From dave  Mon Nov  4 17:05:56 2013
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 23:05:56 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice-Chair
Message-ID: <5A918AED-3D39-4BFE-BF24-BEA6F9BB7BFC@difference.com.au>

	Have we heard anything about my candidacy for Vice-Chair? Council people have been asking me if it is confirmed, and/or assuming it is, so I'd like to get it settled. 
	Regards
		David
	
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131104/76cfcd03/attachment.sig>


From avri  Mon Nov  4 18:28:33 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 08:28:33 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice-Chair
In-Reply-To: <5A918AED-3D39-4BFE-BF24-BEA6F9BB7BFC@difference.com.au>
References: <5A918AED-3D39-4BFE-BF24-BEA6F9BB7BFC@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <76777E25-9DA6-48C6-A9DB-A9409A91DBBB@acm.org>

Hi,

I thought your candidacy was set and that you just need to deal with CSG interview before we voted.

The candidate is ours to pick.  But at least one of them has to vote for you in addition to all of us and the NCA.

avri



On 4 Nov 2013, at 07:05, David Cake wrote:

> 	Have we heard anything about my candidacy for Vice-Chair? Council people have been asking me if it is confirmed, and/or assuming it is, so I'd like to get it settled. 
> 	Regards
> 		David
> 	
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131104/aafe8dd8/attachment.sig>


From avri  Mon Nov  4 19:21:21 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 09:21:21 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO - Final Report
References: <00ad01ced920$30539d10$90fad730$@berrycobb.com>
Message-ID: <2A255FEF-2A91-4E44-B0FD-3AB26E79A24F@ella.com>

comments y'all?

avri

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Berry Cobb" <mail at berrycobb.com>
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO - Final Report
> Date: 3 November 2013 21:39:10 PST
> To: <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
> 
> WG Members,
>  
> Please find attached the latest version of the IGO-INGO Final Report.  Versions 1.1 to 1.3 reflect changes as a result of moving the recommendations section to the top of the report.  I accepted those changes to reduce the amount of red-line.  V1.4 contains the red-line of the substantial changes.  It will be best for readers to read the report in the Final view, but please make sure to also review comments that are appended on the side of the report as they contain questions or comments that the WG should consider.  The following sections should be reviewed closely:
> ?         Recommendations now in sections 3.1 to 3.5
> ?         Section 3.5 now reflects ?Consensus Against? for the no reservation protections of acronyms recommendations at the top and second level
> ?         Section 3.5 also includes a recommendation for the SCI of the GNSO Council to review the Consensus Scale per WGG
> ?         Unsupported proposals now reside in section 3.6, which also contains tables of proposals for each organization that did not receive support
> ?         Implementation considerations on incumbent gTLDs is section 3.7 and includes reference to an IRT
> ?         Annex 4 contains a completed template for requesting an Issue Report for a PDP
>  
> Please review the report in preparation for our review on Wednesday.  I will accept suggested edits until 23:59, 5 Novfor this round.  This will allow me time to collate all changes into the master.  When submitting any suggestions, please use the red-line track changes feature within v1.4 of the Word document.  If you are unable to submit changes, we will have a second round after our Wednesday meeting.
>  
> Note that we do have 1 hour meetings setup 7 & 8 November at 14:00 UTC for one hour should we need those times to discuss any issues with the Final Report.  We have until 23:59, 10 Nov 2013 to submit the report to the GNSO Council.
>  
> I will send along an agenda on Tuesday.  Thank you.  B
>  
> Berry Cobb
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> 720.839.5735
> mail at berrycobb.com
> @berrycobb
>  
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131104/5e75dcf6/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGO-INGO_Final_Report_v1.4.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 229257 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131104/5e75dcf6/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131104/5e75dcf6/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGO-INGO_FinalReport_ConsensusCall_Supplement_v2.0.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 133120 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131104/5e75dcf6/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131104/5e75dcf6/attachment-0005.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131104/5e75dcf6/attachment-0001.sig>


From avri  Mon Nov  4 19:23:56 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 09:23:56 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO - Final Report
In-Reply-To: <2A255FEF-2A91-4E44-B0FD-3AB26E79A24F@ella.com>
References: <00ad01ced920$30539d10$90fad730$@berrycobb.com>
	<2A255FEF-2A91-4E44-B0FD-3AB26E79A24F@ella.com>
Message-ID: <EE69B985-C578-43ED-91EA-F6966914E946@ella.com>

PS.  I won't be on the call since it is the same time as the IETF Privacy Hardening sessions.

Hopefully some of the the other NCSG members of the group will attend, especially those who find what this group is doing completely anathema.

cheers

avri

On 4 Nov 2013, at 09:21, Avri Doria wrote:

> comments y'all?
> 
> avri
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: "Berry Cobb" <mail at berrycobb.com>
>> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] IGO-INGO - Final Report
>> Date: 3 November 2013 21:39:10 PST
>> To: <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
>> 
>> WG Members,
>>  
>> Please find attached the latest version of the IGO-INGO Final Report.  Versions 1.1 to 1.3 reflect changes as a result of moving the recommendations section to the top of the report.  I accepted those changes to reduce the amount of red-line.  V1.4 contains the red-line of the substantial changes.  It will be best for readers to read the report in the Final view, but please make sure to also review comments that are appended on the side of the report as they contain questions or comments that the WG should consider.  The following sections should be reviewed closely:
>> ?         Recommendations now in sections 3.1 to 3.5
>> ?         Section 3.5 now reflects ?Consensus Against? for the no reservation protections of acronyms recommendations at the top and second level
>> ?         Section 3.5 also includes a recommendation for the SCI of the GNSO Council to review the Consensus Scale per WGG
>> ?         Unsupported proposals now reside in section 3.6, which also contains tables of proposals for each organization that did not receive support
>> ?         Implementation considerations on incumbent gTLDs is section 3.7 and includes reference to an IRT
>> ?         Annex 4 contains a completed template for requesting an Issue Report for a PDP
>>  
>> Please review the report in preparation for our review on Wednesday.  I will accept suggested edits until 23:59, 5 Novfor this round.  This will allow me time to collate all changes into the master.  When submitting any suggestions, please use the red-line track changes feature within v1.4 of the Word document.  If you are unable to submit changes, we will have a second round after our Wednesday meeting.
>>  
>> Note that we do have 1 hour meetings setup 7 & 8 November at 14:00 UTC for one hour should we need those times to discuss any issues with the Final Report.  We have until 23:59, 10 Nov 2013 to submit the report to the GNSO Council.
>>  
>> I will send along an agenda on Tuesday.  Thank you.  B
>>  
>> Berry Cobb
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>> 720.839.5735
>> mail at berrycobb.com
>> @berrycobb
>>  
>>  
> <IGO-INGO_Final_Report_v1.4.docx>
> <IGO-INGO_FinalReport_ConsensusCall_Supplement_v2.0.doc>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131104/8d1fab48/attachment.sig>


From william.drake  Mon Nov  4 19:48:59 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 18:48:59 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice-Chair
In-Reply-To: <5A918AED-3D39-4BFE-BF24-BEA6F9BB7BFC@difference.com.au>
References: <5A918AED-3D39-4BFE-BF24-BEA6F9BB7BFC@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <6070099A-368F-4653-99D2-41FFF4DF4CB2@uzh.ch>

Glen called me today while I was teaching, asking me what?s going on with our chair and VC positions.  I said I thought we were supporting jonathan and you?d be doing a dance for Marilyn, but otherwise I know nothing and ask Robin or councilors.

BD



On Nov 4, 2013, at 4:05 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

> 	Have we heard anything about my candidacy for Vice-Chair? Council people have been asking me if it is confirmed, and/or assuming it is, so I'd like to get it settled. 
> 	Regards
> 		David
> 	
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From wolfgang.kleinwaechter  Mon Nov  4 19:55:44 2013
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 18:55:44 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice-Chair
References: <5A918AED-3D39-4BFE-BF24-BEA6F9BB7BFC@difference.com.au>
	<6070099A-368F-4653-99D2-41FFF4DF4CB2@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133219A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

It was not discussed during the recent Council telco. My understanding is that Dave is a candidate and we are going to vote in BA, right? 
 
w
 
 

________________________________

Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von William Drake
Gesendet: Mo 04.11.2013 18:48
An: David Cake
Cc: NCSG-Policy NCSG-Policy Policy
Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Vice-Chair



Glen called me today while I was teaching, asking me what's going on with our chair and VC positions.  I said I thought we were supporting jonathan and you'd be doing a dance for Marilyn, but otherwise I know nothing and ask Robin or councilors.

BD



On Nov 4, 2013, at 4:05 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

>       Have we heard anything about my candidacy for Vice-Chair? Council people have been asking me if it is confirmed, and/or assuming it is, so I'd like to get it settled.
>       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 aelsadr  Tue Nov  5 11:48:28 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 10:48:28 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice-Chair
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133219A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <5A918AED-3D39-4BFE-BF24-BEA6F9BB7BFC@difference.com.au>
	<6070099A-368F-4653-99D2-41FFF4DF4CB2@uzh.ch>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133219A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <ECBA630F-BDD3-414D-BDF2-90E3573A53EC@egyptig.org>

I hope we can settle this with the folks in the CSG before BA and the vote. Shouldn?t someone contact them for a clarification on the manner of the interview they would like to perform? I hope we can also make it clear that it is we who pick our candidate for VC, not them. If they don?t approve of David for any reason, do they plan on providing a candidate of their own to run against him? What?s the deal here?

Amr

On Nov 4, 2013, at 6:55 PM, Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> It was not discussed during the recent Council telco. My understanding is that Dave is a candidate and we are going to vote in BA, right? 
> 
> w
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von William Drake
> Gesendet: Mo 04.11.2013 18:48
> An: David Cake
> Cc: NCSG-Policy NCSG-Policy Policy
> Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Vice-Chair
> 
> 
> 
> Glen called me today while I was teaching, asking me what's going on with our chair and VC positions.  I said I thought we were supporting jonathan and you'd be doing a dance for Marilyn, but otherwise I know nothing and ask Robin or councilors.
> 
> BD
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 4, 2013, at 4:05 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> 
>>      Have we heard anything about my candidacy for Vice-Chair? Council people have been asking me if it is confirmed, and/or assuming it is, so I'd like to get it settled.
>>      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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From dave  Tue Nov  5 12:58:07 2013
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:58:07 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice-Chair
In-Reply-To: <ECBA630F-BDD3-414D-BDF2-90E3573A53EC@egyptig.org>
References: <5A918AED-3D39-4BFE-BF24-BEA6F9BB7BFC@difference.com.au>
	<6070099A-368F-4653-99D2-41FFF4DF4CB2@uzh.ch>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133219A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<ECBA630F-BDD3-414D-BDF2-90E3573A53EC@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5A96FF4C-5A22-4ACA-B478-87B6981EB811@difference.com.au>

FWIW, I assume it is some sort of power game to have my do an interview, but I'm not really bothered as long as they realise that we might apply it to them. I'm not sure what they expect to learn about me that they haven't learnt from a year on the council, but I know that we at least have opinions about which of their members we would prefer (and a contributing factor to last years impasse was certainly that we felt Brian was a terrible, and partisan, choice), and it might help the process in general to open it up to discussion a little. 

But really, I just want them to settle it. If they want more process, let's hear it. After all, the interview idea is something we have only heard from MC in passing - it may not actually represent the formal leadership position. 

Is it something that should come from our SG leadership? Or should I just ask about it myself?

