From robin  Wed May  1 00:59:45 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:59:45 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Offer to Assist RE: Organization of ICANN Roundtable
	with Privacy Experts and Academics
Message-ID: <0F77D817-0DEF-4401-89B5-2AE0024493E7@ipjustice.org>

Dear Fadi,

I was encouraged to hear from you in Beijing that you intend to hold a roundtable discussions with privacy experts and academics in the near future, similar to the DNS industry roundtable discussions that ICANN has hosted recently.

As you may know, NCSG's diverse membership contains a number of leading privacy experts and academics in the Internet governance landscape and we would be very happy to work with your staff in the organization of this important discussion.  At the very least, we can recommend individuals active on Internet privacy and other academics knowledgable about ICANN whom ICANN could consider inviting to its roundtable discussion.  It is our hope that ICANN would engage the community in a bottom-up way regarding the organization of this discussion and we stand ready to help in any way needed.

NCSG welcomes an opportunity to foster a more constructive dialogue with staff and the proposed roundtable presents a great opportunity to work together on our shared goal to increase civil society participation at ICANN.  Please let me know how NCSG can assist in the facilitation of this discussion.

Thank you,
Robin






From robin  Wed May  1 01:30:51 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 15:30:51 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCSG Offer to Assist RE: Organization of ICANN
	Roundtable with Privacy Experts and Academics
References: <A48EACE4-3590-467B-AF04-27C537FB098D@icann.org>
Message-ID: <087AB33E-6580-45BB-83FC-77A9923C2CF0@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: NCSG Offer to Assist RE: Organization of ICANN Roundtable with Privacy Experts and Academics
> Date: April 30, 2013 3:21:50 PM PDT
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Cc: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>, NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, Chris Mondini <chris.mondini at icann.org>
> 
> Robin,
> Indeed I am really eager to have this Roundtable. I already asked David and team to organize and look forward to learn.  
> 
> David
> I urge you to take full advantage of Robin's offer so we can host one or more fruitful roundtables. 
> 
> Best
> Fadi
> 
> On May 1, 2013, at 12:06 AM, "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> 
>> Dear Fadi,
>> 
>> I was encouraged to hear from you in Beijing that you intend to hold a roundtable discussions with privacy experts and academics in the near future, similar to the DNS industry roundtable discussions that ICANN has hosted recently.
>> 
>> As you may know, NCSG's diverse membership contains a number of leading privacy experts and academics in the Internet governance landscape and we would be very happy to work with your staff in the organization of this important discussion.  At the very least, we can recommend individuals active on Internet privacy and other academics knowledgable about ICANN whom ICANN could consider inviting to its roundtable discussion.  It is our hope that ICANN would engage the community in a bottom-up way regarding the organization of this discussion and we stand ready to help in any way needed.
>> 
>> NCSG welcomes an opportunity to foster a more constructive dialogue with staff and the proposed roundtable presents a great opportunity to work together on our shared goal to increase civil society participation at ICANN.  Please let me know how NCSG can assist in the facilitation of this discussion.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130430/987ab4b1/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Wed May  1 12:03:32 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 11:03:32 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Offer to Assist RE: Organization of ICANN
	Roundtable with Privacy Experts and Academics
In-Reply-To: <0F77D817-0DEF-4401-89B5-2AE0024493E7@ipjustice.org>
References: <0F77D817-0DEF-4401-89B5-2AE0024493E7@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <851A1942-46F7-498E-9FED-FA15F097B362@uzh.ch>

Good stuff :-)

On Apr 30, 2013, at 11:59 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Dear Fadi,
> 
> I was encouraged to hear from you in Beijing that you intend to hold a roundtable discussions with privacy experts and academics in the near future, similar to the DNS industry roundtable discussions that ICANN has hosted recently.
> 
> As you may know, NCSG's diverse membership contains a number of leading privacy experts and academics in the Internet governance landscape and we would be very happy to work with your staff in the organization of this important discussion.  At the very least, we can recommend individuals active on Internet privacy and other academics knowledgable about ICANN whom ICANN could consider inviting to its roundtable discussion.  It is our hope that ICANN would engage the community in a bottom-up way regarding the organization of this discussion and we stand ready to help in any way needed.
> 
> NCSG welcomes an opportunity to foster a more constructive dialogue with staff and the proposed roundtable presents a great opportunity to work together on our shared goal to increase civil society participation at ICANN.  Please let me know how NCSG can assist in the facilitation of this discussion.
> 
> Thank you,
> Robin
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From robin  Wed May  1 21:42:36 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 11:42:36 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCSG Offer to Assist RE: Organization of ICANN
	Roundtable with Privacy Experts and Academics
References: <8E07912B-1AEF-40B9-9132-2F75CD2A043B@icann.org>
Message-ID: <4D3994E0-D95F-472D-A803-E051ED054707@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: NCSG Offer to Assist RE: Organization of ICANN Roundtable with Privacy Experts and Academics
> Date: April 30, 2013 10:17:52 PM PDT
> To: Fadi Chehade <fadi.chehade at icann.org>
> Cc: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>, NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, Chris Mondini <chris.mondini at icann.org>
> 
> Fadi and Robin.  
> 
> I are exploring dates and other details. 
> 
> Robin.   I will be  in contact soon  with you and the NCSG leaders on planning for this  Roundtable discussion.   
> 
> Best regards.     David. 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> David A. Olive
> 
> 
> On May 1, 2013, at 12:21 AM, "Fadi Chehade" <fadi.chehade at icann.org> wrote:
> 
>> Robin,
>> Indeed I am really eager to have this Roundtable. I already asked David and team to organize and look forward to learn.  
>> 
>> David
>> I urge you to take full advantage of Robin's offer so we can host one or more fruitful roundtables. 
>> 
>> Best
>> Fadi
>> 
>> On May 1, 2013, at 12:06 AM, "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear Fadi,
>>> 
>>> I was encouraged to hear from you in Beijing that you intend to hold a roundtable discussions with privacy experts and academics in the near future, similar to the DNS industry roundtable discussions that ICANN has hosted recently.
>>> 
>>> As you may know, NCSG's diverse membership contains a number of leading privacy experts and academics in the Internet governance landscape and we would be very happy to work with your staff in the organization of this important discussion.  At the very least, we can recommend individuals active on Internet privacy and other academics knowledgable about ICANN whom ICANN could consider inviting to its roundtable discussion.  It is our hope that ICANN would engage the community in a bottom-up way regarding the organization of this discussion and we stand ready to help in any way needed.
>>> 
>>> NCSG welcomes an opportunity to foster a more constructive dialogue with staff and the proposed roundtable presents a great opportunity to work together on our shared goal to increase civil society participation at ICANN.  Please let me know how NCSG can assist in the facilitation of this discussion.
>>> 
>>> Thank you,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130501/856327d5/attachment.html>


From wendy  Thu May  2 14:22:33 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 07:22:33 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Agenda for meeting of the ICNAN Board's new gTLD
 program committee - 8 May 2013
In-Reply-To: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E83E4846EF@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
References: <263EE96C7DADD44CB3D5A07DBD41D0E83E4846EF@bne3-0001mitmbx.corp.mit>
Message-ID: <51824C79.7030207@seltzer.com>

This (the 8 May meeting) would be a good deadline for some of our
comments on the GAC advice.

--Wendy

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [council] Agenda for meeting of the ICNAN Board's new gTLD
program committee - 8 May 2013
Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 03:16:26 +0000
From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
To: council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>


From:
http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-new-gtld-08may13-en.htm

8 May 2013

Main Agenda:

 *Plan for responding to the GAC advice issued in Beijing.

*AOB







From robin  Sat May  4 02:02:13 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 16:02:13 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] Draft Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting -
	16 May 2013
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FD33765C91C@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <36ABF18B-00E0-444C-8F4D-C77ED027F880@ipjustice.org>

BTW:  where is the counsel on the letter it committed to draft in Beijin on the issue of not circumventing the GNSO policy process?   I haven't seen anything further on the GNSO Council list about that item since Beijing.

(Oddly the GNSO Operating Procedures was the document attached to the email sent to the counsel list instead of the draft minutes of the GNSO Council Mtg in Beijing).

