From robin  Thu Mar  7 05:34:14 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 19:34:14 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] Draft agenda for the GNSO Council
	Meeting on 14 March 2013 at 15:00 UTC
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD24452CB59@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <8A78573E-90F1-43C5-BA29-B9FCBD470446@ipjustice.org>

It is only the initial draft, but it seems to be a bit of a light  
agenda for the GNSO Council.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: March 6, 2013 2:47:02 PM PST
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] Draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on  
> 14 March 2013 at 15:00 UTC
>
> FYI
> Dear Councillors,
> Please find the draft agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 14  
> March 2013 at 15:00 UTC.
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+14 
> +March+2013
> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating  
> Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and  
> updated.
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12- 
> en.pdf
> For convenience:
> An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is  
> provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
> An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the  
> absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of  
> this agenda.
> Meeting Times 15:00 UTC
> http://tinyurl.com/czfwutj
> Coordinated Universal Time 15:00 UTC
> 08:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 15:00 London; 16:00 Paris;  
> 04:00 Wellington
>
> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members.  
> Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial  
> out call is needed.
> GNSO Council meeting audio cast
> http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
> Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
> 1.1 Roll Call
>
> 1.2 Statement of interest updates
> Jonathan Robinson
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Jonathan+Robinson+SOI
> 1.3 Review/amend agenda
> 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the Council meeting on 14  
> February 2013 approved per the GNSO Operating Procedures on 1 March  
> 2013.
>
> Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (5 minutes)
> Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics
> Include brief review of Projects List and Action List
> Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)
> Confirmation of James Bladel and Mikey O'Connor  as the co-chairs  
> of the IRTP Part D PDP Working Group.
>
>
>
> Item 4: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Policy vs. Implementation (15 minutes)
>
> Recent issues highlight an ongoing broader issue regarding the  
> boundary between policy development and implementation work as well  
> as the effective integration of policy development and integration  
> work from the outset.
>
> In addition, the Council is increasingly asked to consider issues  
> for policy guidance and may well need to look at the evolution of  
> its own work and processes to accommodate this type of request.
>
> Recent discussions on the Council mailing list indicate that there  
> is an interest to undertake further work on this issue. At the same  
> time, ICANN Staff has published a paper  that is intended to  
> facilitate further community discussions on this topic.
>
> Further community discussion will take place in Beijing and the  
> inclusion of this agenda item here serves to keep the issue on the  
> agenda of the Council in the interim.
>
> 8.1 Discussion
> 8.2 Next steps
>
> Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Whois Privacy and Proxy Relay and  
> Reveal Study (10 minutes)
>
> At the ICANN Meeting in Toronto, Lyman Chapin presented the results  
> of the survey that evaluated the feasibility of conducting a future  
> in-depth study into communication Relay and identity Reveal  
> requests sent for gTLD domain names registered using Proxy and  
> Privacy services.
>
> The Council discussed this at its 14 February 2013 meeting but did  
> not reach a firm conclusion.  Some expressed concern about going  
> ahead with the study now, when a lot of other Whois activities are  
> going on, while others appeared to support moving forward as the  
> study could result in data that would help inform ongoing Whois  
> activities.
>
> One  possible way forward is that staff is asked to go ahead with  
> the RFP for this work and then report back to the Council before  
> going ahead with the study? In this way, some of the preparatory  
> work could be done, which would allow us to move forward quickly if/ 
> when the Council decides to move ahead.
>
> 9.1 ? Update as necessary
> 9.2 ? Discussion
> 9.3 ? Next steps
>
>
> Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Planning for Beijing (30 minutes)
>
> Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at  
> the ICANN Meeting in Beijing will take some planning.  GNSO Council  
> VC Mason Cole is working with staff to lead this effort.
> The Council now has the opportunity to discuss plans and provide  
> feedback.  Included in this item will be the opportunity to shape  
> the topics and substance of the Council?s proposed meetings with  
> other groups in Beijing such as the CCNSO, the GAC and the ICANN  
> board.
>
> 10.1 ? Update (Mason Cole)
> 10.2 ? Discussion
> 10.3 ? Next steps
>
> Item 11:  Any Other Business (5 minutes)
>
> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article  
> X, Section 3)
> 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto,  
> or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a  
> GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple  
> majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below  
> shall apply to the following GNSO actions:
> a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more  
> than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
> b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as  
> described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than  
> one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one  
> House.
> c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of  
> GNSO Supermajority.
> d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an  
> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more  
> than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
> e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires  
> an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
> f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team  
> Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve  
> an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each  
> House.
> g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of  
> a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for  
> significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO  
> Supermajority Vote in favor of termination.
> h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority:  
> requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and  
> further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at  
> least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation.
> i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires  
> an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
> j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain  
> Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies  
> that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence  
> of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to  
> be met or exceeded.
> k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final  
> Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be  
> modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority  
> vote.
> l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the  
> Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one  
> House and a majority of the other House."
> Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4)
> 4.4.1 Applicability
> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of  
> Council motions or measures.
> a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
> b. Approve a PDP recommendation;
> c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or  
> ICANN Bylaws;
> d. Fill a Council position open for election.
> 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within  
> the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the  
> meeting?s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at  
> the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or  
> extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is  
> verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present.
> 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate  
> absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide  
> reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee  
> ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web- 
> based interface, or other technologies as may become available.
> 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements.  
> (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is  
> initiated.)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN  
> hemisphere
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 15:00
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 08:00
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 11:00
> Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 12:00
> Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 12:00
> Edinburgh, Scotland (BST) UTC+0DST 15:00
> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 15:00
> Abuja, Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 16:00
> Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 16:00
> Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00
> Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+0DST 17:00
> Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 20:00
> Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 23:00
> Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 23:00
> Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 04:00 ? next day
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2013, 2:00 or 3:00  
> local time (with exceptions -  DST starts on 10 March 2013 in USA)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com
> http://tinyurl.com/czfwutj
>
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
> Glen
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130306/fef1bbdf/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Fri Mar  8 06:12:58 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 20:12:58 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Please Join in NCSG's Monthly Open Policy Meeting - Tue.
	12 March (21:00 UTC) agenda & participation details
Message-ID: <9A9C8C5F-119E-4E26-BC5C-56063338A5CF@ipjustice.org>

Reminder: I hope you all will join in next Tuesday's NCSG Open Policy  
Meeting, which is an open discussion between the NCSG Policy  
Committee, including the NCSG GNSO Councilors and the entire NCSG  
membership.

The meeting is on 12 March, which is 2 days before the next GNSO  
Council meeting to help prepare for NCSG's participation in that  
meeting.  We will also discuss preparations for the Beijing ICANN  
meeting next month and review open comment periods and working groups.

Dial-in and remote participation details are below.  Also below is a  
draft discussion agenda.  If anyone needs a dial-out, please let me  
know at least 24-hours before the meeting to ensure we have enough  
time to make the dial-out happen.

Please join in the discussion.  Thank you!

Best,
Robin

NCSG Policy Open Meeting
12 March 2013 - Tuesday
21:00 - 23:00 UTC

Other Time Zones:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=NCSG+Open 
+Policy+Meeting+March+2013&iso=20130312T21&p1=136&ah=2

Remote Participation Details:
Telephone:  http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCSG_Passcodes.htm
Adobe Connect:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/

Attendance Records of NCSG Open Policy Meetings:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc? 
key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dGdNcVVfdHI2SWJ4dDZjU2xYaGV0WUE&usp=sharing

Draft Discussion Agenda:

I. Preparation for 14 March GNSO Council Meeting

14 March GNSO Council Meeting Discussion Agenda:
    https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+14 
+March+2013
  GNSO Council meeting audio cast: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u

A. Motions to be Voted On
    NONE Yet
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14 
+March+2013

B. Discussion Issues (no vote)

1. Policy vs. Implementation

Recent issues highlight an ongoing broader issue regarding the boundary
between policy development and implementation work as well as the  
effective
integration of policy development and integration work from the outset.

In addition, the Council is increasingly asked to consider issues for  
policy
guidance and may well need to look at the evolution of its own work and
processes to accommodate this type of request.

Recent discussions on the Council mailing list indicate that there is an
interest to undertake further work on this issue. At the same time,  
ICANN
Staff has published a paper
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation- 
framework-08j
an13-en.pdf>   that is intended to facilitate further community  
discussions
on this topic.

Further community discussion will take place in Beijing and the  
inclusion of
this agenda item here serves to keep the issue on the agenda of the  
Council
in the interim.

ICANN Public Comment Forum on Policy vs. Implementation:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/policy- 
implementation-31jan13-en.htm
Reply Comments Due by 14 March


2,  Whois Privacy and Proxy Relay and Reveal Study

At the ICANN Meeting in Toronto, Lyman Chapin presented the results  
of the
survey
<http://toronto45.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/presentation-whois- 
survey-1
7oct12-en.pdf>  that evaluated the feasibility of conducting a future
in-depth study into communication Relay and identity Reveal requests  
sent
for gTLD domain names registered using Proxy and Privacy services.

The Council discussed this at its 14 February 2013 meeting but did  
not reach
a firm conclusion.  Some expressed concern about going ahead with the  
study
now, when a lot of other Whois activities are going on, while others
appeared to support moving forward as the study could result in data  
that
would help inform ongoing Whois activities.

One  possible way forward is that staff is asked to go ahead with the  
RFP
for this work and then report back to the Council before going ahead  
with
the study? In this way, some of the preparatory work could be done,  
which
would allow us to move forward quickly if/when the Council decides to  
move
ahead.

3.  GNSO Council in Beijing Meeting Planning

The GNSO Council has the opportunity to shape the topics and
substance of the Council's proposed meetings with other groups in  
Beijing
such as the CCNSO, the GAC and the ICANN board.

What topics would NCSG members like to see on GNSO Council's  
discussion agendas in Beijng?

4.  Confirmation of attendance of NCSG Representatives for 14 March  
meeting and need for any proxies to be arranged?

II.  Other Policy Issues and Public Comments

A.  Other Policy Issues

1.  2nd Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2)
Background:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-15feb13-en.htm

2.  Whois Expert Working Group
Background:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14feb13-en.htm

Issue with under-representation of privacy experts in group
(maybe Stephanie Perin could brief us on this discussion?)

3.  Thick Whois & Data Protection Sub-Group
Background:
https://community.icann.org/display/PDP/5.+WG+Background+Documents

4.  Special Protections for Red Cross, Olympic Cmte, IGOs
IGO-INGO Working Group
NCSG Input Statement:
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/40175441/NCSG_IGO- 
INGO_Input_Request_FINAL.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1360810862000

5.  ICANN's Outreach & Engagement Plans

6.  Public Interest Commitments (PICs) of New TLD applicants
  Background: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/ 
announcement-2-05mar13-en.htm

7.  What is happening with staff's Strawman solution & other TM  
issues for New TLDs?

8.  Registrant Agreement Amendment (RAA Negotiations)
Background:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14feb13-en.htm

B.  Open ICANN Public Comments

1.  So-called "closed generic" or "private label" TLD debate.
ICANN Public Comment Forum:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13- 
en.htm
Reply Comment Deadline: ?

GNSO to provide policy guidance to board at end of comment period

2.  Revised New gTLD Registry Agreement Including Additional Public  
Interest Commitments Specification
ICANN Public Comment Forum:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13- 
en.htm
Reply Comment Deadline: 20 March

3.  Whois Registrant Identification Study, Draft Report
ICANN Public Comment Forum:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-regid-15feb13-en.htm
Reply Comment Deadline: 31 March

4.  Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Reporting
ICANN Public Comment Forum:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-regid-15feb13-en.htm
Comment Close: 22 March   Reply Close: 12 April

5.  Proposed Modification of GNSO PDP Manual to Address the  
Suspension of a PDP
ICANN Public Comment Forum:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/pdp-suspension-07mar13- 
en.htm
Comment Close: 6 April   Reply Close: 28 April

6. ICANN's FY 14 Security, Stability and Resiliency Framework
ICANN Public Comment Forum:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ssr-fy14-06mar13-en.htm
Comment Close: 20 April   Reply Close: 20 May


III.  NCSG Planning for Beijing ICANN Meeting

Working draft schedule of NCSG Meetings in Beijing and proposed  
discussion topics so far:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc? 
key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dG11eV9fZWJMbUdEQW9PRnY4cnFNWVE#gid=0

A. Propose Discussion Issues:

1.  NCSG with Board

2.  NCSG with At-Large

3.  Topics for Public Forum

B.  Other Beijing Meeting Plans
1.  Preparation Meeting for NCSG in Beijing on 28 March 15:00 UTC

IV.  AoB?






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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130307/8b6ab75e/attachment.html>


From Mary.Wong  Fri Mar  8 17:13:46 2013
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 10:13:46 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Please Join in NCSG's Monthly Open Policy Meeting -
 Tue. 12 March (21:00 UTC) agenda & participation details
In-Reply-To: <9A9C8C5F-119E-4E26-BC5C-56063338A5CF@ipjustice.org>
References: <9A9C8C5F-119E-4E26-BC5C-56063338A5CF@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <5139B9DA0200005B000A36E5@smtp.law.unh.edu>


Hi Robin and fellow PC members, 

My apologies; I'll be on a plane then and so can't join the meeting.  

Cheers 
Mary


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


>>> 


From:  
Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> 

To: 
<ncSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> 

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

Date:  
3/7/2013 11:12 PM 

Subject:  
[PC-NCSG] Please Join in NCSG's Monthly Open Policy Meeting - Tue. 12 March (21:00 UTC) agenda & participation details 

Reminder: I hope you all will join in next Tuesday's NCSG Open Policy Meeting, which is an open discussion between the NCSG Policy Committee, including the NCSG GNSO Councilors and the entire NCSG membership.   



The meeting is on 12 March, which is 2 days before the next GNSO Council meeting to help prepare for NCSG's participation in that meeting.  We will also discuss preparations for the Beijing ICANN meeting next month and review open comment periods and working groups.   



Dial-in and remote participation details are below.  Also below is a draft discussion agenda.  If anyone needs a dial-out, please let me know at least 24-hours before the meeting to ensure we have enough time to make the dial-out happen.   



Please join in the discussion.  Thank you! 



Best, 

Robin 



NCSG Policy Open Meeting 

12 March 2013 - Tuesday 

21:00 - 23:00 UTC 



Other Time Zones: 

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=NCSG+Open+Policy+Meeting+March+2013&iso=20130312T21&p1=136&ah=2 ( http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=NCSG+Open+Policy+Meeting+February+2013&iso=20130212T21&p1=1440&ah=2 ) 



Remote Participation Details: 

Telephone:  http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCSG_Passcodes.htm 

Adobe Connect:  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/ 



Attendance Records of NCSG Open Policy Meetings: 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dGdNcVVfdHI2SWJ4dDZjU2xYaGV0WUE&usp=sharing 


 

Draft Discussion Agenda:



I. Preparation for 14 March GNSO Council Meeting 



14 March GNSO Council Meeting Discussion Agenda: 

   https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+14+March+2013 

 GNSO Council meeting audio cast: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u 



A. Motions to be Voted On 

   NONE Yet 

https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+2013 


 

B. Discussion Issues (no vote) 


 

1. Policy vs. Implementation 



Recent issues highlight an ongoing broader issue regarding the boundary 

between policy development and implementation work as well as the effective 

integration of policy development and integration work from the outset.   



In addition, the Council is increasingly asked to consider issues for policy 

guidance and may well need to look at the evolution of its own work and 

processes to accommodate this type of request. 



Recent discussions on the Council mailing list indicate that there is an 

interest to undertake further work on this issue. At the same time, ICANN 

Staff has published a paper 

<http://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/policy-implementation-framework-08j 

an13-en.pdf>   that is intended to facilitate further community discussions 

on this topic. 



Further community discussion will take place in Beijing and the inclusion of 

this agenda item here serves to keep the issue on the agenda of the Council 

in the interim. 



ICANN Public Comment Forum on Policy vs. Implementation: 

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/policy-implementation-31jan13-en.htm 

Reply Comments Due by 14 March 





2,  Whois Privacy and Proxy Relay and Reveal Study 



At the ICANN Meeting in Toronto, Lyman Chapin presented the results of the 

survey 

<http://toronto45.icann.org/meetings/toronto2012/presentation-whois-survey-1 

7oct12-en.pdf>  that evaluated the feasibility of conducting a future 

in-depth study into communication Relay and identity Reveal requests sent 

for gTLD domain names registered using Proxy and Privacy services.  



The Council discussed this at its 14 February 2013 meeting but did not reach 

a firm conclusion.  Some expressed concern about going ahead with the study 

now, when a lot of other Whois activities are going on, while others 

appeared to support moving forward as the study could result in data that 

would help inform ongoing Whois activities.  



One  possible way forward is that staff is asked to go ahead with the RFP 

for this work and then report back to the Council before going ahead with 

the study? In this way, some of the preparatory work could be done, which 

would allow us to move forward quickly if/when the Council decides to move 

ahead. 



3.  GNSO Council in Beijing Meeting Planning 



The GNSO Council has the opportunity to shape the topics and 

substance of the Council's proposed meetings with other groups in Beijing 

such as the CCNSO, the GAC and the ICANN board. 



What topics would NCSG members like to see on GNSO Council's discussion agendas in Beijng? 



4.  Confirmation of attendance of NCSG Representatives for 14 March meeting and need for any proxies to be arranged? 


 

II.  Other Policy Issues and Public Comments 


 

A.  Other Policy Issues 


 

1.  2nd Accountability & Transparency Review Team (ATRT2) 

Background: 

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-15feb13-en.htm 


 

2.  Whois Expert Working Group 

Background: 

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14feb13-en.htm 



Issue with under-representation of privacy experts in group 

(maybe Stephanie Perin could brief us on this discussion?) 



3.  Thick Whois & Data Protection Sub-Group 

Background: 

https://community.icann.org/display/PDP/5.+WG+Background+Documents 



4.  Special Protections for Red Cross, Olympic Cmte, IGOs 

IGO-INGO Working Group 

NCSG Input Statement:   

https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/40175441/NCSG_IGO-INGO_Input_Request_FINAL.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1360810862000 



5.  ICANN's Outreach & Engagement Plans 


 

6.  Public Interest Commitments (PICs) of New TLD applicants 

 Background: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-05mar13-en.htm 


 

7.  What is happening with staff's Strawman solution & other TM issues for New TLDs? 


 

8.  Registrant Agreement Amendment (RAA Negotiations) 

Background: 

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-14feb13-en.htm 


 

B.  Open ICANN Public Comments 


 

1.  So-called "closed generic" or "private label" TLD debate. 

ICANN Public Comment Forum: 

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/closed-generic-05feb13-en.htm 

Reply Comment Deadline: ? 



