or just leave it all in Avri's lap to introduce and frame each piece?

When I have chaired this discussion, I've asked someone from NCSG to speak to each one of the points and try to provide a starting point for the topic's discussion.  Of course anyone can speak and we desperately need more individual engagement from our members in these discussions.  But as the person who is wearing the heels for NCSG's side of this discussion, I'l let Avri manage it as she sees fit.

> 
> 
> 1830-19:30 CSG Drink
> 
> Any agenda items to push or just schmooze?  Do we either want to bother with why no House meeting questions?

I think this schmooze is instead of the formal house meeting but that is just a perception.  I don't think more meetings with CSG are needed in Durban.
> 
> 
> Thursday
> 
> Public Forum
> 
> Possible interventions:	
> 
> the question ICANN's committment to the bottom-up community-led model for Internet governance	
> Inclusive outreach strategy / scaling participation in ICANN	
> Q: I'd think a statement with ALAC on Friday would fit here. Anything else?
> 
AGreed.  Do we have volunteers from the folks who will be on the ground in Durban to make these interventions?

> 
> Some Unidentified Time
Gisella is working on finding a time for this discussion.  Stay tuned.
> 
> Discussion with At-Large
> 
> co-chair WK
> 
> Process of adoption of TM+50 policy
> Request for return of Friday meetings during ICANN week
> Possible common policy goals for new gtlds
> Policy v Implementation
> Joint Statement Delivered in Thursday's Public Forum
> 
> Q: some more focused and action-oriented than others.  Olivier tends to prefer actionable items to let's chat items.  Should we press them on whether they'd support whatever we're doing on Recon?  Could some Councilors lead on that discussion item?
> 
I don't think we'll have time for all of these topics.  It is the list that has been suggested by various members and we may need to focus the discussion on what we can do in Durban (complete joint statement on TM+50 and Friday meetings return?)   Or perhaps we don't need discussion of those two topics because from the discussions we've had, we seem in agreement and what we need now are drafters?????

That's all for now.  Thanks!

Robin

> 
> 
> 	

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130707/8d0dbb08/attachment.html>


From mllemineur  Mon Jul  8 03:09:13 2013
From: mllemineur (Marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 18:09:13 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Skype session for Durban meeting planning - 8 July
In-Reply-To: <1CAB1A77-6FE0-4BFF-BA4D-CF819D9EFC0C@ipjustice.org>
References: <1CAB1A77-6FE0-4BFF-BA4D-CF819D9EFC0C@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <60A5E9AE-6744-408F-8AC8-20C2E518298A@gmail.com>

Hi, 

Works for me. 
Best, 
Mll

Enviado desde mi iPad


El 07/07/2013, a las 14:35, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> escribi?:

> Hi,
> 
> I'm trying to set up a skype chat with Marie-laue and Wendy and anyone else interested for early this week to discuss the Durban meeting and GNSO Council temporary alternates.
> 
> How does Monday 8 July at 19:00 UTC for for folks?
> 
> Thanks!
> Robin



From robin  Mon Jul  8 04:01:42 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2013 18:01:42 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Letter to Board re NPOC seat on Nomcom
In-Reply-To: <8947CC87-7B35-442D-AEEC-685591B212BC@acm.org>
References: <0FC8B03D-717A-4D0A-9692-CA82B8B3B9D0@acm.org>
	<2FFB3B5A-B21A-4CF7-A911-282CAFF24965@uzh.ch>
	<CAH5sThkHU473s9iQkW2w5J44JLqNWqSVkEY2kVUbPvpSq7n3zA@mail.gmail.com>
	<64326B91-3257-46AB-8A6D-C6F7218F0A4B@gmail.com>
	<33A8D232-EA7E-4224-9AEC-6CD2C535E590@acm.org>
	<AE1DE393-0F83-42F2-8302-2F0C2F152430@gmail.com>
	<8947CC87-7B35-442D-AEEC-685591B212BC@acm.org>
Message-ID: <A66C0197-A1AE-4129-870D-F27CA363615B@ipjustice.org>

Thanks, Avri.  Yes I agree we should send it asap and I'll cool with sending it.  I will also send it to the EC for agreement.  It will carry the most weight if both the PC and the EC sign off on the letter.

Thanks,
Robin


On Jul 5, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I totally agree that they should have their own seat.  Since that take a bylaws change they haven't been able to get done since the creation of NPOC, to expect it to happen in time for next year's Nomcom is optimistic.  The Board should have taken care of this more than a year ago.  But it wasn't a priority, I guess.
> 
> Bill suggested a one time use, i beleive it was a one time use, of the Ed seat for NPOC.  I agreed it was worth a try.  The can always cut the knot by appointing an academic from NPOC.  That is why I wrote the last line a bit ambiguously.  At least I think it is a bit ambiguous.
> 
> Wendy, is it safe to say we have PC consensus?  people from both Constituencies have spoken in favor and no one has spoken against.
> 
> Robin: Is there EC agreement?  You cool with sending it?  I think the sooner the better at this point.
> 
> thanks
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 5 Jul 2013, at 11:33, Maria Farrell wrote:
> 
>> Sorry, Avri, I thought it was about creating a new seat from scratch. Personally I think that's more straightforward than resurrecting an old one and arguing that npoc should get it,  but my bad on losing the thread. I still support your letter.
>> 
>> Cheers, m
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On 5 Jul 2013, at 12:28, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I am confused.  You support the leeter, I appreciate that, but I am following Bill Drake's suggestion that the academic seat be filled with someone from NPOC.  Is that the 'tie in the academic seat' you write about?
>>> 
>>> Rafik, changing the bylaws takes at least as long as a comment period.  It is too late for that now, isn't it?
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5 Jul 2013, at 06:38, Maria Farrell wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I support avri's letter, too. I think it would be a mistake to tie in the academic seat - background too murky, will cause delay in this letter & open up opportunity to board to obfuscate by saying it 's too difficult or complicated, or external parties should be drawn in, etc etc.
>>>> 
>>>> Maria
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>> On 5 Jul 2013, at 08:56, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi ,
>>>>> 
>>>>> maybe I am misunderstanding but I thought the goal is to ask Board to change the bylaws quickly and activate two nomcom rep seat: one for NPOC and one for academic.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2013/7/5 William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>>>>> Letter's good, although I 'd have thought the initiative should have been taken by the key party to the claim
>>>>> 
>>>>> BD
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Having said I wasn't going to write it,
>>>>>> How about something like:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear ICANN Board,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It has come to the NCSG's attention that NPOC, one of our Stakeholder Group constituencies, still has not been given a seat on the NomCom.  While we understand that a By-Laws change is required for this, we would have expected the Board to have taken care of this within a year of having created a mechanism for the creation of new constituencies and having approved the creation of NPOC. It has been much longer and we understand that NPOC has tried to get this taken care of.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We also understand that there is no time for the Board to do so in time for this year's Nomcom, please get this done before next year's Nomcom.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We are currently faced with a NomCom where NPOC is not represented.  We understand that the Board has the ability to appoint an academic representative to the NomCom.  We urgently request that the Board immediately appoint that academic representative from the NPOC.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This urgent request has been endorsed by the NCSG Executive and Policy Committees
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Signed
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> NCSG Chair
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> **********************************************************
>>>>> William J. Drake
>>>>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>>>>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org
>>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>>>>> www.williamdrake.org
>>>>> ***********************************************************
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From joy  Mon Jul  8 06:25:43 2013
From: joy (joy)
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 15:25:43 +1200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Letter to Board re NPOC seat on Nomcom
In-Reply-To: <A66C0197-A1AE-4129-870D-F27CA363615B@ipjustice.org>
References: <0FC8B03D-717A-4D0A-9692-CA82B8B3B9D0@acm.org>
	<2FFB3B5A-B21A-4CF7-A911-282CAFF24965@uzh.ch>
	<CAH5sThkHU473s9iQkW2w5J44JLqNWqSVkEY2kVUbPvpSq7n3zA@mail.gmail.com>
	<64326B91-3257-46AB-8A6D-C6F7218F0A4B@gmail.com>
	<33A8D232-EA7E-4224-9AEC-6CD2C535E590@acm.org>
	<AE1DE393-0F83-42F2-8302-2F0C2F152430@gmail.com>
	<8947CC87-7B35-442D-AEEC-685591B212BC@acm.org>
	<A66C0197-A1AE-4129-870D-F27CA363615B@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <51DA3137.8010203@apc.org>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
thanks for your draft Avri - clear and to the point and happy for this
to be sent.
cheers
Joy
On 8/07/2013 1:01 p.m., Robin Gross wrote:
> Thanks, Avri.  Yes I agree we should send it asap and I'll cool with sending it.  I will also send it
to the EC for agreement.  It will carry the most weight if both the PC
and the EC sign off on the letter.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
> On Jul 5, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I totally agree that they should have their own seat.  Since that
take a bylaws change they haven't been able to get done since the
creation of NPOC, to expect it to happen in time for next year's Nomcom
is optimistic.  The Board should have taken care of this more than a
year ago.  But it wasn't a priority, I guess.
>>
>> Bill suggested a one time use, i beleive it was a one time use, of
the Ed seat for NPOC.  I agreed it was worth a try.  The can always cut
the knot by appointing an academic from NPOC.  That is why I wrote the
last line a bit ambiguously.  At least I think it is a bit ambiguous.
>>
>> Wendy, is it safe to say we have PC consensus?  people from both
Constituencies have spoken in favor and no one has spoken against.
>>
>> Robin: Is there EC agreement?  You cool with sending it?  I think the
sooner the better at this point.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5 Jul 2013, at 11:33, Maria Farrell wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, Avri, I thought it was about creating a new seat from
scratch. Personally I think that's more straightforward than
resurrecting an old one and arguing that npoc should get it,  but my bad
on losing the thread. I still support your letter.
>>>
>>> Cheers, m
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On 5 Jul 2013, at 12:28, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I am confused.  You support the leeter, I appreciate that, but I am
following Bill Drake's suggestion that the academic seat be filled with
someone from NPOC.  Is that the 'tie in the academic seat' you write about?
>>>>
>>>> Rafik, changing the bylaws takes at least as long as a comment
period.  It is too late for that now, isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5 Jul 2013, at 06:38, Maria Farrell wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I support avri's letter, too. I think it would be a mistake to tie
in the academic seat - background too murky, will cause delay in this
letter & open up opportunity to board to obfuscate by saying it 's too
difficult or complicated, or external parties should be drawn in, etc etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maria
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5 Jul 2013, at 08:56, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi ,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> maybe I am misunderstanding but I thought the goal is to ask
Board to change the bylaws quickly and activate two nomcom rep seat: one
for NPOC and one for academic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2013/7/5 William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>>>>>> Letter's good, although I 'd have thought the initiative should
have been taken by the key party to the claim
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BD
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Having said I wasn't going to write it,
>>>>>>> How about something like:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear ICANN Board,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It has come to the NCSG's attention that NPOC, one of our
Stakeholder Group constituencies, still has not been given a seat on the
NomCom.  While we understand that a By-Laws change is required for this,
we would have expected the Board to have taken care of this within a
year of having created a mechanism for the creation of new
constituencies and having approved the creation of NPOC. It has been
much longer and we understand that NPOC has tried to get this taken care of.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We also understand that there is no time for the Board to do so
in time for this year's Nomcom, please get this done before next year's
Nomcom.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are currently faced with a NomCom where NPOC is not
represented.  We understand that the Board has the ability to appoint an
academic representative to the NomCom.  We urgently request that the
Board immediately appoint that academic representative from the NPOC.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This urgent request has been endorsed by the NCSG Executive and
Policy Committees
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NCSG Chair
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **********************************************************
>>>>>> William J. Drake
>>>>>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>>>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>>>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>>>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>>>>>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org
>>>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>>>>>> www.williamdrake.org
>>>>>> ***********************************************************
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR2jE3AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqXswH/0u9wMDwdHLYQ0ZZ3EgPcBUH
6lajQCo7f+1D9pDVxIEMBh1fh9U/m1wo/Dx1cgCNXlj6m1hvHqcu6UIkzyNP3phn
QpIou7Sedu//hqOY6iUdI6kse4/JvOb9N8i6l+5m9y8lgDvVuA79O0QK7Nd5+PzK
NQolIaHvCsSPW78Ed06mWg1eYFYfNdgcTjeUR5hNxkzGbRaGucAKQgSfi3seHHlt
1/tLH3ocCff44JdaZzhxkRPyBQ7MDLByIL1yY5woFw3NaOuUOTJ5vHRuFpxkujAg
us6gtaMbZ/eaiuAPnmaBldtOCdqiuCtZv92qiD9m+6Ow6FkVrW3yw4XX/k7gFaQ=
=dPUf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




From william.drake  Thu Jul 11 09:29:55 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 08:29:55 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Regarding request to add an additional seat to the
	nominating committee for the NPOC constituency
In-Reply-To: <CANgs+SvQ+B8oeXUmkV-Oft3VEuwxfe28PdmccL0cWuJmFY=zng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E82DE3D2A0@bne3-0002mitmbx.corp.mit>
	<CANgs+SvsbBj-r9dWw42=Dr69WP3-TeezDL6qUo0XC8-HYe6d7A@mail.gmail.com>
	<263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E82DE3F0BD@bne3-0002mitmbx.corp.mit>
	<CANgs+SvQkqU95Ua+G=uyi9HdaJ1isk+HvsXSPuxdS8z4VZbyog@mail.gmail.com>
	<002401cdd7e0$953de4c0$bfb9ae40$@gmail.com>
	<CANgs+SvQ+B8oeXUmkV-Oft3VEuwxfe28PdmccL0cWuJmFY=zng@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C249C19E-9B7A-4767-AFA1-A8893287642E@uzh.ch>

Hi

I probably would not have mentioned travel funding, as they've fixed on that and tied it to broader perceptions.  The issue that "the GNSO" is overrepresented is somewhat beside the point; the parts of GNSO that are overrepresented are others, not CS.  So it's not just a matter of balance between GNSO and other, but rather of within GNSO.  To say that one board recognized constituency should have no representation because others have been given too much is just, odd.