Thanks,
Robin

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] Draft Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting - 16 May 2013
> Date: May 3, 2013 3:47:24 PM PDT
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> 
>  
> Dear Councillors,
>  
> Please find the draft agenda for the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 16 May 2013 at 18:00 UTC. Please remember that all reports, motions  and documents for consideration are due no later than (NLT) 10 days in advance (i.e. MONDAY, 6 May 2013 at 23:59 UTC) of the GNSO Council meeting on 16 May 2013 at 18:00 UTC
> 
> Draft Agenda for GNSO Council Meeting ? 16 May 2013
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-16may13-en.htm
> Also published on the wiki at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+16+May+2013
> Motions before Council are published on the wiki at:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motion+16+May+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 18:00 UTC
> http://tinyurl.com/d7gphxh
> 
> Coordinated Universal Time 18:00 UTC
> 11:00 Los Angeles; 14:00 Washington; 19:00 London; 20:00 Paris; 06:00 Wellington (next day)
> 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.
> 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 10 April 2013 http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14553.html .If there are no comments, these minutes will be published on the website as approved, according to the GNSO Rules of Procedure<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/gnso-operating-procedures-13sep12-en.pdf> section  3.5  "If no objections are received within 10 days, the minutes will be deemed  to have been approved for posting" on 11 May 2013.
> 1.5. GNSO Projects List http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf & Action items
> ?                  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 - To address the Final Issue Report on the Uniformity of Reporting (10 minutes)
> At its October meeting last year the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the current state of uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyse policy-violation reports. ICANN Staff was also explicitly requested to provide its recommendation(s) on how this issue can be further addressed outside of a PDP if recommendations in relation to this issue do not require consensus policies to implement.
> The Final Issue Report was presented to the GNSO Council in Beijing. The Council will now consider a motion to form a non-PDP Working Group to consider additional methods for collecting necessary metrics and reporting from Contracted Parties and other external resources to aid the policy development process as outlined in the Final Issue Report.
> Link to motion
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motion+16+May+2013
> 4.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben).
> 4.2 Discussion of motion.
> 4.3 Vote.
> Item 5: MOTION ? To adopt a revised Policy Development Process (PDP) Manual incorporating modifications to include the suspension of a PDP  (10 minutes)
> In April 2012 the GNSO Council requested the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) to review whether or not there should be a modification to the GNSO PDP Manual to address the possible suspension of a PDP following its initiation;
>  
> The SCI deliberated on provisions for suspension of a PDP and reached consensus on proposed modifications to be incorporated in Section 15 of the GNSO PDP Manual, which also is included as Annex 2 in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures;
>  
> The revised PDP manual, including the proposed provisions for suspension of a PDP, was put out for a minimum 21-day public comment period on 06 March 2013 ending on 06 April 2013 (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/pdp-suspension-07mar13-en.htm) as required by the ICANN Bylaws.
>  
> The GNSO Council will now consider a motion to adopt the revised GNSO Operating Procedures.
>  
> Link to motion
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motion+16+May+2013
> 5.1 Reading of the motion (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben).
> 5.2 Discussion of motion.
> 5.3 Vote.
> Item 6: 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 (seehttp://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.
> An overview of the Final Report was provided in Beijing. The Council is now expected to consider whether or not to initiate a PDP.
> 6.1 Reading of the motion (TBC)
> 6.2 Discussion
> 6.3 Next steps
> Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs & IDN Letter to the Board (20 mins)
> During its meeting in Beijing, the ICANN Board requested that, by 1 July 2013, interested Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees provide staff with any input and guidance they may have to be factored into implementation of the Recommendations from the Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs' (see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/prelim-report-11apr13-en.htm#2.a). The Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs examines potential challenges from a user experience perspective when variants of IDN TLDs are activated and offers recommendations to users to minimize risks and optimize the implementation. 
>  
> Ideally, input is requested on:
> a)    Which recommendations if any, are pre-requisites to the delegation of any IDN variant TLDs (i.e., delegation of IDN Variant TLDs should not proceed until these recommendations are implemented),
> b)    Which recommendations, if any, can be deferred until a later time, and
> c)     c) Which recommendations, if any, require additional policy work by the ICANN community and should be referred to the relevant stakeholder group for further policy work
>  
> Furthermore, it was suggested that the GNSO Council should send a letter to the Board highlighting the importance of IDN related issues. A first draft of such letter was sent to the GNSO Council mailing list on 11/4 (see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg14489.html).
>  
> 7.1 Update on Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs (Steve Sheng)
> 7.2 Discussion
> 7.3 Next steps
> 7.4 Update on letter to the Board (Ching Ciao)
> 7.5 Discussion
> 7.6 Next steps
> Item 8: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Planning for Durban (30 minutes)
> Making the most out of the face-to-face meeting time available at the ICANN Meeting in Durban will take planning.  GNSO Council VC Wolf-Ulrich Knoben is working with staff to lead this effort.
> The Council has the opportunity to feed into plans and provide input based on experience in Beijing.  Included in this item will be the opportunity to shape the topics and substance of the Council?s proposed meetings with other groups in Durban such as the CCNSO, the GAC and the ICANN board.
> 8.1 ? Update (Wolf-Ulrich Knoben)
> 8.2 ? Discussion
> 8.3 ? Next steps
> Item 9: Any Other Business (5 minutes)
> 9.1 - Updated dates for Q4 2013 GNSO Council meetings.  Changed to accommodate Buenos Aires meeting dates.
> 9.2 ? Additional day for Buenos Aires.  Induction and preparation session for the new GNSO 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:
> 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 18:00 UTC
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> California, USA (PST) UTC-8+1DST 11:00
> New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5+1DST 14:00
> Rio de Janiero, Brazil (BRST) UTC-3+1DST 15:00
> Montevideo, Uruguay (UYST) UTC-3+1DST 15:00
> London, United Kingdom (BST) UTC+0DST 19:00
> Abuja, Nigeria (WAT) UTC+1+0DST 19:00
> Bonn, Germany (CEST) UTC+1+0DST 20:00
> Stockholm, Sweden (CET) UTC+1+0DST 20:00
> Ramat Hasharon, Israel(IST) UTC+2+0DST 21:00
> Karachi, Pakistan (PKT ) UTC+5+0DST 23:00
> Beijing/Hong Kong, China (HKT ) UTC+8+0DST 02:00 (next day)
> Perth, Australia (WST) UTC+8+0DST 02:00 (next day)
> Wellington, New Zealand (NZDT ) UTC+12+1DST 06:00 (next day)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The DST starts/ends on last Sunday of October 2013, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions)
> For other times see:
> http://tinyurl.com/d7gphxh
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.org
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130503/4579defb/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Sun May  5 22:18:53 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 15:18:53 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Individual Statement on the current consensus question in
	the IGO-INGO group
Message-ID: <2A331959-2D78-4CAC-A4F8-9B47EB80AD5B@acm.org>

Hi,

I have just edited a draft of the statement i plan to send as individual stmt tomorrow or so in 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1njk_0vQdZOlORFZTXS3mIorTa5gh3fubIKRj45s286U/edit?usp=sharing

i would love to have others, especially those in the IGO/INGO group, sign on to it.  

Once I send it to the WG will be asking the NCSG policy groups to review and possibly endorse or change.  

Comments in the next 24 hours would be helpful.  I intend to send it to the group sometime Monday.

avri




From avri  Tue May  7 07:29:48 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 00:29:48 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] One compromise point in the IGO/INGO discussions
Message-ID: <61776771-323F-4509-9C70-AF65C52BD942@acm.org>

Hi,

As part of the WG efforts in the IGO/INGO group, we were asked for our personal views on various questions.

I have been working on a statement in:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1njk_0vQdZOlORFZTXS3mIorTa5gh3fubIKRj45s286U/edit

I have submitted a version to the WG, though I continue working on it.

While I have discussed this with other members of the group, none of them buy into it yet, though I beleive there are aspects they consider worth discussing.  I am offering this to the NCUC and NCSG as a continuing point for discussions.  I expect there will be a compromise coming out of the IGO/INGO group and NCSG will need a position once that happens. 

Please comment on the document either with comments on the doc itself, or preferably on this list.

Thanks

avri




From wendy  Mon May 13 17:43:16 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 10:43:16 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Need a proxy/alternate for 16 May Council Meeting
Message-ID: <5190FC04.7090308@seltzer.com>

Due to scheduling changes, I now have to make an in-person presentation
that conflicts with the Council meeting Thursday. Can someone take my proxy?

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



From robin  Mon May 13 21:13:22 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 11:13:22 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC comments - and a note on support
	for diversity of views in our community
References: <7C504CC5-6818-42C8-9DC9-1DA9EA4624D3@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <750F37A8-A22A-446A-85F4-15B288A72389@ipjustice.org>

Oops - should have sent this "last call for changes" to the NCSG Policy Committee email list.

Thanks,
Robin


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC comments - and a note on support for diversity of views in our community
> Date: May 13, 2013 11:06:10 AM PDT
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Reply-To: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
> 
> Folks:
> 
> The edited version of the draft is at:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6GT0zqLjU6e7Js-TE2Gjlm_-B5xvhE5CrRPZSV3oV4/edit
> 
> As a compromise to the few objections on the earlier drafts, the current version states it does not take a position on the amazon and patagonia applications.  (Remember we are not commenting on individual applications in this stmt, we are commenting on GAC process). 
> 
> The deadline for NCSG filing these comments is tomorrow so I will be filing them in 24 hours unless there are any other strong objections.   Thanks to Milton and others for all the redrafting and compromising to get a statement we can submit as a group.
> 
> Thank you,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On May 13, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Fl?vio Rech Wagner wrote:
> 
>> I fully endorse Kathy's analysis and suggestions regarding Amazon and Patagonia. And I think it is entirely possible to find the right language to represent all of our views.
>> 
>> Flavio
>> 
>> 
>>> All,
>>> There is a vital split of our community, and I think that is OK. I remember talking with Robin about the split of the NCSG on the Closed Generics issues, and she celebrated it -- diversity is good in a community like ours, she said.  I found that an encouraging response.
>>> 
>>> Here too we are split on an important issue -- whether the GAC intervened appropriately on various areas of its GAC Advice? There are some in our community who did not believe the GAC had the right to intervene at all on these New gTLD policy issues. There are others of us (myself included) who believe that the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook expressly reserved the right for the Governments/GAC to intervene at this moment in time -- and to speak on substantive matters, including why some applications for New gTLDs should not be granted.
>>> 
>>> In the Applicant Guidebook, we wrote a specific provision for GAC Advice: "The GAC may provide public policy advice directly to the
>>> ICANN Board on any application."  (full section below - 1.1.2.7 of the Applicant Guidebook).  We also made it almost impossibly hard - we required "consensus of the GAC" -- an almost impossible threshold. Yet, the GAC did it.  They met longer than anyone in Beijing, starting the Thursday before the meeting and continuing to work on their Advice until 11pm Wednesday, six days later! I give them great credit for that.  If the goal of a multistakeholder group is that everyone does their part with hard work and good faith according to the rules we have established, then my personal view is that the GAC did it and did it well.
>>> 
>>> Does that mean that I agree with everyone they said-- no. I don't like categories, per se, but I like much of the advice there on specific applicantions. I think Communities need more support (IV.e). I don't like Closed Generics (Appendix 1). And I don't like trademark owners registering Patagonia and Amazon over the objections of their regions.
>>> 
>>> What I see happening is a fight over the scope of trademark law and New gTLDs.  That's the issue with Closed Generics and it's also the issue here.  Generic and Geographic terms have special standing in trademark law -- these words have special protection under the fair use provisions.  Does it stop a company from getting a trademark? Not in many cases.  Does it stop it from using that trademark in a way that hurts the generic and geographic communities, businesses and sectors, Yes. Is a New gTLD ambiguous on this issue? -- double Yes.  So ample room for our multistakeholder community -- including our governments and civil society to weigh in!
>>> 
>>> And they have-- on both sides. It is very clear that civil society has weighed in to protect Patagonia and Amazon, and the governments have responded to a civil society request -- a noncommercial community request -- from these regions.  I think the GAC spoke clearly and within its scope when it asked that ICANN: "not proceed beyond Initial Evaluation with the following strings." Section IV.c., GAC Advice.
>>> 
>>> I would ask that Milton work with Carlos, as he worked with me, to find the right language in the statement that represents all of our views.  Some of us are procedural people, some of us are substantive ones -- all of us are NCSG.  It's a hard path, but we can do it!
>>> Best,tx and regards,
>>> Kathy
>>> p.s. This may be easier than we think because upon review, the Patagonia/Amazon GAC Advice is section IV.c. and the public comment asks for input on section IV.b. and Annex I (the categories).  Patagonia and Amazon aren't even raised in Annex I at all!
>>> 
>>> p.p.s. The text of Applicant Guidebook, Section 1.1.2.7:
>>> 
>>> 1.1.2.7 Receipt of GAC Advice on New gTLDs
>>> The GAC may provide public policy advice directly to the
>>> ICANN Board on any application. The procedure for GAC
>>> Advice on New gTLDs described in Module 3 indicates that,
>>> to be considered by the Board during the evaluation
>>> process, the GAC Advice on New gTLDs must be submitted
>>> by the close of the objection filing period. A GAC Early
>>> Warning is not a prerequisite to use of the GAC Advice
>>> process.
>>> 
>>> If the Board receives GAC Advice on New gTLDs stating
>>> that it is the consensus of the GAC that a particular
>>> application should not proceed, this will create a strong
>>> presumption for the ICANN Board that the application
>>> should not be approved. If the Board does not act in
>>> accordance with this type of advice, it must provide
>>> rationale for doing so.
>>> 
>>> See Module 3 for additional detail on the procedures
>>> concerning GAC Advice on New gTLDs.
>>> ****
>>> :
>>>> I have checked with Flavio and others, and we agree with Kathy's proposal. I think Flavio has made clear why we see it as problematic.
>>>> 
>>>> --c.a.
>>>> 
>>>> On 05/09/2013 10:09 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>> As we move towards a common denominator, I support not including
>>>>> anything in the statement about .amazon and .patagonia (just as Milton
>>>>> has graciously agreed not to include anything on closed generics).
>>>>> Best, Kathy
>>>>> 
>>>>> :
>>>>>> I haven't seen any statements from civil society organizations from
>>>>>> South America supporting the approval of the .amazon and .patagonia
>>>>>> applications. Exact on the contrary. Civil society in South America is
>>>>>> definitely against the approval of these applications, as you can see,
>>>>>> for example, from the list of organizations signing the document sent
>>>>>> by Carlos Afonso in a previous message. Let's stop assuming that this
>>>>>> is just a matter of governments and "empty political statements".
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In a few cases, governments may reflect the position of the civil
>>>>>> society ...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Flavio
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I've not seen yet any valid argument or study from the Argentinean
>>>>>>> government why .patagonia should not be approved, not that I'm in
>>>>>>> favor but claiming ownership or sovereignty with empty political
>>>>>>> statements IMHO has no weight in the evaluation process and the board
>>>>>>> can disregard the GAC advice.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I agree with Milton that because government X say so is not a solid
>>>>>>> argument to deny an application.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -Jorge
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On May 9, 2013, at 4:01 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at CAFONSO.CA> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> While I agree with most of the doc, I do not agree (along with many
>>>>>>>> civil society orgs & movements) with the arguments in the
>>>>>>>> paragraph  mentioning .amazon and .patagonia. Please leave these
>>>>>>>> arguments to  the commercial interest groups.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> fraternal regards
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> sent from a dumbphone
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On 9 May 2013, at 14:18, Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I agree.  These are solid comments and NCSG should endorse them.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks very much, Milton, for the difficult work of drafting and
>>>>>>>>> re-drafting to incorporate the views of others.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On May 9, 2013, at 10:49 AM, McTim wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Today in domain incite the writer starts his blog post with:
>>>>>>>>>>> " For the last few weeks I've been attempting to write a sensible
>>>>>>>>>>> analysis of the Governmental Advisory Committee's advice on new
>>>>>>>>>>> gTLDs without resorting to incredulity, hyperbole or sarcasm"
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what I felt when I took on the task!!
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> So it took him a few weeks to work it out of his system. Can you
>>>>>>>>>>> all forgive me - or perhaps respect me - for taking only one week?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I have revised the GAC comments. They are tamer. They eliminated
>>>>>>>>>>> one mistake that Kathy pointed out to me. the bow to division
>>>>>>>>>>> within NCSG regarding closed generics. But they still drive home
>>>>>>>>>>> what are absolutely essential points that MUST be made, and
>>>>>>>>>>> made  strongly, in this important comment period. Please take a
>>>>>>>>>>> fresh look.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6GT0zqLjU6e7Js-TE2Gjlm_-B5xvhE5CrRPZSV3oV4/edit?usp=sharing 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I am happy with the re-write in terms of tone and substance.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> It is important that we make a solid statement about this to the
>>>>>>>>>> Board, as it gives them political "cover" to say no to the GAC.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> McTim
>>>>>>>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is.
>>>>>>>>>> A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>>>>> 
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130513/7641ed57/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Mon May 13 21:20:50 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 11:20:50 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] who's coming to Durban in July for NCSG?
Message-ID: <C2913554-E3A8-4362-B92D-E99F3D25BA65@ipjustice.org>