GNSO to provide policy guidance to board at end of comment period 



2.  Revised New gTLD Registry Agreement Including Additional Public Interest Commitments Specification 

ICANN Public Comment Forum: 

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm 

Reply Comment Deadline: 20 March 



3.  Whois Registrant Identification Study, Draft Report 

ICANN Public Comment Forum: 

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-regid-15feb13-en.htm 

Reply Comment Deadline: 31 March 



4.  Preliminary Issue Report on Uniformity of Reporting 

ICANN Public Comment Forum: 

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-regid-15feb13-en.htm 

Comment Close: 22 March   Reply Close: 12 April 



5.  Proposed Modification of GNSO PDP Manual to Address the Suspension of a PDP 

ICANN Public Comment Forum: 

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/pdp-suspension-07mar13-en.htm 

Comment Close: 6 April   Reply Close: 28 April 



6. ICANN's FY 14 Security, Stability and Resiliency Framework 

ICANN Public Comment Forum: 

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/ssr-fy14-06mar13-en.htm 

Comment Close: 20 April   Reply Close: 20 May 





III.  NCSG Planning for Beijing ICANN Meeting 



Working draft schedule of NCSG Meetings in Beijing and proposed discussion topics so far: 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dG11eV9fZWJMbUdEQW9PRnY4cnFNWVE#gid=0 



A. Propose Discussion Issues: 


 

1.  NCSG with Board 


 

2.  NCSG with At-Large 


 

3.  Topics for Public Forum 


 

B.  Other Beijing Meeting Plans 

1.  Preparation Meeting for NCSG in Beijing on 28 March 15:00 UTC 


 

IV.  AoB? 













IP JUSTICE 

Robin Gross, Executive Director 

1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA 

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

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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130308/1ce1cc98/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Mon Mar 11 22:10:28 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:10:28 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Mtg in Beijing - Monday 8 April
	(9:30 am)
Message-ID: <122F05CE-2178-4E37-917D-61A10C0D48A6@ipjustice.org>

Dear NCSG Policy Committee Members:

We've got a room assignment from ICANN so we can hold an NCSG Policy  
Committee Meeting in Beijing during the ICANN Meeting on Monday  
morning to prepare us for the week's discussions.

NCSG Policy Committee Meeting:
     8 April - Monday 9:30 - 10:30
     Room: Function 9

We'll have remote participation for those NCSG-PC members not in  
Beijing, as always.

Remember, all the proposed discussion topics for NCSG meetings in  
Beijing are posted here:
   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc? 
key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dG11eV9fZWJMbUdEQW9PRnY4cnFNWVE&usp=sharing

Thanks,
Robin



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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130311/8a4b573f/attachment.html>


From joy  Wed Mar 13 01:39:35 2013
From: joy (joy)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:39:35 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Policy Committee Mtg in Beijing - Monday 8 April
 (9:30 am)
In-Reply-To: <122F05CE-2178-4E37-917D-61A10C0D48A6@ipjustice.org>
References: <122F05CE-2178-4E37-917D-61A10C0D48A6@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <513FBCB7.6000606@apc.org>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Great, thanks Robin.
Joy

On 12/03/2013 9:10 a.m., Robin Gross wrote:
> Dear NCSG Policy Committee Members:
> 
> We've got a room assignment from ICANN so we can hold an NCSG
> Policy Committee Meeting in Beijing during the ICANN Meeting on
> Monday morning to prepare us for the week's discussions.
> 
> NCSG Policy Committee Meeting: 8 April - Monday 9:30 - 10:30 Room:
> Function 9
> 
> We'll have remote participation for those NCSG-PC members not in 
> Beijing, as always.
> 
> Remember, all the proposed discussion topics for NCSG meetings in 
> Beijing are posted here: 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dG11eV9fZWJMbUdEQW9PRnY4cnFNWVE&usp=sharing
>
>  Thanks, Robin
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San
> Francisco, CA  94117  USA p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451 
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org 
> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 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/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRP7y3AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqdsUIAKSpGxwSjGATJ1Tq6CBQv3d/
RRZ/fuGFQzIpB0GMXJehXLkolau1HEl7rPkKN8pVtJDMCqyj1/m4DU8aMISHIGsN
2jWqM7aUxQibnR8H19bvz57/1to00xPsbJbz9t7wY38BjBDOOzhrtebzMoufLlM0
EIURxVATIwsZQWSp8u0cXFmqQ2DnegVEXz47WBF4EhzDT4zdimMTka59jLjM7WIN
qAQjkqPxZqfiausyb0LRlfbB0IGWkKkY6hnSnb04vHLL7T+28jKbkUn1jfi/cm9+
nv5eqz4IlEgMoXoEQGi0qJm8kR1JioP20sdrG/V1/vIJu1yAVOhY0I1vbSQR9wY=
=y+zZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



From robin  Wed Mar 13 03:51:24 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:51:24 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] A few points from today's NCSG Open Policy Meeting
Message-ID: <5ACA48B0-F083-4BFE-A205-33ACFE58A1EE@ipjustice.org>

A few notes in advance of receiving the transcript and recording from  
today's NCSG Open Policy Meeting.

Proposal to organize a couple briefing sessions with ICANN staff and  
Registrar negotiators regarding the recent debacle over the Registrar  
Agreement Amendment (RAA) and ICANN unilateralism.

Proposal to organize a briefing session with privacy-concerned  
members of the WHOIS Expert Working Group about how NCSG can  
contribute to the EWG discussions and possible outcomes of EWG.

Proposal that NCSG help define "public interest" discussion at ICANN  
by preparing a list of criteria to consider in the evaluation (Wendy  
holds drafting pen - looking for input).

Below is the list of discussion topics suggested by NCSG members for  
NCSG GNSO Representatives to propose at Thursday's GNSO Council  
Meeting on the topic of Beijing planning.

GNSO & Board Discussion:
1.  Bottom-up multi-stakeholderism v. ICANN unilateralism
2.  Definition of "public interest" at ICANN
3.  ICANN engagement & outreach plans
4.  New constituencies

GNSO & GAC Discussion:
1.  Policy vs. Implementation - Roles of GAC & GNSO
2.  Definition of "public interest" at ICANN

CCnso & GNSO Discussion:
1.  Rights & Responsibilities document in relation to RAA
2.  ICANN engagement & outreach plans
3.  Regulation of CCtlds that look like Gtlds

I apologize if I've mischaracterized anyone's suggested topic above.   
Please correct me.  And also if there are other suggestions to add to  
this list, please do.

Thanks,
Robin



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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130312/d47dd870/attachment.html>


From robin  Thu Mar 14 00:41:02 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:41:02 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] Updated Agenda for the GNSO Council
	Meeting 14 March 2013
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD24452CF01@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <227A812C-E9A2-4510-9148-1672D609D42B@ipjustice.org>

I see the RAA issue to be added to council's agenda under the 'any  
other business' item at the end.  Somehow I think the item will be  
the most significant discussion during tomorrow's council mtg....


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: March 13, 2013 3:27:37 PM PDT
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] Updated Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 14  
> March 2013
>
>
>
> Dear Councillors,
>
>
>
> Please find the updated agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on  
> Thursday, 14 March 2013 at 15:00 UTC.
> Attached please find the list of Applicants for the Meeting  
> Strategy Working Group to be endorsed by the GNSO.
>
> The updates to the agenda are:
> Item 7: Any Other Business (15 minutes)
> 7.1 Update and discussion on recent changes to Registry and  
> Registrar agreements (Jeff Neuman & Volker Greimann)
> 7.2 Other items as proposed to the Council
>
>
>
> Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 14 March 2013
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-14mar13-en.htm
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+14 
> +March+2013
>
> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating  
> Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and  
> updated.
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12- 
> en.pdf
> For convenience:
>
> An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is  
> provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
> An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the  
> absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of  
> this agenda.
> Meeting Times 15:00 UTC
> http://tinyurl.com/czfwutj
>
> Coordinated Universal Time 15:00 UTC
> 08:00 Los Angeles; 11:00 Washington; 15:00 London; 16:00 Paris;  
> 04:00 Wellington
>
> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members.  
> Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial  
> out call is needed.
>
> GNSO Council meeting audio cast
>
> http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u
>
> Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
>
> 1.1 Roll Call
>
> 1.2 Statement of interest updates
> Jonathan Robinson
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Jonathan+Robinson+SOI
>
> 1.3 Review/amend agenda
>
> 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the Council meeting on 14  
> February 2013 approved per the GNSO Operating Procedures on 1 March  
> 2013.
>
> Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (5 minutes)
>
> Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics
>
> Include brief review of Projects List and Action List
>
> Item 3: Consent agenda (0 minutes)
>
> Confirmation of James Bladel and Mikey O'Connor as the co-chairs of  
> the IRTP Part D PDP Working Group.
>
> Item 4: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Policy vs. Implementation (15 minutes)
>
> Recent issues highlight an ongoing broader issue regarding the  
> boundary between policy development and implementation work as well  
> as the effective integration of policy development and integration  
> work from the outset.
>
> In addition, the Council is increasingly asked to consider issues  
> for policy guidance and may well need to look at the evolution of  
> its own work and processes to accommodate this type of request.
>
> Recent discussions on the Council mailing list indicate that there  
> is an interest to undertake further work on this issue. At the same  
> time, ICANN Staff has published a paper that is intended to  
> facilitate further community discussions on this topic.
>
> Further community discussion will take place in Beijing and the  
> inclusion of this agenda item here serves to keep the issue on the  
> agenda of the Council in the interim.
>
> 4.1 Update (Marika Konings)
> 4.2 Discussion
> 4.3 Next steps
>
> Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION - Whois Privacy and Proxy Relay and  
> Reveal Study (10 minutes)
>
> At the ICANN Meeting in Toronto, Lyman Chapin presented the results  
> of the survey that evaluated the feasibility of conducting a future  
> in-depth study into communication Relay and identity Reveal  
> requests sent for gTLD domain names registered using Proxy and  
> Privacy services.
>
> The Council discussed this at its 14 February 2013 meeting but did  
> not reach a firm conclusion. Some expressed concern about going  
> ahead with the study now, when a lot of other Whois activities are  
> going on, while others appeared to support moving forward as the  
> study could result in data that would help inform ongoing Whois  
> activities.
>
> One possible way forward is that staff is asked to go ahead with  
> the RFP for this work and then report back to the Council before  
> going ahead with the study? In this way, some of the preparatory  
> work could be done, which would allow us to move forward quickly if/ 
> when the Council decides to move ahead.
>
> 5.1 ? Update  as necessary
> 5.2 ? Discussion
> 5.3 ? Next steps
>
> Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Planning for Beijing (30 minutes)
>
> Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at  
> the ICANN Meeting in Beijing will take some planning. GNSO Council  
> VC Mason Cole is working with staff to lead this effort.
>
> The Council now has the opportunity to discuss plans and provide  
> feedback. Included in this item will be the opportunity to shape  
> the topics and substance of the Council's proposed meetings with  
> other groups in Beijing such as the CCNSO, the GAC and the ICANN  
> board.
>
> 6.1 ? Update (Mason Cole)
> 6.2 ? Discussion
> 6.3 ? Next steps
>
> Item 7: Any Other Business (15 minutes)
>
> 7.1 Update and discussion on recent changes to Registry and  
> Registrar agreements (Jeff Neuman & Volker Greimann)
>
> 7.2 Other items as proposed to the Council
>
> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article  
> X, Section 3)
>
> 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto,  
> or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a  
> GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple  
> majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below  
> shall apply to the following GNSO actions:
>
> Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than  
> one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
> Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as  
> described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than  
> one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one  
> House.
> Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of  
> GNSO Supermajority.
> Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an  
> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more  
> than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
> Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an  
> affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
> Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter  
> approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an  
> amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House.
> Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a  
> Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for  
> significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO  
> Supermajority Vote in favor of termination.
> Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires  
> an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further  
> requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3  
> of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation.
> Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an  
> affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
> Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain  
> Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies  
> that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence  
> of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to  
> be met or exceeded.
> Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final  
> Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be  
> modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority  
> vote.
> A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the  
> Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one  
> House and a majority of the other House."
> Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4)
>
> 4.4.1 Applicability
> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of  
> Council motions or measures.
>
> Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
> Approve a PDP recommendation;
> Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or  
> ICANN Bylaws;
> Fill a Council position open for election.
> 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within  
> the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the  
> meeting's adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at  
> the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or  
> extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is  
> verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present.
>
> 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate  
> absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide  
> reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee  
> ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web- 
> based interface, or other technologies as may become available.
>
> 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements.  
> (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is  
> initiated.)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> Local time between October and March, Winter in the NORTHERN  
> hemisphere
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 15:00
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 08:00
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 11:00
> Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 12:00
> Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 12:00
> Edinburgh, Scotland (BST) UTC+0DST 15:00
> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 15:00
> Abuja, Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 16:00
> Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 16:00
> Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 16:00
> Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+0DST 17:00
> Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 20:00
> Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 23:00
> Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 23:00
> Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 04:00 ? next day
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2013, 2:00 or 3:00  
> local time (with exceptions - DST starts on 10 March 2013 in USA)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com
> http://tinyurl.com/czfwutj
>
>
>
>
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
>
> GNSO Secretariat
>
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>
> http://gnso.icann.org
>
>
>
?



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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130313/a7400d97/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Applicants_MSWG_gNSO.xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 9755 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130313/a7400d97/attachment-0001.xlsx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130313/a7400d97/attachment-0003.html>


From robin  Thu Mar 14 02:46:42 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:46:42 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG-PC in Beijing 9:30 - 11:30 am
Message-ID: <B40290C1-974D-4DE9-97FD-2067B1FB8D9F@ipjustice.org>

NCSG PC Members:

We were able to extend our PC meeting on Monday morning in Beijing by  
an hour, so we we have the room:
   9:30 - 11:30am - Monday 8 April - Room Function 9

Thanks,
Robin

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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130313/0fcd1085/attachment.html>


From robin  Thu Mar 14 19:38:15 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 10:38:15 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG) Closing date for
	applications Sunday, 3 March 2013 - 23:59 UTC
References: <1183D804-9024-4B92-9DD6-541763DCF31E@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <B8E51C28-9C18-4F36-A56C-6BA04DBE64A7@ipjustice.org>