Cheers

David
On 5 Nov 2013, at 5:48 pm, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> I hope we can settle this with the folks in the CSG before BA and the vote. Shouldn?t someone contact them for a clarification on the manner of the interview they would like to perform? I hope we can also make it clear that it is we who pick our candidate for VC, not them. If they don?t approve of David for any reason, do they plan on providing a candidate of their own to run against him? What?s the deal here?
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Nov 4, 2013, at 6:55 PM, Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> 
>> It was not discussed during the recent Council telco. My understanding is that Dave is a candidate and we are going to vote in BA, right? 
>> 
>> w
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> 
>> Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von William Drake
>> Gesendet: Mo 04.11.2013 18:48
>> An: David Cake
>> Cc: NCSG-Policy NCSG-Policy Policy
>> Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Vice-Chair
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Glen called me today while I was teaching, asking me what's going on with our chair and VC positions.  I said I thought we were supporting jonathan and you'd be doing a dance for Marilyn, but otherwise I know nothing and ask Robin or councilors.
>> 
>> BD
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 4, 2013, at 4:05 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>> 
>>>     Have we heard anything about my candidacy for Vice-Chair? Council people have been asking me if it is confirmed, and/or assuming it is, so I'd like to get it settled.
>>>     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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131105/fe920a19/attachment.sig>


From william.drake  Tue Nov  5 14:15:05 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 13:15:05 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice-Chair
In-Reply-To: <5A96FF4C-5A22-4ACA-B478-87B6981EB811@difference.com.au>
References: <5A918AED-3D39-4BFE-BF24-BEA6F9BB7BFC@difference.com.au>
	<6070099A-368F-4653-99D2-41FFF4DF4CB2@uzh.ch>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133219A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<ECBA630F-BDD3-414D-BDF2-90E3573A53EC@egyptig.org>
	<5A96FF4C-5A22-4ACA-B478-87B6981EB811@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <24F33A6D-B245-42F8-956E-3E7B6136AFF6@uzh.ch>



On Nov 5, 2013, at 11:58 AM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

>  After all, the interview idea is something we have only heard from MC in passing - it may not actually represent the formal leadership position. 

Really?  Didn?t know this?

She is one of six CSG EC members.  Why don?t you just wait until you are formally approached.

BD
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131105/985f8f43/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Nov  5 16:29:33 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 06:29:33 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice-Chair
In-Reply-To: <5A96FF4C-5A22-4ACA-B478-87B6981EB811@difference.com.au>
References: <5A918AED-3D39-4BFE-BF24-BEA6F9BB7BFC@difference.com.au>
	<6070099A-368F-4653-99D2-41FFF4DF4CB2@uzh.ch>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80133219A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<ECBA630F-BDD3-414D-BDF2-90E3573A53EC@egyptig.org>
	<5A96FF4C-5A22-4ACA-B478-87B6981EB811@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <971CD9A3-9E3A-4AF1-8121-81C1299B5802@ella.com>

Hi,

I thought Robin already informed them that you were the candidate.

That should be the end of it except for voting.  But of course it makes sense for a candidate to make stmts and b interviewed.

The agreement is that we get to pick the candidate this time, not that the we get to pick the v-chair.

I think it is up to Robin/Rafik and their triumvirate to move the process forward.

avri

On 5 Nov 2013, at 02:58, David Cake wrote:

> FWIW, I assume it is some sort of power game to have my do an interview, but I'm not really bothered as long as they realise that we might apply it to them. I'm not sure what they expect to learn about me that they haven't learnt from a year on the council, but I know that we at least have opinions about which of their members we would prefer (and a contributing factor to last years impasse was certainly that we felt Brian was a terrible, and partisan, choice), and it might help the process in general to open it up to discussion a little. 
> 
> But really, I just want them to settle it. If they want more process, let's hear it. After all, the interview idea is something we have only heard from MC in passing - it may not actually represent the formal leadership position. 
> 
> Is it something that should come from our SG leadership? Or should I just ask about it myself?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> David
> On 5 Nov 2013, at 5:48 pm, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
>> I hope we can settle this with the folks in the CSG before BA and the vote. Shouldn?t someone contact them for a clarification on the manner of the interview they would like to perform? I hope we can also make it clear that it is we who pick our candidate for VC, not them. If they don?t approve of David for any reason, do they plan on providing a candidate of their own to run against him? What?s the deal here?
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Nov 4, 2013, at 6:55 PM, Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>> 
>>> It was not discussed during the recent Council telco. My understanding is that Dave is a candidate and we are going to vote in BA, right? 
>>> 
>>> w
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ________________________________
>>> 
>>> Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von William Drake
>>> Gesendet: Mo 04.11.2013 18:48
>>> An: David Cake
>>> Cc: NCSG-Policy NCSG-Policy Policy
>>> Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] Vice-Chair
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Glen called me today while I was teaching, asking me what's going on with our chair and VC positions.  I said I thought we were supporting jonathan and you'd be doing a dance for Marilyn, but otherwise I know nothing and ask Robin or councilors.
>>> 
>>> BD
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Nov 4, 2013, at 4:05 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>    Have we heard anything about my candidacy for Vice-Chair? Council people have been asking me if it is confirmed, and/or assuming it is, so I'd like to get it settled.
>>>>    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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131105/6c42c793/attachment.sig>


From robin  Tue Nov  5 16:34:25 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 06:34:25 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Vice chair of  GNSO council (and chair)
In-Reply-To: <E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6223FFFCDC@LAEX02.MSK.local>
References: <E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6223FE48EA@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<9B211BD4-5356-4020-A567-8614686616A5@ipjustice.org>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6223FFFCDC@LAEX02.MSK.local>
Message-ID: <44937CE0-FD8B-43FD-9D08-2D8238B5090C@ipjustice.org>

Hello Steve,

Is there any news on the nomination of David Cake for vice-chair?

Thanks,
Robin

On Oct 21, 2013, at 9:08 AM, Metalitz, Steven wrote:

> Thanks Robin.  I have circulated this news to the CSG Executive Committee and will get back in touch with you on it as soon as possible.
>  
> Steve
>  
> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
> Sent: Monday, October 21, 2013 5:51 AM
> To: Metalitz, Steven
> Subject: Re: Vice chair of GNSO council (and chair)
>  
> Hi Steve,
>  
> NCSG will nominate David Cake for vice-chair of GNSO.
>  
> Please let me know if CSG will accept David as vice-chair.
>  
> Thank you,
> Robin
> 
> On Oct 15, 2013, at 12:55 AM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Robin,
>  
> I hope this finds you well. 
>  
> The attached agreement reached last February provides for NCSG to put forward the initial sole candidate to be vice chair of GNSO council beginning with the Buenos Aires meeting.  Since that meeting is not too far off, the CSG executive committee has asked me to inquire of you, as NCSG chair, when the NCSG anticipates putting forward its candidate.  This information would be very helpful to us in our planning for Buenos Aires. 
>  
> On a separate topic, does NCSG anticipate putting forward any candidate to serve as chair of the GNSO Council?   
>  
> Thanks in advance for any information you can provide. 
>  
> Steve Metalitz, on behalf of CSG Executive Committee   
>  
>  
> From: Metalitz, Steven 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 12, 2013 6:00 PM
> To: 'Robin Gross'
> Cc: Chris LaHatte; Avri Doria; Tony Holmes; Marilyn Cade; Kristina Rosette; Wendy Seltzer (wendy at seltzer.com); Wolfgang Kleinw?chter
> Subject: RE: Vice Chair Position -- CSG support
>  
> I believe the attached memorializes the agreement, reflecting the wording changes proposed and agreed to in the e-mail chain below.  Under separate cover I have transmitted to Jonathan Robinson our agreed message.   Thanks again to all. 
>  
> Steve
>  
>  
>  
>  
> <terms of agreement re vice chair 021213 (5134695).DOCX>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131105/1f7e6d9a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131105/1f7e6d9a/attachment-0001.sig>


From wendy  Thu Nov  7 02:19:03 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 19:19:03 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] Call for volunteers:Working Group to
 develop policy recommendations on issues relating to the accreditation of
 privacy and proxy service providers for domain name registrations.
In-Reply-To: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F65E862AA@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F65E862AA@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <527ADC77.5060707@seltzer.com>

Please add me to this group, thanks.

--Wendy

On 11/06/2013 05:43 PM, Glen de Saint G?ry wrote:
> Dear Councillors,
> 
> Please find the Call for volunteers for the RAA Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group which is an action item arising from the GNSO Council meeting on 31 October 2013. (Item 7: MOTION - A charter for the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation PDP WG.)
> 
> A reminder that Maria Farrell volunteered as the GNSO Council liaison to the RAA Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (WG).
> In Brief
> The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Working Group to develop policy recommendations on issues relating to the accreditation of privacy and proxy service providers for domain name registrations.
> 
> What This Team Will Do
> The Working Group (WG) is tasked to provide the GNSO Council with a set of recommendations regarding issues identified during the recently-concluded negotiations for the new 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), including recommendations made by law enforcement and GNSO working groups, that were not addressed during the negotiations and otherwise suited for a Policy Development Process (PDP); specifically, issues relating to the accreditation of privacy & proxy services.
> 
> Specific issues to be discussed by the WG are detailed in the WG's charter:
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/raa-pp-charter-22oct13-en.pdf
> 
> How This Team Will Work
> ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. The meetings of this WG will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The mailing list for the WG will be archived publicly. WG members are expected to submit Statements of Interest (SOI<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs>). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. The WG is expected to follow the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf>.
> 
> How to Join
> The GNSO Council invites interested parties to join the WG, which will be open to anyone interested to join. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the GNSO secretariat<mailto:gnso.secretariat at icann.org?subject=Application%20to%20Join%20Uniformity%20of%20Reporting%20Drafting%20Team> (gnso.secretariat at icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at icann.org>).
> 
> Background
> In October 2011, the ICANN Board initiated negotiations with the Registrars Stakeholder Group for a new form of RAA, and simultaneously requested an Issue Report from the GNSO on issues not covered by the negotiations and otherwise suited for a PDP. The Final Issue Report was published in March 2012, and recommended that the GNSO commence its PDP as soon as possible after receiving a report that the negotiations were concluded.
> 
> In June 2013, the ICANN Board formally approved the new 2013 RAA. In September 2013, ICANN staff published a paper for the GNSO reporting on the conclusion of the RAA negotiations and highlighting that of all the high and medium priority topics for the negotiations previously identified by the GNSO and the law enforcement community, only two were not fully addressed in the negotiations, viz. clarification of certain registrar responsibilities in relation to proceedings under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), and issues relating to privacy and proxy services, including their accreditation and Relay/Reveal procedures. The UDRP questions have, however, been dealt with in a separate PDP that concluded with the publication of a Final Report in June 2013 and its adoption by the GNSO Council in August 2013.
> 
> Following a number of discussions on the topic, the GNSO Council formally approved the charter for this RAA Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues WG at its meeting on 31 October 2013.
> 
> As ICANN has already committed itself to establishing an accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers, the recommendations from this WG are expected to inform the development of such a program. In addition, there continues to be ongoing work on various aspects of the Whois gTLD registration data directory service, including the creation of an Expert Working Group (EWG) in December 2012 that is expected to assist ICANN in redefining the purpose and provision of gTLD registration data directory services. The EWG published its Initial Report in June 2013 and is currently working on its Final Report.
> 
> In addition, the GNSO had previously commissioned a study on Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse. The results of the study, performed by the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom, were published for public comment in September 2013. It is expected that the study will be relevant to the deliberations of this WG.
> 
> This WG is an opportunity for the GNSO and other interested community members to help develop specific recommendations that will assist ICANN in developing a privacy and proxy accreditation program in relation to gTLD registration data directory services.
> 
> Please let me know if you have any questions.
> Thank you very much?
> Kind regards,
> 
> Glen
> 
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
> http://gnso.icann.org
> 
> 
> 


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



From aelsadr  Fri Nov  8 15:05:16 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 14:05:16 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study
Message-ID: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I?ve taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but we have until November 13th to submit a statement during the reply period. At this point, I would like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the policy committee are willing to endorse this statement, and whether or not there are any suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.