Bill



On Jul 10, 2013, at 4:51 PM, Alain Berranger <alain.berranger at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> FYI and chronology. Cheers, Alain
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Ray Plzak <plzakr at gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 3:46 PM
> Subject: RE: Regarding request to add an additional seat to the nominating committee for the NPOC constituency
> To: Alain Berranger <alain.berranger at gmail.com>, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> Cc: Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org>, John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey at icann.org>
> 
> 
> Alain,
> 
>  
> 
> Sorry for the delay in answering your ?structural? question. Structural changes are made to ICANN structures when they are supported with a rationale that shows that the change will benefit the organization (in this case the NomCom). The NPOC request has highlighted the long standing matter concerning the composition of the NomCom. Currently, the distribution of members has an over representation of the GNSO and the ALAC when compared to the other organizations that appoint members to the NomCom. The highlighting of this issue by the NPOC request along with several other concerns raised within the past 12 months in areas dealing with the dual role of the NomCom in recruitment and selection, stabilizing operational procedures, and ethical concerns has prompted the SIC to recommend to the Board that the organizational review of the NomCom be conducted than anticipated. The SIC recently made this recommendation which is why I delayed my response to you. I wanted to wait for the SIC to complete its work.
> 
>  
> 
> Regarding the rationale that you have presented I understand it to be two fold:
> 
>  
> 
>                 1. Without the NPOC receiving funding for a representative to travel to a NomCom meeting conducted at the site of an ICANN meeting, the NPOC is under represented at the ICANN meeting; and
> 
>                 2. Without NPOC membership on the NomCom the civil society is under represented on the NomCom.
> 
>  
> 
> My comments regarding this rationale:
> 
>  
> 
>                 1. NomCom membership is not intended to be a funding source for persons to attend an ICANN meeting. The fact the NomCom conducts its meetings at ICANN meeting sites is a matter of convenience. One can easily make the argument that the NomCom meeting should not be at the ICANN site as the members of the NomCom can be distracted by other matters and because of burdens during the week, the NomCom members can be not at their prime when they meet at the end of the week.
> 
>  
> 
>                 2. The NPOC is a part of the GNSO and would thus be one more GNSO appointee to the NomCom further exacerbating the imbalance among membership sources. Considering the NPOC as a civil society representative creates a similar imbalance with regard to the members participating from the ALAC.
> 
>  
> 
> If the board moves forward with the NPOC organizational review, I would welcome your involvement in the process.
> 
>  
> 
> Ray
> 
>  
> 
> From: Alain Berranger [mailto:alain.berranger at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 11:06 AM
> To: Bruce Tonkin
> Cc: Amy Stathos; Ray Plzak; John Jeffrey
> Subject: Re: Regarding request to add an additional seat to the nominating committee for the NPOC constituency
> 
>  
> 
> Hello again Bruce,
> 
>  
> 
> Sorry for belated response to your question below on account of recent vacations.
> 
>  
> 
> You say below: "Does that refer to travel funding for nominating committee members?   I have heard issues of travel funding come up in other forums as well - including that the nominating committee may not need to actually meet at an ICANN meeting, but could meet elsewhere."
> 
>  
> 
> Yes it does. Since Nom Com actually meets at ICANN meetings, my statement that NPOC gets one less representative at ICANN meetings is true (compounding further that NPOC is "less equal amongst equal Constituencies" because it is the only Constituency without a Nom Com seat). If and when Non Com meets elsewhere, of course my statement would not stand. The former is the current reality (and has been since I became active at ICANN at the San Francisco meeting), the latter is hypothetical.
> 
>  
> 
> The other impact of NPOC's exclusion is that Civil Society is only represented by two Nom Com seats (currently held by Adam Peake and Rafik Dammak) instead of having 3 seats out of a total of 21 seats. Not quite an equal voice between civil society, government and private sector, the very basic "tro?ka" or "3-legged stool" at the heart of a multi-stakeholder model.
> 
>  
> 
> I reiterate that giving a Nom Com seat to NPOC can be dealt with easily and on a short-term basis, while "more complex Structural Improvements" naturally take more time. I hear excellent management rationale at various times from Ray Plzak and would love to hear his views on NPOC's position here.
> 
>  
> 
> Ray, my generic question is, albeit probably naive given my newness in ICANN: in an organization, does all structural improvements need to be parked and dealt with as a batch? or can "easy and simple" structural improvements, like NPOC's request in my opinion, be treated soonest possible.
> 
>  
> 
> I do not think I will have any more questions on this subject after this. NPOC holds a Constituency-wide monthly call on the second Tuesday of every month and this situation is on our agenda for Dec 11, 2012.
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards, Alain
> 
>  
> 
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 12:42 AM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
> 
> Hello Alain,
> 
> Thanks for your quick reply.  I can confirm that your request was taken seriously, and discussed I the context with improvements being suggested from several parties.
> 
> 
> >>   John of course can say if that is possible or not, but I understand that bylaws changes require Board Approval.
> 
> Yes - and require an appropriate community review process as well.
> 
>  There have been other requests for changes to the nominating committee - including balancing numbers of reps from GNSO, ALAC, ccNSO, ASO  etc.   So your request is not the only request, and some of the requests conflict with each other.
> 
> 
> 
> >>  A final point: this decision also has repercussions on the resources available to NPOC to participate in equal numbers as other Constituencies in ICANN meetings. That is a secondary effect, but a real one nevertheless.
> 
> Does that refer to travel funding for nominating committee members?   I have heard issues of travel funding come up in other forums as well - including that the nominating committee may not need to actually meet at an ICANN meeting, but could meet elsewhere.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -- 
> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
> 
> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca
> 
> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
> 
> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org
> 
> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
> Skype: alain.berranger
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT?
> 
> Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ  et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration.
> 
>  
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
> 
> This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.orgMember, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca
> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
> Skype: alain.berranger
> 
> 
> AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALIT?
> Ce courriel est confidentiel et est ? l?usage exclusif du destinataire ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le pr?sent message sans en ?tre le destinataire, ou l?employ?(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au destinataire, est par les pr?sentes avis?e qu?il lui est strictement interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut ?tre joint ou si ce document vous a ?t? communiqu? par erreur, veuillez nous en informer sur le champ  et d?truire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de votre coop?ration.
> 
> CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
> This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose, distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130711/fefe1fcd/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Fri Jul 12 19:25:29 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 09:25:29 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?windows-1252?q?let=27s_proceed_with_challenging_Board?=
 =?windows-1252?q?=27s_dismissal_of_NCSG_request_for_reconsideration_of_ha?=
 =?windows-1252?q?lf-baked_=99+50?=
Message-ID: <B3158543-E458-4396-BBBB-886ED08143AE@ipjustice.org>

Let's proceed with challenging the Board's dismissal of NCSG's reconsideration request of its TM+50 policy (in addition to a PDP to change it).  I believe we have a hard deadline by which we need to challenge the decision.... Ed, can you remind me of that and the next steps to challenge the decision with the CEP?

Thank you!
Robin


From joy  Sat Jul 13 11:01:39 2013
From: joy (joy)
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 20:01:39 +1200
Subject: [PC-NCSG]
 =?windows-1252?q?let=27s_proceed_with_challenging_Board?=
 =?windows-1252?q?=27s_dismissal_of_NCSG_request_for_reconsideration_of_ha?=
 =?windows-1252?q?lf-baked_=99+50?=
In-Reply-To: <B3158543-E458-4396-BBBB-886ED08143AE@ipjustice.org>
References: <B3158543-E458-4396-BBBB-886ED08143AE@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <51E10963.3070400@apc.org>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
Hi - I really don't think we should do this. Sorry, but i just see this
as a pointless exercise and not the best use of our limited time and
resources.
Joy

On 13/07/2013 4:25 a.m., Robin Gross wrote:
> Let's proceed with challenging the Board's dismissal of NCSG's reconsideration request of its TM+50
policy (in addition to a PDP to change it).  I believe we have a hard
deadline by which we need to challenge the decision.... Ed, can you
remind me of that and the next steps to challenge the decision with the CEP?
>
> Thank you!
> Robin

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR4QljAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqDaYH/AuFs2xmjQsE+PxdbdRwrr4T
q33uaVvopg2xkZlBqSxO+xpZxsrPsKn+jz/GhAPCdDE2efgTn/Pczqv/a+4QSsEy
mx2qIyazmc/Y7QI2J3iGu6MkG2aXcOv97JuOm/xqtinQU9lftFm5IOlsMk1RYURE
W5HmCuunqkzRZt8XpAPBpK4994iAart/Hv9bt//Fm7DSVgHAfMnMuHXgfdwyAxdE
sLosNbFeXke1eCL9EXafcXWB+5vbRGWGDcclOZqOTgo6BWQ/RulHzIVelAJxpdGP
T5gZRy1DWPYixfldVuAd3/O+0xPy1p4Mwd/o1nVGShdPFFea7avBzonsetIBYNE=
=fi+O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




From rudi.vansnick  Sat Jul 13 11:17:15 2013
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 10:17:15 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG]
 =?windows-1252?q?let=27s_proceed_with_challenging_Board?=
 =?windows-1252?q?=27s_dismissal_of_NCSG_request_for_reconsideration_of_ha?=
 =?windows-1252?q?lf-baked_=99+50?=
In-Reply-To: <B3158543-E458-4396-BBBB-886ED08143AE@ipjustice.org>
References: <B3158543-E458-4396-BBBB-886ED08143AE@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <777EF7F4-E45A-4D2C-BA9D-70E3C2A5B7FA@isoc.be>

In my capacity as NPOC's policy committee chair I agree we have to proceed challenging the board.

Rudi Vansnick
NPOC Policy Committee chair
NPOC acting treasurer
rudi.vansnick at isoc.be


Op 12-jul.-2013, om 18:25 heeft Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> het volgende geschreven:

> Let's proceed with challenging the Board's dismissal of NCSG's reconsideration request of its TM+50 policy (in addition to a PDP to change it).  I believe we have a hard deadline by which we need to challenge the decision.... Ed, can you remind me of that and the next steps to challenge the decision with the CEP?
> 
> Thank you!
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130713/03feb1ca/attachment.html>


From avri  Sat Jul 13 11:21:00 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 10:21:00 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG]
 =?windows-1252?q?let=27s_proceed_with_challenging_Board?=
 =?windows-1252?q?=27s_dismissal_of_NCSG_request_for_reconsideration_of_ha?=
 =?windows-1252?q?lf-baked_=99+50?=
In-Reply-To: <51E10963.3070400@apc.org>
References: <B3158543-E458-4396-BBBB-886ED08143AE@ipjustice.org>
	<51E10963.3070400@apc.org>
Message-ID: <29D57532-387B-415D-8CD8-0BA228573256@acm.org>

Hi,

I tend to agree with Robin.  As long as there is someone willing to do the work, we should follow through.

Yes, there are many thing that the NCSG should be working on, but the priority of which things are important and which aren't is really determined by the willingness of people to work on things.  It has become clear that ICANN does not listen to NCSG or much of anyone else from GNSO.  So sure we can continue to batter our collective heads against the wall on any particular issue.  This is an issue will clear visibility, so again, if someone is willing to the work, gods bless 'em and let them get on with it.

avri

On 13 Jul 2013, at 10:01, joy wrote:

> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hi - I really don't think we should do this. Sorry, but i just see this
> as a pointless exercise and not the best use of our limited time and
> resources.
> Joy
> 
> On 13/07/2013 4:25 a.m., Robin Gross wrote:
>> Let's proceed with challenging the Board's dismissal of NCSG's reconsideration request of its TM+50
> policy (in addition to a PDP to change it).  I believe we have a hard
> deadline by which we need to challenge the decision.... Ed, can you
> remind me of that and the next steps to challenge the decision with the CEP?
>> 
>> Thank you!
>> Robin
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> 
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR4QljAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqDaYH/AuFs2xmjQsE+PxdbdRwrr4T
> q33uaVvopg2xkZlBqSxO+xpZxsrPsKn+jz/GhAPCdDE2efgTn/Pczqv/a+4QSsEy
> mx2qIyazmc/Y7QI2J3iGu6MkG2aXcOv97JuOm/xqtinQU9lftFm5IOlsMk1RYURE
> W5HmCuunqkzRZt8XpAPBpK4994iAart/Hv9bt//Fm7DSVgHAfMnMuHXgfdwyAxdE
> sLosNbFeXke1eCL9EXafcXWB+5vbRGWGDcclOZqOTgo6BWQ/RulHzIVelAJxpdGP
> T5gZRy1DWPYixfldVuAd3/O+0xPy1p4Mwd/o1nVGShdPFFea7avBzonsetIBYNE=
> =fi+O
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 




From dave  Sat Jul 13 11:24:22 2013
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 10:24:22 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG]
 =?windows-1252?q?let=27s_proceed_with_challenging_Board?=
 =?windows-1252?q?=27s_dismissal_of_NCSG_request_for_reconsideration_of_ha?=
 =?windows-1252?q?lf-baked_=99+50?=
In-Reply-To: <29D57532-387B-415D-8CD8-0BA228573256@acm.org>
References: <B3158543-E458-4396-BBBB-886ED08143AE@ipjustice.org>
	<51E10963.3070400@apc.org>
	<29D57532-387B-415D-8CD8-0BA228573256@acm.org>
Message-ID: <BE137428-775E-43B3-A9FC-A31ECA294926@difference.com.au>

I've got very serious reservations about whether it would be worth our while to engage in the part of the process where we need to lawyer up and it is likely to get expensive (for someone at least). 

But I understand there is still one more attempt to mediate phase. I think that would be valuable. 

Cheers

David

On 13/07/2013, at 10:21 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I tend to agree with Robin.  As long as there is someone willing to do the work, we should follow through.
> 
> Yes, there are many thing that the NCSG should be working on, but the priority of which things are important and which aren't is really determined by the willingness of people to work on things.  It has become clear that ICANN does not listen to NCSG or much of anyone else from GNSO.  So sure we can continue to batter our collective heads against the wall on any particular issue.  This is an issue will clear visibility, so again, if someone is willing to the work, gods bless 'em and let them get on with it.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 13 Jul 2013, at 10:01, joy wrote:
> 
>> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> Hi - I really don't think we should do this. Sorry, but i just see this
>> as a pointless exercise and not the best use of our limited time and
>> resources.
>> Joy
>> 
>> On 13/07/2013 4:25 a.m., Robin Gross wrote:
>>> Let's proceed with challenging the Board's dismissal of NCSG's reconsideration request of its TM+50
>> policy (in addition to a PDP to change it).  I believe we have a hard
>> deadline by which we need to challenge the decision.... Ed, can you
>> remind me of that and the next steps to challenge the decision with the CEP?
>>> 
>>> Thank you!
>>> Robin
>> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>> 
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR4QljAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqDaYH/AuFs2xmjQsE+PxdbdRwrr4T
>> q33uaVvopg2xkZlBqSxO+xpZxsrPsKn+jz/GhAPCdDE2efgTn/Pczqv/a+4QSsEy
>> mx2qIyazmc/Y7QI2J3iGu6MkG2aXcOv97JuOm/xqtinQU9lftFm5IOlsMk1RYURE
>> W5HmCuunqkzRZt8XpAPBpK4994iAart/Hv9bt//Fm7DSVgHAfMnMuHXgfdwyAxdE
>> sLosNbFeXke1eCL9EXafcXWB+5vbRGWGDcclOZqOTgo6BWQ/RulHzIVelAJxpdGP
>> T5gZRy1DWPYixfldVuAd3/O+0xPy1p4Mwd/o1nVGShdPFFea7avBzonsetIBYNE=
>> =fi+O
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From william.drake  Sat Jul 13 12:11:18 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 11:11:18 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG]
 =?windows-1252?q?let=27s_proceed_with_challenging_Board?=
 =?windows-1252?q?=27s_dismissal_of_NCSG_request_for_reconsideration_of_ha?=
 =?windows-1252?q?lf-baked_=99+50?=
In-Reply-To: <29D57532-387B-415D-8CD8-0BA228573256@acm.org>
References: <B3158543-E458-4396-BBBB-886ED08143AE@ipjustice.org>
	<51E10963.3070400@apc.org>
	<29D57532-387B-415D-8CD8-0BA228573256@acm.org>
Message-ID: <065D0A05-B1FC-4C74-AD0C-F80FE29063C8@uzh.ch>

Hi

A priori I'm inclined to agree with Joy.  If we don't have equally committed allies in other SGs and since we're pretty thin on the ground here in Durban, it's not obvious to me how we take this forward or that this is best use of our bandwidth.  But I'm open to persuasion...

On Jul 13, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> As long as there is someone willing to do the work, we should follow through.

Ok, so who would be taking the lead on pressing this in which meetings (Board, ALAC, etc)?  What would be the game plan?  