Dear NCSG GNSO Council Representatives:

It is time again to plan for the next ICANN meeting in Durban in July.

Would the 6 NCSG GNSO Councilors please let me know asap if you plan to participate at the Durban ICANN meeting in July and will be utilizing the NCSG-alloted travel support?

I need to send Glen and the ICANN travel organizers the names of the NCSG-supported travelers to Durban within a week.

Thanks,
Robin


From avri  Mon May 13 22:35:04 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 21:35:04 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC comments - and a note on
	support for diversity of views in our community
In-Reply-To: <750F37A8-A22A-446A-85F4-15B288A72389@ipjustice.org>
References: <7C504CC5-6818-42C8-9DC9-1DA9EA4624D3@ipjustice.org>
	<750F37A8-A22A-446A-85F4-15B288A72389@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <F56F65E8-4CA8-45A9-BEC2-4EF82DDB5E38@acm.org>

I support NCSG sending the statement

avri

On 13 May 2013, at 20:13, Robin Gross wrote:

> Oops - should have sent this "last call for changes" to the NCSG Policy Committee email list.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC comments - and a note on support for diversity of views in our community
>> Date: May 13, 2013 11:06:10 AM PDT
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> Reply-To: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>> 
>> Folks:
>> 
>> The edited version of the draft is at:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6GT0zqLjU6e7Js-TE2Gjlm_-B5xvhE5CrRPZSV3oV4/edit
>> 
>> As a compromise to the few objections on the earlier drafts, the current version states it does not take a position on the amazon and patagonia applications.  (Remember we are not commenting on individual applications in this stmt, we are commenting on GAC process). 
>> 
>> The deadline for NCSG filing these comments is tomorrow so I will be filing them in 24 hours unless there are any other strong objections.   Thanks to Milton and others for all the redrafting and compromising to get a statement we can submit as a group.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>> On May 13, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Fl?vio Rech Wagner wrote:
>> 
>>> I fully endorse Kathy's analysis and suggestions regarding Amazon and Patagonia. And I think it is entirely possible to find the right language to represent all of our views.
>>> 
>>> Flavio
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> All,
>>>> There is a vital split of our community, and I think that is OK. I remember talking with Robin about the split of the NCSG on the Closed Generics issues, and she celebrated it -- diversity is good in a community like ours, she said.  I found that an encouraging response.
>>>> 
>>>> Here too we are split on an important issue -- whether the GAC intervened appropriately on various areas of its GAC Advice? There are some in our community who did not believe the GAC had the right to intervene at all on these New gTLD policy issues. There are others of us (myself included) who believe that the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook expressly reserved the right for the Governments/GAC to intervene at this moment in time -- and to speak on substantive matters, including why some applications for New gTLDs should not be granted.
>>>> 
>>>> In the Applicant Guidebook, we wrote a specific provision for GAC Advice: "The GAC may provide public policy advice directly to the
>>>> ICANN Board on any application."  (full section below - 1.1.2.7 of the Applicant Guidebook).  We also made it almost impossibly hard - we required "consensus of the GAC" -- an almost impossible threshold. Yet, the GAC did it.  They met longer than anyone in Beijing, starting the Thursday before the meeting and continuing to work on their Advice until 11pm Wednesday, six days later! I give them great credit for that.  If the goal of a multistakeholder group is that everyone does their part with hard work and good faith according to the rules we have established, then my personal view is that the GAC did it and did it well.
>>>> 
>>>> Does that mean that I agree with everyone they said-- no. I don't like categories, per se, but I like much of the advice there on specific applicantions. I think Communities need more support (IV.e). I don't like Closed Generics (Appendix 1). And I don't like trademark owners registering Patagonia and Amazon over the objections of their regions.
>>>> 
>>>> What I see happening is a fight over the scope of trademark law and New gTLDs.  That's the issue with Closed Generics and it's also the issue here.  Generic and Geographic terms have special standing in trademark law -- these words have special protection under the fair use provisions.  Does it stop a company from getting a trademark? Not in many cases.  Does it stop it from using that trademark in a way that hurts the generic and geographic communities, businesses and sectors, Yes. Is a New gTLD ambiguous on this issue? -- double Yes.  So ample room for our multistakeholder community -- including our governments and civil society to weigh in!
>>>> 
>>>> And they have-- on both sides. It is very clear that civil society has weighed in to protect Patagonia and Amazon, and the governments have responded to a civil society request -- a noncommercial community request -- from these regions.  I think the GAC spoke clearly and within its scope when it asked that ICANN: "not proceed beyond Initial Evaluation with the following strings." Section IV.c., GAC Advice.
>>>> 
>>>> I would ask that Milton work with Carlos, as he worked with me, to find the right language in the statement that represents all of our views.  Some of us are procedural people, some of us are substantive ones -- all of us are NCSG.  It's a hard path, but we can do it!
>>>> Best,tx and regards,
>>>> Kathy
>>>> p.s. This may be easier than we think because upon review, the Patagonia/Amazon GAC Advice is section IV.c. and the public comment asks for input on section IV.b. and Annex I (the categories).  Patagonia and Amazon aren't even raised in Annex I at all!
>>>> 
>>>> p.p.s. The text of Applicant Guidebook, Section 1.1.2.7:
>>>> 
>>>> 1.1.2.7 Receipt of GAC Advice on New gTLDs
>>>> The GAC may provide public policy advice directly to the
>>>> ICANN Board on any application. The procedure for GAC
>>>> Advice on New gTLDs described in Module 3 indicates that,
>>>> to be considered by the Board during the evaluation
>>>> process, the GAC Advice on New gTLDs must be submitted
>>>> by the close of the objection filing period. A GAC Early
>>>> Warning is not a prerequisite to use of the GAC Advice
>>>> process.
>>>> 
>>>> If the Board receives GAC Advice on New gTLDs stating
>>>> that it is the consensus of the GAC that a particular
>>>> application should not proceed, this will create a strong
>>>> presumption for the ICANN Board that the application
>>>> should not be approved. If the Board does not act in
>>>> accordance with this type of advice, it must provide
>>>> rationale for doing so.
>>>> 
>>>> See Module 3 for additional detail on the procedures
>>>> concerning GAC Advice on New gTLDs.
>>>> ****
>>>> :
>>>>> I have checked with Flavio and others, and we agree with Kathy's proposal. I think Flavio has made clear why we see it as problematic.
>>>>> 
>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 05/09/2013 10:09 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>> As we move towards a common denominator, I support not including
>>>>>> anything in the statement about .amazon and .patagonia (just as Milton
>>>>>> has graciously agreed not to include anything on closed generics).
>>>>>> Best, Kathy
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> I haven't seen any statements from civil society organizations from
>>>>>>> South America supporting the approval of the .amazon and .patagonia
>>>>>>> applications. Exact on the contrary. Civil society in South America is
>>>>>>> definitely against the approval of these applications, as you can see,
>>>>>>> for example, from the list of organizations signing the document sent
>>>>>>> by Carlos Afonso in a previous message. Let's stop assuming that this
>>>>>>> is just a matter of governments and "empty political statements".
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In a few cases, governments may reflect the position of the civil
>>>>>>> society ...
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Flavio
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I've not seen yet any valid argument or study from the Argentinean
>>>>>>>> government why .patagonia should not be approved, not that I'm in
>>>>>>>> favor but claiming ownership or sovereignty with empty political
>>>>>>>> statements IMHO has no weight in the evaluation process and the board
>>>>>>>> can disregard the GAC advice.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I agree with Milton that because government X say so is not a solid
>>>>>>>> argument to deny an application.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -Jorge
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On May 9, 2013, at 4:01 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at CAFONSO.CA> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> While I agree with most of the doc, I do not agree (along with many
>>>>>>>>> civil society orgs & movements) with the arguments in the
>>>>>>>>> paragraph  mentioning .amazon and .patagonia. Please leave these
>>>>>>>>> arguments to  the commercial interest groups.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> fraternal regards
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> sent from a dumbphone
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 9 May 2013, at 14:18, Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I agree.  These are solid comments and NCSG should endorse them.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks very much, Milton, for the difficult work of drafting and
>>>>>>>>>> re-drafting to incorporate the views of others.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On May 9, 2013, at 10:49 AM, McTim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Today in domain incite the writer starts his blog post with:
>>>>>>>>>>>> " For the last few weeks I've been attempting to write a sensible
>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis of the Governmental Advisory Committee's advice on new
>>>>>>>>>>>> gTLDs without resorting to incredulity, hyperbole or sarcasm"
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what I felt when I took on the task!!
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> So it took him a few weeks to work it out of his system. Can you
>>>>>>>>>>>> all forgive me - or perhaps respect me - for taking only one week?
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have revised the GAC comments. They are tamer. They eliminated
>>>>>>>>>>>> one mistake that Kathy pointed out to me. the bow to division
>>>>>>>>>>>> within NCSG regarding closed generics. But they still drive home
>>>>>>>>>>>> what are absolutely essential points that MUST be made, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> made  strongly, in this important comment period. Please take a
>>>>>>>>>>>> fresh look.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6GT0zqLjU6e7Js-TE2Gjlm_-B5xvhE5CrRPZSV3oV4/edit?usp=sharing 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy with the re-write in terms of tone and substance.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> It is important that we make a solid statement about this to the
>>>>>>>>>>> Board, as it gives them political "cover" to say no to the GAC.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> McTim
>>>>>>>>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is.
>>>>>>>>>>> A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>>>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From Mary.Wong  Mon May 13 22:38:07 2013
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 15:38:07 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC comments - and a note on
 support for diversity of views in our community
In-Reply-To: <F56F65E8-4CA8-45A9-BEC2-4EF82DDB5E38@acm.org>
References: <7C504CC5-6818-42C8-9DC9-1DA9EA4624D3@ipjustice.org>
	<750F37A8-A22A-446A-85F4-15B288A72389@ipjustice.org>
	<F56F65E8-4CA8-45A9-BEC2-4EF82DDB5E38@acm.org>
Message-ID: <519108DF0200005B000A92F8@smtp.law.unh.edu>