I?ve drafted the statement on a Google doc, which you can find here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing

For more on the study itself, check this link: https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-en.htm

Thanks.

Amr
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131108/fbc3346b/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Fri Nov  8 18:14:02 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 17:14:02 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [council] Call for volunteers:Working Group to
	develop policy recommendations on issues relating to the
	accreditation of privacy and proxy service providers for
	domain name registrations.
In-Reply-To: <527ADC77.5060707@seltzer.com>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F65E862AA@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<527ADC77.5060707@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <202ECC33-071C-4F72-8E53-80D872C3264D@egyptig.org>

Hi Glen,

Please add me to this WG as well.

Thanks.

Amr

On Nov 7, 2013, at 1:19 AM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at SELTZER.COM> wrote:

> Please add me to this group, thanks.
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> On 11/06/2013 05:43 PM, Glen de Saint G?ry wrote:
>> Dear Councillors,
>> 
>> Please find the Call for volunteers for the RAA Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group which is an action item arising from the GNSO Council meeting on 31 October 2013. (Item 7: MOTION - A charter for the Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation PDP WG.)
>> 
>> A reminder that Maria Farrell volunteered as the GNSO Council liaison to the RAA Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group (WG).
>> In Brief
>> The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council seeks volunteers to serve on a Working Group to develop policy recommendations on issues relating to the accreditation of privacy and proxy service providers for domain name registrations.
>> 
>> What This Team Will Do
>> The Working Group (WG) is tasked to provide the GNSO Council with a set of recommendations regarding issues identified during the recently-concluded negotiations for the new 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), including recommendations made by law enforcement and GNSO working groups, that were not addressed during the negotiations and otherwise suited for a Policy Development Process (PDP); specifically, issues relating to the accreditation of privacy & proxy services.
>> 
>> Specific issues to be discussed by the WG are detailed in the WG's charter:
>> http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/raa-pp-charter-22oct13-en.pdf
>> 
>> How This Team Will Work
>> ICANN Working Groups use transparent, open processes. The meetings of this WG will be recorded, and the recordings will be available to the public. The mailing list for the WG will be archived publicly. WG members are expected to submit Statements of Interest (SOI<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/New+SOIs>). The group will collaborate using a public workspace. The WG is expected to follow the GNSO Working Group Guidelines<http://gnso.icann.org/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-08apr11-en.pdf>.
>> 
>> How to Join
>> The GNSO Council invites interested parties to join the WG, which will be open to anyone interested to join. Community members who wish to be invited to join the group should contact the GNSO secretariat<mailto:gnso.secretariat at icann.org?subject=Application%20to%20Join%20Uniformity%20of%20Reporting%20Drafting%20Team> (gnso.secretariat at icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at icann.org>).
>> 
>> Background
>> In October 2011, the ICANN Board initiated negotiations with the Registrars Stakeholder Group for a new form of RAA, and simultaneously requested an Issue Report from the GNSO on issues not covered by the negotiations and otherwise suited for a PDP. The Final Issue Report was published in March 2012, and recommended that the GNSO commence its PDP as soon as possible after receiving a report that the negotiations were concluded.
>> 
>> In June 2013, the ICANN Board formally approved the new 2013 RAA. In September 2013, ICANN staff published a paper for the GNSO reporting on the conclusion of the RAA negotiations and highlighting that of all the high and medium priority topics for the negotiations previously identified by the GNSO and the law enforcement community, only two were not fully addressed in the negotiations, viz. clarification of certain registrar responsibilities in relation to proceedings under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), and issues relating to privacy and proxy services, including their accreditation and Relay/Reveal procedures. The UDRP questions have, however, been dealt with in a separate PDP that concluded with the publication of a Final Report in June 2013 and its adoption by the GNSO Council in August 2013.
>> 
>> Following a number of discussions on the topic, the GNSO Council formally approved the charter for this RAA Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues WG at its meeting on 31 October 2013.
>> 
>> As ICANN has already committed itself to establishing an accreditation program for privacy and proxy service providers, the recommendations from this WG are expected to inform the development of such a program. In addition, there continues to be ongoing work on various aspects of the Whois gTLD registration data directory service, including the creation of an Expert Working Group (EWG) in December 2012 that is expected to assist ICANN in redefining the purpose and provision of gTLD registration data directory services. The EWG published its Initial Report in June 2013 and is currently working on its Final Report.
>> 
>> In addition, the GNSO had previously commissioned a study on Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse. The results of the study, performed by the National Physical Laboratory in the United Kingdom, were published for public comment in September 2013. It is expected that the study will be relevant to the deliberations of this WG.
>> 
>> This WG is an opportunity for the GNSO and other interested community members to help develop specific recommendations that will assist ICANN in developing a privacy and proxy accreditation program in relation to gTLD registration data directory services.
>> 
>> Please let me know if you have any questions.
>> Thank you very much?
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Glen
>> 
>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>> GNSO Secretariat
>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org<mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
>> http://gnso.icann.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From robin  Fri Nov  8 20:06:15 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 10:06:15 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: SO-AC Buenos Aires Hot Topic
	Update/Recommendations/Decisions
References: <CEA2F12A.2A749%david.olive@icann.org>
Message-ID: <4526BC1D-80C6-489E-B0D4-63FD8837C32F@ipjustice.org>

ICANN is organizing a "hot topics" session to take place during the Buenos Aires meeting on the issue of the Montevideo Statement  and pre-Brazil activities with a sub-theme of preservation of the bottom-up model for policy development (see below).  ICANN is suggesting a representative from each of the GNSO stakeholder groups to participate in the discussion in BA (along with other SO's / AC's) and I'd like to volunteer to participate in the discussion for NCSG, as preservation of ICANN's bottom-up model is a main focus of my own ICANN activities.  Any objections or other suggestions?  Should be an interesting discussion in BA.

Thanks,
Robin

Begin forwarded message:

> From: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>
> Subject: SO-AC Buenos Aires Hot Topic Update/Recommendations/Decisions
> Date: November 8, 2013 9:51:06 AM PST
> To: Heather Dryden <Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>, Patrik F?ltstr?m <paf at netnod.se>, "Jun Murai" <junsec at wide.ad.jp>, Lars-Johan Liman <liman at netnod.se>, Louis Lee <louie at louie.net>, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>, Byron Holland <byron.holland at cira.ca>, "Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com" <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, 'Tony Holmes' <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "krosette at cov.com" <krosette at cov.com>, "robin at ipjustice.org" <robin at ipjustice.org>, "william.drake at uzh.ch" <william.drake at uzh.ch>, "mllemineur at gmail.com" <mllemineur at gmail.com>, 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' <michele at blacknight.com>, "kdrazek at verisign.com" <kdrazek at verisign.com>, "ceo at auda.org.au" <ceo at auda.org.au>
> Cc: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton at icann.org>, Nick Tomasso <nick.tomasso at icann.org>, "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king at icann.org>, Susie Johnson <susie.johnson at icann.org>, Duncan Burns <duncan.burns at icann.org>, Brad White <brad.white at icann.org>, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org>, Baher Esmat <baher.esmat at icann.org>, Tarek Kamel <tarek.kamel at icann.org>
> 
> Dear SO-AC Leaders:
>  
> Based on the various reactions several of you have provided regarding the topic feedback and other information I shared on Monday, set forth below are confirmed recommendations and some new information regarding the SO-AC Hot Topic session currently scheduled for Monday morning in Buenos Aires.  We appreciate your understanding and patience as we re-boot this joint community session. Please check the body of this note below to make sure you?ve identified the additional information we?ll need from you soon.
>  
> Confirmed Topic:
>  
> We are moving forward with the following single topic ? ?Evolution of Internet Governance - Montevideo Statement and ICANN?s Post-Bali/Pre-Brazil Activities ? Methods and Objectives?.  A sub theme that session participants may wish to incorporate into the discussion includes ?preservation of the bottom-up policy development process.?
>  
> Confirmed Moderator:
>  
> Brad White has graciously agreed to serve as moderator for the session.  He and Rob are working on fleshing out the ?short? statement format discussed during the preparation planning call and implementing the ?tweeting? concept a number of you enjoyed brainstorming on during the preparation call.  Red, green and even blue sheets of paper are on-order.
>  
> Community Representation On Stage:
>  
> A number of you made some good points about the challenges of having fair community representation on stage.  Unfortunately it is a challenge to balance representation with a manageable number of designated community representatives on the stage.  We are going to go with the original suggestion of a maximum two (2) reps each from each of the ASO, ccNSO, GAC, SSAC and RSSAC communities, and include a maximum of four (4) participants from the GNSO (one per Stakeholder Group) and a maximum of 5 from At-Large (one per RALO).
>  
> We understand the concerns about providing speaking opportunities for as many people as possible, but Brad says even the number of 19 participants will be hard to manage and, if we are going to include audience participation, not everyone will likely have equal time to speak.  You will not be penalized if you choose to designate fewer than the maximum number of participants to your community.
>  
> Please provide the names of your designated speakers/participants as soon as possible to Rob Hoggarth at Robert.hoggarth at icann.org.   Please, no later than 5pm (local time in Beunos Aires) next Friday, 15 November.
>  
> Session Format:
>  
> Although initial introductions will likely be important for the audience and the scribes, rather than commit to opening statements (even if we limit a single statement from each SO and AC represented to only 5 minutes per community we will use up 35 minutes before we even get to a discussion), Brad suggests that we try to immediately jump into the discussion. I agree.  The real value of the session will be in the public, real-time exchange of ideas and opinions between and among your communities. The quicker that can start, the more interesting and dynamic the session will be. We also hope to have several Board members and Senior ICANN staff in the session room.  We will make sure they are identified, so there should be opportunities to engage with them or ask questions during the session.
>  
> Keeping the theme of short, crisp ?tweet-like? statements in mind, Rob and I will work with Brad on developing a flow to the session that creates the best opportunities for dialogue.  Brad and I believe it is important to distinguish this session from the typical Thursday Public Forum format.
>  
> Brad would like to meet with all the session participants near the front of the room about 20 minutes before the session begins to manage expectations and to go over logistics of the session.
>  
> Potential Scheduling Issues:
>  
> As Jonathan pointed out in his recent email, there is potential confusion/conflict between other sessions at the same time and other sessions that will touch generally on Internet governance issues taking place that day.  Unfortunately the schedule, as usual, is very tight and there are limited options to move any sessions to avoid conflicts.  So far, it just hasn?t been possible to find good alternatives for any of the other scheduled sessions. We think the unique nature of this session and the importance of the issue will provide some great audience interaction and a good opportunity for dialogue.
>  
>  
> As usual, your comments, thoughts and observations are welcomed.  Its not too late to investigate further tweaks to our session preparations.
>  
> Thank you for your support of the re-boot of this joint community effort. We hope the session will be a great learning experience for all and that we?ll identify ways to make it even better in Singapore.
>  
> Best regards, 
>  
> David
> --
> David A. Olive
> Vice President, Policy Development Support
> General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul
> 
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5
> 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey 
> 
> Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1. 202.341.3611
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131108/fbc71723/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1C3073A1-FE98-4F72-BD32-7973F4034728[58].png
Type: image/png
Size: 2793 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131108/fbc71723/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131108/fbc71723/attachment-0001.sig>


From mllemineur  Fri Nov  8 20:44:17 2013
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 12:44:17 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [EC-NCSG] Fwd: SO-AC Buenos Aires Hot Topic
	Update/Recommendations/Decisions
In-Reply-To: <4526BC1D-80C6-489E-B0D4-63FD8837C32F@ipjustice.org>
References: <CEA2F12A.2A749%david.olive@icann.org>
	<4526BC1D-80C6-489E-B0D4-63FD8837C32F@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqF2ZsD9Wu2DZGOxscKq7-TCk9538by8iyyb98rVkYH-2Q@mail.gmail.com>

No objection.