Thanks,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130713/7271f3d7/attachment.html>


From robin  Sat Jul 13 21:04:23 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 11:04:23 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
References: <20130713180212.233645CEA5F@sjc-wfweb05>
Message-ID: <00D44D06-FCEE-4E55-B7D4-7DA0DC18D805@ipjustice.org>

fyi

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Confirmation Message" <no-reply at wufoo.com>
> Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
> Date: July 13, 2013 11:02:12 AM PDT
> To: robin at ipjustice.org
> Reply-To: no-reply at icann.org
> 
> GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
> Name of Officer: *	Robin Gross
> Officer Email Address: *	robin at ipjustice.org
> Date Prepared: *	Saturday, July 13, 2013
> GNSO Organization: *	
> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
> Officer Position or Title: *	
> Chair
> Voting Remedy: *	
> Temporary Alternate
> Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: *	
> The NCSG member (Roy Balleste) previously designated to serve as Maria Farrell's Temporary Alternate in Durban will not be in Durban after all. Therefore, Nuno Garcia will serve as Maria Farrell's Temporary Alternate in Durban instead of Roy.
> Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: *	
> Any and all.
> Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate:
> [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat]*	Thursday, July 18, 2013
> Please identify the individual (cannot be a current GNSO Councilor) who will serve as the abstaining Councilor's Temporary Alternate.
> [Note: if not already published and available, a short bio and Statement/Disclosure of Interest should be prepared by the Temporary Alternate and delivered to the GNSO Secretariat in advance of any discussion or voting scheduled to take place]. *	Nuno Garcia
> Temporary Alternate Email Address: *	ngarcia at ngarcia.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130713/73a11f2a/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Sun Jul 14 00:19:23 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 14:19:23 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Serving as a Group Facilitator during the Monday
	Strategic Planning Session 10:30 - Noon
References: <CAPcHvQF2vGaSksX5JbynqdcgjvX_H0GKp-rabvxSzbBLRdJkHg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0DF968BD-AC9A-410D-B08C-D2D29343432D@ipjustice.org>

Any volunteers?

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Denise Michel <denise.michel at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: Serving as a Group Facilitator during the Monday Strategic Planning Session 10:30 - Noon
> Date: July 11, 2013 1:16:06 PM PDT
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Reply-To: denise.michel at icann.org
> 
> Thanks for the quick response. Please let me know if there's another NCSG leader in attendance you would recommend to serve in this capacity.
> 
> Thanks
> Denise
> 
> Denise Michel
> VP Strategic Initiatives
> & Advisor to the President
> ICANN
> denise.michel at icann.org
> +1.408.429.3072 mobile
> +1.310.578.8632 direct
> denisemichelicann skype
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> Sorry but I won't be at the Durban ICANN meeting.  Thanks for the invite.  Perhaps next time.
> 
> Good luck,
> Robin
> 
> On Jul 11, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Denise Michel wrote:
> 
>> Dear Robin:
>> 
>> We would like to offer you a slot as a group facilitator for our community strategic planning brainstorming session on Monday morning in the main ballroom.  This session is structured to be a community-led and focused event, so we are asking community leaders to help encourage cross-community conversations in the break-out groups. 
>> 
>> As previously noted, this session will be focused on generating discussion and input from the community on a large scale. We'll be dividing a ballroom of people into breakout groups that will be facilitated by community leaders using a common framework of the key challenges facing ICANN in the next five years. Xplane and ICANN Staff will be on hand to assist, as needed, and no advance preparation is required of you. We will provide simple instructions to help encourage the group discussion.
>> 
>> Please confirm your availability to serve as a group facilitator by emailing Charla (cc'd) before Sunday and we will provide additional information via email. We are asking facilitators to meet Xplane staff and me in front of the stage in Hall 6 immediately following Fadi's remarks (10:00 am).  
>> 
>> Thanks for your help and safe travels.
>> 
>> Denise
>> 
>> Denise Michel
>> VP Strategic Initiatives
>> & Advisor to the President
>> ICANN
>> denise.michel at icann.org
>> +1.408.429.3072 mobile
>> +1.310.578.8632 direct
>> denisemichelicann skype
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130713/252b2748/attachment.html>


From avri  Sun Jul 14 13:16:27 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 12:16:27 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [EC-NCSG] Serving as a Group Facilitator during the
	Monday Strategic Planning Session 10:30 - Noon
In-Reply-To: <0DF968BD-AC9A-410D-B08C-D2D29343432D@ipjustice.org>
References: <CAPcHvQF2vGaSksX5JbynqdcgjvX_H0GKp-rabvxSzbBLRdJkHg@mail.gmail.com>
	<0DF968BD-AC9A-410D-B08C-D2D29343432D@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CFCBB511-42F9-4512-8AD5-FE33F53EAC72@acm.org>

Hi,

I can do this if there are not other volunteers.

avri

On 13 Jul 2013, at 23:19, Robin Gross wrote:

> Any volunteers?
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Denise Michel <denise.michel at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: Serving as a Group Facilitator during the Monday Strategic Planning Session 10:30 - Noon
>> Date: July 11, 2013 1:16:06 PM PDT
>> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>> Reply-To: denise.michel at icann.org
>> 
>> Thanks for the quick response. Please let me know if there's another NCSG leader in attendance you would recommend to serve in this capacity.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Denise
>> 
>> Denise Michel
>> VP Strategic Initiatives
>> & Advisor to the President
>> ICANN
>> denise.michel at icann.org
>> +1.408.429.3072 mobile
>> +1.310.578.8632 direct
>> denisemichelicann skype
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>> Sorry but I won't be at the Durban ICANN meeting.  Thanks for the invite.  Perhaps next time.
>> 
>> Good luck,
>> Robin
>> 
>> On Jul 11, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Denise Michel wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear Robin:
>>> 
>>> We would like to offer you a slot as a group facilitator for our community strategic planning brainstorming session on Monday morning in the main ballroom.  This session is structured to be a community-led and focused event, so we are asking community leaders to help encourage cross-community conversations in the break-out groups. 
>>> 
>>> As previously noted, this session will be focused on generating discussion and input from the community on a large scale. We'll be dividing a ballroom of people into breakout groups that will be facilitated by community leaders using a common framework of the key challenges facing ICANN in the next five years. Xplane and ICANN Staff will be on hand to assist, as needed, and no advance preparation is required of you. We will provide simple instructions to help encourage the group discussion.
>>> 
>>> Please confirm your availability to serve as a group facilitator by emailing Charla (cc'd) before Sunday and we will provide additional information via email. We are asking facilitators to meet Xplane staff and me in front of the stage in Hall 6 immediately following Fadi's remarks (10:00 am).  
>>> 
>>> Thanks for your help and safe travels.
>>> 
>>> Denise
>>> 
>>> Denise Michel
>>> VP Strategic Initiatives
>>> & Advisor to the President
>>> ICANN
>>> denise.michel at icann.org
>>> +1.408.429.3072 mobile
>>> +1.310.578.8632 direct
>>> denisemichelicann skype
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg




From william.drake  Sun Jul 14 13:50:17 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 12:50:17 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [EC-NCSG] Serving as a Group Facilitator during the
	Monday Strategic Planning Session 10:30 - Noon
In-Reply-To: <CFCBB511-42F9-4512-8AD5-FE33F53EAC72@acm.org>
References: <CAPcHvQF2vGaSksX5JbynqdcgjvX_H0GKp-rabvxSzbBLRdJkHg@mail.gmail.com>
	<0DF968BD-AC9A-410D-B08C-D2D29343432D@ipjustice.org>
	<CFCBB511-42F9-4512-8AD5-FE33F53EAC72@acm.org>
Message-ID: <03C4B62D-8722-42E1-9229-F1CD476861C3@uzh.ch>

Hi Avri

I'd told Denise I'd do it but if you are into it I'm happy to back out.

Bill


On Jul 14, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I can do this if there are not other volunteers.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 13 Jul 2013, at 23:19, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> Any volunteers?
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: Denise Michel <denise.michel at icann.org>
>>> Subject: Re: Serving as a Group Facilitator during the Monday Strategic Planning Session 10:30 - Noon
>>> Date: July 11, 2013 1:16:06 PM PDT
>>> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>> Reply-To: denise.michel at icann.org
>>> 
>>> Thanks for the quick response. Please let me know if there's another NCSG leader in attendance you would recommend to serve in this capacity.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Denise
>>> 
>>> Denise Michel
>>> VP Strategic Initiatives
>>> & Advisor to the President
>>> ICANN
>>> denise.michel at icann.org
>>> +1.408.429.3072 mobile
>>> +1.310.578.8632 direct
>>> denisemichelicann skype
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>> Sorry but I won't be at the Durban ICANN meeting.  Thanks for the invite.  Perhaps next time.
>>> 
>>> Good luck,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> On Jul 11, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Denise Michel wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear Robin:
>>>> 
>>>> We would like to offer you a slot as a group facilitator for our community strategic planning brainstorming session on Monday morning in the main ballroom.  This session is structured to be a community-led and focused event, so we are asking community leaders to help encourage cross-community conversations in the break-out groups. 
>>>> 
>>>> As previously noted, this session will be focused on generating discussion and input from the community on a large scale. We'll be dividing a ballroom of people into breakout groups that will be facilitated by community leaders using a common framework of the key challenges facing ICANN in the next five years. Xplane and ICANN Staff will be on hand to assist, as needed, and no advance preparation is required of you. We will provide simple instructions to help encourage the group discussion.
>>>> 
>>>> Please confirm your availability to serve as a group facilitator by emailing Charla (cc'd) before Sunday and we will provide additional information via email. We are asking facilitators to meet Xplane staff and me in front of the stage in Hall 6 immediately following Fadi's remarks (10:00 am).  
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for your help and safe travels.
>>>> 
>>>> Denise
>>>> 
>>>> Denise Michel
>>>> VP Strategic Initiatives
>>>> & Advisor to the President
>>>> ICANN
>>>> denise.michel at icann.org
>>>> +1.408.429.3072 mobile
>>>> +1.310.578.8632 direct
>>>> denisemichelicann skype
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-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/20130714/3d023e3a/attachment.html>


From dave  Sun Jul 14 13:52:04 2013
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 12:52:04 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [EC-NCSG] Serving as a Group Facilitator during the
	Monday Strategic Planning Session 10:30 - Noon
In-Reply-To: <03C4B62D-8722-42E1-9229-F1CD476861C3@uzh.ch>
References: <CAPcHvQF2vGaSksX5JbynqdcgjvX_H0GKp-rabvxSzbBLRdJkHg@mail.gmail.com>
	<0DF968BD-AC9A-410D-B08C-D2D29343432D@ipjustice.org>
	<CFCBB511-42F9-4512-8AD5-FE33F53EAC72@acm.org>
	<03C4B62D-8722-42E1-9229-F1CD476861C3@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <DAB30677-6F44-4DE0-A609-C1C38B121DC8@difference.com.au>

I'd also be happy to do this. 

On 14/07/2013, at 12:50 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hi Avri
> 
> I'd told Denise I'd do it but if you are into it I'm happy to back out.
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> On Jul 14, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I can do this if there are not other volunteers.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 13 Jul 2013, at 23:19, Robin Gross wrote:
>> 
>>> Any volunteers?
>>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>>> From: Denise Michel <denise.michel at icann.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: Serving as a Group Facilitator during the Monday Strategic Planning Session 10:30 - Noon
>>>> Date: July 11, 2013 1:16:06 PM PDT
>>>> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>> Reply-To: denise.michel at icann.org
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for the quick response. Please let me know if there's another NCSG leader in attendance you would recommend to serve in this capacity.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Denise
>>>> 
>>>> Denise Michel
>>>> VP Strategic Initiatives
>>>> & Advisor to the President
>>>> ICANN
>>>> denise.michel at icann.org
>>>> +1.408.429.3072 mobile
>>>> +1.310.578.8632 direct
>>>> denisemichelicann skype
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>>> Sorry but I won't be at the Durban ICANN meeting.  Thanks for the invite.  Perhaps next time.
>>>> 
>>>> Good luck,
>>>> Robin
>>>> 
>>>> On Jul 11, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Denise Michel wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Dear Robin:
>>>>> 
>>>>> We would like to offer you a slot as a group facilitator for our community strategic planning brainstorming session on Monday morning in the main ballroom.  This session is structured to be a community-led and focused event, so we are asking community leaders to help encourage cross-community conversations in the break-out groups. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> As previously noted, this session will be focused on generating discussion and input from the community on a large scale. We'll be dividing a ballroom of people into breakout groups that will be facilitated by community leaders using a common framework of the key challenges facing ICANN in the next five years. Xplane and ICANN Staff will be on hand to assist, as needed, and no advance preparation is required of you. We will provide simple instructions to help encourage the group discussion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Please confirm your availability to serve as a group facilitator by emailing Charla (cc'd) before Sunday and we will provide additional information via email. We are asking facilitators to meet Xplane staff and me in front of the stage in Hall 6 immediately following Fadi's remarks (10:00 am).  
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for your help and safe travels.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Denise
>>>>> 
>>>>> Denise Michel
>>>>> VP Strategic Initiatives
>>>>> & Advisor to the President
>>>>> ICANN
>>>>> denise.michel at icann.org
>>>>> +1.408.429.3072 mobile
>>>>> +1.310.578.8632 direct
>>>>> denisemichelicann skype
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130714/34d685b9/attachment-0001.html>


From william.drake  Sun Jul 14 13:55:41 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 12:55:41 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [EC-NCSG] Serving as a Group Facilitator during the
	Monday Strategic Planning Session 10:30 - Noon
In-Reply-To: <DAB30677-6F44-4DE0-A609-C1C38B121DC8@difference.com.au>
References: <CAPcHvQF2vGaSksX5JbynqdcgjvX_H0GKp-rabvxSzbBLRdJkHg@mail.gmail.com>
	<0DF968BD-AC9A-410D-B08C-D2D29343432D@ipjustice.org>
	<CFCBB511-42F9-4512-8AD5-FE33F53EAC72@acm.org>
	<03C4B62D-8722-42E1-9229-F1CD476861C3@uzh.ch>
	<DAB30677-6F44-4DE0-A609-C1C38B121DC8@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <F241481F-7B41-44C7-BECB-A238C0D87648@uzh.ch>

We should clarify with Denise how many bodies she's looking for.  I assumed I was asked as NCUC and Robin was asked as NCSG, so presumably she's looking for at least two from our part of the universe.  Would be good to know if NPOC folks also received a similar request.