as discussed on today's gnso mtg.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
> Date: February 28, 2013 10:45:39 AM PST
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [liaison6c] Reminder: Meeting Strategy  
> Working Group (MSWG) Closing date for applications Sunday, 3 March  
> 2013 - 23:59 UTC
> Reply-To: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>> Date: February 28, 2013 9:36:45 AM PST
>> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
>> Subject: [liaison6c] Reminder: Meeting Strategy Working Group  
>> (MSWG) Closing date for applications Sunday, 3 March 2013 - 23:59 UTC
>>
>> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/participation/mswg/call-for- 
>> volunteers-11feb13-en.htm
>> Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG) | Call for Volunteer  
>> Members: Representing ICANN Advisory Committees and Supporting  
>> Organizations
>>
>> 11 February 2013
>>
>> In Short
>>
>> In line with the Board resolution adopted on February the 2nd  
>> 2013, ICANN now invites interested individuals to apply for  
>> Volunteer Member positions ? in representation of a Supporting  
>> Organization or Advisory Committee ? to serve on the Meeting  
>> Strategy Working Group. Candidatures are to be submitted to  
>> mswgcandidatures at icann.org by Sunday, 3 March 2013 ? 23:59 UTC.
>>
>> Please read below for more information and details on the  
>> application procedure and Meeting Strategy Working Group mandate.
>>
>> Background Information
>>
>> ICANN has committed to identifying ICANN Meeting locations two  
>> years in advance.
>>
>> After consideration that adoption of a prior Consolidated Meetings  
>> Strategy proposal was not timely the Public Participation  
>> Committee (PPC) initiated work to create a working group to  
>> address the meeting location strategy.
>>
>> The successful operation of ICANN's public meetings in all of the  
>> geographic regions is an important part of ICANN's accountability  
>> and transparency efforts. The action today will allow community  
>> members to serve alongside Board members and staff in helping to  
>> develop a meetings strategy that will align with community needs,  
>> while taking into account the fiscal and facility requirements for  
>> these meetings.
>>
>> In line with these requirements, ICANN now invites interested  
>> individuals to apply for a position of Volunteer Member, in  
>> representation of a Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee,  
>> in the Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG).
>>
>> Composition of the MSWG
>>
>> Members of the Board: S?bastien Bachollet (Chair), Chris Disspain;
>>
>> Staff representatives: Sally Costerton (As selector designee by  
>> the CEO), Nick Tomasso, Chris Gift;
>>
>> Representatives of the relevant ICANN Advisory Committees and  
>> Supporting Organizations 1. Each SO or AC will get between 1 to 4  
>> seats:
>>
>> ASO
>> ccNSO
>> gNSO
>> At-Large
>> GAC
>> Each SO and AC is encouraged to send a list of volunteers taking  
>> into account the need for diversity and not limited to the number  
>> of seats open. This will allow the selectors (the CEO or his  
>> designee and the Chair of the WG) to balance the various factors  
>> more easily.
>>
>> Membership is individual. Working Group Members are expected to  
>> attend face-to-face meetings, conference calls and may not  
>> delegate membership responsibilities.
>>
>> Mandate & Mission
>>
>> The mandate and Mission of Meeting Strategy Working Group is  
>> defined as follows in the MSWG Charter:
>>
>> To discuss and propose strategy for the structure, purpose and  
>> locations for ICANN Public Meetings and conferences, starting in  
>> 2015.
>>
>> Topics for consideration by the MSWG include:
>>
>> Number of ICANN meetings per year,
>> Other types of meetings and conferences (Global, regional, topic,  
>> stakeholder?),
>> Objectives of the Meetings and conferences,
>> Organization of the Meetings and conferences,
>> Localization (including rotation) of the Meetings and conferences,
>> Role of local host,
>> Visa and travel support,
>> Role of hosts and sponsors,
>> Expected language services to be provided at ICANN meetings and  
>> conferences,
>> Remote participation,
>> Outreach (during the Meetings and conferences).
>> Methodology, Budget & Support
>>
>> The working methodology will be determined by the Chairman, in  
>> consultation with the working group, including:
>>
>> How often the working group will meet and how (telephonic, face-to- 
>> face);
>> Best time and day on which to meet;
>> How long the meetings will last;
>> When notice will be provided and when materials will be  
>> distributed before the meeting.
>> English is the working language.
>>
>> ICANN Staff support will be made available to the working group.  
>> External expertise may be provided upon request.
>>
>> Timeline
>>
>> Proposed deadline for the deliverables of the working group,  
>> including reporting requirements:
>>
>> Call for candidates: 12 February 2013 ? 3 March 2013,
>> Applications send to the relevant AC or SO: 4 March 2013,
>> List of applicants supported by the relevant SO and AC send to the  
>> selectors: 14 March 2013,
>> Publication of the list of the members of the MSWG: 20 March 2013,
>> First meeting of the MSWG: week of 25 March 2013,
>> Discussion in Beijing,
>> Draft initial report: 21 May 2013,
>> Draft report for comments: 21 June 2013,
>> Comment period: 21 June 2013 to 26 July 2013,
>> Discussion in Durban: 12 July 2013,
>> Reply Comment period: 26 July 2013 to 30 August 2013,
>> Last report to the community: 10 October 2013,
>> Final report to the Board: 28 October 2013,
>> Board decision during the Buenos Aires ICANN Meeting.
>> Desired Skillset
>>
>> Applicants should possess the following professional and personal  
>> skills:
>>
>> Knowledge of ICANN and its working practices and culture;
>> Knowledge of international meetings;
>> Team spirit, adaptability, consensus-seeking attitude;
>> Willingness to learn;
>> Capacity to reason objectively, putting aside personal opinions or  
>> preconceptions;
>> Commitment to devote sufficient personal time to the review process.
>> Call for Applicants
>>
>> This call is solely intended for individuals interested in  
>> applying for a position of Volunteer Member, in representation of  
>> a Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee, on the Meeting  
>> Strategy Working Group (MSWG).
>>
>> How to apply?
>>
>> How to Apply for the Position of Volunteer Member for the MSWG
>>
>> Interested individuals are invited to provide the following:
>>
>> A resume (maximum three pages);
>> A letter of motivation;
>> A Declaration of Interests (the template may be found at:http:// 
>> www.icann.org/en/groups/board/participation/mswg/coi-declaration- 
>> affirmation-14feb13-en.pdf [PDF, 34 KB])
>> The Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee he/she wishes to  
>> represent;
>> Any additional information the Support Organization or Advisory  
>> Committee may require to reach its decision on endorsement.  
>> Candidatures will be forwarded to the Supporting Organization (SO)  
>> or Advisory Committee (AC) identified by the applicant, for  
>> endorsement. SO/AC endorsement will be factored into the selection  
>> process;
>> Candidatures should be emailed to mswgcandidatures at icann.org.
>>
>> The list of all candidates will be published on the ICANN website.
>>
>> Deadline
>>
>> Candidatures will be accepted until Sunday, 3 March 2013 ? 23:59 UTC.
>>
>> Compensation
>>
>> MSWG Members will not be remunerated. However, travel, meal and  
>> lodging costs for appointed Members to participate in MSWG  
>> meetings will be reimbursed upon request in accordance with  
>> ICANN's community travel support guidelines.
>>
>> Contact
>>
>> Please contact Renate DeWulf at renate.dewulf at icann.org for any  
>> questions you may have.
>>
>> 1 The Selectors will establish the number of positions on the MSWG  
>> available for each SO/AC and then determine the composition of the  
>> MSWG in line with a set of requirements and criteria including  
>> meeting objectivity and independence requirements together with  
>> geographical and gender factors. Only candidates who have received  
>> endorsement from a relevant SO/ACs will be considered for membership.
>>
>>
>>
>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>> GNSO Secretariat
>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130314/4bc8e8c5/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Thu Mar 14 23:52:28 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:52:28 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Input Request: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
	(IRTP) Part D
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD24452CFC8@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <5C44A1F5-647C-4ECD-BCEF-62CAE39A9C41@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: March 14, 2013 2:47:08 PM PDT
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Cc: "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org Gery"  
> <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: Input Request: Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D
>
>
>
> Stakeholder Group / Constituency Input Template
> Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part D Policy Development Process
>
> PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR RESPONSE AT THE LATEST BY Friday 19 April 2013  
> TO THE GNSO SECRETARIAT (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org), which  
> will forward your statement to the IRTP Part D Working Group.
>
> The GNSO Council has formed a Working Group of interested  
> stakeholders and Stakeholder Group / Constituency representatives,  
> to collaborate broadly with knowledgeable individuals and  
> organizations, in order to consider recommendations for a number of  
> issues related to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP). The  
> IRTP is a consensus policy that was adopted by the GNSO Council in  
> 2004, which aims to provide a straightforward procedure for domain  
> name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited  
> registrar to another.
>
> Part of the working group?s effort will be to incorporate ideas  
> and suggestions gathered from Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies  
> through this Stakeholder Group / Constituency Statement. Inserting  
> your Stakeholder Group?s / Constituency?s response in this form  
> will make it much easier for the Working Group to summarize the  
> responses. This information is helpful to the community in  
> understanding the points of view of various stakeholders. However,  
> you should feel free to add any information you deem important to  
> inform the working group?s deliberations, even if this does not  
> fit into any of the questions listed below.
>
> For further background information on this issue, please review the  
> GNSO Final Issue Report on IRTP Part D. The Working GroupCharter  
> can be found here.
>
> Process
> -        Please identify the member(s) of your stakeholder group /  
> constituency who is (are) participating in this working group
>
> -        Please identify the members of your stakeholder group /  
> constituency who participated in developing the perspective(s) set  
> forth below.
>
>
> -        Please describe the process by which your stakeholder  
> group / constituency arrived at the perspective(s) set forth below.
>
>
> Questions
>
> Please provide your stakeholder group?s / constituency?s views  
> on the IRTP Part D Charter Questions:
> a)      With regard to the IRTP, should reporting requirements for  
> registries and dispute provider be developed in order to make  
> precedent and trend information available to the community and  
> allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions?
> b)      Should additional provisions be included in the Transfer  
> Dispute Resolution Policy (TDRP) that set out how to handle  
> disputes when multiple transfers have occurred?
> c)      Should dispute options for registrants be developed and  
> implanted as part of the IRTP (currently registrants depend on  
> registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf)?
> d)      Should certain requirements and best practices be put into  
> place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute  
> resolution options available to registrants?
> e)      Are existing penalties for policy violations sufficient or  
> should additional provisions/penalties for specific violations be  
> added into the IRTP?
> f)       Did the universal adoption and implementation of EPP  
> AuthInfo codes* eliminate the need of Standard Forms of  
> Authorization (FOAs)**?
>
> Please note that you are very welcome to provide any additional  
> information that you may think useful for the Working Group to  
> consider as part of its deliberations on these charter questions.
>
> * The Auth-Info Code is a unique code generated on a per-domain  
> basis and is used for authorization or confirmation of a transfer  
> request.
>
> ** An FOA is a standardized form of authorization to initiate a  
> domain name transfer, see also: FOA: Domain Name Transfer ?  
> Initial Authorization for Registrar Transfer
>
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130314/bb03751e/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Fri Mar 15 11:21:57 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:21:57 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG) Closing date
	for applications Sunday, 3 March 2013 - 23:59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <B8E51C28-9C18-4F36-A56C-6BA04DBE64A7@ipjustice.org>
References: <1183D804-9024-4B92-9DD6-541763DCF31E@ipjustice.org>
	<B8E51C28-9C18-4F36-A56C-6BA04DBE64A7@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <5893EA7E-4D9B-4480-9E85-EE9AD9C41EF6@uzh.ch>

Ok, 

>>> 
>>> 1. Each SO or AC will get between 1 to 4 seats:
>>> 
>>> ASO
>>> ccNSO
>>> gNSO
>>> At-Large
>>> GAC

So who from NCSG has bandwidth, and hopefully a desire to push back on any moves toward enhanced meeting insularity?.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130315/93f416e7/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Sat Mar 16 04:19:29 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 19:19:29 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG) Closing date
	for applications Sunday, 3 March 2013 - 23:59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <5893EA7E-4D9B-4480-9E85-EE9AD9C41EF6@uzh.ch>
References: <1183D804-9024-4B92-9DD6-541763DCF31E@ipjustice.org>
	<B8E51C28-9C18-4F36-A56C-6BA04DBE64A7@ipjustice.org>
	<5893EA7E-4D9B-4480-9E85-EE9AD9C41EF6@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <1C54EB97-32DE-4828-9B90-821EA879EB80@ipjustice.org>

fyi:  NCSG members Klaus Stoll and Poncelet Ileleji applied for this  
group.  Did anyone else apply?  Thanks.


On Mar 15, 2013, at 2:21 AM, William Drake wrote:

> Ok,
>
>>>>
>>>> 1. Each SO or AC will get between 1 to 4 seats:
>>>>
>>>> ASO
>>>> ccNSO
>>>> gNSO
>>>> At-Large
>>>> GAC
>
> So who from NCSG has bandwidth, and hopefully a desire to push back  
> on any moves toward enhanced meeting insularity?.
>
>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130315/45a83207/attachment.html>


From avri  Sat Mar 16 06:20:24 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:20:24 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG) Closing date
	for applications Sunday, 3 March 2013 - 23:59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <1C54EB97-32DE-4828-9B90-821EA879EB80@ipjustice.org>
References: <1183D804-9024-4B92-9DD6-541763DCF31E@ipjustice.org>
	<B8E51C28-9C18-4F36-A56C-6BA04DBE64A7@ipjustice.org>
	<5893EA7E-4D9B-4480-9E85-EE9AD9C41EF6@uzh.ch>
	<1C54EB97-32DE-4828-9B90-821EA879EB80@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <154A22C4-70F4-4BE1-8246-3984116B38C7@acm.org>

Hi,

That is 2 good candidates.

But if it is possible to have 4, finding 2 other candidates might be a good thing.  
Though I would be comfortable with just those 2 representing us.


avri


On 15 Mar 2013, at 19:19, Robin Gross wrote:

> fyi:  NCSG members Klaus Stoll and Poncelet Ileleji applied for this group.  Did anyone else apply?  Thanks.
> 
> 
> On Mar 15, 2013, at 2:21 AM, William Drake wrote:
> 
>> Ok, 
>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. Each SO or AC will get between 1 to 4 seats:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	? ASO
>>>>> 	? ccNSO
>>>>> 	? gNSO
>>>>> 	? At-Large
>>>>> 	? GAC
>> 
>> So who from NCSG has bandwidth, and hopefully a desire to push back on any moves toward enhanced meeting insularity?.
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From william.drake  Sat Mar 16 12:21:08 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:21:08 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Meeting Strategy Working Group (MSWG) Closing date
	for applications Sunday, 3 March 2013 - 23:59 UTC
In-Reply-To: <154A22C4-70F4-4BE1-8246-3984116B38C7@acm.org>
References: <1183D804-9024-4B92-9DD6-541763DCF31E@ipjustice.org>
	<B8E51C28-9C18-4F36-A56C-6BA04DBE64A7@ipjustice.org>
	<5893EA7E-4D9B-4480-9E85-EE9AD9C41EF6@uzh.ch>
	<1C54EB97-32DE-4828-9B90-821EA879EB80@ipjustice.org>
	<154A22C4-70F4-4BE1-8246-3984116B38C7@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CBD5A463-FC79-409C-B36C-4D48E8ECA27F@uzh.ch>

Hi

On Mar 16, 2013, at 5:20 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> That is 2 good candidates.

+1
> 
> But if it is possible to have 4, finding 2 other candidates might be a good thing.  
> Though I would be comfortable with just those 2 representing us.

Robin sent the notice to the members list and nobody from NCUC has expressed an interest in stepping forward.  Personally, I don't think it's imperative that there be candidates from both constituencies since we all presumably agree that the meeting locations are important to global outreach and inclusion etc.

Best,

Bill
> 
> 
> 
> On 15 Mar 2013, at 19:19, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> fyi:  NCSG members Klaus Stoll and Poncelet Ileleji applied for this group.  Did anyone else apply?  Thanks.
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 15, 2013, at 2:21 AM, William Drake wrote:
>> 
>>> Ok, 
>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1. Each SO or AC will get between 1 to 4 seats:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 	? ASO
>>>>>> 	? ccNSO
>>>>>> 	? gNSO
>>>>>> 	? At-Large
>>>>>> 	? GAC
>>> 
>>> So who from NCSG has bandwidth, and hopefully a desire to push back on any moves toward enhanced meeting insularity?.
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From robin  Sat Mar 16 23:42:25 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 14:42:25 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint discussion of noncommercial members & registrars on
	RAA debacle - doodle poll 25, 26 March
Message-ID: <1411156D-1E48-4A98-9164-C6D7F4929F51@ipjustice.org>

Please mark your availability to participate in a briefing call from  
the registrar negotiators on RAA in this Doodle Poll:

> http://www.doodle.com/ryf9wq75rxsqx78m

Discussion between members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group  
(NCSG) and members of the Registrar Stakeholders Group (RrSG)  
negotiating team and other registrars on the topic of the Registrar  
Agreement Amendment (RAA) issue.

Availability on 25, 26 March ??

Poll closes on Tuesday, 19 March 2013 EoB in California, so please  
mark your availability to participate in the discussion.

Anyone interested in participating in this discussion is welcome to  
join in the call and the doodle poll.

Thanks,
Robin


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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130316/0929f724/attachment.html>


From robin  Mon Mar 18 21:19:13 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:19:13 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Availability next Mon. Tues. for discussion with
	registrars on RAA debacle? - doodle poll 25, 26 March
References: <1411156D-1E48-4A98-9164-C6D7F4929F51@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <8802C165-7EF0-4E08-B247-99F9E594966D@ipjustice.org>

>> http://www.doodle.com/ryf9wq75rxsqx78m


Dear NCSG-PC Members:

As suggested in last week's NCSG Open Policy Call, we have asked the  
registrars to have a call with us regarding the RAA agreement and  
they kindly agreed.

We'd like to schedule this call on either next Monday or Tuesday, but  
are asking for your availability on those days so we know when is the  
best time to hold the call.

Please fill out the doodle with your availability in the next day so  
we can schedule this call asap.  Thanks very much!

Best,
Robin

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Date: March 16, 2013 2:42:25 PM PDT
> To: NCSG-Policy Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint discussion of noncommercial members &  
> registrars on RAA debacle - doodle poll 25, 26 March
>
> Please mark your availability to participate in a briefing call  
> from the registrar negotiators on RAA in this Doodle Poll:
>
>> http://www.doodle.com/ryf9wq75rxsqx78m
>
> Discussion between members of the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group  
> (NCSG) and members of the Registrar Stakeholders Group (RrSG)  
> negotiating team and other registrars on the topic of the Registrar  
> Agreement Amendment (RAA) issue.
>
> Availability on 25, 26 March ??
>
> Poll closes on Tuesday, 19 March 2013 EoB in California, so please  
> mark your availability to participate in the discussion.
>
> Anyone interested in participating in this discussion is welcome to  
> join in the call and the doodle poll.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130318/d275e77d/attachment.html>


From wendy  Tue Mar 19 21:45:06 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:45:06 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Agenda for GNSO Council Meetings in Beijing
In-Reply-To: <061a01ce24d2$4ed88d70$ec89a850$@ipracon.com>
References: <061a01ce24d2$4ed88d70$ec89a850$@ipracon.com>
Message-ID: <5148C042.3070506@seltzer.com>

For the Council-Board discussion agenda, who has the list of items we
discussed on our last NCSG call?

Thanks,
--Wendy


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Agenda for GNSO Council Meetings in Beijing
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:48:12 -0000
From: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
To: <council at gnso.icann.org>

All,



We are on track with a team to work with peers in the ccNSO in order to
develop the proposed topics for our meeting with the ccNSO.



As far as our prospective meeting with the GAC Is concerned, that is still
work in progress, so for now that leaves meeting with the ICANN Board and
the CEO.



Typically in the past, these meetings have consisted of our topics / their
topics and my sense is that we have, at least at times, talked past one
another.

However, it is clearly still very useful to have a view on key areas we like
to see covered in our interaction with the CEO and the board and to do the
preparatory work on these.



With the above in mind, I'd welcome input that proposes topics for either or
both of these interactions.

Once we settle on the topics (I have contacted both the board and the CEO in
order to collaborate on these) we'll likely need volunteers to develop the
topics and potentially lead the discussions.



Therefore, please can you propose one or more topics for either or both
sessions (with CEO and Board) as soon as possible.



Thank-you.





Jonathan







From robin  Tue Mar 19 21:56:29 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 12:56:29 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: A few points from today's NCSG Open Policy Meeting
References: <5ACA48B0-F083-4BFE-A205-33ACFE58A1EE@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <10279DD4-33F1-4D27-9951-A1D1247E9A59@ipjustice.org>

Wendy,

Meeting discussion points below.

Thanks!
Robin

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Date: March 12, 2013 6:51:24 PM PDT
> To: ncSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> Subject: [PC-NCSG] A few points from today's NCSG Open Policy Meeting
>
> A few notes in advance of receiving the transcript and recording  
> from today's NCSG Open Policy Meeting.
>
> Proposal to organize a couple briefing sessions with ICANN staff  
> and Registrar negotiators regarding the recent debacle over the  
> Registrar Agreement Amendment (RAA) and ICANN unilateralism.
>
> Proposal to organize a briefing session with privacy-concerned  
> members of the WHOIS Expert Working Group about how NCSG can  
> contribute to the EWG discussions and possible outcomes of EWG.
>
> Proposal that NCSG help define "public interest" discussion at  
> ICANN by preparing a list of criteria to consider in the evaluation  
> (Wendy holds drafting pen - looking for input).
>
> Below is the list of discussion topics suggested by NCSG members  
> for NCSG GNSO Representatives to propose at Thursday's GNSO Council  
> Meeting on the topic of Beijing planning.
>
> GNSO & Board Discussion:
> 1.  Bottom-up multi-stakeholderism v. ICANN unilateralism
> 2.  Definition of "public interest" at ICANN
> 3.  ICANN engagement & outreach plans
> 4.  New constituencies
>
> GNSO & GAC Discussion:
> 1.  Policy vs. Implementation - Roles of GAC & GNSO
> 2.  Definition of "public interest" at ICANN
>
> CCnso & GNSO Discussion:
> 1.  Rights & Responsibilities document in relation to RAA
> 2.  ICANN engagement & outreach plans
> 3.  Regulation of CCtlds that look like Gtlds
>
> I apologize if I've mischaracterized anyone's suggested topic  
> above.  Please correct me.  And also if there are other suggestions  
> to add to this list, please do.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130319/3faf1855/attachment.html>


From robin  Wed Mar 20 03:23:20 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 18:23:20 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] 25 March 18:00 UTC - NCSG & RrSG Call on RAA Debacle
Message-ID: <E10E79EF-3A1E-4C9B-A261-F4F5C4AFAC8A@ipjustice.org>

Dear All:

Please mark your calendars for a call between members of both NCSG &  
RrSG on Monday 25 March 18:00 UTC for 1 hour.