Marie-laure


On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> ICANN is organizing a "hot topics" session to take place during the Buenos
> Aires meeting on the issue of the Montevideo Statement  and pre-Brazil
> activities with a sub-theme of preservation of the bottom-up model for
> policy development (see below).  ICANN is suggesting a representative from
> each of the GNSO stakeholder groups to participate in the discussion in BA
> (along with other SO's / AC's) and I'd like to volunteer to participate in
> the discussion for NCSG, as preservation of ICANN's bottom-up model is a
> main focus of my own ICANN activities.  Any objections or other
> suggestions?  Should be an interesting discussion in BA.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>
> *Subject: **SO-AC Buenos Aires Hot Topic Update/Recommendations/Decisions*
> *Date: *November 8, 2013 9:51:06 AM PST
> *To: *Heather Dryden <Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>, Jonathan Robinson <
> jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>,
> Patrik F?ltstr?m <paf at netnod.se>, "Jun Murai" <junsec at wide.ad.jp>,
> Lars-Johan Liman <liman at netnod.se>, Louis Lee <louie at louie.net>, Paul
> Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>, Byron Holland <byron.holland at cira.ca>, "
> Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com" <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, 'Tony
> Holmes' <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "krosette at cov.com" <
> krosette at cov.com>, "robin at ipjustice.org" <robin at ipjustice.org>, "
> william.drake at uzh.ch" <william.drake at uzh.ch>, "mllemineur at gmail.com" <
> mllemineur at gmail.com>, 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' <
> michele at blacknight.com>, "kdrazek at verisign.com" <kdrazek at verisign.com>, "
> ceo at auda.org.au" <ceo at auda.org.au>
> *Cc: *Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, Sally Costerton <
> sally.costerton at icann.org>, Nick Tomasso <nick.tomasso at icann.org>,
> "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king at icann.org>, Susie Johnson <
> susie.johnson at icann.org>, Duncan Burns <duncan.burns at icann.org>, Brad
> White <brad.white at icann.org>, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>,
> Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org>, Baher Esmat <
> baher.esmat at icann.org>, Tarek Kamel <tarek.kamel at icann.org>
>
> Dear SO-AC Leaders:
>
> Based on the various reactions several of you have provided regarding the
> topic feedback and other information I shared on Monday, set forth below
> are confirmed recommendations and some new information regarding the SO-AC
> Hot Topic session currently scheduled for Monday morning in Buenos Aires.
> We appreciate your understanding and patience as we re-boot this joint
> community session. Please check the body of this note below to make sure
> you?ve identified the additional information we?ll need from you soon.
>
> *Confirmed Topic:*
>
> We are moving forward with the following single topic ? ?Evolution of
> Internet Governance - Montevideo Statement and ICANN?s Post-Bali/Pre-Brazil
> Activities ? Methods and Objectives?.  A sub theme that session
> participants may wish to incorporate into the discussion includes
> ?preservation of the bottom-up policy development process.?
>
> *Confirmed Moderator:*
>
> Brad White has graciously agreed to serve as moderator for the session.
> He and Rob are working on fleshing out the ?short? statement format
> discussed during the preparation planning call and implementing the
> ?tweeting? concept a number of you enjoyed brainstorming on during the
> preparation call.  Red, green and even blue sheets of paper are on-order.
>
> *Community Representation On Stage:*
>
> A number of you made some good points about the challenges of having fair
> community representation on stage.  Unfortunately it is a challenge to
> balance representation with a manageable number of designated community
> representatives on the stage.  We are going to go with the original
> suggestion of a maximum two (2) reps each from each of the ASO, ccNSO, GAC,
> SSAC and RSSAC communities, and include a maximum of four (4) participants
> from the GNSO (one per Stakeholder Group) and a maximum of 5 from At-Large
> (one per RALO).
>
> We understand the concerns about providing speaking opportunities for as
> many people as possible, but Brad says even the number of 19 participants
> will be hard to manage and, if we are going to include audience
> participation, not everyone will likely have equal time to speak.  You will
> not be penalized if you choose to designate fewer than the maximum number
> of participants to your community.
>
> *Please provide the names of your designated speakers/participants as soon
> as possible to Rob Hoggarth at **Robert.hoggarth at icann.org*<Robert.hoggarth at icann.org>*.
>   Please, no later than 5pm (local time in Beunos Aires) next Friday, 15
> November.*
>
> *Session Format:*
>
> Although initial introductions will likely be important for the audience
> and the scribes, rather than commit to opening statements (even if we limit
> a single statement from each SO and AC represented to only 5 minutes per
> community we will use up 35 minutes before we even get to a discussion),
> Brad suggests that we try to immediately jump into the discussion. I agree.
>  The real value of the session will be in the public, real-time exchange of
> ideas and opinions between and among your communities. The quicker that can
> start, the more interesting and dynamic the session will be. We also hope
> to have several Board members and Senior ICANN staff in the session room.
> We will make sure they are identified, so there should be opportunities to
> engage with them or ask questions during the session.
>
> Keeping the theme of short, crisp ?tweet-like? statements in mind, Rob and
> I will work with Brad on developing a flow to the session that creates the
> best opportunities for dialogue.  Brad and I believe it is important to
> distinguish this session from the typical Thursday Public Forum format.
>
> Brad would like to meet with all the session participants near the front
> of the room about *20 minutes before* the session begins to manage
> expectations and to go over logistics of the session.
>
> *Potential Scheduling Issues:*
>
> As Jonathan pointed out in his recent email, there is potential
> confusion/conflict between other sessions at the same time and other
> sessions that will touch generally on Internet governance issues taking
> place that day.  Unfortunately the schedule, as usual, is very tight and
> there are limited options to move any sessions to avoid conflicts.  So far,
> it just hasn?t been possible to find good alternatives for any of the other
> scheduled sessions. We think the unique nature of this session and the
> importance of the issue will provide some great audience interaction and a
> good opportunity for dialogue.
>
>
> As usual, your comments, thoughts and observations are welcomed.  Its not
> too late to investigate further tweaks to our session preparations.
>
> Thank you for your support of the re-boot of this joint community effort.
> We hope the session will be a great learning experience for all and that
> we?ll identify ways to make it even better in Singapore.
>
> Best regards,
>
> David
> --
> David A. Olive
>
> *Vice President, Policy Development SupportGeneral Manager, ICANN Regional
> Headquarters ?Istanbul*
>
>
> *Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)*
> *Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5*
> *34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey *
>
> *Tel: +90.212.381.8727 <%2B90.212.381.8727> - Fax: +90.212.381.8731
> <%2B90.212.381.8731> - Mobile: +1. 202.341.3611 <%2B1.%20202.341.3611>*
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131108/b876130e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1C3073A1-FE98-4F72-BD32-7973F4034728[58].png
Type: image/png
Size: 2793 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131108/b876130e/attachment-0001.png>


From aelsadr  Fri Nov  8 21:13:16 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 20:13:16 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [EC-NCSG] Fwd: SO-AC Buenos Aires Hot Topic
	Update/Recommendations/Decisions
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqF2ZsD9Wu2DZGOxscKq7-TCk9538by8iyyb98rVkYH-2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CEA2F12A.2A749%david.olive@icann.org>
	<4526BC1D-80C6-489E-B0D4-63FD8837C32F@ipjustice.org>
	<CAD3sNqF2ZsD9Wu2DZGOxscKq7-TCk9538by8iyyb98rVkYH-2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <67EF8956-17B8-4AC7-A6BB-1A96BADEDE16@egyptig.org>

No objection here either, Robin. Thanks for volunteering.

Amr

On Nov 8, 2013, at 7:44 PM, marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com> wrote:

> No objection. 
> 
> Marie-laure
> 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> ICANN is organizing a "hot topics" session to take place during the Buenos Aires meeting on the issue of the Montevideo Statement  and pre-Brazil activities with a sub-theme of preservation of the bottom-up model for policy development (see below).  ICANN is suggesting a representative from each of the GNSO stakeholder groups to participate in the discussion in BA (along with other SO's / AC's) and I'd like to volunteer to participate in the discussion for NCSG, as preservation of ICANN's bottom-up model is a main focus of my own ICANN activities.  Any objections or other suggestions?  Should be an interesting discussion in BA.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>
>> Subject: SO-AC Buenos Aires Hot Topic Update/Recommendations/Decisions
>> Date: November 8, 2013 9:51:06 AM PST
>> To: Heather Dryden <Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>, Patrik F?ltstr?m <paf at netnod.se>, "Jun Murai" <junsec at wide.ad.jp>, Lars-Johan Liman <liman at netnod.se>, Louis Lee <louie at louie.net>, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>, Byron Holland <byron.holland at cira.ca>, "Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com" <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, 'Tony Holmes' <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "krosette at cov.com" <krosette at cov.com>, "robin at ipjustice.org" <robin at ipjustice.org>, "william.drake at uzh.ch" <william.drake at uzh.ch>, "mllemineur at gmail.com" <mllemineur at gmail.com>, 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' <michele at blacknight.com>, "kdrazek at verisign.com" <kdrazek at verisign.com>, "ceo at auda.org.au" <ceo at auda.org.au>
>> Cc: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton at icann.org>, Nick Tomasso <nick.tomasso at icann.org>, "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king at icann.org>, Susie Johnson <susie.johnson at icann.org>, Duncan Burns <duncan.burns at icann.org>, Brad White <brad.white at icann.org>, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org>, Baher Esmat <baher.esmat at icann.org>, Tarek Kamel <tarek.kamel at icann.org>
>> 
>> Dear SO-AC Leaders:
>>  
>> Based on the various reactions several of you have provided regarding the topic feedback and other information I shared on Monday, set forth below are confirmed recommendations and some new information regarding the SO-AC Hot Topic session currently scheduled for Monday morning in Buenos Aires.  We appreciate your understanding and patience as we re-boot this joint community session. Please check the body of this note below to make sure you?ve identified the additional information we?ll need from you soon.
>>  
>> Confirmed Topic:
>>  
>> We are moving forward with the following single topic ? ?Evolution of Internet Governance - Montevideo Statement and ICANN?s Post-Bali/Pre-Brazil Activities ? Methods and Objectives?.  A sub theme that session participants may wish to incorporate into the discussion includes ?preservation of the bottom-up policy development process.?
>>  
>> Confirmed Moderator:
>>  
>> Brad White has graciously agreed to serve as moderator for the session.  He and Rob are working on fleshing out the ?short? statement format discussed during the preparation planning call and implementing the ?tweeting? concept a number of you enjoyed brainstorming on during the preparation call.  Red, green and even blue sheets of paper are on-order.
>>  
>> Community Representation On Stage:
>>  
>> A number of you made some good points about the challenges of having fair community representation on stage.  Unfortunately it is a challenge to balance representation with a manageable number of designated community representatives on the stage.  We are going to go with the original suggestion of a maximum two (2) reps each from each of the ASO, ccNSO, GAC, SSAC and RSSAC communities, and include a maximum of four (4) participants from the GNSO (one per Stakeholder Group) and a maximum of 5 from At-Large (one per RALO).
>>  
>> We understand the concerns about providing speaking opportunities for as many people as possible, but Brad says even the number of 19 participants will be hard to manage and, if we are going to include audience participation, not everyone will likely have equal time to speak.  You will not be penalized if you choose to designate fewer than the maximum number of participants to your community.
>>  
>> Please provide the names of your designated speakers/participants as soon as possible to Rob Hoggarth at Robert.hoggarth at icann.org.   Please, no later than 5pm (local time in Beunos Aires) next Friday, 15 November.
>>  
>> Session Format:
>>  
>> Although initial introductions will likely be important for the audience and the scribes, rather than commit to opening statements (even if we limit a single statement from each SO and AC represented to only 5 minutes per community we will use up 35 minutes before we even get to a discussion), Brad suggests that we try to immediately jump into the discussion. I agree.  The real value of the session will be in the public, real-time exchange of ideas and opinions between and among your communities. The quicker that can start, the more interesting and dynamic the session will be. We also hope to have several Board members and Senior ICANN staff in the session room.  We will make sure they are identified, so there should be opportunities to engage with them or ask questions during the session.
>>  
>> Keeping the theme of short, crisp ?tweet-like? statements in mind, Rob and I will work with Brad on developing a flow to the session that creates the best opportunities for dialogue.  Brad and I believe it is important to distinguish this session from the typical Thursday Public Forum format.
>>  
>> Brad would like to meet with all the session participants near the front of the room about 20 minutes before the session begins to manage expectations and to go over logistics of the session.
>>  
>> Potential Scheduling Issues:
>>  
>> As Jonathan pointed out in his recent email, there is potential confusion/conflict between other sessions at the same time and other sessions that will touch generally on Internet governance issues taking place that day.  Unfortunately the schedule, as usual, is very tight and there are limited options to move any sessions to avoid conflicts.  So far, it just hasn?t been possible to find good alternatives for any of the other scheduled sessions. We think the unique nature of this session and the importance of the issue will provide some great audience interaction and a good opportunity for dialogue.
>>  
>>  
>> As usual, your comments, thoughts and observations are welcomed.  Its not too late to investigate further tweaks to our session preparations.
>>  
>> Thank you for your support of the re-boot of this joint community effort. We hope the session will be a great learning experience for all and that we?ll identify ways to make it even better in Singapore.
>>  
>> Best regards, 
>>  
>> David
>> --
>> David A. Olive
>> Vice President, Policy Development Support
>> General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul
>> 
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>> Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5
>> 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey 
>> 
>> Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1. 202.341.3611
>> <1C3073A1-FE98-4F72-BD32-7973F4034728[58].png>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> <1C3073A1-FE98-4F72-BD32-7973F4034728[58].png>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131108/f32acaf1/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Sat Nov  9 00:39:58 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 14:39:58 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Update on Reconsideration Request 13-11
References: <CEA11D01.3C09%reconsideration@icann.org>
Message-ID: <817F95BC-5B5A-4F71-A1D8-5DA9D702E76E@ipjustice.org>