BD


On Jul 14, 2013, at 12:52 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

> I'd also be happy to do this. 
> 
> On 14/07/2013, at 12:50 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Avri
>> 
>> I'd told Denise I'd do it but if you are into it I'm happy to back out.
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 14, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I can do this if there are not other volunteers.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> On 13 Jul 2013, at 23:19, Robin Gross wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Any volunteers?
>>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>>> From: Denise Michel <denise.michel at icann.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: Serving as a Group Facilitator during the Monday Strategic Planning Session 10:30 - Noon
>>>>> Date: July 11, 2013 1:16:06 PM PDT
>>>>> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> Reply-To: denise.michel at icann.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for the quick response. Please let me know if there's another NCSG leader in attendance you would recommend to serve in this capacity.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Denise
>>>>> 
>>>>> Denise Michel
>>>>> VP Strategic Initiatives
>>>>> & Advisor to the President
>>>>> ICANN
>>>>> denise.michel at icann.org
>>>>> +1.408.429.3072 mobile
>>>>> +1.310.578.8632 direct
>>>>> denisemichelicann skype
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>>>> Sorry but I won't be at the Durban ICANN meeting.  Thanks for the invite.  Perhaps next time.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Good luck,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Jul 11, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Denise Michel wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear Robin:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> We would like to offer you a slot as a group facilitator for our community strategic planning brainstorming session on Monday morning in the main ballroom.  This session is structured to be a community-led and focused event, so we are asking community leaders to help encourage cross-community conversations in the break-out groups. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As previously noted, this session will be focused on generating discussion and input from the community on a large scale. We'll be dividing a ballroom of people into breakout groups that will be facilitated by community leaders using a common framework of the key challenges facing ICANN in the next five years. Xplane and ICANN Staff will be on hand to assist, as needed, and no advance preparation is required of you. We will provide simple instructions to help encourage the group discussion.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Please confirm your availability to serve as a group facilitator by emailing Charla (cc'd) before Sunday and we will provide additional information via email. We are asking facilitators to meet Xplane staff and me in front of the stage in Hall 6 immediately following Fadi's remarks (10:00 am).  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks for your help and safe travels.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Denise
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Denise Michel
>>>>>> VP Strategic Initiatives
>>>>>> & Advisor to the President
>>>>>> ICANN
>>>>>> denise.michel at icann.org
>>>>>> +1.408.429.3072 mobile
>>>>>> +1.310.578.8632 direct
>>>>>> denisemichelicann skype
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130714/7b113d53/attachment.html>


From mllemineur  Sun Jul 14 14:21:00 2013
From: mllemineur (Marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2013 13:21:00 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [EC-NCSG] Serving as a Group Facilitator during the
	Monday Strategic Planning Session 10:30 - Noon
In-Reply-To: <F241481F-7B41-44C7-BECB-A238C0D87648@uzh.ch>
References: <CAPcHvQF2vGaSksX5JbynqdcgjvX_H0GKp-rabvxSzbBLRdJkHg@mail.gmail.com>
	<0DF968BD-AC9A-410D-B08C-D2D29343432D@ipjustice.org>
	<CFCBB511-42F9-4512-8AD5-FE33F53EAC72@acm.org>
	<03C4B62D-8722-42E1-9229-F1CD476861C3@uzh.ch>
	<DAB30677-6F44-4DE0-A609-C1C38B121DC8@difference.com.au>
	<F241481F-7B41-44C7-BECB-A238C0D87648@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <B6A76E9D-D998-4D0F-840A-AD4B8A231B17@gmail.com>

Hi 

I received robin' s email forwarding denise email about an ncsg moderator...guessing denise is looking for either part of the universe..after all it is one moderator..personlly i wish to concentrate on the sustance. 
Mll

Sent from my iPad

On 14/07/2013, at 12:55, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> We should clarify with Denise how many bodies she's looking for.  I assumed I was asked as NCUC and Robin was asked as NCSG, so presumably she's looking for at least two from our part of the universe.  Would be good to know if NPOC folks also received a similar request.
> 
> BD
> 
> 
> On Jul 14, 2013, at 12:52 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> 
>> I'd also be happy to do this. 
>> 
>> On 14/07/2013, at 12:50 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Avri
>>> 
>>> I'd told Denise I'd do it but if you are into it I'm happy to back out.
>>> 
>>> Bill
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jul 14, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I can do this if there are not other volunteers.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> On 13 Jul 2013, at 23:19, Robin Gross wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Any volunteers?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: Denise Michel <denise.michel at icann.org>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Serving as a Group Facilitator during the Monday Strategic Planning Session 10:30 - Noon
>>>>>> Date: July 11, 2013 1:16:06 PM PDT
>>>>>> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> Reply-To: denise.michel at icann.org
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks for the quick response. Please let me know if there's another NCSG leader in attendance you would recommend to serve in this capacity.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Denise
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Denise Michel
>>>>>> VP Strategic Initiatives
>>>>>> & Advisor to the President
>>>>>> ICANN
>>>>>> denise.michel at icann.org
>>>>>> +1.408.429.3072 mobile
>>>>>> +1.310.578.8632 direct
>>>>>> denisemichelicann skype
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Sorry but I won't be at the Durban ICANN meeting.  Thanks for the invite.  Perhaps next time.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Good luck,
>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Denise Michel wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dear Robin:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We would like to offer you a slot as a group facilitator for our community strategic planning brainstorming session on Monday morning in the main ballroom.  This session is structured to be a community-led and focused event, so we are asking community leaders to help encourage cross-community conversations in the break-out groups. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As previously noted, this session will be focused on generating discussion and input from the community on a large scale. We'll be dividing a ballroom of people into breakout groups that will be facilitated by community leaders using a common framework of the key challenges facing ICANN in the next five years. Xplane and ICANN Staff will be on hand to assist, as needed, and no advance preparation is required of you. We will provide simple instructions to help encourage the group discussion.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please confirm your availability to serve as a group facilitator by emailing Charla (cc'd) before Sunday and we will provide additional information via email. We are asking facilitators to meet Xplane staff and me in front of the stage in Hall 6 immediately following Fadi's remarks (10:00 am).  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks for your help and safe travels.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Denise
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Denise Michel
>>>>>>> VP Strategic Initiatives
>>>>>>> & Advisor to the President
>>>>>>> ICANN
>>>>>>> denise.michel at icann.org
>>>>>>> +1.408.429.3072 mobile
>>>>>>> +1.310.578.8632 direct
>>>>>>> denisemichelicann skype
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130714/c1358b0d/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Mon Jul 15 07:23:34 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 06:23:34 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Draft Statement
References: <595A876BF19C5C458A53C0D386E5414F1C3D706A@ex10-mbx-31006.ant.amazon.com>
Message-ID: <26CD20E5-CABA-47BE-8D02-15D81339BCEB@acm.org>

FYI.

Are we interested in supporting this?

I wasn't at the meeting and don't know if anyone was from NCSG.

avri

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "King(Legal), Stacey" <stacek at amazon.com>
> Subject: Draft Statement
> Date: 14 July 2013 22:52:00 GMT+02:00
> To: "kiranm at markmonitor.com" <kiranm at markmonitor.com>, "harris at cabase.org.ar" <harris at cabase.org.ar>, "Neuman, Jeff (Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us)" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>, "Burr, Becky (Becky.Burr at neustar.biz)" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>, "Laura Covington (lhc at yahoo-inc.com)" <lhc at yahoo-inc.com>, "Nick Wood, Valideus (nick.wood at valideus.com) (nick.wood at valideus.com)" <nick.wood at valideus.com>, "Frederick Felman (Frederick.Felman at markmonitor.com)" <Frederick.Felman at markmonitor.com>, "Winterfeldt, Brian J. (brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com)" <brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com>, "avri at dotgay.com" <avri at dotgay.com>
> 
> All,
>  
> Attached please find the statement we discussed tonight with the couple of modifications recommended.  For those of you who could not make it, we are happy to catch up tomorrow to discuss in more detail.  It is in no way the final draft, but is intended as an initial draft to refine across all constituencies.
>  
> In sum, this would be a joint statement by all the GNSO, with individual statements that each constituency can/will prepare as they see fit to address other issues.  We discussed whether things like sensitive strings/category 1 should be included, but I think as we get into other issues it becomes too difficult to find unanimity.  The geo issue appears to be the one issue everyone agrees is problematic and an overreach, and indicative of what could happen to any applicant.
>  
> Please take a look and circulate your comments after review with your constituencies.
>  
> Thank you!
>  
> Stacey King
> Nick Wood

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130715/c100cb54/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: statement.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 17062 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130715/c100cb54/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130715/c100cb54/attachment-0003.html>


From william.drake  Mon Jul 15 08:16:53 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 07:16:53 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft Statement
In-Reply-To: <26CD20E5-CABA-47BE-8D02-15D81339BCEB@acm.org>
References: <595A876BF19C5C458A53C0D386E5414F1C3D706A@ex10-mbx-31006.ant.amazon.com>
	<26CD20E5-CABA-47BE-8D02-15D81339BCEB@acm.org>
Message-ID: <F7163DFF-5C10-419A-AE1B-FC819BAC6B20@uzh.ch>

Hi

My guess from previous discussions on ncsg-discuss would be that we don't have consensus on .amazon etc., procedural problems notwithstanding.  Does anyone believe otherwise?

Thanks

Bill 


On Jul 15, 2013, at 6:23 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> FYI.
> 
> Are we interested in supporting this?
> 
> I wasn't at the meeting and don't know if anyone was from NCSG.
> 
> avri
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: "King(Legal), Stacey" <stacek at amazon.com>
>> Subject: Draft Statement
>> Date: 14 July 2013 22:52:00 GMT+02:00
>> To: "kiranm at markmonitor.com" <kiranm at markmonitor.com>, "harris at cabase.org.ar" <harris at cabase.org.ar>, "Neuman, Jeff (Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us)" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>, "Burr, Becky (Becky.Burr at neustar.biz)" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>, "Laura Covington (lhc at yahoo-inc.com)" <lhc at yahoo-inc.com>, "Nick Wood, Valideus (nick.wood at valideus.com) (nick.wood at valideus.com)" <nick.wood at valideus.com>, "Frederick Felman (Frederick.Felman at markmonitor.com)" <Frederick.Felman at markmonitor.com>, "Winterfeldt, Brian J. (brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com)" <brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com>, "avri at dotgay.com" <avri at dotgay.com>
>> 
>> All,
>>  
>> Attached please find the statement we discussed tonight with the couple of modifications recommended.  For those of you who could not make it, we are happy to catch up tomorrow to discuss in more detail.  It is in no way the final draft, but is intended as an initial draft to refine across all constituencies.
>>  
>> In sum, this would be a joint statement by all the GNSO, with individual statements that each constituency can/will prepare as they see fit to address other issues.  We discussed whether things like sensitive strings/category 1 should be included, but I think as we get into other issues it becomes too difficult to find unanimity.  The geo issue appears to be the one issue everyone agrees is problematic and an overreach, and indicative of what could happen to any applicant.
>>  
>> Please take a look and circulate your comments after review with your constituencies.
>>  
>> Thank you!
>>  
>> Stacey King
>> Nick Wood
> <statement.docx>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130715/61a7b360/attachment.html>


From avri  Mon Jul 15 09:02:28 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 06:02:28 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft Statement
In-Reply-To: <F7163DFF-5C10-419A-AE1B-FC819BAC6B20@uzh.ch>
References: <595A876BF19C5C458A53C0D386E5414F1C3D706A@ex10-mbx-31006.ant.amazon.com>
	<26CD20E5-CABA-47BE-8D02-15D81339BCEB@acm.org>
	<F7163DFF-5C10-419A-AE1B-FC819BAC6B20@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <cf25b85d-1208-4849-a366-f2f3903318aa@email.android.com>

Yet this does not mention .Amazon or the specific issue we are divided on.

It only talks about overreach on the geographical issue.

Avri

William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>Hi
>
>My guess from previous discussions on ncsg-discuss would be that we
>don't have consensus on .amazon etc., procedural problems
>notwithstanding.  Does anyone believe otherwise?
>
>Thanks
>
>Bill 
>
>
>On Jul 15, 2013, at 6:23 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>
>> FYI.
>> 
>> Are we interested in supporting this?
>> 
>> I wasn't at the meeting and don't know if anyone was from NCSG.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: "King(Legal), Stacey" <stacek at amazon.com>
>>> Subject: Draft Statement
>>> Date: 14 July 2013 22:52:00 GMT+02:00
>>> To: "kiranm at markmonitor.com" <kiranm at markmonitor.com>,
>"harris at cabase.org.ar" <harris at cabase.org.ar>, "Neuman, Jeff
>(Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us)" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>, "Burr, Becky
>(Becky.Burr at neustar.biz)" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>, "Laura Covington
>(lhc at yahoo-inc.com)" <lhc at yahoo-inc.com>, "Nick Wood, Valideus
>(nick.wood at valideus.com) (nick.wood at valideus.com)"
><nick.wood at valideus.com>, "Frederick Felman
>(Frederick.Felman at markmonitor.com)" <Frederick.Felman at markmonitor.com>,
>"Winterfeldt, Brian J. (brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com)"
><brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com>, "avri at dotgay.com" <avri at dotgay.com>
>>> 
>>> All,
>>>  
>>> Attached please find the statement we discussed tonight with the
>couple of modifications recommended.  For those of you who could not
>make it, we are happy to catch up tomorrow to discuss in more detail. 
>It is in no way the final draft, but is intended as an initial draft to
>refine across all constituencies.
>>>  
>>> In sum, this would be a joint statement by all the GNSO, with
>individual statements that each constituency can/will prepare as they
>see fit to address other issues.  We discussed whether things like
>sensitive strings/category 1 should be included, but I think as we get
>into other issues it becomes too difficult to find unanimity.  The geo
>issue appears to be the one issue everyone agrees is problematic and an
>overreach, and indicative of what could happen to any applicant.
>>>  
>>> Please take a look and circulate your comments after review with
>your constituencies.
>>>  
>>> Thank you!
>>>  
>>> Stacey King
>>> Nick Wood
>> <statement.docx>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130715/280cc96d/attachment-0001.html>


From joy  Mon Jul 15 09:45:22 2013
From: joy (joy)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 18:45:22 +1200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft Statement
In-Reply-To: <cf25b85d-1208-4849-a366-f2f3903318aa@email.android.com>
References: <595A876BF19C5C458A53C0D386E5414F1C3D706A@ex10-mbx-31006.ant.amazon.com>
	<26CD20E5-CABA-47BE-8D02-15D81339BCEB@acm.org>
	<F7163DFF-5C10-419A-AE1B-FC819BAC6B20@uzh.ch>
	<cf25b85d-1208-4849-a366-f2f3903318aa@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <51E39A82.70400@apc.org>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
you're right Bill - i don't believe there is consensus
Joy
On 15/07/2013 6:02 p.m., Avri Doria wrote:
> Yet this does not mention .Amazon or the specific issue we are divided on.
>
> It only talks about overreach on the geographical issue.
>
> Avri
>
> William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>
>     Hi
>
>     My guess from previous discussions on ncsg-discuss would be th! at
we don't have consensus on .amazon etc., procedural problems
notwithstanding.  Does anyone believe otherwise?
>
>     Thanks
>
>     Bill
>
>
>     On Jul 15, 2013, at 6:23 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG
<mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>> wrote:
>
>>     FYI.
>>
>>     Are we interested in supporting this?
>>
>>     I wasn't at the meeting and don't know if anyone was from NCSG.
>>
>>     avri
>>
>>     Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>>     *From: *"King(Legal), Stacey" <stacek at amazon.com
<mailto:stacek at amazon.com>>
>>>     *Subject: **Draft Statement*
>>>     *Date: *14 July 2013 22:52:00 GMT+02:00
>>>     *To: *"kiranm at markmonitor.com <mailto:kiranm at markmonitor.com>"
<kiranm at markmonitor.com <mailto:kiranm at markmonitor.com>>,
"harris at cabase.org.ar <mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar>"
<harris at cabase.org.ar <mailto:harris at cabase.org.ar>>, "Neuman, Jeff
(Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us <mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>)"
<Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us <mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>>, "Burr, Becky
(Becky.Burr at neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>)"
<Becky.Burr at neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>, "Laura
Covington (lhc at yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc at yahoo-inc.com>)"
<lhc at yahoo-inc.com <mailto:lhc at yahoo-inc.com>>, "Nick Wood, Valideus
(nick.wood at valideus.com <mailto:nick.wood at valideus.com>)
(nick.wood at valideus.com <mailto:nick.wood at valideus.com>)"
<nick.wood at valideus.com <mailto:nick.wood at valideus.com>>, "Frederick
Felman (Frederick.Felman at markmonitor.com
<mailto:Frederick.Felman at markmonitor.com>)"
<Frederick.Felman at markmonitor.com
<mailto:Frederick.Felman at markmonitor.com>>, "Winterfeldt, Brian J.
(brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com)" <
<mailto:brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com>brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com
<mailto:brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com>>, "avri at dotgay.com
<mailto:avri at dotgay.com>" <avri at dotgay.com <mailto:avri at dotgay.com>>
>>>
>>>     All,
>>>
>>>     
>>>
>>>     Attached please find the statement we discussed tonight with the
couple of modifications recommended.  For those of you who could not
make it, we are happy to catch up tomorrow to discuss in more detail. 
It is in no way the final draft, but is intended as an initial draft to
refine across all constituencies.
>>>
>>>     
>>>
>>>     In sum, this would be a joint statement by all the GNSO, with
individual statements that each constituency can/will prepare as they
see fit to address other issues.  We discussed whether things like
sensitive strings/category 1 should be included, but I think as we get
into other issues it becomes too difficult to find unanimity.  The geo
issue appears to be the one issue everyone agrees is problematic and an
overreach, and indicative of what could happen to any applicant.
>>>
>>>     
>>>
>>>     Please take a look and circulate your comments after review with
your constituencies.
>>>
>>>     
>>>
>>>     Thank you!
>>>
>>>     
>>>
>>>     Stacey King
>>>     Nick Wood
>>     <statement.docx>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>     -------------------------
>
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> Avri Doria
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR45qCAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqjo8H+wQd23mOFmIjObkKfLbP+qSG
lW4Vm9eq3U2JYEvgSsqYp7dDnA55D67POEKYHyC2RtnGjQwVPgNr7FDTGhHMYYyW
SMh4wFb5yKk2+nFDYEojIHExoyjVa9dzjO0iwf/TRKZ4LbZ2oo1qROfBVEegtmw8
5pHAnIME/3Qx3N9IJjOZI+/iNglXvhX+6+6VFJyJ4TOeH+O3pyQG2x5WmrSGDQft
P6HSyBU7ULPi6imi/mf2x1+bP5fvu5vSDaAdO2TzzrCHUGNIdn+sd6vRiw+nQ26K
TdbggCQScrKDmOjplalUAwygH8eBa9hC1yk/DGnfKL1BlUB9I7Kmev7J1600yUc=
=rQFX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130715/04c424cd/attachment.html>