Ditto and thanks again Milton et al!


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-Policy Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org> 

Date:  
5/13/2013 3:36 PM 

Subject:  
Re: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC comments - and a note on support
for diversity of views in our community 

I support NCSG sending the statemen

avri

On 13 May 2013, at 20:13, Robin Gross wrote:

> Oops - should have sent this "last call for changes" to the NCSG
Policy Committee email list.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] GAC comments - and a note on support for
diversity of views in our community
>> Date: May 13, 2013 11:06:10 AM PDT
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> Reply-To: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>>
>> Folks:
>>
>> The edited version of the draft is at:
>>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6GT0zqLjU6e7Js-TE2Gjlm_-B5xvhE5CrRPZSV3oV4/edit
>>
>> As a compromise to the few objections on the earlier drafts, the
current version states it does not take a position on the amazon and
patagonia applications.  (Remember we are not commenting on individual
applications in this stmt, we are commenting on GAC process).
>>
>> The deadline for NCSG filing these comments is tomorrow so I will be
filing them in 24 hours unless there are any other strong objections.  
Thanks to Milton and others for all the redrafting and compromising to
get a statement we can submit as a group.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> On May 13, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Fl?vio Rech Wagner wrote:
>>
>>> I fully endorse Kathy's analysis and suggestions regarding Amazon
and Patagonia. And I think it is entirely possible to find the right
language to represent all of our views.
>>>
>>> Flavio
>>>
>>>
>>>> All,
>>>> There is a vital split of our community, and I think that is OK. I
remember talking with Robin about the split of the NCSG on the Closed
Generics issues, and she celebrated it -- diversity is good in a
community like ours, she said.  I found that an encouraging response.
>>>>
>>>> Here too we are split on an important issue -- whether the GAC
intervened appropriately on various areas of its GAC Advice? There are
some in our community who did not believe the GAC had the right to
intervene at all on these New gTLD policy issues. There are others of us
(myself included) who believe that the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook
expressly reserved the right for the Governments/GAC to intervene at
this moment in time -- and to speak on substantive matters, including
why some applications for New gTLDs should not be granted.
>>>>
>>>> In the Applicant Guidebook, we wrote a specific provision for GAC
Advice: "The GAC may provide public policy advice directly to the
>>>> ICANN Board on any application."  (full section below - 1.1.2.7 of
the Applicant Guidebook).  We also made it almost impossibly hard - we
required "consensus of the GAC" -- an almost impossible threshold. Yet,
the GAC did it.  They met longer than anyone in Beijing, starting the
Thursday before the meeting and continuing to work on their Advice until
11pm Wednesday, six days later! I give them great credit for that.  If
the goal of a multistakeholder group is that everyone does their part
with hard work and good faith according to the rules we have
established, then my personal view is that the GAC did it and did it
well.
>>>>
>>>> Does that mean that I agree with everyone they said-- no. I don't
like categories, per se, but I like much of the advice there on specific
applicantions. I think Communities need more support (IV.e). I don't
like Closed Generics (Appendix 1). And I don't like trademark owners
registering Patagonia and Amazon over the objections of their regions.
>>>>
>>>> What I see happening is a fight over the scope of trademark law
and New gTLDs.  That's the issue with Closed Generics and it's also the
issue here.  Generic and Geographic terms have special standing in
trademark law -- these words have special protection under the fair use
provisions.  Does it stop a company from getting a trademark? Not in
many cases.  Does it stop it from using that trademark in a way that
hurts the generic and geographic communities, businesses and sectors,
Yes. Is a New gTLD ambiguous on this issue? -- double Yes.  So ample
room for our multistakeholder community -- including our governments and
civil society to weigh in!
>>>>
>>>> And they have-- on both sides. It is very clear that civil society
has weighed in to protect Patagonia and Amazon, and the governments have
responded to a civil society request -- a noncommercial community
request -- from these regions.  I think the GAC spoke clearly and within
its scope when it asked that ICANN: "not proceed beyond Initial
Evaluation with the following strings." Section IV.c., GAC Advice.
>>>>
>>>> I would ask that Milton work with Carlos, as he worked with me, to
find the right language in the statement that represents all of our
views.  Some of us are procedural people, some of us are substantive
ones -- all of us are NCSG.  It's a hard path, but we can do it!
>>>> Best,tx and regards,
>>>> Kathy
>>>> p.s. This may be easier than we think because upon review, the
Patagonia/Amazon GAC Advice is section IV.c. and the public comment asks
for input on section IV.b. and Annex I (the categories).  Patagonia and
Amazon aren't even raised in Annex I at all!
>>>>
>>>> p.p.s. The text of Applicant Guidebook, Section 1.1.2.7:
>>>>
>>>> 1.1.2.7 Receipt of GAC Advice on New gTLDs
>>>> The GAC may provide public policy advice directly to the
>>>> ICANN Board on any application. The procedure for GAC
>>>> Advice on New gTLDs described in Module 3 indicates that,
>>>> to be considered by the Board during the evaluation
>>>> process, the GAC Advice on New gTLDs must be submitted
>>>> by the close of the objection filing period. A GAC Early
>>>> Warning is not a prerequisite to use of the GAC Advice
>>>> process.
>>>>
>>>> If the Board receives GAC Advice on New gTLDs stating
>>>> that it is the consensus of the GAC that a particular
>>>> application should not proceed, this will create a strong
>>>> presumption for the ICANN Board that the application
>>>> should not be approved. If the Board does not act in
>>>> accordance with this type of advice, it must provide
>>>> rationale for doing so.
>>>>
>>>> See Module 3 for additional detail on the procedures
>>>> concerning GAC Advice on New gTLDs.
>>>> ****
>>>> :
>>>>> I have checked with Flavio and others, and we agree with Kathy's
proposal. I think Flavio has made clear why we see it as problematic.
>>>>>
>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/09/2013 10:09 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>> As we move towards a common denominator, I support not
including
>>>>>> anything in the statement about .amazon and .patagonia (just as
Milton
>>>>>> has graciously agreed not to include anything on closed
generics).
>>>>>> Best, Kathy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> I haven't seen any statements from civil society organizations
from
>>>>>>> South America supporting the approval of the .amazon and
.patagonia
>>>>>>> applications. Exact on the contrary. Civil society in South
America is
>>>>>>> definitely against the approval of these applications, as you
can see,
>>>>>>> for example, from the list of organizations signing the
document sent
>>>>>>> by Carlos Afonso in a previous message. Let's stop assuming
that this
>>>>>>> is just a matter of governments and "empty political
statements".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In a few cases, governments may reflect the position of the
civil
>>>>>>> society ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Flavio
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've not seen yet any valid argument or study from the
Argentinean
>>>>>>>> government why .patagonia should not be approved, not that I'm
in
>>>>>>>> favor but claiming ownership or sovereignty with empty
political
>>>>>>>> statements IMHO has no weight in the evaluation process and
the board
>>>>>>>> can disregard the GAC advice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with Milton that because government X say so is not a
solid
>>>>>>>> argument to deny an application.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Jorge
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On May 9, 2013, at 4:01 PM, "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at CAFONSO.CA>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While I agree with most of the doc, I do not agree (along
with many
>>>>>>>>> civil society orgs & movements) with the arguments in the
>>>>>>>>> paragraph  mentioning .amazon and .patagonia. Please leave
these
>>>>>>>>> arguments to  the commercial interest groups.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> fraternal regards
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> sent from a dumbphone
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9 May 2013, at 14:18, Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I agree.  These are solid comments and NCSG should endorse
them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks very much, Milton, for the difficult work of drafting
and
>>>>>>>>>> re-drafting to incorporate the views of others.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On May 9, 2013, at 10:49 AM, McTim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Milton L Mueller
<mueller at syr.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Today in domain incite the writer starts his blog post
with:
>>>>>>>>>>>> " For the last few weeks I've been attempting to write a
sensible
>>>>>>>>>>>> analysis of the Governmental Advisory Committee's advice
on new
>>>>>>>>>>>> gTLDs without resorting to incredulity, hyperbole or
sarcasm"
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly what I felt when I took on the task!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So it took him a few weeks to work it out of his system.
Can you
>>>>>>>>>>>> all forgive me - or perhaps respect me - for taking only
one week?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have revised the GAC comments. They are tamer. They
eliminated
>>>>>>>>>>>> one mistake that Kathy pointed out to me. the bow to
division
>>>>>>>>>>>> within NCSG regarding closed generics. But they still
drive home
>>>>>>>>>>>> what are absolutely essential points that MUST be made,
and
>>>>>>>>>>>> made  strongly, in this important comment period. Please
take a
>>>>>>>>>>>> fresh look.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1d6GT0zqLjU6e7Js-TE2Gjlm_-B5xvhE5CrRPZSV3oV4/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am happy with the re-write in terms of tone and
substance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is important that we make a solid statement about this
to the
>>>>>>>>>>> Board, as it gives them political "cover" to say no to the
GAC.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> McTim
>>>>>>>>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where
it is.
>>>>>>>>>>> A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.
>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130513/187b37fc/attachment-0001.html>