ICANN has denied our Recon Request about its claim that all info related to TM+50 decision making is secret.   Of course it first mischaracterized our argument so it could dismiss them.  What an "accountability mechanism" these Recon Requests are turning out to be.  The defendant is also the judge.  No wonder not a single one has ever succeeded in moving ICANN staff.

Robin


Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Reconsideration@ ICANN" <reconsideration at icann.org>
> Subject: Update on Reconsideration Request 13-11
> Date: November 7, 2013 10:33:37 AM PST
> To: <robin at ipjustice.org>
> 
> Dear Ms. Gross, 
> 
> Please be advised that the Board Governance Committee's Determination on Reconsideration Request 13-11, issued on 29 October 2013, was posted this morning and is available at  http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/determination-ncsg-29oct13-en.pdf.
> 
> Best regards,  
> ICANN
> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
> Los Angeles, CA  90094
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131108/28c56e2f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131108/28c56e2f/attachment.sig>


From avri  Sat Nov  9 02:10:12 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 16:10:12 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Update on Reconsideration Request 13-11
In-Reply-To: <817F95BC-5B5A-4F71-A1D8-5DA9D702E76E@ipjustice.org>
References: <CEA11D01.3C09%reconsideration@icann.org>
	<817F95BC-5B5A-4F71-A1D8-5DA9D702E76E@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <9514DA79-9501-4B8C-BB6C-63E6E88B31B3@acm.org>

Hi,

This is really unfortunate. And not unexpected.

I want to point out that part of the ATRT2 reports calls for this system to be reviewed and fixed.  Hopefully the NCSG will be able to include a strong statement, and perhaps even recommended recommendations that can be discussed and hopefuly included in the final report.

avri

On 8 Nov 2013, at 14:39, Robin Gross wrote:

> ICANN has denied our Recon Request about its claim that all info related to TM+50 decision making is secret.   Of course it first mischaracterized our argument so it could dismiss them.  What an "accountability mechanism" these Recon Requests are turning out to be.  The defendant is also the judge.  No wonder not a single one has ever succeeded in moving ICANN staff.
> 
> Robin
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: "Reconsideration@ ICANN" <reconsideration at icann.org>
>> Subject: Update on Reconsideration Request 13-11
>> Date: November 7, 2013 10:33:37 AM PST
>> To: <robin at ipjustice.org>
>> 
>> Dear Ms. Gross, 
>> 
>> Please be advised that the Board Governance Committee's Determination on Reconsideration Request 13-11, issued on 29 October 2013, was posted this morning and is available at  http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/governance/reconsideration/determination-ncsg-29oct13-en.pdf.
>> 
>> Best regards,  
>> ICANN
>> 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300
>> Los Angeles, CA  90094
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131108/16762b9c/attachment.sig>


From aelsadr  Mon Nov 11 14:12:32 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 13:12:32 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Privacy] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy &
	Proxy Abuse Study
In-Reply-To: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>
References: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <8B9A531F-6387-450F-AE53-699CC45C83DE@egyptig.org>

Hi again,

Just a gentle reminder that the deadline for submission during the reply period will be in two days. I hope to hear something before then, especially if anyone disagrees with the statement in any way.

If I don?t hear back from anyone, I don?t mind submitting the statement as an individual but would prefer not to. I understand that the study isn?t the easiest document to go through. :)

Thanks all.

Amr

On Nov 8, 2013, at 2:05 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I?ve taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but we have until November 13th to submit a statement during the reply period. At this point, I would like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the policy committee are willing to endorse this statement, and whether or not there are any suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.
> 
> I?ve drafted the statement on a Google doc, which you can find here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> For more on the study itself, check this link: https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-en.htm
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> _______________________________________________
> Privacy mailing list
> Privacy at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/privacy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131111/7a484a62/attachment.html>


From avri  Mon Nov 11 14:55:21 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 07:55:21 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Privacy] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy &
	Proxy Abuse Study
In-Reply-To: <8B9A531F-6387-450F-AE53-699CC45C83DE@egyptig.org>
References: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>
	<8B9A531F-6387-450F-AE53-699CC45C83DE@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <3A3C623E-235D-4C5B-8159-A7CF6ADDCF16@ella.com>

Hi,

Should this be submitted as a NCSG submission?  

>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing


There has been little discussion.  

I figure I need to see some Council assent as well at least 1 from each of NPOC and NCUC PC members.  

I can submit it up until the last minute. 
I am about to fly to BA today, so, please give an indication in the next 24 hours.

thanks

avri

On 11 Nov 2013, at 07:12, Amr Elsadr wrote:

> Hi again,
> 
> Just a gentle reminder that the deadline for submission during the reply period will be in two days. I hope to hear something before then, especially if anyone disagrees with the statement in any way.
> 
> If I don?t hear back from anyone, I don?t mind submitting the statement as an individual but would prefer not to. I understand that the study isn?t the easiest document to go through. :)
> 
> Thanks all.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Nov 8, 2013, at 2:05 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I?ve taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but we have until November 13th to submit a statement during the reply period. At this point, I would like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the policy committee are willing to endorse this statement, and whether or not there are any suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.
>> 
>> I?ve drafted the statement on a Google doc, which you can find here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
>> 
>> For more on the study itself, check this link: https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-en.htm
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> _______________________________________________
>> Privacy mailing list
>> Privacy at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/privacy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Privacy mailing list
> Privacy at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/privacy

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131111/e88cadcd/attachment.sig>


From aelsadr  Mon Nov 11 15:20:46 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:20:46 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Privacy] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy &
	Proxy Abuse Study
In-Reply-To: <3A3C623E-235D-4C5B-8159-A7CF6ADDCF16@ella.com>
References: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>
	<8B9A531F-6387-450F-AE53-699CC45C83DE@egyptig.org>
	<3A3C623E-235D-4C5B-8159-A7CF6ADDCF16@ella.com>
Message-ID: <750B656D-E348-45D6-BE9F-1E4D8B753A05@egyptig.org>

Thanks Avri. It?s a long study, and I wouldn?t hold it against folks if they didn?t read it at this point. I should have submitted it sooner, but have been a bit swamped.

Safe travels. I arrive on Friday morning. See you in BA.

Amr

On Nov 11, 2013, at 1:55 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Should this be submitted as a NCSG submission?  
> 
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> 
> There has been little discussion.  
> 
> I figure I need to see some Council assent as well at least 1 from each of NPOC and NCUC PC members.  
> 
> I can submit it up until the last minute. 
> I am about to fly to BA today, so, please give an indication in the next 24 hours.
> 
> thanks
> 
> avri
> 
> On 11 Nov 2013, at 07:12, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> 
>> Hi again,
>> 
>> Just a gentle reminder that the deadline for submission during the reply period will be in two days. I hope to hear something before then, especially if anyone disagrees with the statement in any way.
>> 
>> If I don?t hear back from anyone, I don?t mind submitting the statement as an individual but would prefer not to. I understand that the study isn?t the easiest document to go through. :)
>> 
>> Thanks all.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Nov 8, 2013, at 2:05 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I?ve taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but we have until November 13th to submit a statement during the reply period. At this point, I would like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the policy committee are willing to endorse this statement, and whether or not there are any suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.
>>> 
>>> I?ve drafted the statement on a Google doc, which you can find here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
>>> 
>>> For more on the study itself, check this link: https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-en.htm
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Privacy mailing list
>>> Privacy at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/privacy
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Privacy mailing list
>> Privacy at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/privacy
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From maria.farrell  Mon Nov 11 17:49:27 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 15:49:27 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [EC-NCSG] Fwd: SO-AC Buenos Aires Hot Topic
	Update/Recommendations/Decisions
In-Reply-To: <67EF8956-17B8-4AC7-A6BB-1A96BADEDE16@egyptig.org>
References: <CEA2F12A.2A749%david.olive@icann.org>
	<4526BC1D-80C6-489E-B0D4-63FD8837C32F@ipjustice.org>
	<CAD3sNqF2ZsD9Wu2DZGOxscKq7-TCk9538by8iyyb98rVkYH-2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<67EF8956-17B8-4AC7-A6BB-1A96BADEDE16@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdAxa7S6KM7e_cLuxfQB40xF5r60pU0PpSoN4rEfttxWUQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Robin

I support your being the volunteer.