From magaly.pazello  Mon Jul 15 10:51:28 2013
From: magaly.pazello (Magaly Pazello)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 09:51:28 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft Statement
In-Reply-To: <cf25b85d-1208-4849-a366-f2f3903318aa@email.android.com>
References: <595A876BF19C5C458A53C0D386E5414F1C3D706A@ex10-mbx-31006.ant.amazon.com>
	<26CD20E5-CABA-47BE-8D02-15D81339BCEB@acm.org>
	<F7163DFF-5C10-419A-AE1B-FC819BAC6B20@uzh.ch>
	<cf25b85d-1208-4849-a366-f2f3903318aa@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <CA+dOKfBO6-kVZaj2nhN=FyF70iOeVJ6LQ9wcYn0VWELOVzL0eA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi!

Yes I agree with Avri in relation to the statement doesn?t mexplicitly
make mention to .amazon, however i have a concern about the language
used as it is aligned with US declaration on the same geographical
names matter released some days ago.On the other hand, and not take
into consideration ICANN bylaws plus the nGTLDs guide, just talking

Magaly

On 7/15/13, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> Yet this does not mention .Amazon or the specific issue we are divided on.
>
> It only talks about overreach on the geographical issue.
>
> Avri
>
> William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
>>Hi
>>
>>My guess from previous discussions on ncsg-discuss would be that we
>>don't have consensus on .amazon etc., procedural problems
>>notwithstanding.  Does anyone believe otherwise?
>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>
>>On Jul 15, 2013, at 6:23 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>
>>> FYI.
>>>
>>> Are we interested in supporting this?
>>>
>>> I wasn't at the meeting and don't know if anyone was from NCSG.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> From: "King(Legal), Stacey" <stacek at amazon.com>
>>>> Subject: Draft Statement
>>>> Date: 14 July 2013 22:52:00 GMT+02:00
>>>> To: "kiranm at markmonitor.com" <kiranm at markmonitor.com>,
>>"harris at cabase.org.ar" <harris at cabase.org.ar>, "Neuman, Jeff
>>(Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us)" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>, "Burr, Becky
>>(Becky.Burr at neustar.biz)" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>, "Laura Covington
>>(lhc at yahoo-inc.com)" <lhc at yahoo-inc.com>, "Nick Wood, Valideus
>>(nick.wood at valideus.com) (nick.wood at valideus.com)"
>><nick.wood at valideus.com>, "Frederick Felman
>>(Frederick.Felman at markmonitor.com)" <Frederick.Felman at markmonitor.com>,
>>"Winterfeldt, Brian J. (brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com)"
>><brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com>, "avri at dotgay.com" <avri at dotgay.com>
>>>>
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> Attached please find the statement we discussed tonight with the
>>couple of modifications recommended.  For those of you who could not
>>make it, we are happy to catch up tomorrow to discuss in more detail.
>>It is in no way the final draft, but is intended as an initial draft to
>>refine across all constituencies.
>>>>
>>>> In sum, this would be a joint statement by all the GNSO, with
>>individual statements that each constituency can/will prepare as they
>>see fit to address other issues.  We discussed whether things like
>>sensitive strings/category 1 should be included, but I think as we get
>>into other issues it becomes too difficult to find unanimity.  The geo
>>issue appears to be the one issue everyone agrees is problematic and an
>>overreach, and indicative of what could happen to any applicant.
>>>>
>>>> Please take a look and circulate your comments after review with
>>your constituencies.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you!
>>>>
>>>> Stacey King
>>>> Nick Wood
>>> <statement.docx>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> Avri Doria



From william.drake  Mon Jul 15 15:27:47 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 14:27:47 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft Statement
In-Reply-To: <cf25b85d-1208-4849-a366-f2f3903318aa@email.android.com>
References: <595A876BF19C5C458A53C0D386E5414F1C3D706A@ex10-mbx-31006.ant.amazon.com>
	<26CD20E5-CABA-47BE-8D02-15D81339BCEB@acm.org>
	<F7163DFF-5C10-419A-AE1B-FC819BAC6B20@uzh.ch>
	<cf25b85d-1208-4849-a366-f2f3903318aa@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <A8F1C849-9F6E-46A0-A8BF-A7C0421891D7@uzh.ch>

I guess I believe NC is divided on whether there is overreach on the geographical issue.  Which, inter alia, includes on .amazon, which may be why Amazon is a principal behind the statement.

In any event, as there was a 64-message thread on ncsg-discuss in March that to me indicates divided views on this whole terrain, I'd be cautious about a few of us deciding anything without a broader vetting.

Cheers

BD

On Jul 15, 2013, at 8:02 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> Yet this does not mention .Amazon or the specific issue we are divided on.
> 
> It only talks about overreach on the geographical issue.
> 
> Avri
> 
> William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> Hi
> 
> My guess from previous discussions on ncsg-discuss would be th! at we don't have consensus on .amazon etc., procedural problems notwithstanding.  Does anyone believe otherwise?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Bill 
> 
> 
> On Jul 15, 2013, at 6:23 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
>> FYI.
>> 
>> Are we interested in supporting this?
>> 
>> I wasn't at the meeting and don't know if anyone was from NCSG.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: "King(Legal), Stacey" <stacek at amazon.com>
>>> Subject: Draft Statement
>>> Date: 14 July 2013 22:52:00 GMT+02:00
>>> To: "kiranm at markmonitor.com" <kiranm at markmonitor.com>, "harris at cabase.org.ar" <harris at cabase.org.ar>, "Neuman, Jeff (Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us)" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>, "Burr, Becky (Becky.Burr at neustar.biz)" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>, "Laura Covington (lhc at yahoo-inc.com)" <lhc at yahoo-inc.com>, "Nick Wood, Valideus (nick.wood at valideus.com) (nick.wood at valideus.com)" <nick.wood at valideus.com>, "Frederick Felman (Frederick.Felman at markmonitor.com)" <Frederick.Felman at markmonitor.com>, "Winterfeldt, Brian J. (brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com)" <brian.winterfeldt at kattenlaw.com>, "avri at dotgay.com" <avri at dotgay.com>
>>> 
>>> All,
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Attached please find the statement we discussed tonight with the couple of modifications recommended.  For those of you who could not make it, we are happy to catch up tomorrow to discuss in more detail.  It is in no way the final draft, but is intended as an initial draft to refine across all constituencies.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> In sum, this would be a joint statement by all the GNSO, with individual statements that each constituency can/will prepare as they see fit to address other issues.  We discussed whether things like sensitive strings/category 1 should be included, but I think as we get into other issues it becomes too difficult to find unanimity.  The geo issue appears to be the one issue everyone agrees is problematic and an overreach, and indicative of what could happen to any applicant.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Please take a look and circulate your comments after review with your constituencies.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Thank you!
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Stacey King
>>> 
>>> Nick Wood
>>> 
>> <statement.docx>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> Avri Doria

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130715/9a5167f1/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Mon Jul 15 22:46:08 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 12:46:08 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Request to ICANN Board of Directors to Provide NPOC
	with Representation on Nominating Committee
Message-ID: <C39CE0B1-6BBC-477B-A3A6-277711EF9451@ipjustice.org>

Dear EC & PC members:

As the below text was circulated for approval on 4 July to the EC and PC lists and not having heard any objections to it and only endorsements for it, I will send the below letter to the ICANN Board of Directors requesting that NPOC be provided a seat on the Nominating Committee today.  Thanks for your input.  I'll let you know if you receive any response from the board on the request.

Thank you,
Robin
________________________


Dear ICANN Board of Directors,

It has come to the NCSG's attention that NPOC, one of our Stakeholder Group constituencies, still has not been given a seat on ICANN's Nominating Committee.  While we understand that a corporation bylaws change is required for this, we would have expected the Board to have taken care of this within a year of having created a mechanism for the creation of new constituencies and having approved the creation of NPOC.  It has been much longer and we understand that NPOC has tried to get this taken care of.

We also understand that there is no time for the Board to do so in time for this year's Nominating Committee, please get this done before next year's Nominating Committee.

We are currently faced with a NomCom where NPOC is not represented.  We understand that the Board has the ability to appoint an academic representative to the NomCom.  We urgently request that the Board immediately appoint that academic representative from the NPOC.

This urgent request has been endorsed by the NCSG Executive and Policy Committees

Signed,
Robin Gross
NCSG Chair



From robin  Tue Jul 16 02:25:58 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:25:58 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior to
	Filing for an Independent Review
Message-ID: <85FA19DC-62A0-46D4-94CA-4B17517415D2@ipjustice.org>

The Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group (NCSG), per Article IV Section 3 (14) of the Bylaws of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), respectfully invokes the Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP) in an effort to resolve certain issues at dispute with ICANN prior to filing a request for an independent review.

The following information is presented in full compliance with rules governing initiation of a CEP request, as amended on 11 April 2013:

1. The single point of contact for the NCSG in this matter shall be:

Ms. Robin Gross

Chair, Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG)

1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, California  94117  USA

Telephone number:  +1-415-553-6261

E-Mail: robin at ipjustice.org

 
2.  The Board action subject to the CEP:

Resolution 2013.07.02.NG01 of the New gTLD Program Committee, dated 2 July 2013, adopting the revised recommendation of the Board Governance Committee relating to Reconsideration Request 13-3.

 
3. We allege violation of the following provisions of ICANN?s Bylaws, with respect to the previously stated Board action:

ICANN Bylaws, Article 1 (2) (7)

ICANN Bylaws, Article I (2) (8)

ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, section 9

ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, section 10


We look forward to working with ICANN?s designated representative on this matter in a good faith effort to resolve the issues in contention and obviate the need for an independent review.

Submitted the 15th of July 2013,

Robin Gross
NCSG Chair

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130715/c31b8d00/attachment.html>


From robin  Tue Jul 16 02:40:07 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:40:07 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior
	to Filing for an Independent Review
References: <85FA19DC-62A0-46D4-94CA-4B17517415D2@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <4E38D8DF-E565-4E72-8453-9D1B26220B1E@ipjustice.org>

Dear Bruce,

NCSG sent the below email (to independentreview at icann.org) to trigger the CEP as directed in the 11 April 2013 instructions on ICANN's website but we got a "bounce back" message to say it was a bad email address.

So now I'm not sure how to file this CEP request.  Any assistance you can provide in getting this filed would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,
Robin

>From 11 April 2013 instructions on ICANN website:
The Cooperative Engagement Process is as follows:

In the event the requesting party elects to proceed to cooperative engagement prior to filing a request for independent review, the requesting party may invoke the cooperative engagement process by providing written notice to ICANN at [independentreview at icann.org], noting the invocation of the process, identifying the Board action(s) at issue, identifying the provisions of the ICANN Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation that are alleged to be violated, and designating a single point of contact for the resolution of the issue. ...


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior to Filing for an Independent Review
> Date: July 15, 2013 4:25:58 PM PDT
> To: independentreview at icann.org
> Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> 
> The Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group (NCSG), per Article IV Section 3 (14) of the Bylaws of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), respectfully invokes the Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP) in an effort to resolve certain issues at dispute with ICANN prior to filing a request for an independent review.
> 
> The following information is presented in full compliance with rules governing initiation of a CEP request, as amended on 11 April 2013:
> 
> 1. The single point of contact for the NCSG in this matter shall be:
> 
> Ms. Robin Gross
> 
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG)
> 
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, California  94117  USA
> 
> Telephone number:  +1-415-553-6261
> 
> E-Mail: robin at ipjustice.org
> 
>  
> 2.  The Board action subject to the CEP:
> 
> Resolution 2013.07.02.NG01 of the New gTLD Program Committee, dated 2 July 2013, adopting the revised recommendation of the Board Governance Committee relating to Reconsideration Request 13-3.
> 
>  
> 3. We allege violation of the following provisions of ICANN?s Bylaws, with respect to the previously stated Board action:
> 
> ICANN Bylaws, Article 1 (2) (7)
> 
> ICANN Bylaws, Article I (2) (8)
> 
> ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, section 9
> 
> ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, section 10
> 
> 
> We look forward to working with ICANN?s designated representative on this matter in a good faith effort to resolve the issues in contention and obviate the need for an independent review.
> 
> Submitted the 15th of July 2013,
> 
> Robin Gross
> NCSG Chair
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130715/8f150397/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Tue Jul 16 08:03:31 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 07:03:31 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Request to ICANN Board of Directors to Provide
	NPOC with Representation on Nominating Committee
In-Reply-To: <C39CE0B1-6BBC-477B-A3A6-277711EF9451@ipjustice.org>
References: <C39CE0B1-6BBC-477B-A3A6-277711EF9451@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <231B15FA-547F-485F-9507-19D7A812F346@uzh.ch>

So I guess we should ask to add this topic, as well as the CEP letter, to today's NCSG/Board agenda?  Particularly given concerns expressed in the SG PC meeting that some of the other topics we have are the kinds of things that may not prompt particularly useful conversations with them as they're not bounded short-term operational matters etc?