From joy  Mon May 13 23:24:40 2013
From: joy (joy)
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 08:24:40 +1200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] who's coming to Durban in July for NCSG?
In-Reply-To: <C2913554-E3A8-4362-B92D-E99F3D25BA65@ipjustice.org>
References: <C2913554-E3A8-4362-B92D-E99F3D25BA65@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <51914C08.7090807@apc.org>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
Thanks Robin,
I will be attending the Durban meeting.
Joy
On 14/05/2013 6:20 a.m., Robin Gross wrote:
> Dear NCSG GNSO Council Representatives:
>
> It is time again to plan for the next ICANN meeting in Durban in July.
>
> Would the 6 NCSG GNSO Councilors please let me know asap if you plan
to participate at the Durban ICANN meeting in July and will be utilizing
the NCSG-alloted travel support?
>
> I need to send Glen and the ICANN travel organizers the names of the
NCSG-supported travelers to Durban within a week.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRkUwIAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqyMcH/3/uQXYfxrGsLa4IPmK1WEkg
Kr7p23Wgq8HO+eirCeKYDM9VyrmOi8cv8oUa/fA58wc+VlyOTKYJR9HGz1P6as/n
cnyMyhq4KPsk0AHb/keSr8EdWWl/Crcn6n4T39dXW7/mWpBjO363Qp76Xs9XJRtj
SlMh2Vg/rYX33sAzWR5yTPjZDdTbVxpFegsWHwi6PVUbVlrqt1ksvlGEiSp7PVuw
Y+/Lpl5UrCvuE87dCxsBflKI4I1YcM/osRR08JWMvhvRZDjGUiCt1Q47qvuooird
Nr326sgjruSQwQxY1hhny/5cJBivgMsE/2FYcZmqUfdheaIr6fHcQNCJkUSjwuo=
=jDXs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




From dave  Mon May 13 23:56:45 2013
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 17:56:45 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] who's coming to Durban in July for NCSG?
In-Reply-To: <51914C08.7090807@apc.org>
References: <C2913554-E3A8-4362-B92D-E99F3D25BA65@ipjustice.org>
	<51914C08.7090807@apc.org>
Message-ID: <06C3F102-7BD7-460B-B1BB-1C0BCF1D461C@difference.com.au>

I plan to attend the Durban meeting, using travel support. 

Sent from my iPad

On 13/05/2013, at 5:24 PM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:

> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Thanks Robin,
> I will be attending the Durban meeting.
> Joy
> On 14/05/2013 6:20 a.m., Robin Gross wrote:
>> Dear NCSG GNSO Council Representatives:
>> 
>> It is time again to plan for the next ICANN meeting in Durban in July.
>> 
>> Would the 6 NCSG GNSO Councilors please let me know asap if you plan
> to participate at the Durban ICANN meeting in July and will be utilizing
> the NCSG-alloted travel support?
>> 
>> I need to send Glen and the ICANN travel organizers the names of the
> NCSG-supported travelers to Durban within a week.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
> 
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRkUwIAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqyMcH/3/uQXYfxrGsLa4IPmK1WEkg
> Kr7p23Wgq8HO+eirCeKYDM9VyrmOi8cv8oUa/fA58wc+VlyOTKYJR9HGz1P6as/n
> cnyMyhq4KPsk0AHb/keSr8EdWWl/Crcn6n4T39dXW7/mWpBjO363Qp76Xs9XJRtj
> SlMh2Vg/rYX33sAzWR5yTPjZDdTbVxpFegsWHwi6PVUbVlrqt1ksvlGEiSp7PVuw
> Y+/Lpl5UrCvuE87dCxsBflKI4I1YcM/osRR08JWMvhvRZDjGUiCt1Q47qvuooird
> Nr326sgjruSQwQxY1hhny/5cJBivgMsE/2FYcZmqUfdheaIr6fHcQNCJkUSjwuo=
> =jDXs
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From joy  Tue May 14 01:21:41 2013
From: joy (joy)
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 10:21:41 +1200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Need a proxy/alternate for 16 May Council Meeting
In-Reply-To: <5190FC04.7090308@seltzer.com>
References: <5190FC04.7090308@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <51916775.10205@apc.org>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
Hi Wendy - I can do this, if you can let me know how you propose to vote
on the motion before council. Robin, are you able to help with the proxy
form?
cheers
Joy
On 14/05/2013 2:43 a.m., Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> Due to scheduling changes, I now have to make an in-person presentation
> that conflicts with the Council meeting Thursday. Can someone take my
proxy?
>
> Thanks,
> --Wendy

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRkWd1AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqZhgIAIrKTEgsES0UjCKTXDCV+8ZH
Xi3m5rf49KeUYd2c95h9ngO0owL2YvHhqIIuNpZHsMLyaiL8CkpeNk4nqZolGAsd
iReQRI0in73nwI49N9tA2Umtses8hF3y2K6KAl8WYSQwc/RT2IRS69l5aB/d9zYa
a6JnlGZvHt4+l4RlDU1IFM4Hi9svLIqMjlyJuPVS1tpi4+HRoTl7LpST1PAv3MV3
DpuvhiVkNrqQMG+QpIpuz1rG87Zmpv4Qb5kayw2dQnd7ARGJGxf/Ypb97JF9Td4n
A3xccgyfYOyhEXq3rhtBkLgaYB2zZDwQhcD6E8W/FH5GK5AXb+U3cMP3PpLxvZo=
=v9nr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




From robin  Tue May 14 01:42:12 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 15:42:12 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Need a proxy/alternate for 16 May Council Meeting
In-Reply-To: <51916775.10205@apc.org>
References: <5190FC04.7090308@seltzer.com> <51916775.10205@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CDB88ECA-B86A-40AB-9A76-05ECC3154F30@ipjustice.org>

Yes, Joy, Wendy, I will fill out this proxy form now.  Thank you!  - Robin


On May 13, 2013, at 3:21 PM, joy wrote:

> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hi Wendy - I can do this, if you can let me know how you propose to vote
> on the motion before council. Robin, are you able to help with the proxy
> form?
> cheers
> Joy
> On 14/05/2013 2:43 a.m., Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>> Due to scheduling changes, I now have to make an in-person presentation
>> that conflicts with the Council meeting Thursday. Can someone take my
> proxy?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> --Wendy
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> 
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRkWd1AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqZhgIAIrKTEgsES0UjCKTXDCV+8ZH
> Xi3m5rf49KeUYd2c95h9ngO0owL2YvHhqIIuNpZHsMLyaiL8CkpeNk4nqZolGAsd
> iReQRI0in73nwI49N9tA2Umtses8hF3y2K6KAl8WYSQwc/RT2IRS69l5aB/d9zYa
> a6JnlGZvHt4+l4RlDU1IFM4Hi9svLIqMjlyJuPVS1tpi4+HRoTl7LpST1PAv3MV3
> DpuvhiVkNrqQMG+QpIpuz1rG87Zmpv4Qb5kayw2dQnd7ARGJGxf/Ypb97JF9Td4n
> A3xccgyfYOyhEXq3rhtBkLgaYB2zZDwQhcD6E8W/FH5GK5AXb+U3cMP3PpLxvZo=
> =v9nr
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From robin  Tue May 14 02:31:35 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 16:31:35 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] 14 May 13:00 UTC : NCSG Open Policy Meeting - Agenda &
	Dial-in Details - Please Join!
Message-ID: <11391852-9BFD-4795-B1F7-8BF3D1CC1BCA@ipjustice.org>

Reminder: Tomorrow is NCSG's Open Policy Meeting.  Discussion agenda and contact details below.  Several motions before council on Thursday.  I hope you all will join in the call.

Thanks,
Robin
__________________________________________

NCSG Open Membership Meeting
WHEN:  Tuesday May 14, 2013 at 13:00 UTC (2 hrs)
  Other times: 6:00 Pacific / 15:00 Geneve /  (+1) 01:00 NZ
  http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2013&month=5&day=14&hour=13&min=0&sec=0&p1=224&p2=87&p3=264

REMOTE PARTICIPATION:
NCSG Conference Bridge & Dial-In Details & Passcode "NCSG":
		http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCSG_Passcodes.htm
Adobe Connect:
		https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/

NCSG REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDANCE SHEET:
  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dGdNcVVfdHI2SWJ4dDZjU2xYaGV0WUE#gid=0

14 May NCSG DISCUSSION AGENDA:


I.  Preparation for GNSO Council Meeting on 16 May 2013
   Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+16+May+2013

A.  GNSO Council Motions for VOTE on 16 May 2013

1.  GNSO Council Agenda Item 4: MOTION - To address the Final Issue Report on the Uniformity of Reporting
At its October meeting last year the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the current state of uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyse policy-violation reports. ICANN Staff was also explicitly requested to provide its recommendation(s) on how this issue can be further addressed outside of a PDP if recommendations in relation to this issue do not require consensus policies to implement.