Thanks, Maria


On 8 November 2013 19:13, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> No objection here either, Robin. Thanks for volunteering.
>
> Amr
>
> On Nov 8, 2013, at 7:44 PM, marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> No objection.
>
> Marie-laure
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> ICANN is organizing a "hot topics" session to take place during the
>> Buenos Aires meeting on the issue of the Montevideo Statement  and
>> pre-Brazil activities with a sub-theme of preservation of the bottom-up
>> model for policy development (see below).  ICANN is suggesting a
>> representative from each of the GNSO stakeholder groups to participate in
>> the discussion in BA (along with other SO's / AC's) and I'd like to
>> volunteer to participate in the discussion for NCSG, as preservation of
>> ICANN's bottom-up model is a main focus of my own ICANN activities.  Any
>> objections or other suggestions?  Should be an interesting discussion in BA.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> *From: *David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>
>> *Subject: **SO-AC Buenos Aires Hot Topic
>> Update/Recommendations/Decisions*
>> *Date: *November 8, 2013 9:51:06 AM PST
>> *To: *Heather Dryden <Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>, Jonathan Robinson <
>> jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>,
>> Patrik F?ltstr?m <paf at netnod.se>, "Jun Murai" <junsec at wide.ad.jp>,
>> Lars-Johan Liman <liman at netnod.se>, Louis Lee <louie at louie.net>, Paul
>> Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>, Byron Holland <byron.holland at cira.ca>, "
>> Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com" <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, 'Tony
>> Holmes' <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "krosette at cov.com" <
>> krosette at cov.com>, "robin at ipjustice.org" <robin at ipjustice.org>, "
>> william.drake at uzh.ch" <william.drake at uzh.ch>, "mllemineur at gmail.com" <
>> mllemineur at gmail.com>, 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' <
>> michele at blacknight.com>, "kdrazek at verisign.com" <kdrazek at verisign.com>, "
>> ceo at auda.org.au" <ceo at auda.org.au>
>> *Cc: *Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, Sally Costerton <
>> sally.costerton at icann.org>, Nick Tomasso <nick.tomasso at icann.org>,
>> "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king at icann.org>, Susie Johnson <
>> susie.johnson at icann.org>, Duncan Burns <duncan.burns at icann.org>, Brad
>> White <brad.white at icann.org>, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>,
>> Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org>, Baher Esmat <
>> baher.esmat at icann.org>, Tarek Kamel <tarek.kamel at icann.org>
>>
>> Dear SO-AC Leaders:
>>
>> Based on the various reactions several of you have provided regarding the
>> topic feedback and other information I shared on Monday, set forth below
>> are confirmed recommendations and some new information regarding the SO-AC
>> Hot Topic session currently scheduled for Monday morning in Buenos Aires.
>> We appreciate your understanding and patience as we re-boot this joint
>> community session. Please check the body of this note below to make sure
>> you?ve identified the additional information we?ll need from you soon.
>>
>> *Confirmed Topic:*
>>
>> We are moving forward with the following single topic ? ?Evolution of
>> Internet Governance - Montevideo Statement and ICANN?s Post-Bali/Pre-Brazil
>> Activities ? Methods and Objectives?.  A sub theme that session
>> participants may wish to incorporate into the discussion includes
>> ?preservation of the bottom-up policy development process.?
>>
>> *Confirmed Moderator:*
>>
>> Brad White has graciously agreed to serve as moderator for the session.
>> He and Rob are working on fleshing out the ?short? statement format
>> discussed during the preparation planning call and implementing the
>> ?tweeting? concept a number of you enjoyed brainstorming on during the
>> preparation call.  Red, green and even blue sheets of paper are on-order.
>>
>> *Community Representation On Stage:*
>>
>> A number of you made some good points about the challenges of having fair
>> community representation on stage.  Unfortunately it is a challenge to
>> balance representation with a manageable number of designated community
>> representatives on the stage.  We are going to go with the original
>> suggestion of a maximum two (2) reps each from each of the ASO, ccNSO, GAC,
>> SSAC and RSSAC communities, and include a maximum of four (4) participants
>> from the GNSO (one per Stakeholder Group) and a maximum of 5 from At-Large
>> (one per RALO).
>>
>> We understand the concerns about providing speaking opportunities for as
>> many people as possible, but Brad says even the number of 19 participants
>> will be hard to manage and, if we are going to include audience
>> participation, not everyone will likely have equal time to speak.  You will
>> not be penalized if you choose to designate fewer than the maximum number
>> of participants to your community.
>>
>> *Please provide the names of your designated speakers/participants as
>> soon as possible to Rob Hoggarth at **Robert.hoggarth at icann.org*<Robert.hoggarth at icann.org>*.
>>   Please, no later than 5pm (local time in Beunos Aires) next Friday, 15
>> November.*
>>
>> *Session Format:*
>>
>> Although initial introductions will likely be important for the audience
>> and the scribes, rather than commit to opening statements (even if we limit
>> a single statement from each SO and AC represented to only 5 minutes per
>> community we will use up 35 minutes before we even get to a discussion),
>> Brad suggests that we try to immediately jump into the discussion. I agree.
>>  The real value of the session will be in the public, real-time exchange of
>> ideas and opinions between and among your communities. The quicker that can
>> start, the more interesting and dynamic the session will be. We also hope
>> to have several Board members and Senior ICANN staff in the session room.
>> We will make sure they are identified, so there should be opportunities to
>> engage with them or ask questions during the session.
>>
>> Keeping the theme of short, crisp ?tweet-like? statements in mind, Rob
>> and I will work with Brad on developing a flow to the session that creates
>> the best opportunities for dialogue.  Brad and I believe it is important to
>> distinguish this session from the typical Thursday Public Forum format.
>>
>> Brad would like to meet with all the session participants near the front
>> of the room about *20 minutes before* the session begins to manage
>> expectations and to go over logistics of the session.
>>
>> *Potential Scheduling Issues:*
>>
>> As Jonathan pointed out in his recent email, there is potential
>> confusion/conflict between other sessions at the same time and other
>> sessions that will touch generally on Internet governance issues taking
>> place that day.  Unfortunately the schedule, as usual, is very tight and
>> there are limited options to move any sessions to avoid conflicts.  So far,
>> it just hasn?t been possible to find good alternatives for any of the other
>> scheduled sessions. We think the unique nature of this session and the
>> importance of the issue will provide some great audience interaction and a
>> good opportunity for dialogue.
>>
>>
>> As usual, your comments, thoughts and observations are welcomed.  Its not
>> too late to investigate further tweaks to our session preparations.
>>
>> Thank you for your support of the re-boot of this joint community effort.
>> We hope the session will be a great learning experience for all and that
>> we?ll identify ways to make it even better in Singapore.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> David
>>  --
>> David A. Olive
>>
>> *Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager,
>> ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul*
>>
>>
>> *Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *
>> *Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5*
>> *34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey *
>>
>> *Tel: +90.212.381.8727 <%2B90.212.381.8727> - Fax: +90.212.381.8731
>> <%2B90.212.381.8731> - Mobile: +1. 202.341.3611 <%2B1.%20202.341.3611>*
>> <1C3073A1-FE98-4F72-BD32-7973F4034728[58].png>
>>
>>
>>
>> <1C3073A1-FE98-4F72-BD32-7973F4034728[58].png>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131111/662c102d/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Mon Nov 11 18:20:43 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 11:20:43 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [EC-NCSG] Fwd: SO-AC Buenos Aires Hot Topic
	Update/Recommendations/Decisions
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdAxa7S6KM7e_cLuxfQB40xF5r60pU0PpSoN4rEfttxWUQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CEA2F12A.2A749%david.olive@icann.org>
	<4526BC1D-80C6-489E-B0D4-63FD8837C32F@ipjustice.org>
	<CAD3sNqF2ZsD9Wu2DZGOxscKq7-TCk9538by8iyyb98rVkYH-2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<67EF8956-17B8-4AC7-A6BB-1A96BADEDE16@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdAxa7S6KM7e_cLuxfQB40xF5r60pU0PpSoN4rEfttxWUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <12C451EB-B0B8-4EFC-9FF2-2FDBAD7A8AAE@ella.com>


+1

On 11 Nov 2013, at 10:49, Maria Farrell wrote:

> Hi Robin
> 
> I support your being the volunteer.
> 
> Thanks, Maria
> 
> 
> On 8 November 2013 19:13, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> No objection here either, Robin. Thanks for volunteering.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Nov 8, 2013, at 7:44 PM, marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> No objection. 
>> 
>> Marie-laure
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>> ICANN is organizing a "hot topics" session to take place during the Buenos Aires meeting on the issue of the Montevideo Statement  and pre-Brazil activities with a sub-theme of preservation of the bottom-up model for policy development (see below).  ICANN is suggesting a representative from each of the GNSO stakeholder groups to participate in the discussion in BA (along with other SO's / AC's) and I'd like to volunteer to participate in the discussion for NCSG, as preservation of ICANN's bottom-up model is a main focus of my own ICANN activities.  Any objections or other suggestions?  Should be an interesting discussion in BA.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>
>>> Subject: SO-AC Buenos Aires Hot Topic Update/Recommendations/Decisions
>>> Date: November 8, 2013 9:51:06 AM PST
>>> To: Heather Dryden <Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>, Patrik F?ltstr?m <paf at netnod.se>, "Jun Murai" <junsec at wide.ad.jp>, Lars-Johan Liman <liman at netnod.se>, Louis Lee <louie at louie.net>, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>, Byron Holland <byron.holland at cira.ca>, "Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com" <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, 'Tony Holmes' <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "krosette at cov.com" <krosette at cov.com>, "robin at ipjustice.org" <robin at ipjustice.org>, "william.drake at uzh.ch" <william.drake at uzh.ch>, "mllemineur at gmail.com" <mllemineur at gmail.com>, 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' <michele at blacknight.com>, "kdrazek at verisign.com" <kdrazek at verisign.com>, "ceo at auda.org.au" <ceo at auda.org.au>
>>> Cc: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton at icann.org>, Nick Tomasso <nick.tomasso at icann.org>, "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king at icann.org>, Susie Johnson <susie.johnson at icann.org>, Duncan Burns <duncan.burns at icann.org>, Brad White <brad.white at icann.org>, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org>, Baher Esmat <baher.esmat at icann.org>, Tarek Kamel <tarek.kamel at icann.org>
>>> 
>>> Dear SO-AC Leaders:
>>>  
>>> Based on the various reactions several of you have provided regarding the topic feedback and other information I shared on Monday, set forth below are confirmed recommendations and some new information regarding the SO-AC Hot Topic session currently scheduled for Monday morning in Buenos Aires.  We appreciate your understanding and patience as we re-boot this joint community session. Please check the body of this note below to make sure you?ve identified the additional information we?ll need from you soon.
>>>  
>>> Confirmed Topic:
>>>  
>>> We are moving forward with the following single topic ? ?Evolution of Internet Governance - Montevideo Statement and ICANN?s Post-Bali/Pre-Brazil Activities ? Methods and Objectives?.  A sub theme that session participants may wish to incorporate into the discussion includes ?preservation of the bottom-up policy development process.?
>>>  
>>> Confirmed Moderator:
>>>  
>>> Brad White has graciously agreed to serve as moderator for the session.  He and Rob are working on fleshing out the ?short? statement format discussed during the preparation planning call and implementing the ?tweeting? concept a number of you enjoyed brainstorming on during the preparation call.  Red, green and even blue sheets of paper are on-order.
>>>  
>>> Community Representation On Stage:
>>>  
>>> A number of you made some good points about the challenges of having fair community representation on stage.  Unfortunately it is a challenge to balance representation with a manageable number of designated community representatives on the stage.  We are going to go with the original suggestion of a maximum two (2) reps each from each of the ASO, ccNSO, GAC, SSAC and RSSAC communities, and include a maximum of four (4) participants from the GNSO (one per Stakeholder Group) and a maximum of 5 from At-Large (one per RALO).
>>>  
>>> We understand the concerns about providing speaking opportunities for as many people as possible, but Brad says even the number of 19 participants will be hard to manage and, if we are going to include audience participation, not everyone will likely have equal time to speak.  You will not be penalized if you choose to designate fewer than the maximum number of participants to your community.
>>>  
>>> Please provide the names of your designated speakers/participants as soon as possible to Rob Hoggarth at Robert.hoggarth at icann.org.   Please, no later than 5pm (local time in Beunos Aires) next Friday, 15 November.
>>>  
>>> Session Format:
>>>  
>>> Although initial introductions will likely be important for the audience and the scribes, rather than commit to opening statements (even if we limit a single statement from each SO and AC represented to only 5 minutes per community we will use up 35 minutes before we even get to a discussion), Brad suggests that we try to immediately jump into the discussion. I agree.  The real value of the session will be in the public, real-time exchange of ideas and opinions between and among your communities. The quicker that can start, the more interesting and dynamic the session will be. We also hope to have several Board members and Senior ICANN staff in the session room.  We will make sure they are identified, so there should be opportunities to engage with them or ask questions during the session.
>>>  
>>> Keeping the theme of short, crisp ?tweet-like? statements in mind, Rob and I will work with Brad on developing a flow to the session that creates the best opportunities for dialogue.  Brad and I believe it is important to distinguish this session from the typical Thursday Public Forum format.
>>>  
>>> Brad would like to meet with all the session participants near the front of the room about 20 minutes before the session begins to manage expectations and to go over logistics of the session.
>>>  
>>> Potential Scheduling Issues:
>>>  
>>> As Jonathan pointed out in his recent email, there is potential confusion/conflict between other sessions at the same time and other sessions that will touch generally on Internet governance issues taking place that day.  Unfortunately the schedule, as usual, is very tight and there are limited options to move any sessions to avoid conflicts.  So far, it just hasn?t been possible to find good alternatives for any of the other scheduled sessions. We think the unique nature of this session and the importance of the issue will provide some great audience interaction and a good opportunity for dialogue.
>>>  
>>>  
>>> As usual, your comments, thoughts and observations are welcomed.  Its not too late to investigate further tweaks to our session preparations.
>>>  
>>> Thank you for your support of the re-boot of this joint community effort. We hope the session will be a great learning experience for all and that we?ll identify ways to make it even better in Singapore.
>>>  
>>> Best regards, 
>>>  
>>> David
>>> --
>>> David A. Olive
>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support
>>> General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul
>>> 
>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>> Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5
>>> 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey 
>>> 
>>> Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1. 202.341.3611
>>> <1C3073A1-FE98-4F72-BD32-7973F4034728[58].png>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <1C3073A1-FE98-4F72-BD32-7973F4034728[58].png>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131111/6ad841fe/attachment.sig>