Bill

On Jul 15, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Dear EC & PC members:
> 
> As the below text was circulated for approval on 4 July to the EC and PC lists and not having heard any objections to it and only endorsements for it, I will send the below letter to the ICANN Board of Directors requesting that NPOC be provided a seat on the Nominating Committee today.  Thanks for your input.  I'll let you know if you receive any response from the board on the request.
> 
> Thank you,
> Robin
> ________________________
> 
> 
> Dear ICANN Board of Directors,
> 
> It has come to the NCSG's attention that NPOC, one of our Stakeholder Group constituencies, still has not been given a seat on ICANN's Nominating Committee.  While we understand that a corporation bylaws change is required for this, we would have expected the Board to have taken care of this within a year of having created a mechanism for the creation of new constituencies and having approved the creation of NPOC.  It has been much longer and we understand that NPOC has tried to get this taken care of.
> 
> We also understand that there is no time for the Board to do so in time for this year's Nominating Committee, please get this done before next year's Nominating Committee.
> 
> We are currently faced with a NomCom where NPOC is not represented.  We understand that the Board has the ability to appoint an academic representative to the NomCom.  We urgently request that the Board immediately appoint that academic representative from the NPOC.
> 
> This urgent request has been endorsed by the NCSG Executive and Policy Committees
> 
> Signed,
> Robin Gross
> NCSG Chair
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130716/8d0ff24d/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Tue Jul 16 09:54:10 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 08:54:10 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Request to ICANN Board of Directors to Provide
	NPOC with Representation on Nominating Committee
In-Reply-To: <231B15FA-547F-485F-9507-19D7A812F346@uzh.ch>
References: <C39CE0B1-6BBC-477B-A3A6-277711EF9451@ipjustice.org>
	<231B15FA-547F-485F-9507-19D7A812F346@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <B2D10C5E-4B28-4ECE-B7D0-CA3F1E25E13F@acm.org>

Hi,

I think it on the schedule already.

Handling of NCSG Request for Reconsideration of ICANN's adoption of "TM+50" policy for Trademark Clearinghouse despite contrary policy guidance from GNSO Council. (CEP)

BTW, the update NCSG agenda can be found at: 
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/NCSG+Durban+Meeting+2013-07-16


cheers,

avri

On 16 Jul 2013, at 07:03, William Drake wrote:

> So I guess we should ask to add this topic, as well as the CEP letter, to today's NCSG/Board agenda?  Particularly given concerns expressed in the SG PC meeting that some of the other topics we have are the kinds of things that may not prompt particularly useful conversations with them as they're not bounded short-term operational matters etc?
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Jul 15, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> 
>> Dear EC & PC members:
>> 
>> As the below text was circulated for approval on 4 July to the EC and PC lists and not having heard any objections to it and only endorsements for it, I will send the below letter to the ICANN Board of Directors requesting that NPOC be provided a seat on the Nominating Committee today.  Thanks for your input.  I'll let you know if you receive any response from the board on the request.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Robin
>> ________________________
>> 
>> 
>> Dear ICANN Board of Directors,
>> 
>> It has come to the NCSG's attention that NPOC, one of our Stakeholder Group constituencies, still has not been given a seat on ICANN's Nominating Committee.  While we understand that a corporation bylaws change is required for this, we would have expected the Board to have taken care of this within a year of having created a mechanism for the creation of new constituencies and having approved the creation of NPOC.  It has been much longer and we understand that NPOC has tried to get this taken care of.
>> 
>> We also understand that there is no time for the Board to do so in time for this year's Nominating Committee, please get this done before next year's Nominating Committee.
>> 
>> We are currently faced with a NomCom where NPOC is not represented.  We understand that the Board has the ability to appoint an academic representative to the NomCom.  We urgently request that the Board immediately appoint that academic representative from the NPOC.
>> 
>> This urgent request has been endorsed by the NCSG Executive and Policy Committees
>> 
>> Signed,
>> Robin Gross
>> NCSG Chair
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Tue Jul 16 11:24:04 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 10:24:04 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Request to ICANN Board of Directors to Provide
	NPOC with Representation on Nominating Committee
In-Reply-To: <B2D10C5E-4B28-4ECE-B7D0-CA3F1E25E13F@acm.org>
References: <C39CE0B1-6BBC-477B-A3A6-277711EF9451@ipjustice.org>
	<231B15FA-547F-485F-9507-19D7A812F346@uzh.ch>
	<B2D10C5E-4B28-4ECE-B7D0-CA3F1E25E13F@acm.org>
Message-ID: <FD613637-5163-4BC2-A3C5-8875CAEABD6A@ella.com>

Oops, 

responded too quickly.  I think that issue should/could come in as part of the NPOC report - what do they want us to do to support them in their cause?

avri

On 16 Jul 2013, at 08:54, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I think it on the schedule already.
> 
> Handling of NCSG Request for Reconsideration of ICANN's adoption of "TM+50" policy for Trademark Clearinghouse despite contrary policy guidance from GNSO Council. (CEP)
> 
> BTW, the update NCSG agenda can be found at: 
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/NCSG+Durban+Meeting+2013-07-16
> 
> 
> cheers,
> 
> avri
> 
> On 16 Jul 2013, at 07:03, William Drake wrote:
> 
>> So I guess we should ask to add this topic, as well as the CEP letter, to today's NCSG/Board agenda?  Particularly given concerns expressed in the SG PC meeting that some of the other topics we have are the kinds of things that may not prompt particularly useful conversations with them as they're not bounded short-term operational matters etc?
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> On Jul 15, 2013, at 9:46 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear EC & PC members:
>>> 
>>> As the below text was circulated for approval on 4 July to the EC and PC lists and not having heard any objections to it and only endorsements for it, I will send the below letter to the ICANN Board of Directors requesting that NPOC be provided a seat on the Nominating Committee today.  Thanks for your input.  I'll let you know if you receive any response from the board on the request.
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> Robin
>>> ________________________
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear ICANN Board of Directors,
>>> 
>>> It has come to the NCSG's attention that NPOC, one of our Stakeholder Group constituencies, still has not been given a seat on ICANN's Nominating Committee.  While we understand that a corporation bylaws change is required for this, we would have expected the Board to have taken care of this within a year of having created a mechanism for the creation of new constituencies and having approved the creation of NPOC.  It has been much longer and we understand that NPOC has tried to get this taken care of.
>>> 
>>> We also understand that there is no time for the Board to do so in time for this year's Nominating Committee, please get this done before next year's Nominating Committee.
>>> 
>>> We are currently faced with a NomCom where NPOC is not represented.  We understand that the Board has the ability to appoint an academic representative to the NomCom.  We urgently request that the Board immediately appoint that academic representative from the NPOC.
>>> 
>>> This urgent request has been endorsed by the NCSG Executive and Policy Committees
>>> 
>>> Signed,
>>> Robin Gross
>>> NCSG Chair
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From robin  Tue Jul 16 14:27:45 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 04:27:45 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior
	to Filing for an Independent Review
References: <82F9D425-40F0-40C6-8C16-39FD38D53DBE@icann.org>
Message-ID: <09ACC8C2-960E-4035-BB03-7CC9D09B04B4@ipjustice.org>




Begin forwarded message:

> From: Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org>
> Date: July 15, 2013 10:43:00 PM PDT
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Cc: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> Subject: Re: NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior to Filing for an Independent Review
> 

> Hi Robin - This is to acknowledge receipt of your email below to independentreview at icann.org that Bruce forwarded to me.
> 
> We will be back to you in accordance with the process.  Thank you.
> 
> Amy A. Stathos
> Deputy General Counsel
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> +1-310-301-3866 (direct)
> amy.stathos at icann.org
> 
> 
>> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2013 1:40 AM
>> To: Bruce Tonkin
>> Cc: ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org; NCSG-Policy Policy
>> Subject: Fwd: NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior to Filing for an Independent Review
>>  
>> Dear Bruce,
>>  
>> NCSG sent the below email (to independentreview at icann.org) to trigger the CEP as directed in the 11 April 2013 instructions on ICANN's website but we got a "bounce back" message to say it was a bad email address.
>>  
>> So now I'm not sure how to file this CEP request.  Any assistance you can provide in getting this filed would be greatly appreciated.
>>  
>> Thank you,
>> Robin
>>  
>> From 11 April 2013 instructions on ICANN website:
>> The Cooperative Engagement Process is as follows:
>> 
>> 1.      In the event the requesting party elects to proceed to cooperative engagement prior to filing a request for independent review, the requesting party may invoke the cooperative engagement process by providing written notice to ICANN at [independentreview at icann.org], noting the invocation of the process, identifying the Board action(s) at issue, identifying the provisions of the ICANN Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation that are alleged to be violated, and designating a single point of contact for the resolution of the issue. ...
>> 
>>  
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> 
>> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>> Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior to Filing for an Independent Review
>> Date: July 15, 2013 4:25:58 PM PDT
>> To: independentreview at icann.org
>> Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>>  
>> The Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group (NCSG), per Article IV Section 3 (14) of the Bylaws of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), respectfully invokes the Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP) in an effort to resolve certain issues at dispute with ICANN prior to filing a request for an independent review.
>> The following information is presented in full compliance with rules governing initiation of a CEP request, as amended on 11 April 2013:
>> 1. The single point of contact for the NCSG in this matter shall be:
>> Ms. Robin Gross
>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG)
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, California  94117  USA
>> Telephone number:  +1-415-553-6261
>> E-Mail: robin at ipjustice.org
>>  
>> 2.  The Board action subject to the CEP:
>> Resolution 2013.07.02.NG01 of the New gTLD Program Committee, dated 2 July 2013, adopting the revised recommendation of the Board Governance Committee relating to Reconsideration Request 13-3.
>>  
>> 3. We allege violation of the following provisions of ICANN?s Bylaws, with respect to the previously stated Board action:
>> ICANN Bylaws, Article 1 (2) (7)
>> ICANN Bylaws, Article I (2) (8)
>> ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, section 9
>> ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, section 10
>>  
>> We look forward to working with ICANN?s designated representative on this matter in a good faith effort to resolve the issues in contention and obviate the need for an independent review.
>> Submitted the 15th of July 2013,
>> Robin Gross
>> NCSG Chair
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>  
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130716/767845fc/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Tue Jul 16 20:52:00 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 10:52:00 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCSG Request that NPOC Be Provided Representation on
	ICANN Nominating Committee
References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E83E58D6F3@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
Message-ID: <45A404CC-B68E-49D3-9B9C-BAD9336FDE35@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> Subject: RE: NCSG Request that NPOC Be Provided Representation on ICANN Nominating Committee
> Date: July 15, 2013 4:44:46 PM PDT
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> 
> Hello Robin,
> 
> I have posted it to the Board list.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2013 1:16 AM
> To: Michelle Bright
> Cc: Bruce Tonkin
> Subject: NCSG Request that NPOC Be Provided Representation on ICANN Nominating Committee
> 
> Dear Michelle,
> 
> Would you please distribute the below letter from NCSG to the ICANN Board of Directors?
> 
> Thank you,
> Robin
> 
> ________________________
> 
> Dear ICANN Board of Directors,
> 
> It has come to the NCSG's attention that NPOC, one of our Stakeholder Group constituencies, still has not been given a seat on ICANN's Nominating Committee.  While we understand that a corporation bylaws change is required for this, we would have expected the Board to have taken care of this within a year of having created a mechanism for the creation of new constituencies and having approved the creation of NPOC.  It has been much longer and we understand that NPOC has tried to get this taken care of.
> 
> We also understand that if there is no time for the Board to do so in time for this year's Nominating Committee, please get this done before next year's Nominating Committee.
> 
> We are currently faced with a NomCom where NPOC is not represented and noncommercial users are under-represented.  We understand that the Board has the ability to appoint an academic representative to the NomCom.  We urgently request that the Board immediately appoint that academic representative from the NPOC.
> 
> This urgent request has been endorsed by the NCSG Executive and Policy Committees.
> 
> Signed,
> Robin Gross
> NCSG Chair
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130716/e1fb5a74/attachment.html>


From robin  Tue Jul 16 21:08:25 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 11:08:25 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior to
	Filing for an Independent Review
In-Reply-To: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E83E58FA00@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
References: <85FA19DC-62A0-46D4-94CA-4B17517415D2@ipjustice.org>
	<4E38D8DF-E565-4E72-8453-9D1B26220B1E@ipjustice.org>
	<263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E83E58FA00@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
Message-ID: <084DE483-F1D9-4C96-865F-2DE5EE6A4737@ipjustice.org>

Much appreciated, Bruce.    - Robin


On Jul 16, 2013, at 5:59 AM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:

> Hello Robin,
>  
> Just confirming that I have passed this on the General Counsel?s office.   They also found the email wasn?t working, and that should be fixed today.
>  
> Regards,
> Bruce
>  
> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2013 1:40 AM
> To: Bruce Tonkin
> Cc: ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org; NCSG-Policy Policy
> Subject: Fwd: NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior to Filing for an Independent Review
>  
> Dear Bruce,
>  
> NCSG sent the below email (to independentreview at icann.org) to trigger the CEP as directed in the 11 April 2013 instructions on ICANN's website but we got a "bounce back" message to say it was a bad email address.
>  
> So now I'm not sure how to file this CEP request.  Any assistance you can provide in getting this filed would be greatly appreciated.
>  
> Thank you,
> Robin
>  
> From 11 April 2013 instructions on ICANN website:
> The Cooperative Engagement Process is as follows:
> 
> 1.      In the event the requesting party elects to proceed to cooperative engagement prior to filing a request for independent review, the requesting party may invoke the cooperative engagement process by providing written notice to ICANN at [independentreview at icann.org], noting the invocation of the process, identifying the Board action(s) at issue, identifying the provisions of the ICANN Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation that are alleged to be violated, and designating a single point of contact for the resolution of the issue. ...
> 
>  
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> 
> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior to Filing for an Independent Review
> Date: July 15, 2013 4:25:58 PM PDT
> To: independentreview at icann.org
> Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>  
> The Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group (NCSG), per Article IV Section 3 (14) of the Bylaws of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), respectfully invokes the Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP) in an effort to resolve certain issues at dispute with ICANN prior to filing a request for an independent review.
> The following information is presented in full compliance with rules governing initiation of a CEP request, as amended on 11 April 2013:
> 1. The single point of contact for the NCSG in this matter shall be:
> Ms. Robin Gross
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG)
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, California  94117  USA
> Telephone number:  +1-415-553-6261
> E-Mail: robin at ipjustice.org
>  
> 2.  The Board action subject to the CEP:
> Resolution 2013.07.02.NG01 of the New gTLD Program Committee, dated 2 July 2013, adopting the revised recommendation of the Board Governance Committee relating to Reconsideration Request 13-3.
>  
> 3. We allege violation of the following provisions of ICANN?s Bylaws, with respect to the previously stated Board action:
> ICANN Bylaws, Article 1 (2) (7)
> ICANN Bylaws, Article I (2) (8)
> ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, section 9
> ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, section 10
>  
> We look forward to working with ICANN?s designated representative on this matter in a good faith effort to resolve the issues in contention and obviate the need for an independent review.
> Submitted the 15th of July 2013,
> Robin Gross
> NCSG Chair
>  
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130716/cb6b6363/attachment-0001.html>


From mllemineur  Wed Jul 17 14:57:19 2013
From: mllemineur (Marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 13:57:19 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCSG Request that NPOC Be Provided
	Representation on ICANN Nominating Committee
In-Reply-To: <45A404CC-B68E-49D3-9B9C-BAD9336FDE35@ipjustice.org>
References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E83E58D6F3@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
	<45A404CC-B68E-49D3-9B9C-BAD9336FDE35@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <67D40F19-5B31-4296-B254-424111F00F77@gmail.com>

Robin, 

Much appreciated. 