The call's discussion topic is the Registrar Amendment Agreement  
(RAA).   NCSG members can talk with members of the registrar  
negotiating team and other registrars about the recent developments  
in the negotiations and next steps for this process.  Below is a copy  
of the RrSG Statement on the issue.  I share concerns about the  
impact on the bottom-up multi-stakeholder model from ICANN's proposal  
that it have unilateral right to amend the contracts that govern  
online activity (see: Jeff Neuman's take here).

Any NCSG member is welcome and invited to participate in the joint  
call (details to follow).

Thanks,
Robin

=======================================================================
http://www.internetnews.me/2013/03/08/registrar-negotiating-team- 
issues-statement-on-raa/

Registrar Stakeholder Group Negotiating Team (Registrar NT) statement  
regarding RAA negotiations:

After nearly 18 months of negotiations with ICANN over a new  
Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), formal negotiations have  
concluded. The posting of a ?proposed? 2013 RAA by ICANN for public  
comment signals that ICANN staff believes that negotiations have  
concluded and the remaining issues will not be resolved.

The Registrars? NT disagrees. To be clear, this is NOT the outcome  
that registrars wanted, and they remain ready and willing to continue  
negotiations.

Prior to the Toronto ICANN meeting (October 2012), all parties  
acknowledged that they were very close to agreement on all remaining  
issues.  The process appeared to be reaching a favorable conclusion  
and when ICANN CEO Fadi Chehad? communicated his desire to have RAA  
negotiations wrapped up by the end of 2012, registrars felt it was an  
ambitious timeframe, but one worth pursuing for the benefit of all  
parties.

When negotiations finally resumed in February 2013 much to the  
surprise of registrars, the few remaining issues were not the only  
items under discussion. ICANN staff presented a list of 10 brand new  
items for inclusion in the agreement, under the pretext of enhancing  
the ?public interest.? Furthermore, these new items came along with  
an arbitrary deadline and decision to link the 2013 RAA to the new  
gTLD timeline.

Among these new demands was a Registrant Rights and Responsibilities  
document (R3), a temporary privacy accreditation program and a  
requirement that registrars accept and implement recommendations of  
the WHOIS Expert Working Group, which had yet to be formed and whose  
work is just beginning.

Although registrars were surprised by these new demands, registrars  
worked in good faith with ICANN to accommodate its intentions. For  
example, registrars consulted with their members to fine-tune the R3  
document to make it easier to understand and readily translatable in  
other languages.

Some of the other new items for inclusion transcend the RAA and could  
affect the entirety of the multi-stakeholder model.  For example,  
ICANN insisted on including a proposed Revocation (or ?blow up?)  
Clause that would have given them the ability to unilaterally  
terminate all registrar accreditations. After major pushback, ICANN  
staff relented and in its place proposed giving the ICANN Board the  
ability to unilaterally amend the RAA. This is identical to what  
ICANN inserted into the proposed new gTLD registry agreement?a clause  
met with strong opposition not only from the Registry Stakeholder  
Group but from the broader ICANN community.

The effect of such a clause in the primary agreements between ICANN  
and its commercial stakeholders would be devastating to the bottom- 
up, multi-stakeholder model.  First, it will effectively mean the end  
of the GNSO?s PDP, as the Board will become the central arena for all  
controversial issues, not the community. Second, it creates an  
imbalance of authority in the ICANN model, with no limits on the  
scope or frequency of unilateral amendments, and no protections for  
registrars and more important registrants.

In addition to the new items for inclusion there was a surprise  
announcement that all new gTLD registries must only use registrars  
that have signed the 2013 RAA, a transparent effort by ICANN to  
arbitrarily link the new gTLD program to the outcome of RAA  
negotiations. This requirement would create separate ?classes? or  
?levels? of registrars, which is unprecedented in the DNS industry.   
There can and must be only one meaning of ?ICANN-Accredited.?

All of the items that have been agreed to over the past 18 months  
would, by themselves, produce an RAA that is vastly improved over the  
current 2009 version. If adopted, that RAA would significantly raise  
performance requirements for every ICANN accredited registrar and  
bring dramatic improvements to the domain name ecosystem. Nearly all  
of the Law Enforcement requests that were endorsed by the GAC have  
been included, as well as the major items that were requested by the  
GNSO are included in that RAA. That RAA would bring registrant  
verification. That RAA would bring enhanced compliance tools.

Registrars must emphasize that the key differences between that RAA  
and the one currently proposed by ICANN are not issues raised by Law  
Enforcement, GAC or the GNSO but by ICANN staff.

It now moves to the greater ICANN community to review these competing  
draft RAAs, and registrars look forward to those public discussions.   
We welcome engagement with all stakeholders on the new 2013 RAA, and  
what it means for registrars, registrants, and the management of the  
DNS as a whole.

========================

Also another registrar view on the "Mishandling of the Registrar  
Negotiations" here.





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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130319/1829000c/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Fri Mar 22 21:52:12 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 12:52:12 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Please join & Dial in details for NCSG & Registrars
	Discussion on RAA - Monday 25 March 2013 18:00 UTC
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD24452D39A@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <D35F4ECC-C0D8-4B56-A268-1DBCE8CE68A4@ipjustice.org>


> RrSG & NCSG Discussion call on Monday 25 March 2013 at 1900 CET/  
> 1800 UTC

Reminder: All members are welcome to join in Monday's  call with  
members of the Registrar negotiating team for the Registrar Agreement  
Amendment (RAA).

Call details are below.  Thanks!

Begin forwarded message:
> De : owner-gnso-secs at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-secs at icann.org]  
> De la part de Nathalie Peregrine
> Envoy? : mercredi 20 mars 2013 14:59
> ? : Michele Neylon :: Blacknight (michele at blacknight.com)
> Cc : gnso-secs at icann.org
> Objet : [gnso-secs] Dial in details RrSG & NCSG Discussion Meeting  
> 25 March 2013
>
>  Dear Robin and Michele,
>
> Please find below the confirmation for RrSG & NCSG Discussion call  
> on Monday 25 March 2013 at 1900 CET/ 1800 UTC.
>
>
> PARTICIPANT INFORMATION
> Passcodes/Pin codes:
> Participant passcode: DISCUSSION
> For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the  
> conference.
>
>
>
> Dial in numbers:
> Country
>
> Toll Numbers
> Freephone/
> Toll Free Number
> ARGENTINA
>
>
>
>
>
> 0800-777-0519
>
> AUSTRALIA
>
> ADELAIDE:
>
> 61-8-8121-4842
>
> 1-800-657-260
>
> AUSTRALIA
>
> BRISBANE:
>
> 61-7-3102-0944
>
> 1-800-657-260
>
> AUSTRALIA
>
> CANBERRA:
>
> 61-2-6100-1944
>
> 1-800-657-260
>
> AUSTRALIA
>
> MELBOURNE:
>
> 61-3-9010-7713
>
> 1-800-657-260
>
> AUSTRALIA
>
> PERTH:
>
> 61-8-9467-5223
>
> 1-800-657-260
>
> AUSTRALIA
>
> SYDNEY:
>
> 61-2-8205-8129
>
> 1-800-657-260
>
> AUSTRIA
>
>
>
> 43-1-92-81-113
>
> 0800-005-259
>
> BELGIUM
>
>
>
> 32-2-400-9861
>
> 0800-3-8795
>
> BRAZIL
>
>
>
> 55-11-3958-0779
>
> 0800-7610651
>
> CHILE
>
>
>
>
>
> 1230-020-2863
>
> CHINA
>
> CHINA A:
>
> 86-400-810-4789
>
> 10800-712-1670
>
> CHINA
>
> CHINA B:
>
> 86-400-810-4789
>
> 10800-120-1670
>
> COLOMBIA
>
>
>
>
>
> 01800-9-156474
>
> CZECH REPUBLIC
>
>
>
> 420-2-25-98-56-64
>
> 800-700-177
>
> DENMARK
>
>
>
> 45-7014-0284
>
> 8088-8324
>
> ESTONIA
>
>
>
>
>
> 800-011-1093
>
> FINLAND
>
>
>
> 358-9-5424-7162
>
> 0-800-9-14610
>
> FRANCE
>
> LYON:
>
> 33-4-26-69-12-85
>
> 080-511-1496
>
> FRANCE
>
> MARSEILLE:
>
> 33-4-86-06-00-85
>
> 080-511-1496
>
> FRANCE
>
> PARIS:
>
> 33-1-70-70-60-72
>
> 080-511-1496
>
> GERMANY
>
>
>
> 49-69-2222-20362
>
> 0800-664-4247
>
> GREECE
>
>
>
> 30-80-1-100-0687
>
> 00800-12-7312
>
> HONG KONG
>
>
>
> 852-3001-3863
>
> 800-962-856
>
> HUNGARY
>
>
>
> 36-1-700-8856
>
> 06-800-12755
>
> INDIA
>
> INDIA A:
>
> 91-22-61501629
>
> 000-800-852-1268
>
> INDIA
>
> INDIA B:
>
> 91-22-61501629
>
> 000-800-001-6305
>
> INDIA
>
> INDIA C:
>
> 91-22-61501629
>
> 1800-300-00491
>
> INDONESIA
>
>
>
>
>
> 001-803-011-3982
>
> IRELAND
>
>
>
> 353-1-246-7646
>
> 1800-992-368
>
> ISRAEL
>
>
>
>
>
> 1-80-9216162
>
> ITALY
>
> MILAN:
>
> 39-02-3600-6007
>
> 800-986-383
>
> ITALY
>
> ROME:
>
> 39-06-8751-6018
>
> 800-986-383
>
> ITALY
>
> TORINO:
>
> 39-011-510-0118
>
> 800-986-383
>
> JAPAN
>
> OSAKA:
>
> 81-6-7739-4799
>
> 0066-33-132439
>
> JAPAN
>
> TOKYO:
>
> 81-3-5539-5191
>
> 0066-33-132439
>
> LATVIA
>
>
>
>
>
> 8000-3185
>
> LUXEMBOURG
>
>
>
> 352-27-000-1364
>
> 8002-9246
>
> MALAYSIA
>
>
>
>
>
> 1-800-81-3065
>
> MEXICO
>
> GUADALAJARA (JAL):
>
> 52-33-3208-7310
>
> 001-866-376-9696
>
> MEXICO
>
> MEXICO CITY:
>
> 52-55-5062-9110
>
> 001-866-376-9696
>
> MEXICO
>
> MONTERREY:
>
> 52-81-2482-0610
>
> 001-866-376-9696
>
> NETHERLANDS
>
>
>
> 31-20-718-8588
>
> 0800-023-4378
>
> NEW ZEALAND
>
>
>
> 64-9-970-4771
>
> 0800-447-722
>
> NORWAY
>
>
>
> 47-21-590-062
>
> 800-15157
>
> PANAMA
>
>
>
>
>
> 011-001-800-5072065
>
> PERU
>
>
>
>
>
> 0800-53713
>
> PHILIPPINES
>
>
>
> 63-2-858-3716
>
> POLAND
>
>
>
>
>
> 00-800-1212572
>
> PORTUGAL
>
>
>
>
>
> 8008-14052
>
> ROMANIA
>
>
>
> 40-31-630-01-79
>
> RUSSIA
>
>
>
>
>
> 8-10-8002-0144011
>
> SAUDI ARABIA
>
>
>
>
>
> 800-8-110087
>
> SINGAPORE
>
>
>
> 65-6883-9230
>
> 800-120-4663
>
> SLOVAK REPUBLIC
>
>
>
> 421-2-322-422-25
>
> SOUTH AFRICA
>
>
>
>
>
> 080-09-80414
>
> SOUTH KOREA
>
>
>
> 82-2-6744-1083
>
> 00798-14800-7352
>
> SPAIN
>
>
>
> 34-91-414-25-33
>
> 800-300-053
>
> SWEDEN
>
>
>
> 46-8-566-19-348
>
> 0200-884-622
>
> SWITZERLAND
>
>
>
> 41-44-580-6398
>
> 0800-120-032
>
> TAIWAN
>
>
>
> 886-2-2795-7379
>
> 00801-137-797
>
> THAILAND
>
>
>
>
>
> 001-800-1206-66056
>
> TURKEY
>
>
>
>
>
> 00-800-151-0516
>
> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
>
>
>
>
>
> 8000-35702370
>
> UNITED KINGDOM
>
> BIRMINGHAM:
>
> 44-121-210-9025
>
> 0808-238-6029
>
> UNITED KINGDOM
>
> GLASGOW:
>
> 44-141-202-3225
>
> 0808-238-6029
>
> UNITED KINGDOM
>
> LEEDS:
>
> 44-113-301-2125
>
> 0808-238-6029
>
> UNITED KINGDOM
>
> LONDON:
>
> 44-20-7108-6370
>
> 0808-238-6029
>
> UNITED KINGDOM
>
> MANCHESTER:
>
> 44-161-601-1425
>
> 0808-238-6029
>
> URUGUAY
>
>
>
>
>
> 000-413-598-3421
>
> USA
>
>
>
> 1-517-345-9004
>
> 866-692-5726
>
> VENEZUELA
>
>
>
>
>
> 0800-1-00-3702
>
>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130322/53c80af9/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Sat Mar 23 17:49:32 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 08:49:32 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Please join & Dial in details for NCSG & Registrars
	Discussion on RAA - Monday 25 March 2013 18:00 UTC
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD24452D39A@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <E62E5DF3-8EF8-4D5C-AC25-DDF16950EAE8@ipjustice.org>


> RrSG & NCSG Discussion call on Monday 25 March 2013 at 1900 CET/  
> 1800 UTC

Reminder: All members are welcome to join in Monday's  call with  
members of the Registrar negotiating team for the Registrar Agreement  
Amendment (RAA).

Call details are below.  Thanks!

Begin forwarded message:
> De : owner-gnso-secs at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-secs at icann.org]  
> De la part de Nathalie Peregrine
> Envoy? : mercredi 20 mars 2013 14:59
> ? : Michele Neylon :: Blacknight (michele at blacknight.com)
> Cc : gnso-secs at icann.org
> Objet : [gnso-secs] Dial in details RrSG & NCSG Discussion Meeting  
> 25 March 2013
>
>  Dear Robin and Michele,
>
> Please find below the confirmation for RrSG & NCSG Discussion call  
> on Monday 25 March 2013 at 1900 CET/ 1800 UTC.
>
>
> PARTICIPANT INFORMATION
> Passcodes/Pin codes:
> Participant passcode: DISCUSSION
> For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the  
> conference.
>
>
>
> Dial in numbers:
> Country
>
> Toll Numbers
> Freephone/
> Toll Free Number
> ARGENTINA
>
>
>
>
>
> 0800-777-0519
>
> AUSTRALIA
>
> ADELAIDE:
>
> 61-8-8121-4842
>
> 1-800-657-260
>
> AUSTRALIA
>
> BRISBANE:
>
> 61-7-3102-0944
>
> 1-800-657-260
>
> AUSTRALIA
>
> CANBERRA:
>
> 61-2-6100-1944
>
> 1-800-657-260
>
> AUSTRALIA
>
> MELBOURNE:
>
> 61-3-9010-7713
>
> 1-800-657-260
>
> AUSTRALIA
>
> PERTH:
>
> 61-8-9467-5223
>
> 1-800-657-260
>
> AUSTRALIA
>
> SYDNEY:
>
> 61-2-8205-8129
>
> 1-800-657-260
>
> AUSTRIA
>
>
>
> 43-1-92-81-113
>
> 0800-005-259
>
> BELGIUM
>
>
>
> 32-2-400-9861
>
> 0800-3-8795
>
> BRAZIL
>
>
>
> 55-11-3958-0779
>
> 0800-7610651
>
> CHILE
>
>
>
>
>
> 1230-020-2863
>
> CHINA
>
> CHINA A:
>
> 86-400-810-4789
>
> 10800-712-1670
>
> CHINA
>
> CHINA B:
>
> 86-400-810-4789
>
> 10800-120-1670
>
> COLOMBIA
>
>
>
>
>
> 01800-9-156474
>
> CZECH REPUBLIC
>
>
>
> 420-2-25-98-56-64
>
> 800-700-177
>
> DENMARK
>
>
>
> 45-7014-0284
>
> 8088-8324
>
> ESTONIA
>
>
>
>
>
> 800-011-1093
>
> FINLAND
>
>
>
> 358-9-5424-7162
>
> 0-800-9-14610
>
> FRANCE
>
> LYON:
>
> 33-4-26-69-12-85
>
> 080-511-1496
>
> FRANCE
>
> MARSEILLE:
>
> 33-4-86-06-00-85
>
> 080-511-1496
>
> FRANCE
>
> PARIS:
>
> 33-1-70-70-60-72
>
> 080-511-1496
>
> GERMANY
>
>
>
> 49-69-2222-20362
>
> 0800-664-4247
>
> GREECE
>
>
>
> 30-80-1-100-0687
>
> 00800-12-7312
>
> HONG KONG
>
>
>
> 852-3001-3863
>
> 800-962-856
>
> HUNGARY
>
>
>
> 36-1-700-8856
>
> 06-800-12755
>
> INDIA
>
> INDIA A:
>
> 91-22-61501629
>
> 000-800-852-1268
>
> INDIA
>
> INDIA B:
>
> 91-22-61501629
>
> 000-800-001-6305
>
> INDIA
>
> INDIA C:
>
> 91-22-61501629
>
> 1800-300-00491
>
> INDONESIA
>
>
>
>
>
> 001-803-011-3982
>
> IRELAND
>
>
>
> 353-1-246-7646
>
> 1800-992-368
>
> ISRAEL
>
>
>
>
>
> 1-80-9216162
>
> ITALY
>
> MILAN:
>
> 39-02-3600-6007
>
> 800-986-383
>
> ITALY
>
> ROME:
>
> 39-06-8751-6018
>
> 800-986-383
>
> ITALY
>
> TORINO:
>
> 39-011-510-0118
>
> 800-986-383
>
> JAPAN
>
> OSAKA:
>
> 81-6-7739-4799
>
> 0066-33-132439
>
> JAPAN
>
> TOKYO:
>
> 81-3-5539-5191
>
> 0066-33-132439
>
> LATVIA
>
>
>
>
>
> 8000-3185
>
> LUXEMBOURG
>
>
>
> 352-27-000-1364
>
> 8002-9246
>
> MALAYSIA
>
>
>
>
>
> 1-800-81-3065
>
> MEXICO
>
> GUADALAJARA (JAL):
>
> 52-33-3208-7310
>
> 001-866-376-9696
>
> MEXICO
>
> MEXICO CITY:
>
> 52-55-5062-9110
>
> 001-866-376-9696
>
> MEXICO
>
> MONTERREY:
>
> 52-81-2482-0610
>
> 001-866-376-9696
>
> NETHERLANDS
>
>
>
> 31-20-718-8588
>
> 0800-023-4378
>
> NEW ZEALAND
>
>
>
> 64-9-970-4771
>
> 0800-447-722
>
> NORWAY
>
>
>
> 47-21-590-062
>
> 800-15157
>
> PANAMA
>
>
>
>
>
> 011-001-800-5072065
>
> PERU
>
>
>
>
>
> 0800-53713
>
> PHILIPPINES
>
>
>
> 63-2-858-3716
>
> POLAND
>
>
>
>
>
> 00-800-1212572
>
> PORTUGAL
>
>
>
>
>
> 8008-14052
>
> ROMANIA
>
>
>
> 40-31-630-01-79
>
> RUSSIA
>
>
>
>
>
> 8-10-8002-0144011
>
> SAUDI ARABIA
>
>
>
>
>
> 800-8-110087
>
> SINGAPORE
>
>
>
> 65-6883-9230
>
> 800-120-4663
>
> SLOVAK REPUBLIC
>
>
>
> 421-2-322-422-25
>
> SOUTH AFRICA
>
>
>
>
>
> 080-09-80414
>
> SOUTH KOREA
>
>
>
> 82-2-6744-1083
>
> 00798-14800-7352
>
> SPAIN
>
>
>
> 34-91-414-25-33
>
> 800-300-053
>
> SWEDEN
>
>
>
> 46-8-566-19-348
>
> 0200-884-622
>
> SWITZERLAND
>
>
>
> 41-44-580-6398
>
> 0800-120-032
>
> TAIWAN
>
>
>
> 886-2-2795-7379
>
> 00801-137-797
>
> THAILAND
>
>
>
>
>
> 001-800-1206-66056
>
> TURKEY
>
>
>
>
>
> 00-800-151-0516
>
> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
>
>
>
>
>
> 8000-35702370
>
> UNITED KINGDOM
>
> BIRMINGHAM:
>
> 44-121-210-9025
>
> 0808-238-6029
>
> UNITED KINGDOM
>
> GLASGOW:
>
> 44-141-202-3225
>
> 0808-238-6029
>
> UNITED KINGDOM
>
> LEEDS:
>
> 44-113-301-2125
>
> 0808-238-6029
>
> UNITED KINGDOM
>
> LONDON:
>
> 44-20-7108-6370
>
> 0808-238-6029
>
> UNITED KINGDOM
>
> MANCHESTER:
>
> 44-161-601-1425
>
> 0808-238-6029
>
> URUGUAY
>
>
>
>
>
> 000-413-598-3421
>
> USA
>
>
>
> 1-517-345-9004
>
> 866-692-5726
>
> VENEZUELA
>
>
>
>
>
> 0800-1-00-3702
>
>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130323/2c15f561/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Tue Mar 26 21:14:34 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:14:34 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Should NCSG consider filing an ombudsman complaint
	against ICANN senior staff for violating the organization's
	policy development process?
Message-ID: <E6EDA50C-F172-4FA2-A081-4500F7ADF223@ipjustice.org>