The Final Issue Report was presented to the GNSO Council in Beijing. The Council will now consider a motion to form a non-PDP Working Group to consider additional methods for collecting necessary metrics and reporting from Contracted Parties and other external resources to aid the policy development process as outlined in the Final Issue Report.

Link to motion
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motion+16+May+2013

2.  GNSO Council Agenda Item 5: MOTION ? To adopt a revised Policy Development Process (PDP) Manual incorporating modifications to include the suspension of a PDP
In April 2012 the GNSO Council requested the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) to review whether or not there should be a modification to the GNSO PDP Manual to address the possible suspension of a PDP following its initiation;

The SCI deliberated on provisions for suspension of a PDP and reached consensus on proposed modifications to be incorporated in Section 15 of the GNSO PDP Manual, which also is included as Annex 2 in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures;

The revised PDP manual, including the proposed provisions for suspension of a PDP, was put out for a minimum 21-day public comment period on 06 March 2013 ending on 06 April 2013 (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/pdp-suspension-07mar13-en.htm) as required by the ICANN Bylaws.

The GNSO Council will now consider a motion to adopt the revised GNSO Operating Procedures.

Link to motion:

https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motion+16+May+2013


3.  GNSO Council Agenda Item 6: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information

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.

An overview of the Final Report was provided in Beijing. The Council is now expected to consider whether or not to initiate a PDP.

B.  Other Council Discussion Items
1. GNSO Council Agenda Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs & IDN Letter to the Board

C.  All 6 NCSG GNSO Councilors Ready to Attend 16 May GNSO Council Meeting or Have Found Proxy?
Joy will serve as Wendy's proxy.  Others?


II. Policy Issues & Comment Periods

A.  GAC Communique on "safeguard" advice
Public Comment Period
Comment end: 14 May
Reply end: 4 June

B.  Accountability Transparency Review Team (ATRT)
Public Comment Period
Comment end: 19 May
Reply end: 9 June

C.  Registrant Rights & Responsibilities Document
 Do we have a draft ready to approve yet?

D.  NCSG Request for Reconsideration of Staff Decision to Expand Scope of TMCH

F. WHOIS Developments
1. Thick WHOIS PDP
2. WHOIS Survey Working Group
3. "Registry Services" Expert Working Group

G.  Special Privileges for Red Cross / IOC / IGO / INGO Working Group

H.  Proposed Final Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)
Public Comment Period
Comment end: 14 May
Reply end: 4 June

I.  Proposed Final New GTLD Registry Agreement
Public Comment Period
Comment end: 20 May
Reply end: 11 June

J.  Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceeding (initial report)
Public Comment Period
Comment end: CLOSED 26 April
Reply end: 17 May


III.  AOB ?



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130513/22332526/attachment-0001.html>


From wendy  Tue May 14 17:03:54 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 10:03:54 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Registrants' Rights
Message-ID: <5192444A.3000407@seltzer.com>

I propose the attached as a submission in the RAA public comment:
comments-proposed-raa-22apr13 at icann.org

It updates the document we last discussed in Beijing, and on which I
believe there was general agreement.

--Wendy

-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
http://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Real Registrant Rights and Responsibilities.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 24064 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130514/b283bebe/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Real_Registrant_Rights_and_Responsibilities.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 53254 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130514/b283bebe/attachment-0001.pdf>


From maria.farrell  Tue May 14 17:05:27 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 15:05:27 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] 14 May 13:00 UTC : NCSG Open Policy Meeting - Agenda
 & Dial-in Details - Please Join!
In-Reply-To: <11391852-9BFD-4795-B1F7-8BF3D1CC1BCA@ipjustice.org>
References: <11391852-9BFD-4795-B1F7-8BF3D1CC1BCA@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdBHq9xNTtn9GE6oP_hpu0BetQmL_7JcLChRZPzAPg6WHA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi guys,

So sorry about my mike / connectivity / typing issues. My words - both
spoken and typed - were only coming through about a third of the time, and
a couple of minutes after I typed/spoke them. So I think I sounded either
completely unhinged or very impatient!

Still listening in, though.

Apologies for all that, Maria


On 14 May 2013 00:31, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Reminder: Tomorrow is NCSG's Open Policy Meeting.  Discussion agenda and
> contact details below.  Several motions before council on Thursday.  I hope
> you all will join in the call.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
> __________________________________________
>
> *NCSG Open Membership Meeting*
> *WHEN:  Tuesday May 14, 2013 at 13:00 UTC (2 hrs)*
>   Other times<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2013&month=5&day=14&hour=13&min=0&sec=0&p1=224&p2=87&p3=264>:
> 6:00 Pacific / 15:00 Geneve /  (+1) 01:00 NZ
>
> http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2013&month=5&day=14&hour=13&min=0&sec=0&p1=224&p2=87&p3=264
>
> *REMOTE PARTICIPATION:*
>
>    - NCSG Conference Bridge & Dial-In Details & Passcode "NCSG":
>
> http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCSG_Passcodes.htm
>
>    - Adobe Connect:
>
> https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/
>
> *NCSG REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDANCE SHEET:*
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dGdNcVVfdHI2SWJ4dDZjU2xYaGV0WUE#gid=0
>
> *14 May NCSG DISCUSSION AGENDA:*
>
>
> *I.  Preparation for GNSO Council Meeting on 16 May 2013*
>    Agenda:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+16+May+2013
> *
> *
> *A.  GNSO Council Motions for VOTE on 16 May 2013*
> *
> *
> *1.  GNSO Council Agenda **Item 4: MOTION - To address the Final Issue
> Report on the Uniformity of Reporting*
>
> At its October meeting last year the GNSO Council requested an Issue
> Report on the current state of uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate,
> track, and analyse policy-violation reports. ICANN Staff was also
> explicitly requested to provide its recommendation(s) on how this issue can
> be further addressed outside of a PDP if recommendations in relation to
> this issue do not require consensus policies to implement.
>
> The Final Issue Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/uofr-final-31mar13-en.pdf> was
> presented to the GNSO Council in Beijing. The Council will now consider a
> motion to form a non-PDP Working Group to consider additional methods for
> collecting necessary metrics and reporting from Contracted Parties and
> other external resources to aid the policy development process as outlined
> in the Final Issue Report.
>
> Link to motion
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motion+16+May+2013
> *2.  GNSO Council Agenda Item** 5: MOTION ? To adopt a revised Policy
> Development Process (PDP) Manual incorporating modifications to include the
> suspension of a PDP*
>
> In April 2012 the GNSO Council requested the Standing Committee on
> Improvements Implementation (SCI) to review whether or not there should be
> a modification to the GNSO PDP Manual to address the possible suspension of
> a PDP following its initiation;
>
> The SCI deliberated on provisions for suspension of a PDP and reached
> consensus on proposed modifications to be incorporated in Section 15 of the
> GNSO PDP Manual, which also is included as Annex 2 in the GNSO Council
> Operating Procedures;
>
> The revised PDP manual, including the proposed provisions for suspension
> of a PDP, was put out for a minimum 21-day public comment period on 06
> March 2013 ending on 06 April 2013 (see
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/pdp-suspension-07mar13-en.htm)
> as required by the ICANN Bylaws.
>
> The GNSO Council will now consider a motion to adopt the revised GNSO
> Operating Procedures.
>
> Link to motion:
>
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motion+16+May+2013
>
>
> *3.  GNSO Council Agenda Item 6: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy
> Development Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact
> Information*
>
> 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.
>
> An overview of the Final Report was provided in Beijing. The Council is
> now expected to consider whether or not to initiate a PDP.
> *B.  Other Council Discussion Items
>
> 1. GNSO Council Agenda Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Report on User
> Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs & IDN Letter to the Board
> *
> *C.  All 6 NCSG GNSO Councilors Ready to Attend 16 May GNSO Council
> Meeting or Have Found Proxy?*
> Joy will serve as Wendy's proxy.  Others?
>
>
> *II. Policy Issues & Comment Periods*
>
> A.  GAC Communique on "safeguard" advice
> Public Comment Period<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13-en.htm>
> Comment end: 14 May
> Reply end: 4 June
>
> B.  Accountability Transparency Review Team (ATRT)
> Public Comment Period<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-02apr13-en.htm>
> Comment end: 19 May
> Reply end: 9 June
>
> C.  Registrant Rights & Responsibilities Document
>  Do we have a draft ready to approve yet?
>
> D.  NCSG Request for Reconsideration of Staff Decision to Expand Scope of
> TMCH
>
> F. WHOIS Developments
> 1. Thick WHOIS PDP
> 2. WHOIS Survey Working Group
> 3. "Registry Services" Expert Working Group
>
> G.  Special Privileges for Red Cross / IOC / IGO / INGO Working Group
>
> H.  Proposed Final Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)
> Public Comment Period<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/proposed-raa-22apr13-en.htm>
> Comment end: 14 May
> Reply end: 4 June
>
> I.  Proposed Final New GTLD Registry Agreement
> Public Comment Period<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-29apr13-en.htm>
> Comment end: 20 May
> Reply end: 11 June
>
> J.  Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceeding (initial report)
> Public Comment Period<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-15mar13-en.htm>
> Comment end: CLOSED 26 April
> Reply end: 17 May
>
>
> *III.  AOB ?*
>
> *
> *
> *
> *
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130514/aada50a9/attachment.html>


From robin  Tue May 14 18:12:52 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 08:12:52 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Registrants' Rights
In-Reply-To: <5192444A.3000407@seltzer.com>
References: <5192444A.3000407@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <4FC8DAEE-B78D-4C36-A4DB-61568B10D294@ipjustice.org>

Thanks, Wendy!   Unless there are objections, I will submit the below statement into the ICANN Comment period, which ends today.

Best,
Robin

On May 14, 2013, at 7:03 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> I propose the attached as a submission in the RAA public comment:
> comments-proposed-raa-22apr13 at icann.org
> 
> It updates the document we last discussed in Beijing, and on which I
> believe there was general agreement.
> 
> --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/
> <Real Registrant Rights and Responsibilities.doc><Real_Registrant_Rights_and_Responsibilities.pdf>_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From pileleji  Tue May 14 18:14:56 2013
From: pileleji (Poncelet Ileleji)
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 15:14:56 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Registrants' Rights
In-Reply-To: <4FC8DAEE-B78D-4C36-A4DB-61568B10D294@ipjustice.org>
References: <5192444A.3000407@seltzer.com>
	<4FC8DAEE-B78D-4C36-A4DB-61568B10D294@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAEux40sagRQ2Ew=18P7z3+7oGy5SBbezx6YPb1S5BfhHYLZ6qA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Robin,

No Comments, Great job Wendy.