Thanks, 

Marie-laure

Sent from my iPad

On 16/07/2013, at 19:52, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
>> Subject: RE: NCSG Request that NPOC Be Provided Representation on ICANN Nominating Committee
>> Date: July 15, 2013 4:44:46 PM PDT
>> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>> 
>> Hello Robin,
>> 
>> I have posted it to the Board list.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Bruce
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2013 1:16 AM
>> To: Michelle Bright
>> Cc: Bruce Tonkin
>> Subject: NCSG Request that NPOC Be Provided Representation on ICANN Nominating Committee
>> 
>> Dear Michelle,
>> 
>> Would you please distribute the below letter from NCSG to the ICANN Board of Directors?
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Robin
>> 
>> ________________________
>> 
>> Dear ICANN Board of Directors,
>> 
>> It has come to the NCSG's attention that NPOC, one of our Stakeholder Group constituencies, still has not been given a seat on ICANN's Nominating Committee.  While we understand that a corporation bylaws change is required for this, we would have expected the Board to have taken care of this within a year of having created a mechanism for the creation of new constituencies and having approved the creation of NPOC.  It has been much longer and we understand that NPOC has tried to get this taken care of.
>> 
>> We also understand that if there is no time for the Board to do so in time for this year's Nominating Committee, please get this done before next year's Nominating Committee.
>> 
>> We are currently faced with a NomCom where NPOC is not represented and noncommercial users are under-represented.  We understand that the Board has the ability to appoint an academic representative to the NomCom.  We urgently request that the Board immediately appoint that academic representative from the NPOC.
>> 
>> This urgent request has been endorsed by the NCSG Executive and Policy Committees.
>> 
>> Signed,
>> Robin Gross
>> NCSG Chair
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130717/174f32d2/attachment.html>


From robin  Tue Jul 23 22:27:55 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 12:27:55 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] request for update on BGC rationale 13-3 discussion
In-Reply-To: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E83E52CEE4@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
References: <8B11DDF8-8469-4E12-89DC-0EAE13FADF35@ipjustice.org>
	<263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E83E52CEE4@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
Message-ID: <39A5CFD2-E9F9-40AA-99CF-756D11F37756@ipjustice.org>

Hi Bruce,

Just a quick follow-up to check if the BGC meeting minutes from 25 June 2013 are available yet?  (They don't seem to be posted to the ICANN website yet).

Thanks for any assistance you can provide on tracking this info down.

Best,
Robin


On Jun 26, 2013, at 9:03 PM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:

> Hello Robin,
> 
> 
>>> I understand the BGC met yesterday and discussed NCSG's reconsideration request and the rationale supplied in BGC's earlier recommendation.  Is there any news on this discussion and whether the board will hold a community-wide discussion on the topic of the decision's rationale in Durban?
> 
> The BGC approved a revised version of the rationale, taking into account recent community feedback.   I expect that this will be published at:
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration   shortly.
> 
> The BGC also decided to send to the Board's new gTLD Program Committee for approval.  I expect that this will be at their next meeting - which I expect will be early July.  Once the meeting is confirmed, the details should be available here:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/meetings
> 
> The Board is certainly open to discuss the issues associated with and lessons learned with this reconsideration request at its meetings in Durban.  The Board will be meeting with the non-commercial stakeholder group as usual, and I assume we will also meet with the GNSO, and of course have a public forum later in the week.
> 
>> .  Also, when do the meeting minutes from the BGC's 18 June meeting get posted to the web?   We are all very eager for any news on what is happening on this issue within ICANN so any info you can tell us would be most appreciated.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> Normally once the staff have produced the minutes - they are sent to the BGC mailing list for approval via email.  They require approval from all members via email.  If we don't get full approval via email, then we approve as the first item of the agenda at the next meeting.   I expect that the latest they will be published will be after the BGC meeting in Durban - which is scheduled during the 1st weekend of the meeting.   I will post them on as soon as I am informed they have been published.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> 
> 




From robin  Wed Jul 24 20:26:39 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 10:26:39 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] call for volunteers: need privacy advocates to help draft
	comments on EWG Report on WHOIS
Message-ID: <B26EF895-7B64-4696-B954-3835B9AD2A39@IPJUSTICE.ORG>

Dear All:

ICANN is accepting comments until 12 August on the Report of the "Expert Working Group on Directory Services" (aka the staff-convened group of 'experts' intended to kill any remnants of privacy protections that remain in ICANN policies).

NCSG should pull together a group of volunteers to work on comments on this report to submit in the Comment Forum.   Any volunteers to join this group and / or shepherd the comments on this issue?

EWG Durban Public Report:
  https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/41892060/EWG-Durban-Public-Final.pdf

Thank you!
Robin




From mllemineur  Wed Jul 24 20:29:37 2013
From: mllemineur (Marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 19:29:37 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] call for volunteers: need privacy advocates to help
	draft comments on EWG Report on WHOIS
In-Reply-To: <B26EF895-7B64-4696-B954-3835B9AD2A39@IPJUSTICE.ORG>
References: <B26EF895-7B64-4696-B954-3835B9AD2A39@IPJUSTICE.ORG>
Message-ID: <EEB8FAED-2000-4D77-AEED-18549BE63B75@gmail.com>

Hello Robin, 

I volunteer. 

Best, 

Marie-laure

Sent from my iPad

On 24/07/2013, at 19:26, Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG> wrote:

> Dear All:
> 
> ICANN is accepting comments until 12 August on the Report of the "Expert Working Group on Directory Services" (aka the staff-convened group of 'experts' intended to kill any remnants of privacy protections that remain in ICANN policies).
> 
> NCSG should pull together a group of volunteers to work on comments on this report to submit in the Comment Forum.   Any volunteers to join this group and / or shepherd the comments on this issue?
> 
> EWG Durban Public Report:
>  https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/41892060/EWG-Durban-Public-Final.pdf
> 
> Thank you!
> Robin
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From rballeste  Wed Jul 24 20:31:12 2013
From: rballeste (Balleste, Roy)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 17:31:12 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] call for volunteers: need privacy advocates to
	help	draft comments on EWG Report on WHOIS
In-Reply-To: <EEB8FAED-2000-4D77-AEED-18549BE63B75@gmail.com>
References: <B26EF895-7B64-4696-B954-3835B9AD2A39@IPJUSTICE.ORG>
	<EEB8FAED-2000-4D77-AEED-18549BE63B75@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <73ec8f618c954c74b458b3fd4f211c3e@BN1PR08MB251.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>

Me too!!

Roy


-----Original Message-----
From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Marie-laure Lemineur
Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 1:30 PM
To: Robin Gross
Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy; NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] call for volunteers: need privacy advocates to help draft comments on EWG Report on WHOIS

Hello Robin, 

I volunteer. 

Best, 

Marie-laure

Sent from my iPad

On 24/07/2013, at 19:26, Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG> wrote:

> Dear All:
> 
> ICANN is accepting comments until 12 August on the Report of the "Expert Working Group on Directory Services" (aka the staff-convened group of 'experts' intended to kill any remnants of privacy protections that remain in ICANN policies).
> 
> NCSG should pull together a group of volunteers to work on comments on this report to submit in the Comment Forum.   Any volunteers to join this group and / or shepherd the comments on this issue?
> 
> EWG Durban Public Report:
>  https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/41892060/EWG-Durban-Public-Final.pdf
> 
> Thank you!
> Robin
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

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






From robin  Thu Jul 25 05:05:42 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 19:05:42 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG DIDP Request
Message-ID: <48D3B6A1-5481-4385-AAC0-7E14C7BB547D@ipjustice.org>

The Articles of Incorporation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), article 4, require ICANN to act through ?open and transparent processes.? ICANN is required by it?s corporate Bylaws to use  ?open and transparent policy development mechanisms? (Bylaws, article I, Section 2(7)) and to ?operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner? (Bylaws, article III, section 1 (1)).


To meet these obligations, ICANN has established a Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) which requires it to ?ensure that information contained in documents concerning ICANN?s operational activities, is made available to the public unless there is a compelling reason for confidentiality.?

The Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group (NCSG), with over 300 members the largest and most diverse constituent member of ICANN?s Generic Name Supporting Organization (GNSO), supports ICANN?s commitment to open and transparent policy processes.

The NCSG notes that under the DIDP ICANN is required to supply ?information not already publicly available? to any member of the public so requesting said information.  ?To the extent feasible? ICANN is required to provide this information to the requestor no later than 30 days from the date of receipt of the request.

As such, the Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG) respectfully requests that the following documentary information be provided to it without delay per the terms of the DIDP:

1.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, concerning and / or leading to the staff action of the imposition of the policy announced in the 20 March 2013 staff memo titled ?Trademark Claims Protection for Previously Abused Names. 

2.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, leading to adoption of staff recommendation of the so-called ?Trademark +50? policy, including, but not exclusively, any information, data, facts or rationale, per article 7 of the Affirmation of Commitments by the United States Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers, leading to the determination that the number ?50? was the appropriate enumerator for this unprecedented extension of property rights and if any other numbers were considered.

3.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, involved in the preparation, compilation and production of Fadi Chehade?s 19 September 2012 letter to members of the United States Congress.

4.  All correspondence between ICANN, staff and Board, and third parties, including but not exclusively government officials, trade associations, corporate and legal firms and interests, concerning the extension of trademark protection beyond the GNSO-approved ?exact match? standard in the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH).

5.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, concerning the meeting convened by Fadi Chehade in Los Angeles on 15-16 November 2012 to discuss the creation of new trademark privileges in new gtld policy.  This request explicitly includes but is not limited to materials relating to the meeting?s organization, the substance of its discussions, and any follow-up materials related to the meeting.

6.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, concerning staff memo of 29 November 2012, and the 3 December 2013 update, titled ?Trademark Clearinghouse: Strawman Solution?, involving any aspect of allegedly abusively registered strings and policy / implementation concerns thereof.

7.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, provided to or used by Mr. Chehade and/or staff in compiling Mr. Chehade?s 26 November 2012 blog post concerning strings and allegedly abusive registrations and policy / implementation issues thereof.  This request explicitly includes but is not limited to any such materials relating to the post-publication change, deletion, addition, or other editing of the text of the blog post.

8.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, used in the creation of Mr. Chehade?s e-mail to GNSO Chair Jonathan Robinson asking for ?policy guidance? on the portion of the Strawman Model relating to the scope of trademark claims.

9.  All documentation, contracts, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to ICANN, staff, board and external contractor?s, consideration of and response to Reconsideration Request 13-3.

10.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to the Board Governance Committee?s memo of 16 May 2013 concerning Reconsideration Request 13-3.  This request includes but is not limited to materials related to the BGC?s 16 May meeting in which NCSG?s request was discussed, including board discussions, staff briefings or any notes, records or other information related to those staff briefings or board discussions.

11.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to the Board Governance Committee?s Revised Recommendation of 25 June 2013, concerning Reconsideration Request 13-3, including but not limited to any materials relating to the reason for the revision.  This request includes but is not limited to materials related to the BGC?s 25 June meeting in which NCSG?s request was discussed, including staff briefings or any notes, records or other information related to those staff briefings or board discussions.

12.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to the New gTLD Program Committees action of 2 July 2013 relating to Reconsideration Request 13-3.

13.  All correspondence, and / or records thereof, between ICANN, staff and Board, and United States Senator Pat Leahy from 1 May 2012 to the present.

14.  All correspondence, and / or records thereof, between ICANN, staff and Board, and Yahoo! Inc., including that between ICANN and Yahoo!?s representatives and agents, from 1 May 2012 to the present.

15.  All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it?s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including contracts and invoices, relating to the involvement and / or contracting of outside counsel in any matter concerning Reconsideration Request 13-3. 

Prompt attention to this information request is greatly appreciated.  We would respectfully point out that the information requested, per the DIDP, is that which is not currently ?publicly available?.  We are aware of the contents of the ICANN website and do not need any guidance in locating materials on it.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.  We applaud ICANN for its commitment to openness and transparency and look forward to receiving the materials requested in a timely manner.

Sincerely,

Robin Gross

Chair, Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group (NCSG)

 

 

 

 

 

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130724/9049c3dd/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Thu Jul 25 15:12:57 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:12:57 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG DIDP Request
In-Reply-To: <48D3B6A1-5481-4385-AAC0-7E14C7BB547D@ipjustice.org>
References: <48D3B6A1-5481-4385-AAC0-7E14C7BB547D@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <B491EC25-2D5C-45D6-B8E7-8C1CA014CE5E@ella.com>

Hi,

Good request.

BTW All remember to drop didp from theto/cc if/when you reply to the message.

avri



On 24 Jul 2013, at 22:05, Robin Gross wrote:

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




From robin  Thu Jul 25 18:26:31 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:26:31 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior
	to Filing for an Independent Review
References: <4D625DF6-6431-41B6-BCED-9621F629AE4E@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <3D2B9DB7-FD10-4855-96BF-3760F2038110@ipjustice.org>

fyi

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: Re: NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior to Filing for an Independent Review
> Date: July 25, 2013 8:25:14 AM PDT
> To: Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org>
> Cc: John Jeffrey <john.jeffrey at icann.org>
> 
> Dear Amy,
> 
> NCSG has filed a DIDP request to try to obtain some of the information necessary to sort out this disagreement.  Therefore we request that our initial CEP discussion take place after we have had a chance to review the requested information, which may sort out some of the issues without the need for further discussion.
> 
> I will need to check with my members as to whether or not an unrecorded meeting would be acceptable to resolve their issues.  It is our understanding that this CEP process is part of ICANN's commitment to accountability and so secret discussions that resolve important policy disputes or interpret corporate bylaws would probably be inadequate.  The entire GNSO has a direct interest in the subject matter of this dispute - the adoption of the TM+50 policy - and therefore many members of the community have an interest in understanding staff's position about its authority with respect to creating new policies and how it relates to the language in the corporate bylaws.  It would probably be best for ICANN to try to figure out a way to make transcripts of the discussions available so we can all benefit from learning staff's position on these matters which effect all of us - especially given ICANN's stated commitment to transparency in its operations.
> 
> So please let me know if we can set our CEP discussion time for a date after we've received the requested DIDP information and if ICANN can provide transcripts of the CEP discussions for purposes of transparency and accountability to the community.
> 
> Thank you,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Jul 24, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Amy Stathos wrote:
> 
>> Hi Robin. Thank you. We are available either time on Thursday so please let us know which time you would prefer and whether there is a number we should call or if you would prefer that we set up a conference call. 
>> 
>> In terms of your second question, the process does not contemplate a recording or transcript. The process was designed to allow for frank and spontaneous discussion to help resolve any issues that can be resolved and which generally would not be recorded. 
>> 
>> Regards, Amy
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On Jul 22, 2013, at 8:30 PM, "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello Amy,
>>> 
>>> Yes I can agree to providing the extension until 25 July.  I'm available at either 11:30 or 13:30 on the 25th.  Would one of those times work for you? 
>>> 
>>> Also, will there be a recording or transcript made of the conversation for transparency and for the public record?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:25 AM, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Dear Robin:  
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for initiating the Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP) in advance of filing a request for Independent Review.  ICANN has designated John Jeffrey as the Executive that will participate in the CEP you have initiated.  In light of the ICANN Durban meeting and associated travel schedules, pursuant to section 6 of the engagement provision we would ask that the the date for the conference called for in section 4 of the CEP be extended until either 24 or 25 July.  If you are agreeable to the extension, please let us know your availability on these suggested dates for a telephonic conference.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you and please let us know if you have any questions.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Amy A. Stathos
>>>> Deputy General Counsel
>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>>>> +1-310-301-3866 (direct)
>>>> amy.stathos at icann.org
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jul 16, 2013, at 7:43 AM, Amy Stathos <amy.stathos at icann.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Robin - This is to acknowledge receipt of your email below to independentreview at icann.org that Bruce forwarded to me.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We will be back to you in accordance with the process.  Thank you.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amy A. Stathos
>>>>> Deputy General Counsel
>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
>>>>> +1-310-301-3866 (direct)
>>>>> amy.stathos at icann.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2013 1:40 AM
>>>>>> To: Bruce Tonkin
>>>>>> Cc: ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org; NCSG-Policy Policy
>>>>>> Subject: Fwd: NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior to Filing for an Independent Review
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Dear Bruce,
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> NCSG sent the below email (to independentreview at icann.org) to trigger the CEP as directed in the 11 April 2013 instructions on ICANN's website but we got a "bounce back" message to say it was a bad email address.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> So now I'm not sure how to file this CEP request.  Any assistance you can provide in getting this filed would be greatly appreciated.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Thank you,
>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> From 11 April 2013 instructions on ICANN website:
>>>>>> The Cooperative Engagement Process is as follows:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1.      In the event the requesting party elects to proceed to cooperative engagement prior to filing a request for independent review, the requesting party may invoke the cooperative engagement process by providing written notice to ICANN at [independentreview at icann.org], noting the invocation of the process, identifying the Board action(s) at issue, identifying the provisions of the ICANN Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation that are alleged to be violated, and designating a single point of contact for the resolution of the issue. ...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> Subject: [EC-NCSG] NCSG Invoking Cooperative Engagement Process Prior to Filing for an Independent Review
>>>>>> Date: July 15, 2013 4:25:58 PM PDT
>>>>>> To: independentreview at icann.org
>>>>>> Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> The Noncommercial Users Stakeholders Group (NCSG), per Article IV Section 3 (14) of the Bylaws of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), respectfully invokes the Cooperative Engagement Process (CEP) in an effort to resolve certain issues at dispute with ICANN prior to filing a request for an independent review.
>>>>>> The following information is presented in full compliance with rules governing initiation of a CEP request, as amended on 11 April 2013:
>>>>>> 1. The single point of contact for the NCSG in this matter shall be:
>>>>>> Ms. Robin Gross
>>>>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Stakeholder Group (NCSG)
>>>>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, California  94117  USA
>>>>>> Telephone number:  +1-415-553-6261
>>>>>> E-Mail: robin at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 2.  The Board action subject to the CEP:
>>>>>> Resolution 2013.07.02.NG01 of the New gTLD Program Committee, dated 2 July 2013, adopting the revised recommendation of the Board Governance Committee relating to Reconsideration Request 13-3.
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> 3. We allege violation of the following provisions of ICANN?s Bylaws, with respect to the previously stated Board action:
>>>>>> ICANN Bylaws, Article 1 (2) (7)
>>>>>> ICANN Bylaws, Article I (2) (8)
>>>>>> ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, section 9
>>>>>> ICANN Bylaws, Annex A, section 10
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> We look forward to working with ICANN?s designated representative on this matter in a good faith effort to resolve the issues in contention and obviate the need for an independent review.
>>>>>> Submitted the 15th of July 2013,
>>>>>> Robin Gross
>>>>>> NCSG Chair
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130725/00a7d1ee/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Fri Jul 26 00:17:35 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:17:35 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] proxies for 1 august gnso council meeting
Message-ID: <64F6BC05-D75C-42AF-A3CF-76438C5DB91C@ipjustice.org>