I think NCSG should consider filing an ombudsman complaint against  
the organization's senior management for violating the organization's  
policy development process by adopting staff's "strawman solution"  
which never went through proper process (or any process for that  
matter).

The most dangerous part of staff's adopted proposal creates  
unprecedented new rights for trademark holders with this "once  
infringed" theory of new rights to TM+50 derivations of that mark.   
This particular proposal was stitched together by TM lobbyists and  
staff when NCSG wasn't even in the room - because it was 10pm at  
night in LA and I had left for my flight on staff's assurances that  
no policy discussions would take place that evening.  ALAC wasn't in  
the room either (although Evan & Alan participated remotely on the  
phone in the middle of their night).

The GNSO Council said don't adopt this policy.

ICANN staff admitted the proposal was a policy decision and not an  
implementation decision - a key distinction in staff's ability to  
make decisions. [Although the first time staff published its report  
on the mtg's discussion of that proposal, staff's blog report  
differed from what the CEO stated to meeting participants and said  
this proposal had been characterized as an "implementation" decision  
by mtg participants.  It took some persistence and insistence from  
mtg participants to correct staff's blog post and classify this  
proposal as "policy" - which was the truth of what the LA mtg  
participants had said.  Finally staff gave-in, as I was not the only  
one to complain about the inaccurate reporting, and they changed the  
web-posting to reflect that the group - and staff - had classified  
this proposal as "policy, and not implementation" at the LA mtg.  The  
CEO apologize for staff's "mistake".  I'm sure it's all another  
coincidence...]

The CEO told Congress only a few weeks' previously that ICANN could  
not adopt such a policy - in part because it creates new rights (and  
ICANN isn't supposed to creating new rights).

The above doesn't even go into the underlying substance of the  
particular (TM+50) proposal (which turns trademark law on its head).   
How is anyone going to criticize a company or product that was "found  
to abused" by someone else, somewhere else, in an entirely unrelated  
circumstance?  This proposal actually thumbs its nose at trademark  
law because trademark law recognizes that "once infringed" does not  
create some magical new category of rights that is allowed to trample  
on the expression rights of all the innocent and lawful uses of a  
word (that resembles a trademark).  But I'll save the complaints  
about how nonsensical the substance of this proposal is for another  
email.  This email is just about the insanity of ICANN senior staff  
attempting to usurp the bottom-up policy development process to  
appease powerful political interests.

If ICANN staff refuses to follow the organization's own stated  
policies, the Ombudsman is supposed to be able to intercede, no?

Best,
Robin


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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130326/ffa65d8b/attachment.html>


From robin  Tue Mar 26 21:44:28 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:44:28 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Should NCSG consider filing an
	ombudsman complaint against ICANN senior staff for violating
	the organization's policy development process?
References: <5151BE8E0200005B000A5195@smtp.law.unh.edu>
Message-ID: <B2BBC3FC-0965-468A-8CB3-F49BCD02AD30@ipjustice.org>

Do we have a couple GNSO Councilors who are willing to take this  
issue up and coordinate with colleagues in other SG's to garner the  
necessary GNSO-wide support needed to make this motion succeed?    
(Obviously CSG won't go for it 'cuz it creates new rights for them,  
but if Ry and Rr do, we may have something).

Your efforts would be much appreciated - and could have a big impact  
in protecting the bottom-up model. Thanks!

Best,
Robin

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU
> Date: March 26, 2013 12:28:14 PM PDT
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Should NCSG consider filing an  
> ombudsman complaint against ICANN senior staff for violating the  
> organization's policy development process?
> Reply-To: Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU
>
> I agree that the Council would be the appropriate filer in this  
> case. As I mentioned in a different message, there seems to be a  
> pattern that decisions are being made outside the GNSO policy  
> processes - although that may be proven to not be the case in one  
> or more of the instances we've discussed on this list. In any event  
> I think it would be useful and appropriate for the Council to  
> discuss this directly, and hope our Councilors can support this  
> action. It seems to me also that before introducing the motion it  
> may be worth investigating whether a Councilor from a different SG/ 
> House would be prepared to second it.
>
> Cheers
> Mary
>
>
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
>
>
> >>>
> From:
> Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
> To:
> <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
> Date:
> 3/26/2013 3:23 PM
> Subject:
> Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Should NCSG consider filing an ombudsman  
> complaint against ICANN senior staff for violating the  
> organization's policy development process?
> Hi
>
> I can support the NCSG filling such a complaint, though it would be  
> better for the GNSO Council to file it.
>
> Perhaps we can first introduce it as a motion for the next g- 
> council meeting, and if the council decides against it, then we  
> could do it independently.
>
> avri
>
> On 26 Mar 2013, at 15:14, Robin Gross wrote:
>
> > I think NCSG should consider filing an ombudsman complaint  
> against the organization's senior management for violating the  
> organization's policy development process by adopting staff's  
> "strawman solution" which never went through proper process (or any  
> process for that matter).
> >
> > The most dangerous part of staff's adopted proposal creates  
> unprecedented new rights for trademark holders with this "once  
> infringed" theory of new rights to TM+50 derivations of that mark.   
> This particular proposal was stitched together by TM lobbyists and  
> staff when NCSG wasn't even in the room - because it was 10pm at  
> night in LA and I had left for my flight on staff's assurances that  
> no policy discussions would take place that evening.  ALAC wasn't  
> in the room either (although Evan & Alan participated remotely on  
> the phone in the middle of their night).
> >
> > The GNSO Council said don't adopt this policy.
> >
> > ICANN staff admitted the proposal was a policy decision and not  
> an implementation decision - a key distinction in staff's ability  
> to make decisions. [Although the first time staff published its  
> report on the mtg's discussion of that proposal, staff's blog  
> report differed from what the CEO stated to meeting participants  
> and said this proposal had been characterized as an  
> "implementation" decision by mtg participants.  It took some  
> persistence and insistence from mtg participants to correct staff's  
> blog post and classify this proposal as "policy" - which was the  
> truth of what the LA mtg participants had said.  Finally staff gave- 
> in, as I was not the only one to complain about the inaccurate  
> reporting, and they changed the web-posting to reflect that the  
> group - and staff - had classified this proposal as "policy, and  
> not implementation" at the LA mtg.  The CEO apologize for staff's  
> "mistake".  I'm sure it's all another coincidence...]
> >
> > The CEO told Congress only a few weeks' previously that ICANN  
> could not adopt such a policy - in part because it creates new  
> rights (and ICANN isn't supposed to creating new rights).
> >
> > The above doesn't even go into the underlying substance of the  
> particular (TM+50) proposal (which turns trademark law on its  
> head).  How is anyone going to criticize a company or product that  
> was "found to abused" by someone else, somewhere else, in an  
> entirely unrelated circumstance?  This proposal actually thumbs its  
> nose at trademark law because trademark law recognizes that "once  
> infringed" does not create some magical new category of rights that  
> is allowed to trample on the expression rights of all the innocent  
> and lawful uses of a word (that resembles a trademark).  But I'll  
> save the complaints about how nonsensical the substance of this  
> proposal is for another email.  This email is just about the  
> insanity of ICANN senior staff attempting to usurp the bottom-up  
> policy development process to appease powerful political interests.
> >
> > If ICANN staff refuses to follow the organization's own stated  
> policies, the Ombudsman is supposed to be able to intercede, no?
> >
> > Best,
> > Robin
> >
> >
> > IP JUSTICE
> > Robin Gross, Executive Director
> > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> > p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> > w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
> >
> >
> >




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130326/2fac616c/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Mar 26 22:24:47 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 05:24:47 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Should NCSG consider filing an
 ombudsman complaint against ICANN senior staff for violating the
 organization's policy development process?
In-Reply-To: <B2BBC3FC-0965-468A-8CB3-F49BCD02AD30@ipjustice.org>
References: <5151BE8E0200005B000A5195@smtp.law.unh.edu>
	<B2BBC3FC-0965-468A-8CB3-F49BCD02AD30@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThm82pbxvjU3FVFxhWzVEG7yXsu1JxH4Y1UwrpRnWKfZ1A@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

 I have procedural question, what we have as other process to complain
about decisions within ICANN besides filling complain to ombudsman, just to
have an idea about possible escalation .

Best,

Rafik

2013/3/27 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>

> Do we have a couple GNSO Councilors who are willing to take this issue up
> and coordinate with colleagues in other SG's to garner the necessary
> GNSO-wide support needed to make this motion succeed?   (Obviously CSG
> won't go for it 'cuz it creates new rights for them, but if Ry and Rr do,
> we may have something).
>
> Your efforts would be much appreciated - and could have a big impact in
> protecting the bottom-up model. Thanks!
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU
> *Date: *March 26, 2013 12:28:14 PM PDT
> *To: *NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject: **Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Should NCSG consider filing an ombudsman
> complaint against ICANN senior staff for violating the organization's
> policy development process?*
> *Reply-To: *Mary.Wong at LAW.UNH.EDU
>
>  I agree that the Council would be the appropriate filer in this case. As
> I mentioned in a different message, there seems to be a pattern that
> decisions are being made outside the GNSO policy processes - although that
> may be proven to not be the case in one or more of the instances we've
> discussed on this list. In any event I think it would be useful and
> appropriate for the Council to discuss this directly, and hope our
> Councilors can support this action. It seems to me also that before
> introducing the motion it may be worth investigating whether a Councilor
> from a different SG/House would be prepared to second it.
>
> Cheers
> Mary
>
>
> Mary W S Wong
> Professor of Law
> Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
> Chair, Graduate IP Programs
> UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
> Two White Street
> Concord, NH 03301
> USA
> Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
> Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php
>
>
> >>>
>     *From: *
>  Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
>   *To:*
>   <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>   *Date: *
>  3/26/2013 3:23 PM
>   *Subject: *
>  Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Should NCSG consider filing an ombudsman complaint
> against ICANN senior staff for violating the organization's policy
> development process?
>   Hi
>
> I can support the NCSG filling such a complaint, though it would be better
> for the GNSO Council to file it.
>
> Perhaps we can first introduce it as a motion for the next g-council
> meeting, and if the council decides against it, then we could do it
> independently.
>
> avri
>
> On 26 Mar 2013, at 15:14, Robin Gross wrote:
>
> > I think NCSG should consider filing an ombudsman complaint against the
> organization's senior management for violating the organization's policy
> development process by adopting staff's "strawman solution" which never
> went through proper process (or any process for that matter).
> >
> > The most dangerous part of staff's adopted proposal creates
> unprecedented new rights for trademark holders with this "once infringed"
> theory of new rights to TM+50 derivations of that mark.  This particular
> proposal was stitched together by TM lobbyists and staff when NCSG wasn't
> even in the room - because it was 10pm at night in LA and I had left for my
> flight on staff's assurances that no policy discussions would take place
> that evening.  ALAC wasn't in the room either (although Evan & Alan
> participated remotely on the phone in the middle of their night).
> >
> > The GNSO Council said don't adopt this policy.
> >
> > ICANN staff admitted the proposal was a policy decision and not an
> implementation decision - a key distinction in staff's ability to make
> decisions. [Although the first time staff published its report on the mtg's
> discussion of that proposal, staff's blog report differed from what the CEO
> stated to meeting participants and said this proposal had been
> characterized as an "implementation" decision by mtg participants.  It took
> some persistence and insistence from mtg participants to correct staff's
> blog post and classify this proposal as "policy" - which was the truth of
> what the LA mtg participants had said.  Finally staff gave-in, as I was not
> the only one to complain about the inaccurate reporting, and they changed
> the web-posting to reflect that the group - and staff - had classified this
> proposal as "policy, and not implementation" at the LA mtg.  The CEO
> apologize for staff's "mistake".  I'm sure it's all another coincidence...]
> >
> > The CEO told Congress only a few weeks' previously that ICANN could not
> adopt such a policy - in part because it creates new rights (and ICANN
> isn't supposed to creating new rights).
> >
> > The above doesn't even go into the underlying substance of the
> particular (TM+50) proposal (which turns trademark law on its head).  How
> is anyone going to criticize a company or product that was "found to
> abused" by someone else, somewhere else, in an entirely unrelated
> circumstance?  This proposal actually thumbs its nose at trademark law
> because trademark law recognizes that "once infringed" does not create some
> magical new category of rights that is allowed to trample on the expression
> rights of all the innocent and lawful uses of a word (that resembles a
> trademark).  But I'll save the complaints about how nonsensical the
> substance of this proposal is for another email.  This email is just about
> the insanity of ICANN senior staff attempting to usurp the bottom-up policy
> development process to appease powerful political interests.
> >
> > If ICANN staff refuses to follow the organization's own stated policies,
> the Ombudsman is supposed to be able to intercede, no?
> >
> > Best,
> > Robin
> >
> >
> > IP JUSTICE
> > Robin Gross, Executive Director
> > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> > p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> > w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130327/d19fa510/attachment.html>


From Mary.Wong  Wed Mar 27 20:30:08 2013
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 14:30:08 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] 29th is the date Friday! Re:
 [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG in Beijing Prep Call Friday 29 March 15:00 UTC -
 dial-in details and discussion agenda
In-Reply-To: <1F8D2504-F978-4605-B7DD-4A1858159DA8@ipjustice.org>
References: <A07AF87A-432B-4AF4-A21F-B76A06AE523B@ipjustice.org>
	<1F8D2504-F978-4605-B7DD-4A1858159DA8@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <515302700200005B000A54F3@smtp.law.unh.edu>


Folks, sorry that I will have to miss the Friday call due to a schedule conflict. FWIW I think that NCSG should consider refining its methods of comment/influence, to focus more on written statements that are widely read and circulated (e.g. from public comments to formal letters to the Board/CEO to op-eds on Circle ID, Domain Incite etc.) rather than oral statements during, say, the Public Forum. If our resources and energies are broad enough to do both, that would be great, but if we had to prioritize my vote would go toward organizing the group and topics to target those arenas where the NCSG view would get the most critical long term audience. 

One way to do both might be to prioritize following up on public forum statements and feedback given during Board-NCSG meetings with written notes that are sent to the ICANN leadership and circulated. This can be done in tandem with the excellent work being undertaken by both NPOC and NCUC on their web presence and outreach efforts. 

I'll see you all in Beijing! 

Cheers 
Mary


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php


>>> 


From:  
Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG> 

To: 
<NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> 

Date:  
3/27/2013 1:16 PM 

Subject:  
[NCSG-Discuss] 29th is the date Friday! Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG in Beijing Prep Call Friday 29 March 15:00 UTC - dial-in details and discussion agenda 

Please note that the correct date for this call is 29 March - this Friday.    



I apologize for any confusion caused in the erroneous date of the previous message.   Please join the call on Friday the 29th! 



Thanks, 

Robin 



On Mar 26, 2013, at 5:29 PM, Robin Gross wrote: 





NCSG is holding a preparatory call this Friday 29 March at 15:00 UTC to go over NCSG's participation and activities at the Beijing ICANN meeting next month.  Those NCSG members who will be in Beijing should please participate in addition to any NCSG member who will participate in Beijing remotely or otherwise influence the discussions is encouraged to attend the call.  Dial-in details and draft discussion agenda below. 



I hope you will join Friday's discussion. 