From william.drake  Mon Nov 11 19:38:14 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 18:38:14 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [EC-NCSG] Fwd: SO-AC Buenos Aires Hot Topic
	Update/Recommendations/Decisions
In-Reply-To: <12C451EB-B0B8-4EFC-9FF2-2FDBAD7A8AAE@ella.com>
References: <CEA2F12A.2A749%david.olive@icann.org>
	<4526BC1D-80C6-489E-B0D4-63FD8837C32F@ipjustice.org>
	<CAD3sNqF2ZsD9Wu2DZGOxscKq7-TCk9538by8iyyb98rVkYH-2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<67EF8956-17B8-4AC7-A6BB-1A96BADEDE16@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdAxa7S6KM7e_cLuxfQB40xF5r60pU0PpSoN4rEfttxWUQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<12C451EB-B0B8-4EFC-9FF2-2FDBAD7A8AAE@ella.com>
Message-ID: <D4DFB46D-BEBA-4004-A3F7-852264DF1289@uzh.ch>

+1, with the small observation that preservation of ICANN's bottom-up model is not a main focus of the Brazil process.

Best

Bill

On Nov 11, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

> 
> +1
> 
> On 11 Nov 2013, at 10:49, Maria Farrell wrote:
> 
>> Hi Robin
>> 
>> I support your being the volunteer.
>> 
>> Thanks, Maria
>> 
>> 
>> On 8 November 2013 19:13, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> No objection here either, Robin. Thanks for volunteering.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Nov 8, 2013, at 7:44 PM, marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> No objection. 
>>> 
>>> Marie-laure
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>>> ICANN is organizing a "hot topics" session to take place during the Buenos Aires meeting on the issue of the Montevideo Statement  and pre-Brazil activities with a sub-theme of preservation of the bottom-up model for policy development (see below).  ICANN is suggesting a representative from each of the GNSO stakeholder groups to participate in the discussion in BA (along with other SO's / AC's) and I'd like to volunteer to participate in the discussion for NCSG, as preservation of ICANN's bottom-up model is a main focus of my own ICANN activities.  Any objections or other suggestions?  Should be an interesting discussion in BA.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>>> From: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>
>>>> Subject: SO-AC Buenos Aires Hot Topic Update/Recommendations/Decisions
>>>> Date: November 8, 2013 9:51:06 AM PST
>>>> To: Heather Dryden <Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>, Patrik F?ltstr?m <paf at netnod.se>, "Jun Murai" <junsec at wide.ad.jp>, Lars-Johan Liman <liman at netnod.se>, Louis Lee <louie at louie.net>, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>, Byron Holland <byron.holland at cira.ca>, "Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com" <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, 'Tony Holmes' <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "krosette at cov.com" <krosette at cov.com>, "robin at ipjustice.org" <robin at ipjustice.org>, "william.drake at uzh.ch" <william.drake at uzh.ch>, "mllemineur at gmail.com" <mllemineur at gmail.com>, 'Michele Neylon - Blacknight' <michele at blacknight.com>, "kdrazek at verisign.com" <kdrazek at verisign.com>, "ceo at auda.org.au" <ceo at auda.org.au>
>>>> Cc: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, Sally Costerton <sally.costerton at icann.org>, Nick Tomasso <nick.tomasso at icann.org>, "Tanzanica S. King" <tanzanica.king at icann.org>, Susie Johnson <susie.johnson at icann.org>, Duncan Burns <duncan.burns at icann.org>, Brad White <brad.white at icann.org>, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson at icann.org>, Theresa Swinehart <theresa.swinehart at icann.org>, Baher Esmat <baher.esmat at icann.org>, Tarek Kamel <tarek.kamel at icann.org>
>>>> 
>>>> Dear SO-AC Leaders:
>>>> 
>>>> Based on the various reactions several of you have provided regarding the topic feedback and other information I shared on Monday, set forth below are confirmed recommendations and some new information regarding the SO-AC Hot Topic session currently scheduled for Monday morning in Buenos Aires.  We appreciate your understanding and patience as we re-boot this joint community session. Please check the body of this note below to make sure you?ve identified the additional information we?ll need from you soon.
>>>> 
>>>> Confirmed Topic:
>>>> 
>>>> We are moving forward with the following single topic ? ?Evolution of Internet Governance - Montevideo Statement and ICANN?s Post-Bali/Pre-Brazil Activities ? Methods and Objectives?.  A sub theme that session participants may wish to incorporate into the discussion includes ?preservation of the bottom-up policy development process.?
>>>> 
>>>> Confirmed Moderator:
>>>> 
>>>> Brad White has graciously agreed to serve as moderator for the session.  He and Rob are working on fleshing out the ?short? statement format discussed during the preparation planning call and implementing the ?tweeting? concept a number of you enjoyed brainstorming on during the preparation call.  Red, green and even blue sheets of paper are on-order.
>>>> 
>>>> Community Representation On Stage:
>>>> 
>>>> A number of you made some good points about the challenges of having fair community representation on stage.  Unfortunately it is a challenge to balance representation with a manageable number of designated community representatives on the stage.  We are going to go with the original suggestion of a maximum two (2) reps each from each of the ASO, ccNSO, GAC, SSAC and RSSAC communities, and include a maximum of four (4) participants from the GNSO (one per Stakeholder Group) and a maximum of 5 from At-Large (one per RALO).
>>>> 
>>>> We understand the concerns about providing speaking opportunities for as many people as possible, but Brad says even the number of 19 participants will be hard to manage and, if we are going to include audience participation, not everyone will likely have equal time to speak.  You will not be penalized if you choose to designate fewer than the maximum number of participants to your community.
>>>> 
>>>> Please provide the names of your designated speakers/participants as soon as possible to Rob Hoggarth at Robert.hoggarth at icann.org.   Please, no later than 5pm (local time in Beunos Aires) next Friday, 15 November.
>>>> 
>>>> Session Format:
>>>> 
>>>> Although initial introductions will likely be important for the audience and the scribes, rather than commit to opening statements (even if we limit a single statement from each SO and AC represented to only 5 minutes per community we will use up 35 minutes before we even get to a discussion), Brad suggests that we try to immediately jump into the discussion. I agree.  The real value of the session will be in the public, real-time exchange of ideas and opinions between and among your communities. The quicker that can start, the more interesting and dynamic the session will be. We also hope to have several Board members and Senior ICANN staff in the session room.  We will make sure they are identified, so there should be opportunities to engage with them or ask questions during the session.
>>>> 
>>>> Keeping the theme of short, crisp ?tweet-like? statements in mind, Rob and I will work with Brad on developing a flow to the session that creates the best opportunities for dialogue.  Brad and I believe it is important to distinguish this session from the typical Thursday Public Forum format.
>>>> 
>>>> Brad would like to meet with all the session participants near the front of the room about 20 minutes before the session begins to manage expectations and to go over logistics of the session.
>>>> 
>>>> Potential Scheduling Issues:
>>>> 
>>>> As Jonathan pointed out in his recent email, there is potential confusion/conflict between other sessions at the same time and other sessions that will touch generally on Internet governance issues taking place that day.  Unfortunately the schedule, as usual, is very tight and there are limited options to move any sessions to avoid conflicts.  So far, it just hasn?t been possible to find good alternatives for any of the other scheduled sessions. We think the unique nature of this session and the importance of the issue will provide some great audience interaction and a good opportunity for dialogue.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> As usual, your comments, thoughts and observations are welcomed.  Its not too late to investigate further tweaks to our session preparations.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you for your support of the re-boot of this joint community effort. We hope the session will be a great learning experience for all and that we?ll identify ways to make it even better in Singapore.
>>>> 
>>>> Best regards, 
>>>> 
>>>> David
>>>> --
>>>> David A. Olive
>>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support
>>>> General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul
>>>> 
>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>>> Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5
>>>> 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey 
>>>> 
>>>> Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1. 202.341.3611
>>>> <1C3073A1-FE98-4F72-BD32-7973F4034728[58].png>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> <1C3073A1-FE98-4F72-BD32-7973F4034728[58].png>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> EC-NCSG mailing list
>>> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131111/1f8adb06/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Tue Nov 12 19:01:25 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 09:01:25 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse
	Study
In-Reply-To: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>
References: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <62CEE736-8214-4466-B5AB-21CCB2AE8836@ipjustice.org>

Yes, let's endorse it as the Policy Committee statement.  Any other thoughts, support, suggestions for improvements, etc.?  Time is short.

Thanks very much for your work on this statement, Amr.