Can another NCSG GNSO Councilor please serve as Joy's proxy vote for the below special GNSO meeting?

> GNSO Council teleconference 1 August 2013 at 15:00 UTC


Also, any other NCSG GNSO Councilors unable to participate in the above meeting and need a proxy for their vote?  (I understand Nuno will serve as Maria's proxy for this meeting).   

Thanks,
Robin


From ngarcia  Fri Jul 26 00:33:32 2013
From: ngarcia (Nuno Garcia)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 22:33:32 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] proxies for 1 august gnso council meeting
In-Reply-To: <64F6BC05-D75C-42AF-A3CF-76438C5DB91C@ipjustice.org>
References: <64F6BC05-D75C-42AF-A3CF-76438C5DB91C@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CALbrTwDz01wWbXBTvMDum9V-A+n-woQWkkqQekC3nGoNZE3zOA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi, yes, I agreed to serve as Maria's proxy for 1st August meeting.

Warm regards,

Nuno

On 25 July 2013 22:17, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Can another NCSG GNSO Councilor please serve as Joy's proxy vote for the
> below special GNSO meeting?
>
> > GNSO Council teleconference 1 August 2013 at 15:00 UTC
>
>
> Also, any other NCSG GNSO Councilors unable to participate in the above
> meeting and need a proxy for their vote?  (I understand Nuno will serve as
> Maria's proxy for this meeting).
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130725/7e264b02/attachment.html>


From avri  Fri Jul 26 05:30:22 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 22:30:22 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] proxies for 1 august gnso council meeting
In-Reply-To: <CALbrTwDz01wWbXBTvMDum9V-A+n-woQWkkqQekC3nGoNZE3zOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <64F6BC05-D75C-42AF-A3CF-76438C5DB91C@ipjustice.org>
	<CALbrTwDz01wWbXBTvMDum9V-A+n-woQWkkqQekC3nGoNZE3zOA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A9D62E85-674F-4409-8C3D-389C1CD2F245@ella.com>

hi,

i think that properly speaking he remains, or needs to be renewed as, a temp alternate.  
only another council member can carry a proxy.

avri


On 25 Jul 2013, at 17:33, Nuno Garcia wrote:

> Hi, yes, I agreed to serve as Maria's proxy for 1st August meeting.
> 
> Warm regards,
> 
> Nuno
> 
> On 25 July 2013 22:17, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> Can another NCSG GNSO Councilor please serve as Joy's proxy vote for the below special GNSO meeting?
> 
> > GNSO Council teleconference 1 August 2013 at 15:00 UTC
> 
> 
> Also, any other NCSG GNSO Councilors unable to participate in the above meeting and need a proxy for their vote?  (I understand Nuno will serve as Maria's proxy for this meeting).
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter  Fri Jul 26 10:23:02 2013
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:23:02 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] proxies for 1 august gnso council meeting
References: <64F6BC05-D75C-42AF-A3CF-76438C5DB91C@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331D69@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Unfortunately I will also miss this extraordinary GNSO Council meeting. At the same time (starts 15.00 UTC) I am in a small expert meeting with Vint Cerf who ist visiting Germany and we have a discussion in Berlin about some strategies for future IG. 
 
Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Robin Gross
Gesendet: Do 25.07.2013 23:17
An: NCSG-Policy Policy
Betreff: [PC-NCSG] proxies for 1 august gnso council meeting



Can another NCSG GNSO Councilor please serve as Joy's proxy vote for the below special GNSO meeting?

> GNSO Council teleconference 1 August 2013 at 15:00 UTC


Also, any other NCSG GNSO Councilors unable to participate in the above meeting and need a proxy for their vote?  (I understand Nuno will serve as Maria's proxy for this meeting).  

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





From maria.farrell  Fri Jul 26 15:13:28 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 13:13:28 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] proxies for 1 august gnso council meeting
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331D69@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <64F6BC05-D75C-42AF-A3CF-76438C5DB91C@ipjustice.org>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331D69@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdCcWpeGPKfj_GJUOxZU0q6Dgu12CJN1p9iW1NvnsQLFAw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

Nuno has very kindly agreed to be my alternate for the 1 August meeting, as
I'm afraid I'm still pretty unwell & heading to my parents' for some r&r
next week.

However, if we're stuck, I can dial in + carry both Joy and Wolfgang's
proxy, since it looks like Nuno wouldn't be able to do that, as Avri points
out. Or if another councillor is good for it, Nuno can still be my
alternate, and another councillor can hold both proxies. (Thanks again,
Nuno!) Just to say either works for me, though a quick tutorial on how to
vote & conduct of the meeting would be helpful as I'm so out of touch.

All the best, m


On 26 July 2013 08:23, "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Unfortunately I will also miss this extraordinary GNSO Council meeting. At
> the same time (starts 15.00 UTC) I am in a small expert meeting with Vint
> Cerf who ist visiting Germany and we have a discussion in Berlin about some
> strategies for future IG.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Robin Gross
> Gesendet: Do 25.07.2013 23:17
> An: NCSG-Policy Policy
> Betreff: [PC-NCSG] proxies for 1 august gnso council meeting
>
>
>
> Can another NCSG GNSO Councilor please serve as Joy's proxy vote for the
> below special GNSO meeting?
>
> > GNSO Council teleconference 1 August 2013 at 15:00 UTC
>
>
> Also, any other NCSG GNSO Councilors unable to participate in the above
> meeting and need a proxy for their vote?  (I understand Nuno will serve as
> Maria's proxy for this meeting).
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130726/49fbecc8/attachment.html>


From magaly.pazello  Fri Jul 26 15:32:04 2013
From: magaly.pazello (Magaly Pazello)
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 09:32:04 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] proxies for 1 august gnso council meeting
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331D69@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <64F6BC05-D75C-42AF-A3CF-76438C5DB91C@ipjustice.org>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331D69@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CA+dOKfBMtHbxAi4GqNZomJ4_E6gqP+TXJg-+pHPfuUw4u1jwGQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi!
I am going to make this "extraordinary" GNSO council meeting ;-) so no
problem to carry Joy and Wolfgang's proxy as well.
Magaly

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 4:23 AM, "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> Unfortunately I will also miss this extraordinary GNSO Council meeting. At the same time (starts 15.00 UTC) I am in a small expert meeting with Vint Cerf who ist visiting Germany and we have a discussion in Berlin about some strategies for future IG.
>
> Wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Robin Gross
> Gesendet: Do 25.07.2013 23:17
> An: NCSG-Policy Policy
> Betreff: [PC-NCSG] proxies for 1 august gnso council meeting
>
>
>
> Can another NCSG GNSO Councilor please serve as Joy's proxy vote for the below special GNSO meeting?
>
>> GNSO Council teleconference 1 August 2013 at 15:00 UTC
>
>
> Also, any other NCSG GNSO Councilors unable to participate in the above meeting and need a proxy for their vote?  (I understand Nuno will serve as Maria's proxy for this meeting).
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From robin  Sun Jul 28 02:58:18 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 16:58:18 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] proxies for 1 august gnso council meeting
In-Reply-To: <CA+dOKfBMtHbxAi4GqNZomJ4_E6gqP+TXJg-+pHPfuUw4u1jwGQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <64F6BC05-D75C-42AF-A3CF-76438C5DB91C@ipjustice.org>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331D69@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<CA+dOKfBMtHbxAi4GqNZomJ4_E6gqP+TXJg-+pHPfuUw4u1jwGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B5F18C9E-BC0D-4CFB-B55D-AAA5BEF0391F@ipjustice.org>

Thanks, folks.  Note that a councilor can only hold one other proxy, so we need another participating councilor to serve as Wolfgang's proxy at the 1 August meeting.

My understanding for 1 Aug. is:
 - Magaly is holding Joy's proxy
 - Nuno is the Temporary Alternate for Maria
 - Wolfgang needs a replacement - volunteers??

As this mtg just was called by GNSO Council, we didn't really have a chance to plan our usual preparatory meeting, so we'll need to be sure to do that on this list in the next week.

Thanks,
Robin


On Jul 26, 2013, at 5:32 AM, Magaly Pazello wrote:

> Hi!
> I am going to make this "extraordinary" GNSO council meeting ;-) so no
> problem to carry Joy and Wolfgang's proxy as well.
> Magaly
> 
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 4:23 AM, "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang"
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>> Unfortunately I will also miss this extraordinary GNSO Council meeting. At the same time (starts 15.00 UTC) I am in a small expert meeting with Vint Cerf who ist visiting Germany and we have a discussion in Berlin about some strategies for future IG.
>> 
>> Wolfgang
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> 
>> Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Robin Gross
>> Gesendet: Do 25.07.2013 23:17
>> An: NCSG-Policy Policy
>> Betreff: [PC-NCSG] proxies for 1 august gnso council meeting
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Can another NCSG GNSO Councilor please serve as Joy's proxy vote for the below special GNSO meeting?
>> 
>>> GNSO Council teleconference 1 August 2013 at 15:00 UTC
>> 
>> 
>> Also, any other NCSG GNSO Councilors unable to participate in the above meeting and need a proxy for their vote?  (I understand Nuno will serve as Maria's proxy for this meeting).
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From robin  Tue Jul 30 06:47:12 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 20:47:12 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Requirements for GNSO Council meeting Thursday,
	1 August at 15:00UTC
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FF826953C6E@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <173DD101-E931-4CF7-9480-E9802C910419@IPJUSTICE.ORG>

Hello Wolfgang,

Have you found a proxy or alternate yet for Friday's GNSO Council meeting?

Thanks,
Robin

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Subject: Requirements for GNSO Council meeting Thursday, 1 August at 15:00UTC
> Date: July 29, 2013 3:02:22 PM PDT
> To: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>, "David Cake (dave at difference.com.au) (dave at difference.com.au)" <dave at difference.com.au>, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com>, "Magaly Pazello (magaly.pazello at gmail.com)" <magaly.pazello at gmail.com>, "Joy Liddicoat (joy at apc.org)" <joy at apc.org>, "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Cc: "marie-laure Lemineur (mllemineur at gmail.com)" <mllemineur at gmail.com>, "ngarcia at ngarcia.net" <ngarcia at ngarcia.net>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> 
> Dear All, 
> As a reminder for Thursday's Council meeting, 'In order for the GNSO Council to initiate a vote, a quorum must be present.
> A quorum is a majority of voting members in each House, which must include at least one member of each Stakeholder Group'. Also note that, 'An absent Council member does not count toward quorum even if a proxy has been established. A Temporary Alternate (see Section 4.7-Temporary Alternate below) if present, would count toward quorum'. 
> 
> Furthermore, as it concerns a vote to approve a PDP recommendation, absentee voting is allowed (but absentee voting does not affect quorum requirements). As noted in the operating procedures, '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 12 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present'. 
> 
> As it concerns a PDP vote, to approve a PDP Recommendation with a GNSO Supermajority it requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority (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."). 
>  Please make the necessary arrangements if you are not able to be present on Thursday. The link to the form to be completed by a SG/C officer can be found here:
> http://gnso.icann.org/council/abstention-notification-form-en.htm
> Thank you very much.
> 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/20130729/2872168f/attachment.html>


From robin  Wed Jul 31 23:09:53 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 13:09:53 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] privacy advocates work group list
Message-ID: <0B727D88-C4E9-4072-8953-9D1939B18303@ipjustice.org>

Hello NCSG Privacy Advocates,

This list has been set up to discuss privacy policy at ICANN and initially, specifically to develop an NCSG response to the EWG Final Report.

So I've added any NCSG member who expressed an interest in drafting a response and a few privacy or policy experts to help coordinate our input.

Apparently, we have until 12 August to file a comment in the ICANN open comment forum:
 http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/share-24jun13-en.htm

It would be great if someone on this list would volunteer to serve as the "shepherd" of the NCSG response (i.e. coordinate the various input into drafts as it develops and make sure it is timely filed).  Any volunteers please?

NCSG and EWG have a joint call scheduled for 6 August 14:00 - 15:00 in which I hope you all will participate.

Also, I propose we hold a call this Friday 2 August at 8:30am (Pacific Time) to prepare for next Tuesday's call with EWG and also discuss our written response.  Would folks be able to do that and think the prep call on Friday is worthwhile?

Note: Wendy and Avri (the Chair and Alt. Chair of NCSG's Policy Committee) are also on this list to help coordinate NCSG's PC response.

If anyone else would like to be added to this email list, please let me know.  Reminder: this list is publicly archived.

Thanks!
Robin

EWG Durban Public Report:
 https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/41892060/EWG-Durban-Public-Final.pdf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130731/04f166f1/attachment.html>