Kind Regards

Poncelet


On 14 May 2013 15:12, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Thanks, Wendy!   Unless there are objections, I will submit the below
> statement into the ICANN Comment period, which ends today.
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
> On May 14, 2013, at 7:03 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>
> > I propose the attached as a submission in the RAA public comment:
> > comments-proposed-raa-22apr13 at icann.org
> >
> > It updates the document we last discussed in Beijing, and on which I
> > believe there was general agreement.
> >
> > --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/
> > <Real Registrant Rights and
> Responsibilities.doc><Real_Registrant_Rights_and_Responsibilities.pdf>_______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



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

*
*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130514/2f44be1e/attachment-0001.html>


From wendy  Tue May 14 18:24:22 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 11:24:22 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] 14 May 13:00 UTC : NCSG Open Policy Meeting - Agenda
 & Dial-in Details - Please Join!
In-Reply-To: <11391852-9BFD-4795-B1F7-8BF3D1CC1BCA@ipjustice.org>
References: <11391852-9BFD-4795-B1F7-8BF3D1CC1BCA@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <51925726.3010904@seltzer.com>

I followed up to the Council list with questions to both of the motion
proponents on possible amendments raised on today's call.

Both should show up shortly here:
https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/

--Wendy

On 05/13/2013 07:31 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> Reminder: Tomorrow is NCSG's Open Policy Meeting.  Discussion agenda and contact details below.  Several motions before council on Thursday.  I hope you all will join in the call.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> __________________________________________
> 
> NCSG Open Membership Meeting
> WHEN:  Tuesday May 14, 2013 at 13:00 UTC (2 hrs)
>   Other times: 6:00 Pacific / 15:00 Geneve /  (+1) 01:00 NZ
>   http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2013&month=5&day=14&hour=13&min=0&sec=0&p1=224&p2=87&p3=264
> 
> REMOTE PARTICIPATION:
> NCSG Conference Bridge & Dial-In Details & Passcode "NCSG":
> 		http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCSG_Passcodes.htm
> Adobe Connect:
> 		https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/
> 
> NCSG REPRESENTATIVES ATTENDANCE SHEET:
>   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dGdNcVVfdHI2SWJ4dDZjU2xYaGV0WUE#gid=0
> 
> 14 May NCSG DISCUSSION AGENDA:
> 
> 
> I.  Preparation for GNSO Council Meeting on 16 May 2013
>    Agenda: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Agenda+16+May+2013
> 
> A.  GNSO Council Motions for VOTE on 16 May 2013
> 
> 1.  GNSO Council Agenda Item 4: MOTION - To address the Final Issue Report on the Uniformity of Reporting
> At its October meeting last year the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on the current state of uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyse policy-violation reports. ICANN Staff was also explicitly requested to provide its recommendation(s) on how this issue can be further addressed outside of a PDP if recommendations in relation to this issue do not require consensus policies to implement.
> 
> The Final Issue Report was presented to the GNSO Council in Beijing. The Council will now consider a motion to form a non-PDP Working Group to consider additional methods for collecting necessary metrics and reporting from Contracted Parties and other external resources to aid the policy development process as outlined in the Final Issue Report.
> 
> Link to motion
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motion+16+May+2013
> 
> 2.  GNSO Council Agenda Item 5: MOTION ? To adopt a revised Policy Development Process (PDP) Manual incorporating modifications to include the suspension of a PDP
> In April 2012 the GNSO Council requested the Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) to review whether or not there should be a modification to the GNSO PDP Manual to address the possible suspension of a PDP following its initiation;
> 
> The SCI deliberated on provisions for suspension of a PDP and reached consensus on proposed modifications to be incorporated in Section 15 of the GNSO PDP Manual, which also is included as Annex 2 in the GNSO Council Operating Procedures;
> 
> The revised PDP manual, including the proposed provisions for suspension of a PDP, was put out for a minimum 21-day public comment period on 06 March 2013 ending on 06 April 2013 (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/pdp-suspension-07mar13-en.htm) as required by the ICANN Bylaws.
> 
> The GNSO Council will now consider a motion to adopt the revised GNSO Operating Procedures.
> 
> Link to motion:
> 
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motion+16+May+2013
> 
> 
> 3.  GNSO Council Agenda Item 6: MOTION - Initiation of a Policy Development Process (PDP) on the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information
> 
> 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.
> 
> An overview of the Final Report was provided in Beijing. The Council is now expected to consider whether or not to initiate a PDP.
> 
> B.  Other Council Discussion Items
> 1. GNSO Council Agenda Item 7: UPDATE & DISCUSSION ? Report on User Experience Implications of Active Variant TLDs & IDN Letter to the Board
> 
> C.  All 6 NCSG GNSO Councilors Ready to Attend 16 May GNSO Council Meeting or Have Found Proxy?
> Joy will serve as Wendy's proxy.  Others?
> 
> 
> II. Policy Issues & Comment Periods
> 
> A.  GAC Communique on "safeguard" advice
> Public Comment Period
> Comment end: 14 May
> Reply end: 4 June
> 
> B.  Accountability Transparency Review Team (ATRT)
> Public Comment Period
> Comment end: 19 May
> Reply end: 9 June
> 
> C.  Registrant Rights & Responsibilities Document
>  Do we have a draft ready to approve yet?
> 
> D.  NCSG Request for Reconsideration of Staff Decision to Expand Scope of TMCH
> 
> F. WHOIS Developments
> 1. Thick WHOIS PDP
> 2. WHOIS Survey Working Group
> 3. "Registry Services" Expert Working Group
> 
> G.  Special Privileges for Red Cross / IOC / IGO / INGO Working Group
> 
> H.  Proposed Final Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA)
> Public Comment Period
> Comment end: 14 May
> Reply end: 4 June
> 
> I.  Proposed Final New GTLD Registry Agreement
> Public Comment Period
> Comment end: 20 May
> Reply end: 11 June
> 
> J.  Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceeding (initial report)
> Public Comment Period
> Comment end: CLOSED 26 April
> Reply end: 17 May
> 
> 
> III.  AOB ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 


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



From robin  Wed May 15 02:15:01 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 16:15:01 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] need a proxy for Thursday's GNSO Council Meeting
Message-ID: <839BF905-FB08-4EC5-8FCA-718D256233A3@ipjustice.org>

In follow-up to today's NCSG policy call, we need a proxy for Magaly for Thursday's GNSO Meeting.   Any volunteers?

Thanks,
Robin


From rudi.vansnick  Wed May 15 02:40:23 2013
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 01:40:23 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] need a proxy for Thursday's GNSO Council Meeting
In-Reply-To: <839BF905-FB08-4EC5-8FCA-718D256233A3@ipjustice.org>
References: <839BF905-FB08-4EC5-8FCA-718D256233A3@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <2D208C70-2D1F-4202-9677-741940F90DD5@isoc.be>

I'm volunteering for this proxy ... 

Rudi Vansnick

Op 15-mei-2013, om 01:15 heeft Robin Gross het volgende geschreven:

> In follow-up to today's NCSG policy call, we need a proxy for Magaly for Thursday's GNSO Meeting.   Any volunteers?
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130515/ed5c4648/attachment.html>


From wendy  Wed May 15 03:02:00 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 20:02:00 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Seltzer additional comments on GAC Advice
In-Reply-To: <5192CFD5.7030209@seltzer.org>
References: <5192CFD5.7030209@seltzer.org>
Message-ID: <5192D078.6050300@seltzer.com>

I just sent these to further support our GAC comments


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Seltzer additional comments
Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 19:59:17 -0400
From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.org>
To: comments-gac-safeguard-advice-23apr13 at icann.org

As a domain registrant and member of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder
Group, I write with this individual comment to emphasize some of the
points made by NCSG.

In the "Safeguards Applicable to all New gTLDs," the GAC proposes speech
regulations through the intermediaries of ICANN Registries. While the
end of mitigating abuse may seem laudable, the means -- pressure through
ICANN on domain name Registries -- is an inappropriate way to achieve
that end. Intermediary liability is subject to errors that are
systematically speech-suppressing. [1]

Making domain Registry operators the judges of whether registrants are
engaged in "abuses" including "phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright
infringement, fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting, or
otherwise engaging in activity contrary to applicable law," substitutes
the Registry's judgment and process for that of courts and judicial
procedures -- leaving Registrants' speech interests at risk. The legal
definitions of these abuses vary by jurisdiction; their contours often
challenge experienced judges even when aided by skilled advocates and
evidence; we should not delegate their judgment to a Registry's abuse
department and the enforcement of "terms of use."

As NCSG wrote in comments on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement [2],
Registrants should have the rights to reliable neutral resolution of
registered domain names and no suspension or termination of registration
without due, disclosed process, and no censorship of domain name use,
content, or communications through Registries or Registrars. The GAC's
Annex I paragraph 2 advice is inconsistent with Registrants' rights to
stable, secure domain resolution, and should be rejected. Annex I
paragraph 1 should be rejected as inconsistent with expectations of
privacy and anonymity.

Thank you,
--Wendy Seltzer

-- notes --

[1] See Free Speech Unmoored in Copyright's Safe Harbor: Chilling
Effects of the DMCA on the First Amendment 24 Harvard Journal of Law and
Technology 171 (2010) http://wendy.seltzer.is/writing/seltzer-chill.pdf

[2]
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-22apr13/pdfsT1mQRi6IS.pdf

-- 
Wendy Seltzer
https://www.chillingeffects.org/





From magaly.pazello  Wed May 15 06:35:26 2013
From: magaly.pazello (Magaly Pazello)
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 00:35:26 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] need a proxy for Thursday's GNSO Council Meeting
In-Reply-To: <2D208C70-2D1F-4202-9677-741940F90DD5@isoc.be>
References: <839BF905-FB08-4EC5-8FCA-718D256233A3@ipjustice.org>
	<2D208C70-2D1F-4202-9677-741940F90DD5@isoc.be>
Message-ID: <CA+dOKfD_YLGAMyrjvR=B9CGzsvg6MZxaPLi8L9FeJqBy=v14Fw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello!

Many thanks Robin to help me with the Thursday meeting and thank you
very much Rudi for volunteering yourself. Because I am going to attend
the Stockholm Internet Forum next week, this morning I was requested
to finish some work in advance, unfortunately it conflicts with the
council meeting. Otherwise I would be able to make the Thursday
meeting.

Magaly

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be> wrote:
> I'm volunteering for this proxy ...
>
> Rudi Vansnick
>
> Op 15-mei-2013, om 01:15 heeft Robin Gross het volgende geschreven:
>
> In follow-up to today's NCSG policy call, we need a proxy for Magaly for
> Thursday's GNSO Meeting.   Any volunteers?
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
>



From dave  Wed May 15 19:28:40 2013
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 13:28:40 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Need a proxy/alternate for 16 May Council Meeting
In-Reply-To: <5190FC04.7090308@seltzer.com>
References: <5190FC04.7090308@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <D898ECF6-93BD-446F-B6E6-C6832CFF0BA9@difference.com.au>

I think I should arrange a proxy for the council meeting. I am hoping to make it, but my only practical option is via adobe connect audio, using conference internet - and the conference internet has proved extremely unreliable so far. 