Thanks, 

Robin


NCSG in Beijing - Preparatory Call 

Friday 29 March 15:00 - 16:00 UTC - Other times ( http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Preparation+for+NCSG+Participation+at+ICANN+%252345+Meeting&iso=20130328T15&p1=1440&ah=2 ) 



Telephone dial-in: 

  http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCSG_Passcodes.htm 



Adobe Connect: 

  https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/ 



Discussion Agenda 



1.  Who's coming to Beijing from NCSG? 



2.  NCSG's key objectives and issues for Beijing mtg? 



3.  Review of NCSG meetings and other key community meetings and their proposed discussion topics.  In reviewing, consider the following: 

a).  Who from NCSG will follow which issues / meetings and report back to group? 

b).  Are there NCSG Statements to deliver in Beijing?  What issues?  Who holds drafting pen? 

  i)  In Public Forum? 

  ii)  Joint statement with At-Large? 

  iii)  At GNSO Council forum? 

  iv)  GNSO Council Meeting 

  

4) GNSO Council Proxies 

 a) Brenden Kuerbis confirmed to substitute for Magaly Pazello 

 b) Amr Elsadr may substitute for Maria Farrell 



5)  What else? 



Background: 



ICANN #46 in Beijing - NCSG Meetings Plan: 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dG11eV9fZWJMbUdEQW9PRnY4cnFNWVE&usp=sharing 



ICANN #46 Full Schedule: 

http://beijing46.icann.org/full-schedule 



NCSG Meetings Page: 

https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Current+NCSG+Meetings+-+Post+October+2012+ICANN+Annual+Meeting 







IP JUSTICE 

Robin Gross, Executive Director 

1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA 

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

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





 








IP JUSTICE 

Robin Gross, Executive Director 

1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA 

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

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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130327/3faadf9f/attachment-0001.html>


From wendy  Thu Mar 28 18:37:13 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 12:37:13 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] RAA public comment -- quick proposal
Message-ID: <515471B9.70608@seltzer.com>

We didn't get a draft statement on the RAA circulated. What would people
think of sending a quick endorsement of the Registrars' statement?

Namely,
"NCSG supports the registrars in their procedural and substantive
concerns with ICANN's negotiation position:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-07mar13/msg00000.html
"

I'll still try to draft something more substantial to send personally,
but not sure given timing.

--Wendy

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



From robin  Thu Mar 28 18:41:23 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:41:23 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] RAA public comment -- quick proposal
In-Reply-To: <515471B9.70608@seltzer.com>
References: <515471B9.70608@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <E1AA684A-B628-4C37-9701-434B5D25365B@ipjustice.org>

I agree that we really need to get a statement in on this issue  
asap.  I thought Joy had sent around a draft stmt a couple weeks ago  
(or a few points to go into a stmt).

Or I have I completely lost my marbles?

Thanks,
Robin

On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> We didn't get a draft statement on the RAA circulated. What would  
> people
> think of sending a quick endorsement of the Registrars' statement?
>
> Namely,
> "NCSG supports the registrars in their procedural and substantive
> concerns with ICANN's negotiation position:
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-07mar13/ 
> msg00000.html
> "
>
> I'll still try to draft something more substantial to send personally,
> but not sure given timing.
>
> --Wendy
>
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130328/5f3220cc/attachment.html>


From avri  Thu Mar 28 20:26:55 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 14:26:55 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] RAA public comment -- quick proposal
In-Reply-To: <515471B9.70608@seltzer.com>
References: <515471B9.70608@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <92E217D0-29F5-4137-A983-C67FD6AABE40@acm.org>

works for me.
that is an appropriate thing to do during a reply period.

avri


On 28 Mar 2013, at 12:37, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> We didn't get a draft statement on the RAA circulated. What would people
> think of sending a quick endorsement of the Registrars' statement?
> 
> Namely,
> "NCSG supports the registrars in their procedural and substantive
> concerns with ICANN's negotiation position:
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-07mar13/msg00000.html
> "
> 
> I'll still try to draft something more substantial to send personally,
> but not sure given timing.
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From wendy  Fri Mar 29 00:08:48 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:08:48 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] RAA public comment -- quick proposal
In-Reply-To: <E1AA684A-B628-4C37-9701-434B5D25365B@ipjustice.org>
References: <515471B9.70608@seltzer.com>
	<E1AA684A-B628-4C37-9701-434B5D25365B@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <5154BF70.8080609@seltzer.com>

I found Joy's text, and will borrow liberally for a personal statement.
Do we have consensus on these for an NCSG position, or should we submit
that shortly after, in the "reply" period?


NCSG DRAFT POINTS:



?    Violates multi-stakeholder, bottom-up principles ? no community
consultation on the proposed amendments: bilateral contract
negotiations shouldn't set policy in a multi-stakeholder environment
?    Abrogates the picket fence
?    Not evidence based and therefore irrational and no legal basis: no
evidence has been provided of a problem necessitating this solution;
no persuasive rationale has been presented and in any event, any such
evidence/rationale must be subject to community input
?    Registrants rights and responsibilities bogus document and should
not have been tabled without input from community and especially
across community constituencies
?    Privacy/proxy [I believe Wendy had a point about this, but I can?t
recall it exactly]
?    The process for these negotiations and the introduction of powers of
unilateral decision-making are under-mining our advocacy for the ICANN
model in other multi-stakeholder fora
?    At the GNSO Council meeting, ICANN staff advised the rationale was
?this is the process for negotiation? ? this is fundamentally the
wrong approach to the RAA as this is public, not private, policy making
?    We support the Registrars and Registries in their opposition to
these proposals.


On 03/28/2013 12:41 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> I agree that we really need to get a statement in on this issue asap.  I
> thought Joy had sent around a draft stmt a couple weeks ago (or a few
> points to go into a stmt).
> 
> Or I have I completely lost my marbles?
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> 
>> We didn't get a draft statement on the RAA circulated. What would people
>> think of sending a quick endorsement of the Registrars' statement?
>>
>> Namely,
>> "NCSG supports the registrars in their procedural and substantive
>> concerns with ICANN's negotiation position:
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-07mar13/msg00000.html
>> "
>>
>> I'll still try to draft something more substantial to send personally,
>> but not sure given timing.
>>
>> --Wendy
>>
>> -- 
>> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
>> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
>> Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
>> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
>> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
>> https://www.torproject.org/
>> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
> 
> 
> 
> 


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



From wendy  Fri Mar 29 00:50:31 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:50:31 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Potential  Comments on RAA Negotiations
In-Reply-To: <5154C90C.2000206@seltzer.com>
References: <5154C90C.2000206@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <5154C937.5060409@seltzer.com>

Anyone want to sign on with me? or offer amendments in the next hour?

--Wendy

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Potential  Comments on RAA Negotiations
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:49:48 -0400
From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>
To: comments-proposed-raa-07mar13 at icann.org

In negotiating the contracts that form the basis of its governance
regime, ICANN owes it to the public, registrants included, to keep our
interests in mind. [[As a lawyer, technologist, and member of the
Non-Commercial Users Constituency, I| We ]] do not believe the latest
proposed Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) does so.

The heart of ICANN's multi-stakeholder regime is that difficult issues
are resolved through consensus driven by participation and
representation of the stakeholders, not by ICANN's Board acting without
(or against) such guidance. The consensus process carefully insulates
the Board from many decisions -- its governance is in making sure the
right procedural steps are followed, not by overturning that process to
intervene on the substance of contested questions.

The provision for unilateral amendment of the RAA pulls the Board into
disputes, subjecting them to lobbying from partisan interests.
Curtailing their power is actually protecting their ability to oversee
the interests of all of the stakeholders.

Unilateral amendments, even less than bilateral contractual negotiations
are not the place to set policy for a multi-stakeholder environment. The
unilateral decision-making in this foundational agreement undermines our
ability to advocate for multi-stakeholder governance in the ICANN model
in other fora.

Additional problems with the most recent changes:
* Abrogates the picket fence

* Not evidence-based and therefore irrational and without legal basis:
no evidence has been provided of a problem necessitating this solution;
no persuasive rationale has been presented and in any event, any such
evidence/rationale must be subject to community input.

* The "Registrants rights and responsibilities" document gives feeble
rights in exchange for onerous (and unenforceable) responsibilities. It
should not have been tabled without input from community and especially
across community constituencies

* The proposed accreditation of privacy services and proxy registration
providers has come under much criticism -- should a lawyer registering
domains on behalf of a client, subject to attorney-client privilege, be
forced to register? must a whistleblower or critic depend on mere
promises not to disclose identity? Even a placeholder for this policy is
inappropriate at this stage.

ICANN is making policy for the Internet and most of its domain
registrants -- those seeking a stable location for their online speech
depend on domain registrations (some, however, use ccTLDs not subject to
this regime). Registrants depend on registrars to get these names,
registrars who won't be deterred by the nuisance of an uncomfortable
exercise of free expression rights.

We support the Registrars in their opposition to these proposed RAA
amendments.



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





From robin  Fri Mar 29 01:01:16 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:01:16 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Potential  Comments on RAA Negotiations
In-Reply-To: <5154C937.5060409@seltzer.com>
References: <5154C90C.2000206@seltzer.com> <5154C937.5060409@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <903B5895-C4E0-4C27-B2FA-592C569581E3@ipjustice.org>

Thank you, Wendy!  I will happily sign on to the statement.  Thanks  
again for getting this in under deadline!

Best,
Robin

On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:50 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> Anyone want to sign on with me? or offer amendments in the next hour?
>
> --Wendy
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Potential  Comments on RAA Negotiations
> Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:49:48 -0400
> From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>
> To: comments-proposed-raa-07mar13 at icann.org
>
> In negotiating the contracts that form the basis of its governance
> regime, ICANN owes it to the public, registrants included, to keep our
> interests in mind. [[As a lawyer, technologist, and member of the
> Non-Commercial Users Constituency, I| We ]] do not believe the latest
> proposed Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) does so.
>
> The heart of ICANN's multi-stakeholder regime is that difficult issues
> are resolved through consensus driven by participation and
> representation of the stakeholders, not by ICANN's Board acting  
> without
> (or against) such guidance. The consensus process carefully insulates
> the Board from many decisions -- its governance is in making sure the
> right procedural steps are followed, not by overturning that  
> process to
> intervene on the substance of contested questions.
>
> The provision for unilateral amendment of the RAA pulls the Board into
> disputes, subjecting them to lobbying from partisan interests.
> Curtailing their power is actually protecting their ability to oversee
> the interests of all of the stakeholders.
>
> Unilateral amendments, even less than bilateral contractual  
> negotiations
> are not the place to set policy for a multi-stakeholder  
> environment. The
> unilateral decision-making in this foundational agreement  
> undermines our
> ability to advocate for multi-stakeholder governance in the ICANN  
> model
> in other fora.
>
> Additional problems with the most recent changes:
> * Abrogates the picket fence
>
> * Not evidence-based and therefore irrational and without legal basis:
> no evidence has been provided of a problem necessitating this  
> solution;
> no persuasive rationale has been presented and in any event, any such
> evidence/rationale must be subject to community input.
>
> * The "Registrants rights and responsibilities" document gives feeble
> rights in exchange for onerous (and unenforceable)  
> responsibilities. It
> should not have been tabled without input from community and  
> especially
> across community constituencies
>
> * The proposed accreditation of privacy services and proxy  
> registration
> providers has come under much criticism -- should a lawyer registering
> domains on behalf of a client, subject to attorney-client  
> privilege, be
> forced to register? must a whistleblower or critic depend on mere
> promises not to disclose identity? Even a placeholder for this  
> policy is
> inappropriate at this stage.
>
> ICANN is making policy for the Internet and most of its domain
> registrants -- those seeking a stable location for their online speech
> depend on domain registrations (some, however, use ccTLDs not  
> subject to
> this regime). Registrants depend on registrars to get these names,
> registrars who won't be deterred by the nuisance of an uncomfortable
> exercise of free expression rights.
>
> We support the Registrars in their opposition to these proposed RAA
> amendments.
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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
>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130328/27a9b206/attachment-0001.html>


From william.drake  Fri Mar 29 11:03:46 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 10:03:46 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] RAA public comment -- quick proposal
In-Reply-To: <5154BF70.8080609@seltzer.com>
References: <515471B9.70608@seltzer.com>
	<E1AA684A-B628-4C37-9701-434B5D25365B@ipjustice.org>
	<5154BF70.8080609@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <464FB74E-DFA5-4E52-870D-E5BC8F89D9BC@uzh.ch>

+1 from the peanut gallery

Bill

On Mar 28, 2013, at 11:08 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:

> I found Joy's text, and will borrow liberally for a personal statement.
> Do we have consensus on these for an NCSG position, or should we submit
> that shortly after, in the "reply" period?
> 
> 
> NCSG DRAFT POINTS:
> 
> 
> 
> ?    Violates multi-stakeholder, bottom-up principles ? no community
> consultation on the proposed amendments: bilateral contract
> negotiations shouldn't set policy in a multi-stakeholder environment
> ?    Abrogates the picket fence
> ?    Not evidence based and therefore irrational and no legal basis: no
> evidence has been provided of a problem necessitating this solution;
> no persuasive rationale has been presented and in any event, any such
> evidence/rationale must be subject to community input
> ?    Registrants rights and responsibilities bogus document and should
> not have been tabled without input from community and especially
> across community constituencies
> ?    Privacy/proxy [I believe Wendy had a point about this, but I can?t
> recall it exactly]
> ?    The process for these negotiations and the introduction of powers of
> unilateral decision-making are under-mining our advocacy for the ICANN
> model in other multi-stakeholder fora
> ?    At the GNSO Council meeting, ICANN staff advised the rationale was
> ?this is the process for negotiation? ? this is fundamentally the
> wrong approach to the RAA as this is public, not private, policy making
> ?    We support the Registrars and Registries in their opposition to
> these proposals.
> 
> 
> On 03/28/2013 12:41 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>> I agree that we really need to get a statement in on this issue asap.  I
>> thought Joy had sent around a draft stmt a couple weeks ago (or a few
>> points to go into a stmt).
>> 
>> Or I have I completely lost my marbles?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>> 
>>> We didn't get a draft statement on the RAA circulated. What would people
>>> think of sending a quick endorsement of the Registrars' statement?
>>> 
>>> Namely,
>>> "NCSG supports the registrars in their procedural and substantive
>>> concerns with ICANN's negotiation position:
>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-07mar13/msg00000.html
>>> "
>>> 
>>> I'll still try to draft something more substantial to send personally,
>>> but not sure given timing.
>>> 
>>> --Wendy
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
>>> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>>> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
>>> Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
>>> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
>>> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
>>> https://www.torproject.org/
>>> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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




From robin  Sat Mar 30 01:57:08 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:57:08 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] GNSO Working Sessions - weekend schedule
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD245DF5A77@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <7D5E3373-C057-4544-97EE-7F7A5EA52D61@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: March 29, 2013 3:59:27 PM PDT
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] GNSO Working Sessions - weekend schedule
>
>
> Dear Councillors,
>
> Ahead of the full GNSO related meetings schedule, please find the  
> weekend schedule for the GNSO Working Sessions which will take  
> place in Function 8 AB.
>
> Saturday, 6 April 2013
> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/36995
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Working 
> +Session+Beijing+Saturday+2013-04-06
>
> Sunday, 7 April 2013
> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37015
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Working 
> +Session+Beijing+Sunday+2013-04-07
>
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
>
> Glen
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130329/244e82de/attachment.html>


From avri  Sun Mar 31 06:35:50 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 23:35:50 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PICDRP comment period
Message-ID: <B878B238-E5EA-4AC4-955E-7E296C852FC1@acm.org>

Hi,

this ends on 5 April

http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-picdrp-15mar13-en.htm

do we want to comment?

avri




From avri  Sun Mar 31 06:36:24 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 23:36:24 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [e] Draft ALAC Statement of PIC DRP
References: <bcc43cd5-5901-4395-9b4e-4d1760ad0be3@EXHUB2010-2.campus.MCGILL.CA>
Message-ID: <B6D32902-D551-476E-B776-ADE429CC454E@acm.org>

fyi


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> Subject: [At-Large] Fwd: Draft ALAC Statement of PIC DRP
> Date: 30 March 2013 19:23:20 EDT
> To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Reply-To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> 
> 
>> To: ALAC Working List <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>> Subject: Draft ALAC Statement of PIC DRP
>> 
>> Holly had volunteered to look at the Public Interest Commitment 
>> (PIC) Dispute Resolution Procedure (DRP) and see if an ALAC 
>> statement was required.
>> 
>> Due to time constraints, she could not do this, and Olivier asked my 
>> to follow up on it.
>> 
>> I did so, and found that the DRP was, in my mind, not satisfactory. 
>> The DRP can be found at 
>> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/draft-picdrp-15mar13-en.pdf.
>> 
>> The statement can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg 
>> and is also reproduced below. It is short, but somewhat harsher than 
>> those I would normally draft.
>> 
>> Alan
>> 
>> ========================
>> ALAC Statement on Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure
>> 
>> The ALAC is disappointed in the proposed mechanism for enforcement 
>> of the new gTLD Public Interest Commitments.
>> 
>> Although described a dispute resolution procedure, the process was 
>> introduce whereby a Public Interest Commitment (PIC) could be 
>> "enforced by ICANN" 
>> (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm).
>> 
>> When announced, many in the community presumed that "enforced" 
>> included an ICANN Compliance connection, and that "by ICANN" in fact 
>> meant, "by ICANN".
>> 
>> As it stands, the process:
>> 
>> - Requires possibly significant fees, the magnitude of which are currently;
>> 
>> - Requires that the complainant can show measurable harm due to the violation;
>> 
>> - May be filed by ICANN, but there is no obligation to do so.
>> 
>> Since no exception is noted, presumably ICANN could only file an 
>> objection if ICANN itself could demonstrate that it was measurable 
>> harmed. This sounds like a return to the days when the only 
>> sanctions ICANN applied under the RAA were those where ICANN was not 
>> being paid.
>> 
>> Using this same standard of language, one could say that 
>> "trade-marks are enforced by ICANN" because it has provided the UDRP.
>> 
>> There was much hope in the community that the PIC would go at least 
>> part way to recovering from the mistake of not requiring all new 
>> gTLD applicants to stand by their application promises once the new 
>> TLD is delegated. This hope has not been satisfied.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> 
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> 




From robin  Sun Mar 31 17:31:39 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 07:31:39 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] Weekend GNSO working session schedules -
	Beijing.
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD245DF5ABE@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <4F312E88-D129-4676-929F-0E6DA1868369@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: March 31, 2013 6:48:25 AM PDT
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] Weekend GNSO working session schedules - Beijing.
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> Please find the weekend GNSO working session schedules.
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Working 
> +Session+Beijing+Saturday+2013-04-06
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/GNSO+Working 
> +Session+Beijing+Sunday+2013-04-07
>
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
>
> Glen
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130331/b6001fce/attachment.html>


From robin  Sun Mar 31 17:35:55 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 07:35:55 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council
	Public Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15
	Local time)
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD245DF5ABA@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <D1AD6C17-5824-42E8-A46A-2339A2417E54@ipjustice.org>

Not much meat on this council agenda.  Where are all the weighty  
issues that are tying ICANN into knots?   Shouldn't some of them be  
on the council's agenda for discussion at least?

Robin

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: March 31, 2013 6:41:28 AM PDT
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public  
> Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
>
> Dear All,
> Please find the proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting  
> in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time).
> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37155
> The agenda is also published on the Wiki at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+10 
> +April+2013
> Motions may be viewed at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10 
> +April+2013
> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37155
>
> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating  
> Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and  
> updated.
> http://
> gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf
> For convenience:
> An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is  
> provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
> An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the  
> absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of  
> this agenda.
> Meeting Times 07:15 UTC
> http://tinyurl.com/cu3adns
> Coordinated Universal Time 07:15 UTC
> 00:15 Los Angeles; 03:15 Washington; 08:15 London; 09:15 Paris;  
> 19:15 Wellington
>
> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members.  
> Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial  
> out call is needed.
>
> 15:15 - 17:30 Council Public Forum
>
> Presentations by Stakeholder Groups and Constituency Leaders (60  
> minutes)
>
> Registries Stakeholder Group ? Keith Drazek
> Registrars Stakeholder Group ? Matt Serlin
> Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) ? Bill Drake
> Non Commercial Stakeholders Constituency ? Robin Gross
> Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency ? Alain Berranger.
> Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) ? Elisa Cooper
> Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) ?  Kristina Rosette
> Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers  (ISPCP) ?  
> Tony Holmes
> Break (10 minutes)
> Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
> 1.1 Roll Call
> 1.2 Statement of interest updates
> 1.3 Review/amend agenda
> 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting  
> per the GNSO Operating Procedures:
> Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 14 March 2013 approved on  
> 30 March 2013.
> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14383.html
> 1.5. GNSO Projects List http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects- 
> list.pdf
> Review main changes.
> Comments and/or questions.
>
> Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (10 minutes)
> Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics
> Include brief review of Projects List and Action List
>
> Item 3: Consent agenda ([0] minutes)
> TBC.
>
> Item 4: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP)  
> on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information (10  
> minutes)
> A Final Issue Report translation and transliteration of contact  
> information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 (see  
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/library).
> The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council should  
> initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) limited to the issues  
> discussed in this report but delay the next steps in the PDP until  
> the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services completes its  
> recommendations, in May 2013 with a possible extension, in order to  
> ensure that the resulting policy recommendations would be  
> consistent with any new model or approaches to contact data that  
> may result from the Expert Working Group?s deliberations;
>
> As recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team the Final Issue  
> Report also recommends that ICANN should commission a study on the  
> commercial feasibility of translation or transliteration systems  
> for internationalized contact data, which is expected to help  
> inform the PDP Working Group in its deliberations;
>
> ICANN?s General Counsel has confirmed that the topic is properly  
> within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope  
> of the GNSO.
>
> Link to motion
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10 
> +April+2013
>
> 4.1 Reading of the motion ().
> 4.2 Discussion of motion and next steps.
> 4.3 Vote.
> Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Policy vs. Implementation (15 minutes)
> Recent issues highlight an ongoing broader issue regarding the  
> boundary between policy development and implementation work as well  
> as the effective integration of policy development and integration  
> work from the outset.
>
> In addition, the Council is increasingly asked to consider issues  
> for policy guidance and may well need to look at the evolution of  
> its own work and processes to accommodate this type of request.
>
> ICANN Staff published a paper intended to facilitate further  
> community discussions on this topic. Discussions on the Council  
> mailing list and at subsequent meetings indicate that this is an  
> area of fundamental interest to the Council.
>
> Following further community discussion in Beijing the Council is to  
> discuss the current position and to consider next steps from a GNSO  
> Council perspective.
>
> 5.1 Discussion
> 5.2 Next steps
>
> Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Template to request an Issues Report  
> (10 minutes)
>
> One outcome from the Operations and Organisation meeting that GNSO  
> Council Leadership held with ICANN staff in Amsterdam earlier this  
> year, was to develop an online template to complete the request for  
> an Issue Report.
>
> The objective of this tool is to encourage requestors to gather as  
> much information as possible and engage in early discussions with  
> others prior to submitting a request for an Issue Report. The  
> intended outcome is that by encouraging completion of all the  
> information requested in the template, it will be possible to  
> identify what information may still be needed and encourage  
> collaboration between different interested parties at an early stage.
>
> The template (https://community.icann.org/x/GQllAg) can be  
> completed by either by following the instructions or by downloading  
> the word template from the same page. Once completed, Council  
> members will be able to either create a PDF and submit that  
> together with a motion to the Council mailing list, or insert the  
> relevant wiki link in the motion. Please note that this template is  
> tailored to requests for Issue Reports as defined in the PDP Manual.
> The template is still in draft form and the Council is to discuss  
> its usefulness, consider accepting it for future issue reports and  
> consider also where similar templates could be used elsewhere.
>
> 6.1 ? Discussion
> 6.2 ? Next steps
>
> Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Outcomes from sessions in Beijing (15  
> minutes)
> A series of main session meetings will have taken place as well as  
> meetings between the Council and other key stakeholders.  This item  
> represents an opportunity to capture and review any key outcomes or  
> actions arising from those meetings.
>
> 7.1 ? Discussion
> 7.2 ? Next steps
>
> Item 8:  Any Other Business (5 minutes)
>
> Open Microphone
> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article  
> X, Section 3)
> 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto,  
> or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a  
> GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple  
> majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below  
> shall apply to the following GNSO actions:
> a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more  
> than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
> b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as  
> described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than  
> one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one  
> House.
> c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of  
> GNSO Supermajority.
> d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an  
> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more  
> than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
> e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires  
> an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
> f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team  
> Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve  
> an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each  
> House.
> g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of  
> a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for  
> significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO  
> Supermajority Vote in favor of termination.
> h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority:  
> requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and  
> further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at  
> least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation.
> i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires  
> an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
> j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain  
> Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies  
> that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence  
> of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to  
> be met or exceeded.
> k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final  
> Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be  
> modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority  
> vote.
> l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the  
> Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one  
> House and a majority of the other House."
> Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4)
> 4.4.1 Applicability
> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of  
> Council motions or measures.
> a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
> b. Approve a PDP recommendation;
> c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or  
> ICANN Bylaws;
> d. Fill a Council position open for election.
> 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within  
> the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the  
> meeting?s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at  
> the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or  
> extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is  
> verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present.
> 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate  
> absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide  
> reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee  
> ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web- 
> based interface, or other technologies as may become available.
> 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements.  
> (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is  
> initiated.)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN  
> hemisphere
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 07:15
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 00:15
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 03:15
> Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 04:15
> Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 04:15
> Edinburgh, Scotland (BST) UTC+0DST 08:15
> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 08:15
> Abuja, Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 08:15
> Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 09:15
> Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 09:15
> Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+0DST 10:15
> Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 12:15
> Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 15:15
> Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 15:15
> Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 19:15
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ------
> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00  
> local time (with exceptions)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com
> http://tinyurl.com/cu3adns
>
> Thank you.
> Kind regards,
> Glen
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130331/5bc37132/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Sun Mar 31 18:05:42 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 11:05:42 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public
	Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
In-Reply-To: <D1AD6C17-5824-42E8-A46A-2339A2417E54@ipjustice.org>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD245DF5ABA@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<D1AD6C17-5824-42E8-A46A-2339A2417E54@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <8A9825CF-CD9D-49FE-A314-A49EBE16A9AF@ella.com>

How many issues has NCSG submitted motions for?

avri

On 31 Mar 2013, at 10:35, Robin Gross wrote:

> Not much meat on this council agenda.  Where are all the weighty issues that are tying ICANN into knots?   Shouldn't some of them be on the council's agenda for discussion at least?
> 
> Robin
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>> Date: March 31, 2013 6:41:28 AM PDT
>> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
>> Subject: [liaison6c] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
>> 
>> Dear All,
>> Please find the proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time).
>> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37155
>> The agenda is also published on the Wiki at:
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+10+April+2013
>> Motions may be viewed at:
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+April+2013
>> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37155
>> 
>> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and updated.
>> http://
>> gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf
>> For convenience:
>> 	? An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
>> 	? An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda.
>> Meeting Times 07:15 UTC
>> http://tinyurl.com/cu3adns
>> Coordinated Universal Time 07:15 UTC
>> 00:15 Los Angeles; 03:15 Washington; 08:15 London; 09:15 Paris; 19:15 Wellington
>> 
>> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members. Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial out call is needed.
>> 
>> 15:15 - 17:30 Council Public Forum
>> 
>> Presentations by Stakeholder Groups and Constituency Leaders (60 minutes)
>> 
>> 	? Registries Stakeholder Group ? Keith Drazek
>> 	? Registrars Stakeholder Group ? Matt Serlin
>> 	? Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) ? Bill Drake
>> 	? Non Commercial Stakeholders Constituency ? Robin Gross
>> 	? Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency ? Alain Berranger.
>> 	? Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) ? Elisa Cooper
>> 	? Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) ?  Kristina Rosette
>> 	? Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers  (ISPCP) ? Tony Holmes
>> Break (10 minutes)
>> Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
>> 1.1 Roll Call
>> 1.2 Statement of interest updates
>> 1.3 Review/amend agenda
>> 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per the GNSO Operating Procedures:
>> Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 14 March 2013 approved on 30 March 2013.
>> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14383.html
>> 1.5. GNSO Projects List http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf
>> 	? Review main changes.
>> 	? Comments and/or questions.
>> 
>> Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (10 minutes)
>> Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics
>> Include brief review of Projects List and Action List
>> 
>> Item 3: Consent agenda ([0] minutes)
>> TBC.
>> 
>> Item 4: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information (10 minutes)
>> A Final Issue Report translation and transliteration of contact information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/library).
>> The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council should initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) limited to the issues discussed in this report but delay the next steps in the PDP until the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services completes its recommendations, in May 2013 with a possible extension, in order to ensure that the resulting policy recommendations would be consistent with any new model or approaches to contact data that may result from the Expert Working Group?s deliberations;
>>  
>> As recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team the Final Issue Report also recommends that ICANN should commission a study on the commercial feasibility of translation or transliteration systems for internationalized contact data, which is expected to help inform the PDP Working Group in its deliberations;
>>  
>> ICANN?s General Counsel has confirmed that the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of the GNSO.
>>  
>> Link to motion 
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+April+2013
>>  
>> 4.1 Reading of the motion ().
>> 4.2 Discussion of motion and next steps.
>> 4.3 Vote.
>> Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Policy vs. Implementation (15 minutes)
>> Recent issues highlight an ongoing broader issue regarding the boundary between policy development and implementation work as well as the effective integration of policy development and integration work from the outset.
>> 
>> In addition, the Council is increasingly asked to consider issues for policy guidance and may well need to look at the evolution of its own work and processes to accommodate this type of request.
>> 
>> ICANN Staff published a paper intended to facilitate further community discussions on this topic. Discussions on the Council mailing list and at subsequent meetings indicate that this is an area of fundamental interest to the Council.
>> 
>> Following further community discussion in Beijing the Council is to discuss the current position and to consider next steps from a GNSO Council perspective.
>> 
>> 5.1 Discussion
>> 5.2 Next steps
>> 
>> Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Template to request an Issues Report (10 minutes)
>>  
>> One outcome from the Operations and Organisation meeting that GNSO Council Leadership held with ICANN staff in Amsterdam earlier this year, was to develop an online template to complete the request for an Issue Report.
>>  
>> The objective of this tool is to encourage requestors to gather as much information as possible and engage in early discussions with others prior to submitting a request for an Issue Report. The intended outcome is that by encouraging completion of all the information requested in the template, it will be possible to identify what information may still be needed and encourage collaboration between different interested parties at an early stage.
>>  
>> The template (https://community.icann.org/x/GQllAg) can be completed by either by following the instructions or by downloading the word template from the same page. Once completed, Council members will be able to either create a PDF and submit that together with a motion to the Council mailing list, or insert the relevant wiki link in the motion. Please note that this template is tailored to requests for Issue Reports as defined in the PDP Manual.
>> The template is still in draft form and the Council is to discuss its usefulness, consider accepting it for future issue reports and consider also where similar templates could be used elsewhere.
>> 
>> 6.1 ? Discussion
>> 6.2 ? Next steps
>> 
>> Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Outcomes from sessions in Beijing (15 minutes)
>> A series of main session meetings will have taken place as well as meetings between the Council and other key stakeholders.  This item represents an opportunity to capture and review any key outcomes or actions arising from those meetings.
>> 
>> 7.1 ? Discussion
>> 7.2 ? Next steps
>> 
>> Item 8:  Any Other Business (5 minutes) 
>> 
>> Open Microphone
>> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X, Section 3)
>> 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall apply to the following GNSO actions:
>> a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
>> b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
>> c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of GNSO Supermajority.
>> d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
>> e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>> f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House.
>> g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO Supermajority Vote in favor of termination.
>> h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation.
>> i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
>> j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be met or exceeded.
>> k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote.
>> l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one House and a majority of the other House."
>> Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4)
>> 4.4.1 Applicability
>> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of Council motions or measures.
>> a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
>> b. Approve a PDP recommendation;
>> c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or ICANN Bylaws;
>> d. Fill a Council position open for election.
>> 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting?s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present.
>> 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based interface, or other technologies as may become available.
>> 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.)
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 07:15 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 00:15 
>> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 03:15
>> Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 04:15
>> Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 04:15 
>> Edinburgh, Scotland (BST) UTC+0DST 08:15 
>> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 08:15 
>> Abuja, Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 08:15
>> Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 09:15 
>> Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 09:15 
>> Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+0DST 10:15 
>> Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 12:15 
>> Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 15:15 
>> Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 15:15 
>> Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 19:15 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions)
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com 
>> http://tinyurl.com/cu3adns
>> 
>> Thank you.
>> Kind regards,
>> Glen
>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>> GNSO Secretariat
>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From robin  Sun Mar 31 19:19:34 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 09:19:34 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public
	Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
In-Reply-To: <8A9825CF-CD9D-49FE-A314-A49EBE16A9AF@ella.com>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD245DF5ABA@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<D1AD6C17-5824-42E8-A46A-2339A2417E54@ipjustice.org>
	<8A9825CF-CD9D-49FE-A314-A49EBE16A9AF@ella.com>
Message-ID: <C7DBF411-D182-4064-87F3-54746B992EFA@ipjustice.org>

Reminder:  It is the responsibility of the GNSO Representatives to  
actively advance the policy positions of the membership on the GNSO  
Council.