Regards

	David


From robin  Wed May 15 21:00:48 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 11:00:48 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Need a proxy/alternate for 16 May Council Meeting
In-Reply-To: <D898ECF6-93BD-446F-B6E6-C6832CFF0BA9@difference.com.au>
References: <5190FC04.7090308@seltzer.com>
	<D898ECF6-93BD-446F-B6E6-C6832CFF0BA9@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <BCF195CC-64B6-4EFE-B70C-3F83E6D8B683@ipjustice.org>

Wolfgang,

Are you able to take David's proxy for Thursday's GNSO Council Meeting?

Joy has taken Wendy's proxy.
Maria has taken Magaly's proxy.
That leaves only Wolfgang to take David's proxy.

(Only a GNSO Councilor can hold another's proxy).

Thanks,
Robin

On May 15, 2013, at 9:28 AM, David Cake wrote:

> I think I should arrange a proxy for the council meeting. I am hoping to make it, but my only practical option is via adobe connect audio, using conference internet - and the conference internet has proved extremely unreliable so far. 
> 
> Regards
> 
> 	David
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From robin  Wed May 15 21:06:04 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 11:06:04 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Need a proxy/alternate for 16 May Council Meeting
In-Reply-To: <BCF195CC-64B6-4EFE-B70C-3F83E6D8B683@ipjustice.org>
References: <5190FC04.7090308@seltzer.com>
	<D898ECF6-93BD-446F-B6E6-C6832CFF0BA9@difference.com.au>
	<BCF195CC-64B6-4EFE-B70C-3F83E6D8B683@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <1033B77F-5ECB-4BAE-94B4-32CB3D4A479E@ipjustice.org>

 - Below email just bounced back - resending ->

Wolfgang,

Are you able to take David's proxy for Thursday's GNSO Council Meeting?

Joy has taken Wendy's proxy.
Maria has taken Magaly's proxy.
That leaves only Wolfgang to take David's proxy.

(Only a GNSO Councilor can hold another's proxy).

Thanks,
Robin

On May 15, 2013, at 11:00 AM, Robin Gross wrote:

> Wolfgang,
> 
> Are you able to take David's proxy for Thursday's GNSO Council Meeting?
> 
> Joy has taken Wendy's proxy.
> Maria has taken Magaly's proxy.
> That leaves only Wolfgang to take David's proxy.
> 
> (Only a GNSO Councilor can hold another's proxy).
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> On May 15, 2013, at 9:28 AM, David Cake wrote:
> 
>> I think I should arrange a proxy for the council meeting. I am hoping to make it, but my only practical option is via adobe connect audio, using conference internet - and the conference internet has proved extremely unreliable so far. 
>> 
>> Regards
>> 
>> 	David
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From wendy  Fri May 17 19:43:41 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 12:43:41 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] who's coming to Durban in July for NCSG?
In-Reply-To: <C2913554-E3A8-4362-B92D-E99F3D25BA65@ipjustice.org>
References: <C2913554-E3A8-4362-B92D-E99F3D25BA65@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <51965E3D.20100@seltzer.com>

I am planning to attend the Durban meeting. There's a small chance I'll
need to leave early -- trying to confirm that info quickly.

--Wendy

On 05/13/2013 02:20 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> Dear NCSG GNSO Council Representatives:
> 
> It is time again to plan for the next ICANN meeting in Durban in July.
> 
> Would the 6 NCSG GNSO Councilors please let me know asap if you plan to participate at the Durban ICANN meeting in July and will be utilizing the NCSG-alloted travel support?
> 
> I need to send Glen and the ICANN travel organizers the names of the NCSG-supported travelers to Durban within a week.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 


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



From magaly.pazello  Sat May 18 04:57:44 2013
From: magaly.pazello (Magaly Pazello)
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 22:57:44 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] who's coming to Durban in July for NCSG?
In-Reply-To: <51914C08.7090807@apc.org>
References: <C2913554-E3A8-4362-B92D-E99F3D25BA65@ipjustice.org>
	<51914C08.7090807@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CA+dOKfDSmSFUmaVKEs+iE0pttMYANx18ssQqUWPKjYTxGx9Vgg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello!
I am planning to attend the Durban meeting as well, using travel support.
Thanks!
Magaly

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 5:24 PM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Thanks Robin,
> I will be attending the Durban meeting.
> Joy
> On 14/05/2013 6:20 a.m., Robin Gross wrote:
>> Dear NCSG GNSO Council Representatives:
>>
>> It is time again to plan for the next ICANN meeting in Durban in July.
>>
>> Would the 6 NCSG GNSO Councilors please let me know asap if you plan
> to participate at the Durban ICANN meeting in July and will be utilizing
> the NCSG-alloted travel support?
>>
>> I need to send Glen and the ICANN travel organizers the names of the
> NCSG-supported travelers to Durban within a week.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRkUwIAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqyMcH/3/uQXYfxrGsLa4IPmK1WEkg
> Kr7p23Wgq8HO+eirCeKYDM9VyrmOi8cv8oUa/fA58wc+VlyOTKYJR9HGz1P6as/n
> cnyMyhq4KPsk0AHb/keSr8EdWWl/Crcn6n4T39dXW7/mWpBjO363Qp76Xs9XJRtj
> SlMh2Vg/rYX33sAzWR5yTPjZDdTbVxpFegsWHwi6PVUbVlrqt1ksvlGEiSp7PVuw
> Y+/Lpl5UrCvuE87dCxsBflKI4I1YcM/osRR08JWMvhvRZDjGUiCt1Q47qvuooird
> Nr326sgjruSQwQxY1hhny/5cJBivgMsE/2FYcZmqUfdheaIr6fHcQNCJkUSjwuo=
> =jDXs
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From wolfgang.kleinwaechter  Sat May 18 12:57:29 2013
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sat, 18 May 2013 11:57:29 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] who's coming to Durban in July for NCSG?
References: <C2913554-E3A8-4362-B92D-E99F3D25BA65@ipjustice.org>
	<51965E3D.20100@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8013319F7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi Robin,
 
yes I am planning to attend the full time.
 
wolfgang
 

________________________________

Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Wendy Seltzer
Gesendet: Fr 17.05.2013 18:43
An: Robin Gross
Cc: NCSG-Policy
Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] who's coming to Durban in July for NCSG?



I am planning to attend the Durban meeting. There's a small chance I'll
need to leave early -- trying to confirm that info quickly.

--Wendy

On 05/13/2013 02:20 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
> Dear NCSG GNSO Council Representatives:
>
> It is time again to plan for the next ICANN meeting in Durban in July.
>
> Would the 6 NCSG GNSO Councilors please let me know asap if you plan to participate at the Durban ICANN meeting in July and will be utilizing the NCSG-alloted travel support?
>
> I need to send Glen and the ICANN travel organizers the names of the NCSG-supported travelers to Durban within a week.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>


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

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





From Mary.Wong  Wed May 22 22:43:58 2013
From: Mary.Wong (Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu)
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 15:43:58 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft submission to ATRT2
Message-ID: <519CE7BE0200005B000A9EEF@smtp.law.unh.edu>


Hi all - we just missed the deadline but apparently the team will continue to accept submissions. I'm sorry I couldn't do more due to time and work pressures but here's a very short, crude draft that we can at least send in now to ATRT2. If anyone or group wants to add, they can then send it in as a Reply Comment to this one (assuming you're all fine with the gist). 

Let me know what you'd like to do. I will send the final comment to the members' list once you do. 

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130522/965bcf29/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft NCSG comment to ATRT2.docx
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 16701 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130522/965bcf29/attachment.obj>


From avri  Thu May 30 09:52:15 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 08:52:15 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consolidated Draft of Initial Report
	for IGO/INGO PDP WG
References: <CDCBD89F.9C7F%brian.peck@icann.org>
Message-ID: <FC3D6AEA-296A-4A20-8DEB-1876448699A1@acm.org>

we have got to react.

avri


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Brian Peck <brian.peck at icann.org>
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consolidated Draft of Initial Report for IGO/INGO PDP WG 
> Date: 30 May 2013 01:38:14 GMT+02:00
> To: "gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org" <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
> Cc: Erika Randall <erika.randall at icann.org>
> 
> Dear Working Group Members,
> 
> Thank you again for your comments and suggested edits to the draft Initial Report, and for your time and contributions during today's WG call.  
> 
> In order to facilitate your review of all the comments received on the first draft, please find attached a consolidated version of the draft Initial Report (v.0.8.6.1) ? thanks to Berry for compiling and consolidating the comments into one document.
> 
> This version (v0.8.6.1.) - which will serve as the current working document, includes all proposed revisions and comments received prior to today's WG meeting with the exception of those comments from Alan and Chuck which were discussed and agreed upon during the WG call ? the relevant revisions based on those discussions are included in this draft.  Please note that staff is still working on other comments discussed during today's call pending further research, clarification and/or re-write.  
> 
> We would like to request that you please review the suggested revisions/comments in this draft (v.0.8.6.1) and provide any comments and/or questions relating to any proposed revisions you may have concerns about and believe the WG should discuss during next week's call.  In order to manage the number of reviewers and possible comments, we would ask that you please accommodate our following requests in making any comments:
> If you would like to submit a comment or question regarding a proposed revision submitted by other WG members, please use the comment box feature (Insert Comment) and not embed in the text itself.
> Please refrain from formatting changes - staff will re-format as necessary.
> In order to keep proper track of individual submissions, please only respond to the version sent by ICANN staff.	    
> Input Deadline:  3 June 23:59 UTC
> Next Meeting:    5 June 16:00 UTC
> 
> Also attached for reference is a pdf version of all the comments originally received prior to today's discussion (e.g., includes the comments from Alan and Chuck which were addressed in the current consolidated version).  
> 
> Thank you in advance for your cooperation with these requests ? prior to next Wednesday's meeting, we will re-consolidate additional comments and provide a revised draft which will also include additional completed revisions based on Alan and Chuck's comments discussed today.  This document will serve as the basis for the next meeting's discussion.  
> 
> We greatly appreciate your continued support, time and contributions to the WG.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Brian Peck
> Policy Director
> ICANN 
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130530/4dcca6a3/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGO-INGO_Initial_Report_v0.8.6.1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 204801 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130530/4dcca6a3/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130530/4dcca6a3/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGO-INGO_Initial_Report_v0.8.5.1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 641249 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130530/4dcca6a3/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130530/4dcca6a3/attachment-0005.html>