Thanks,
Robin

On Mar 31, 2013, at 8:05 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> How many issues has NCSG submitted motions for?
>
> avri
>
> On 31 Mar 2013, at 10:35, Robin Gross wrote:
>
>> Not much meat on this council agenda.  Where are all the weighty  
>> issues that are tying ICANN into knots?   Shouldn't some of them  
>> be on the council's agenda for discussion at least?
>>
>> Robin
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>>> Date: March 31, 2013 6:41:28 AM PDT
>>> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
>>> Subject: [liaison6c] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public  
>>> Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
>>>
>>> Dear All,
>>> Please find the proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public  
>>> Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time).
>>> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37155
>>> The agenda is also published on the Wiki at:
>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+10 
>>> +April+2013
>>> Motions may be viewed at:
>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10 
>>> +April+2013
>>> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37155
>>>
>>> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council  
>>> Operating Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO  
>>> Council and updated.
>>> http://
>>> gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf
>>> For convenience:
>>> 	? An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds  
>>> is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
>>> 	? An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the  
>>> absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end  
>>> of this agenda.
>>> Meeting Times 07:15 UTC
>>> http://tinyurl.com/cu3adns
>>> Coordinated Universal Time 07:15 UTC
>>> 00:15 Los Angeles; 03:15 Washington; 08:15 London; 09:15 Paris;  
>>> 19:15 Wellington
>>>
>>> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members.  
>>> Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a  
>>> dial out call is needed.
>>>
>>> 15:15 - 17:30 Council Public Forum
>>>
>>> Presentations by Stakeholder Groups and Constituency Leaders (60  
>>> minutes)
>>>
>>> 	? Registries Stakeholder Group ? Keith Drazek
>>> 	? Registrars Stakeholder Group ? Matt Serlin
>>> 	? Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) ? Bill Drake
>>> 	? Non Commercial Stakeholders Constituency ? Robin Gross
>>> 	? Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency ? Alain  
>>> Berranger.
>>> 	? Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) ? Elisa Cooper
>>> 	? Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) ?  Kristina Rosette
>>> 	? Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers  (ISPCP)  
>>> ? Tony Holmes
>>> Break (10 minutes)
>>> Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
>>> 1.1 Roll Call
>>> 1.2 Statement of interest updates
>>> 1.3 Review/amend agenda
>>> 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting  
>>> per the GNSO Operating Procedures:
>>> Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 14 March 2013 approved  
>>> on 30 March 2013.
>>> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14383.html
>>> 1.5. GNSO Projects List http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects- 
>>> list.pdf
>>> 	? Review main changes.
>>> 	? Comments and/or questions.
>>>
>>> Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (10 minutes)
>>> Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes /  
>>> topics
>>> Include brief review of Projects List and Action List
>>>
>>> Item 3: Consent agenda ([0] minutes)
>>> TBC.
>>>
>>> Item 4: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP)  
>>> on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information (10  
>>> minutes)
>>> A Final Issue Report translation and transliteration of contact  
>>> information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013  
>>> (see http://gnso.icann.org/en/library).
>>> The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council should  
>>> initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) limited to the issues  
>>> discussed in this report but delay the next steps in the PDP  
>>> until the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services  
>>> completes its recommendations, in May 2013 with a possible  
>>> extension, in order to ensure that the resulting policy  
>>> recommendations would be consistent with any new model or  
>>> approaches to contact data that may result from the Expert  
>>> Working Group?s deliberations;
>>>
>>> As recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team the Final Issue  
>>> Report also recommends that ICANN should commission a study on  
>>> the commercial feasibility of translation or transliteration  
>>> systems for internationalized contact data, which is expected to  
>>> help inform the PDP Working Group in its deliberations;
>>>
>>> ICANN?s General Counsel has confirmed that the topic is properly  
>>> within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope  
>>> of the GNSO.
>>>
>>> Link to motion
>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10 
>>> +April+2013
>>>
>>> 4.1 Reading of the motion ().
>>> 4.2 Discussion of motion and next steps.
>>> 4.3 Vote.
>>> Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Policy vs. Implementation (15 minutes)
>>> Recent issues highlight an ongoing broader issue regarding the  
>>> boundary between policy development and implementation work as  
>>> well as the effective integration of policy development and  
>>> integration work from the outset.
>>>
>>> In addition, the Council is increasingly asked to consider issues  
>>> for policy guidance and may well need to look at the evolution of  
>>> its own work and processes to accommodate this type of request.
>>>
>>> ICANN Staff published a paper intended to facilitate further  
>>> community discussions on this topic. Discussions on the Council  
>>> mailing list and at subsequent meetings indicate that this is an  
>>> area of fundamental interest to the Council.
>>>
>>> Following further community discussion in Beijing the Council is  
>>> to discuss the current position and to consider next steps from a  
>>> GNSO Council perspective.
>>>
>>> 5.1 Discussion
>>> 5.2 Next steps
>>>
>>> Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Template to request an Issues  
>>> Report (10 minutes)
>>>
>>> One outcome from the Operations and Organisation meeting that  
>>> GNSO Council Leadership held with ICANN staff in Amsterdam  
>>> earlier this year, was to develop an online template to complete  
>>> the request for an Issue Report.
>>>
>>> The objective of this tool is to encourage requestors to gather  
>>> as much information as possible and engage in early discussions  
>>> with others prior to submitting a request for an Issue Report.  
>>> The intended outcome is that by encouraging completion of all the  
>>> information requested in the template, it will be possible to  
>>> identify what information may still be needed and encourage  
>>> collaboration between different interested parties at an early  
>>> stage.
>>>
>>> The template (https://community.icann.org/x/GQllAg) can be  
>>> completed by either by following the instructions or by  
>>> downloading the word template from the same page. Once completed,  
>>> Council members will be able to either create a PDF and submit  
>>> that together with a motion to the Council mailing list, or  
>>> insert the relevant wiki link in the motion. Please note that  
>>> this template is tailored to requests for Issue Reports as  
>>> defined in the PDP Manual.
>>> The template is still in draft form and the Council is to discuss  
>>> its usefulness, consider accepting it for future issue reports  
>>> and consider also where similar templates could be used elsewhere.
>>>
>>> 6.1 ? Discussion
>>> 6.2 ? Next steps
>>>
>>> Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Outcomes from sessions in Beijing  
>>> (15 minutes)
>>> A series of main session meetings will have taken place as well  
>>> as meetings between the Council and other key stakeholders.  This  
>>> item represents an opportunity to capture and review any key  
>>> outcomes or actions arising from those meetings.
>>>
>>> 7.1 ? Discussion
>>> 7.2 ? Next steps
>>>
>>> Item 8:  Any Other Business (5 minutes)
>>>
>>> Open Microphone
>>> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article  
>>> X, Section 3)
>>> 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto,  
>>> or the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a  
>>> GNSO Council motion or other voting action requires a simple  
>>> majority vote of each House. The voting thresholds described  
>>> below shall apply to the following GNSO actions:
>>> a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more  
>>> than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
>>> b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as  
>>> described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than  
>>> one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of  
>>> one House.
>>> c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote  
>>> of GNSO Supermajority.
>>> d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an  
>>> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or  
>>> more than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
>>> e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope:  
>>> requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>>> f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team  
>>> Charter approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may  
>>> approve an amendment to the Charter through a simple majority  
>>> vote of each House.
>>> g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication  
>>> of a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for  
>>> significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO  
>>> Supermajority Vote in favor of termination.
>>> h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority:  
>>> requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and  
>>> further requires that one GNSO Council member representative of  
>>> at least 3 of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation.
>>> i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority:  
>>> requires an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
>>> j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on  
>>> Certain Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision  
>>> specifies that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates  
>>> the presence of a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote  
>>> threshold will have to be met or exceeded.
>>> k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final  
>>> Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may  
>>> be modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO  
>>> Supermajority vote.
>>> l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the  
>>> Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one  
>>> House and a majority of the other House."
>>> Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures  
>>> 4.4)
>>> 4.4.1 Applicability
>>> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of  
>>> Council motions or measures.
>>> a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
>>> b. Approve a PDP recommendation;
>>> c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or  
>>> ICANN Bylaws;
>>> d. Fill a Council position open for election.
>>> 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within  
>>> the announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the  
>>> meeting?s adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at  
>>> the time of the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours  
>>> or extend the time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is  
>>> verbally confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present.
>>> 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate  
>>> absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide  
>>> reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee  
>>> ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web- 
>>> based interface, or other technologies as may become available.
>>> 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements.  
>>> (There must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is  
>>> initiated.)
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>> --------
>>> Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN  
>>> hemisphere
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>> --------
>>> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 07:15
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>> --------
>>> California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 00:15
>>> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 03:15
>>> Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 04:15
>>> Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 04:15
>>> Edinburgh, Scotland (BST) UTC+0DST 08:15
>>> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 08:15
>>> Abuja, Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 08:15
>>> Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 09:15
>>> Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 09:15
>>> Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+0DST 10:15
>>> Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 12:15
>>> Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 15:15
>>> Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 15:15
>>> Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 19:15
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>> --------
>>> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00  
>>> local time (with exceptions)
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>> --
>>> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com
>>> http://tinyurl.com/cu3adns
>>>
>>> Thank you.
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Glen
>>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>>> GNSO Secretariat
>>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130331/05df55eb/attachment-0001.html>


From wendy  Sun Mar 31 19:37:59 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2013 12:37:59 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public
 Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
In-Reply-To: <C7DBF411-D182-4064-87F3-54746B992EFA@ipjustice.org>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD245DF5ABA@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<D1AD6C17-5824-42E8-A46A-2339A2417E54@ipjustice.org>
	<8A9825CF-CD9D-49FE-A314-A49EBE16A9AF@ella.com>
	<C7DBF411-D182-4064-87F3-54746B992EFA@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <51586667.2050604@seltzer.com>

We have until Tuesday, April 2, to make motions. We can also request
items for discussion even if we don't have motions on the table. We
might work with Jeff and others to propose a motion on the privacy/proxy
"accreditation," or might better wait for more conversations (not sure).

I'd suggest we at least propose a conversation about the matters of
bottom-up versus top-down policy-making, and how the Council can take a
leadership role in bringing issues up from the bottom.

Do we want to propose a motion that ICANN should extend the current RAA
to new gTLDs until the GNSO adopts a consensus supporting the policy
changes in any proposed new RAA?

A motion of censure on TMCH "strawman" adoption?

Propose a long-term planning committee?

Discussion of recommendations to nom-comm on what they should do with
their appointees to GNSO Council?

--Wendy

On 03/31/2013 12:19 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> Reminder:  It is the responsibility of the GNSO Representatives to
> actively advance the policy positions of the membership on the GNSO
> Council.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> On Mar 31, 2013, at 8:05 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> How many issues has NCSG submitted motions for?
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 31 Mar 2013, at 10:35, Robin Gross wrote:
>>
>>> Not much meat on this council agenda.  Where are all the weighty
>>> issues that are tying ICANN into knots?   Shouldn't some of them be
>>> on the council's agenda for discussion at least?
>>>
>>> Robin
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>>>> Date: March 31, 2013 6:41:28 AM PDT
>>>> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
>>>> Subject: [liaison6c] Proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public
>>>> Meeting in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time)
>>>>
>>>> Dear All,
>>>> Please find the proposed Agenda for the GNSO Council Public Meeting
>>>> in Beijing 10 April 2013 at 07:15 UTC (15:15 Local time).
>>>> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37155
>>>> The agenda is also published on the Wiki at:
>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+10+April+2013
>>>>
>>>> Motions may be viewed at:
>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+April+2013
>>>>
>>>> http://beijing46.icann.org/node/37155
>>>>
>>>> This agenda was established according to the GNSO Council Operating
>>>> Procedures approved 13 September 2012 for the GNSO Council and updated.
>>>> http://
>>>> gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf
>>>> For convenience:
>>>>     ? An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds
>>>> is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda.
>>>>     ? An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the
>>>> absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of
>>>> this agenda.
>>>> Meeting Times 07:15 UTC
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cu3adns
>>>> Coordinated Universal Time 07:15 UTC
>>>> 00:15 Los Angeles; 03:15 Washington; 08:15 London; 09:15 Paris;
>>>> 19:15 Wellington
>>>>
>>>> Dial-in numbers will be sent individually to Council members.
>>>> Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if a dial
>>>> out call is needed.
>>>>
>>>> 15:15 - 17:30 Council Public Forum
>>>>
>>>> Presentations by Stakeholder Groups and Constituency Leaders (60
>>>> minutes)
>>>>
>>>>     ? Registries Stakeholder Group ? Keith Drazek
>>>>     ? Registrars Stakeholder Group ? Matt Serlin
>>>>     ? Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) ? Bill Drake
>>>>     ? Non Commercial Stakeholders Constituency ? Robin Gross
>>>>     ? Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency ? Alain
>>>> Berranger.
>>>>     ? Commercial and Business Users Constituency (BC) ? Elisa Cooper
>>>>     ? Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC) ?  Kristina Rosette
>>>>     ? Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers  (ISPCP)
>>>> ? Tony Holmes
>>>> Break (10 minutes)
>>>> Item 1: Administrative matters (10 minutes)
>>>> 1.1 Roll Call
>>>> 1.2 Statement of interest updates
>>>> 1.3 Review/amend agenda
>>>> 1.4. Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meeting per
>>>> the GNSO Operating Procedures:
>>>> Draft Minutes of the GNSO Council meeting 14 March 2013 approved on
>>>> 30 March 2013.
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14383.html
>>>> 1.5. GNSO Projects List
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf
>>>>     ? Review main changes.
>>>>     ? Comments and/or questions.
>>>>
>>>> Item 2: Opening Remarks from Chair (10 minutes)
>>>> Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics
>>>> Include brief review of Projects List and Action List
>>>>
>>>> Item 3: Consent agenda ([0] minutes)
>>>> TBC.
>>>>
>>>> Item 4: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on
>>>> the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information (10 minutes)
>>>> A Final Issue Report translation and transliteration of contact
>>>> information was submitted to the GNSO Council on 21 March 2013 (see
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/library).
>>>> The Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council should
>>>> initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP) limited to the issues
>>>> discussed in this report but delay the next steps in the PDP until
>>>> the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services completes its
>>>> recommendations, in May 2013 with a possible extension, in order to
>>>> ensure that the resulting policy recommendations would be consistent
>>>> with any new model or approaches to contact data that may result
>>>> from the Expert Working Group?s deliberations;
>>>>
>>>> As recommended by the WHOIS Policy Review Team the Final Issue
>>>> Report also recommends that ICANN should commission a study on the
>>>> commercial feasibility of translation or transliteration systems for
>>>> internationalized contact data, which is expected to help inform the
>>>> PDP Working Group in its deliberations;
>>>>
>>>> ICANN?s General Counsel has confirmed that the topic is properly
>>>> within the scope of the ICANN policy process and within the scope of
>>>> the GNSO.
>>>>
>>>> Link to motion
>>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+10+April+2013
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 4.1 Reading of the motion ().
>>>> 4.2 Discussion of motion and next steps.
>>>> 4.3 Vote.
>>>> Item 5: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Policy vs. Implementation (15 minutes)
>>>> Recent issues highlight an ongoing broader issue regarding the
>>>> boundary between policy development and implementation work as well
>>>> as the effective integration of policy development and integration
>>>> work from the outset.
>>>>
>>>> In addition, the Council is increasingly asked to consider issues
>>>> for policy guidance and may well need to look at the evolution of
>>>> its own work and processes to accommodate this type of request.
>>>>
>>>> ICANN Staff published a paper intended to facilitate further
>>>> community discussions on this topic. Discussions on the Council
>>>> mailing list and at subsequent meetings indicate that this is an
>>>> area of fundamental interest to the Council.
>>>>
>>>> Following further community discussion in Beijing the Council is to
>>>> discuss the current position and to consider next steps from a GNSO
>>>> Council perspective.
>>>>
>>>> 5.1 Discussion
>>>> 5.2 Next steps
>>>>
>>>> Item 6: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Template to request an Issues Report
>>>> (10 minutes)
>>>>
>>>> One outcome from the Operations and Organisation meeting that GNSO
>>>> Council Leadership held with ICANN staff in Amsterdam earlier this
>>>> year, was to develop an online template to complete the request for
>>>> an Issue Report.
>>>>
>>>> The objective of this tool is to encourage requestors to gather as
>>>> much information as possible and engage in early discussions with
>>>> others prior to submitting a request for an Issue Report. The
>>>> intended outcome is that by encouraging completion of all the
>>>> information requested in the template, it will be possible to
>>>> identify what information may still be needed and encourage
>>>> collaboration between different interested parties at an early stage.
>>>>
>>>> The template (https://community.icann.org/x/GQllAg) can be completed
>>>> by either by following the instructions or by downloading the word
>>>> template from the same page. Once completed, Council members will be
>>>> able to either create a PDF and submit that together with a motion
>>>> to the Council mailing list, or insert the relevant wiki link in the
>>>> motion. Please note that this template is tailored to requests for
>>>> Issue Reports as defined in the PDP Manual.
>>>> The template is still in draft form and the Council is to discuss
>>>> its usefulness, consider accepting it for future issue reports and
>>>> consider also where similar templates could be used elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> 6.1 ? Discussion
>>>> 6.2 ? Next steps
>>>>
>>>> Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Outcomes from sessions in Beijing (15
>>>> minutes)
>>>> A series of main session meetings will have taken place as well as
>>>> meetings between the Council and other key stakeholders.  This item
>>>> represents an opportunity to capture and review any key outcomes or
>>>> actions arising from those meetings.
>>>>
>>>> 7.1 ? Discussion
>>>> 7.2 ? Next steps
>>>>
>>>> Item 8:  Any Other Business (5 minutes)
>>>>
>>>> Open Microphone
>>>> Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article X,
>>>> Section 3)
>>>> 9. Except as otherwise specified in these Bylaws, Annex A hereto, or
>>>> the GNSO Operating Procedures, the default threshold to pass a GNSO
>>>> Council motion or other voting action requires a simple majority
>>>> vote of each House. The voting thresholds described below shall
>>>> apply to the following GNSO actions:
>>>> a. Create an Issues Report: requires an affirmative vote of more
>>>> than one-fourth (1/4) vote of each House or majority of one House.
>>>> b. Initiate a Policy Development Process ("PDP") Within Scope (as
>>>> described in Annex A): requires an affirmative vote of more than
>>>> one-third (1/3) of each House or more than two-thirds (2/3) of one
>>>> House.
>>>> c. Initiate a PDP Not Within Scope: requires an affirmative vote of
>>>> GNSO Supermajority.
>>>> d. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Within Scope: requires an
>>>> affirmative vote of more than one-third (1/3) of each House or more
>>>> than two-thirds (2/3) of one House.
>>>> e. Approve a PDP Team Charter for a PDP Not Within Scope: requires
>>>> an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority.
>>>> f. Changes to an Approved PDP Team Charter: For any PDP Team Charter
>>>> approved under d. or e. above, the GNSO Council may approve an
>>>> amendment to the Charter through a simple majority vote of each House.
>>>> g. Terminate a PDP: Once initiated, and prior to the publication of
>>>> a Final Report, the GNSO Council may terminate a PDP only for
>>>> significant cause, upon a motion that passes with a GNSO
>>>> Supermajority Vote in favor of termination.
>>>> h. Approve a PDP Recommendation Without a GNSO Supermajority:
>>>> requires an affirmative vote of a majority of each House and further
>>>> requires that one GNSO Council member representative of at least 3
>>>> of the 4 Stakeholder Groups supports the Recommendation.
>>>> i. Approve a PDP Recommendation With a GNSO Supermajority: requires
>>>> an affirmative vote of a GNSO Supermajority,
>>>> j. Approve a PDP Recommendation Imposing New Obligations on Certain
>>>> Contracting Parties: where an ICANN contract provision specifies
>>>> that "a two-thirds vote of the council" demonstrates the presence of
>>>> a consensus, the GNSO Supermajority vote threshold will have to be
>>>> met or exceeded.
>>>> k. Modification of Approved PDP Recommendation: Prior to Final
>>>> Approval by the ICANN Board, an Approved PDP Recommendation may be
>>>> modified or amended by the GNSO Council with a GNSO Supermajority vote.
>>>> l. A "GNSO Supermajority" shall mean: (a) two-thirds (2/3) of the
>>>> Council members of each House, or (b) three-fourths (3/4) of one
>>>> House and a majority of the other House."
>>>> Appendix 2: Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures 4.4)
>>>> 4.4.1 Applicability
>>>> Absentee voting is permitted for the following limited number of
>>>> Council motions or measures.
>>>> a. Initiate a Policy Development Process (PDP);
>>>> b. Approve a PDP recommendation;
>>>> c. Recommend amendments to the GNSO Operating Procedures (GOP) or
>>>> ICANN Bylaws;
>>>> d. Fill a Council position open for election.
>>>> 4.4.2 Absentee ballots, when permitted, must be submitted within the
>>>> announced time limit, which shall be 72 hours from the meeting?s
>>>> adjournment. In exceptional circumstances, announced at the time of
>>>> the vote, the Chair may reduce this time to 24 hours or extend the
>>>> time to 7 calendar days, provided such amendment is verbally
>>>> confirmed by all Vice-Chairs present.
>>>> 4.4.3 The GNSO Secretariat will administer, record, and tabulate
>>>> absentee votes according to these procedures and will provide
>>>> reasonable means for transmitting and authenticating absentee
>>>> ballots, which could include voting by telephone, e- mail, web-based
>>>> interface, or other technologies as may become available.
>>>> 4.4.4 Absentee balloting does not affect quorum requirements. (There
>>>> must be a quorum for the meeting in which the vote is initiated.)
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Local time between March and October, Summer in the NORTHERN hemisphere
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Reference (Coordinated Universal Time) UTC 07:15
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 00:15
>>>> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 03:15
>>>> Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 04:15
>>>> Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 04:15
>>>> Edinburgh, Scotland (BST) UTC+0DST 08:15
>>>> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 08:15
>>>> Abuja, Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 08:15
>>>> Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 09:15
>>>> Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 09:15
>>>> Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+0DST 10:15
>>>> Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 12:15
>>>> Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 15:15
>>>> Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 15:15
>>>> Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 19:15
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00
>>>> local time (with exceptions)
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/cu3adns
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> Glen
>>>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>>>> GNSO Secretariat
>>>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>>>> http://gnso.icann.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> IP JUSTICE
>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/