Best,
Robin


On Nov 8, 2013, at 5:05 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I?ve taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but we have until November 13th to submit a statement during the reply period. At this point, I would like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the policy committee are willing to endorse this statement, and whether or not there are any suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.
> 
> I?ve drafted the statement on a Google doc, which you can find here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> For more on the study itself, check this link: https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-en.htm
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131112/6552a726/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131112/6552a726/attachment.sig>


From aelsadr  Tue Nov 12 19:10:17 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 18:10:17 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse
	Study
In-Reply-To: <62CEE736-8214-4466-B5AB-21CCB2AE8836@ipjustice.org>
References: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>
	<62CEE736-8214-4466-B5AB-21CCB2AE8836@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <EE754E04-0752-4E9C-ACE1-612CE57271B0@egyptig.org>

Thanks. In a couple of hours I should have an updated draft incorporating some terrific feedback I received from Kathy. I?ll share it with you all as soon as I get it done.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Nov 12, 2013, at 6:01 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Yes, let's endorse it as the Policy Committee statement.  Any other thoughts, support, suggestions for improvements, etc.?  Time is short.
> 
> Thanks very much for your work on this statement, Amr.
> 
> Best,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Nov 8, 2013, at 5:05 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I?ve taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but we have until November 13th to submit a statement during the reply period. At this point, I would like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the policy committee are willing to endorse this statement, and whether or not there are any suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.
>> 
>> I?ve drafted the statement on a Google doc, which you can find here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
>> 
>> For more on the study itself, check this link: https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-en.htm
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131112/669e59cd/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Nov 12 22:44:43 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 21:44:43 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse
	Study
In-Reply-To: <EE754E04-0752-4E9C-ACE1-612CE57271B0@egyptig.org>
References: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>
	<62CEE736-8214-4466-B5AB-21CCB2AE8836@ipjustice.org>
	<EE754E04-0752-4E9C-ACE1-612CE57271B0@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <2B082C84-E377-40EA-9EBC-BA9CA0663B65@egyptig.org>

Hello again,

I just finished updating the draft statement. I feel a lot better about it now, but am waiting to hear from Kathy to make sure her concerns are reflected well. Once I get her approval, I would like to send a note out to the full list.

Since time is so tight right now, I wonder whether getting NCSG endorsement is still possible??

Thanks?, and really sorry about getting this to the PC so late.

Amr

On Nov 12, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Thanks. In a couple of hours I should have an updated draft incorporating some terrific feedback I received from Kathy. I?ll share it with you all as soon as I get it done.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Nov 12, 2013, at 6:01 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> 
>> Yes, let's endorse it as the Policy Committee statement.  Any other thoughts, support, suggestions for improvements, etc.?  Time is short.
>> 
>> Thanks very much for your work on this statement, Amr.
>> 
>> Best,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 8, 2013, at 5:05 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I?ve taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but we have until November 13th to submit a statement during the reply period. At this point, I would like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the policy committee are willing to endorse this statement, and whether or not there are any suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.
>>> 
>>> I?ve drafted the statement on a Google doc, which you can find here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
>>> 
>>> For more on the study itself, check this link: https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-en.htm
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131112/b4d69d95/attachment.html>


From wendy  Tue Nov 12 23:11:21 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 16:11:21 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse
	Study
In-Reply-To: <2B082C84-E377-40EA-9EBC-BA9CA0663B65@egyptig.org>
References: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>
	<62CEE736-8214-4466-B5AB-21CCB2AE8836@ipjustice.org>
	<EE754E04-0752-4E9C-ACE1-612CE57271B0@egyptig.org>
	<2B082C84-E377-40EA-9EBC-BA9CA0663B65@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <20131112211121.GA31766@mail.seltzer.org>

I support NCSG's sending or endorsing this statement.

--Wendy (re-sending from the subscribed address)


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:44:43PM +0100, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>Hello again,
>
>I just finished updating the draft statement. I feel a lot better about it now, but am waiting to hear from Kathy to make sure her concerns are reflected well. Once I get her approval, I would like to send a note out to the full list.
>
>Since time is so tight right now, I wonder whether getting NCSG endorsement is still possible??
>
>Thanks?, and really sorry about getting this to the PC so late.
>
>Amr
>
>On Nov 12, 2013, at 6:10 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks. In a couple of hours I should have an updated draft incorporating some terrific feedback I received from Kathy. I?ll share it with you all as soon as I get it done.
>> 
>> Thanks again.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 6:01 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes, let's endorse it as the Policy Committee statement.  Any other thoughts, support, suggestions for improvements, etc.?  Time is short.
>>> 
>>> Thanks very much for your work on this statement, Amr.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Nov 8, 2013, at 5:05 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I?ve taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but we have until November 13th to submit a statement during the reply period. At this point, I would like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the policy committee are willing to endorse this statement, and whether or not there are any suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.
>>>> 
>>>> I?ve drafted the statement on a Google doc, which you can find here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> 
>>>> For more on the study itself, check this link: https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-en.htm
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>

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


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



From avri  Wed Nov 13 00:50:24 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 19:50:24 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy
	Abuse Study
In-Reply-To: <8F1C6E4B-4AE8-4E5F-8CB7-77FB9F2BDA09@egyptig.org>
References: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>
	<CACAaNxg=oV0vQ-eVGUAtpJUHX8b0tZp_m1uxy5OtARXLuov1aQ@mail.gmail.com>,
	<EA718EFA-D07D-43F0-9C4F-C7DD381B1DF6@egyptig.org>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2548B22@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F1C6E4B-4AE8-4E5F-8CB7-77FB9F2BDA09@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <678CD338-3AAD-427A-A502-DD087A74CBFD@ella.com>

Hi,

At this point we have 24 hours.

Hi,

About 24 hrs left.

Looking for endorsements from the members of this group for putting this forward as the NCSG position

I have seen a few endorsements, but none from the NPOC members in the group (unless I missed them).  

And there are Milton's comments.

I will continue to monitor.  


avri

On 12 Nov 2013, at 18:49, Amr Elsadr wrote:

> Thanks for looking over it, Milton. I initially didn?t open editing rights to keep track of changes, but have changed that so that anyone can edit it now. I will insert some responses to your comments, and if you have the time to look over them and give more feedback, I?d really appreciate it.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:32 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:
> 
>> Amr:
>> 
>> I have looked over the comments and would make some suggestions. I would edit it directly but I am not authorized on this doc so I have inserted some comments
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on behalf of Amr Elsadr [aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG]
>> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 8:01 AM
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study
>> 
>> Thanks McTim,
>> 
>> I?ve replaced ?more study of Whois privacy and proxy abuse should be conducted? with ?more Whois privacy and proxy abuse research should be conducted? in the last paragraph. I hope that?s what you were referring to.
>> 
>> Thanks again.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Nov 11, 2013, at 1:27 PM, McTim <dogwallah at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I?ve taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN Whois Privacy & Proxy
>>>> Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but we have until November
>>>> 13th to submit a statement during the reply period. At this point, I would
>>>> like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the policy committee are
>>>> willing to endorse this statement, and whether or not there are any
>>>> suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.
>>>> 
>>>> I?ve drafted the statement on a Google doc, which you can find here:
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Instead of "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse should be conducted"
>>> 
>>> I think you need to add the word "research" so it becomes:
>>> 
>>> "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research should be conducted"
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Then it is fine by me.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> McTim
>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131112/f520f7fb/attachment.sig>


From aelsadr  Wed Nov 13 01:03:58 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 00:03:58 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy
	Abuse Study
In-Reply-To: <678CD338-3AAD-427A-A502-DD087A74CBFD@ella.com>
References: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>
	<CACAaNxg=oV0vQ-eVGUAtpJUHX8b0tZp_m1uxy5OtARXLuov1aQ@mail.gmail.com>,
	<EA718EFA-D07D-43F0-9C4F-C7DD381B1DF6@egyptig.org>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2548B22@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F1C6E4B-4AE8-4E5F-8CB7-77FB9F2BDA09@egyptig.org>
	<678CD338-3AAD-427A-A502-DD087A74CBFD@ella.com>
Message-ID: <6697729D-E5AC-45F0-B442-80794D6C48E1@egyptig.org>

Thanks Avri. It? midnight here, so I?ll have to continue following this up tomorrow. As far as I can tell?, Kathy and I have edited the statement along the lines of Milton?s suggestions. Thank you so much for going over it, Milton.

I would like to know, should I send the comment in as an individual if the PC does not endorse it before the deadline? I would have to change all the references made to the NCSG in that case.

Again?, I really do apologise about drafting this so late before the deadline. I should have had it ready ages ago.

Thanks again to all.

Amr

On Nov 12, 2013, at 11:50 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> At this point we have 24 hours.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> About 24 hrs left.
> 
> Looking for endorsements from the members of this group for putting this forward as the NCSG position
> 
> I have seen a few endorsements, but none from the NPOC members in the group (unless I missed them).  
> 
> And there are Milton's comments.
> 
> I will continue to monitor.  
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> On 12 Nov 2013, at 18:49, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for looking over it, Milton. I initially didn?t open editing rights to keep track of changes, but have changed that so that anyone can edit it now. I will insert some responses to your comments, and if you have the time to look over them and give more feedback, I?d really appreciate it.
>> 
>> Thanks again.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:32 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:
>> 
>>> Amr:
>>> 
>>> I have looked over the comments and would make some suggestions. I would edit it directly but I am not authorized on this doc so I have inserted some comments
>>> 
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on behalf of Amr Elsadr [aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG]
>>> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 8:01 AM
>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study
>>> 
>>> Thanks McTim,
>>> 
>>> I?ve replaced ?more study of Whois privacy and proxy abuse should be conducted? with ?more Whois privacy and proxy abuse research should be conducted? in the last paragraph. I hope that?s what you were referring to.
>>> 
>>> Thanks again.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> On Nov 11, 2013, at 1:27 PM, McTim <dogwallah at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I?ve taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN Whois Privacy & Proxy
>>>>> Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but we have until November
>>>>> 13th to submit a statement during the reply period. At this point, I would
>>>>> like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the policy committee are
>>>>> willing to endorse this statement, and whether or not there are any
>>>>> suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I?ve drafted the statement on a Google doc, which you can find here:
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Instead of "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse should be conducted"
>>>> 
>>>> I think you need to add the word "research" so it becomes:
>>>> 
>>>> "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research should be conducted"
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Then it is fine by me.
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> McTim
>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From joy  Wed Nov 13 01:20:17 2013
From: joy (joy)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:20:17 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy
 Abuse Study
In-Reply-To: <6697729D-E5AC-45F0-B442-80794D6C48E1@egyptig.org>
References: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>	<CACAaNxg=oV0vQ-eVGUAtpJUHX8b0tZp_m1uxy5OtARXLuov1aQ@mail.gmail.com>,
	<EA718EFA-D07D-43F0-9C4F-C7DD381B1DF6@egyptig.org>	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2548B22@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>	<8F1C6E4B-4AE8-4E5F-8CB7-77FB9F2BDA09@egyptig.org>	<678CD338-3AAD-427A-A502-DD087A74CBFD@ella.com>
	<6697729D-E5AC-45F0-B442-80794D6C48E1@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5282B7B1.1090200@apc.org>

thanks - great work Amr and others - i have added some brief
comments/suggestions which you can look at tomorrow
cheers
Joy
On 13/11/2013 12:03 p.m., Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Thanks Avri. It? midnight here, so I?ll have to continue following this up tomorrow. As far as I can tell?, Kathy and I have edited the statement along the lines of Milton?s suggestions. Thank you so much for going over it, Milton.
>
> I would like to know, should I send the comment in as an individual if the PC does not endorse it before the deadline? I would have to change all the references made to the NCSG in that case.
>
> Again?, I really do apologise about drafting this so late before the deadline. I should have had it ready ages ago.
>
> Thanks again to all.
>
> Amr
>
> On Nov 12, 2013, at 11:50 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> At this point we have 24 hours.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> About 24 hrs left.
>>
>> Looking for endorsements from the members of this group for putting this forward as the NCSG position
>>
>> I have seen a few endorsements, but none from the NPOC members in the group (unless I missed them).  
>>
>> And there are Milton's comments.
>>
>> I will continue to monitor.  
>>
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 12 Nov 2013, at 18:49, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for looking over it, Milton. I initially didn?t open editing rights to keep track of changes, but have changed that so that anyone can edit it now. I will insert some responses to your comments, and if you have the time to look over them and give more feedback, I?d really appreciate it.
>>>
>>> Thanks again.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:32 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Amr:
>>>>
>>>> I have looked over the comments and would make some suggestions. I would edit it directly but I am not authorized on this doc so I have inserted some comments
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on behalf of Amr Elsadr [aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG]
>>>> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 8:01 AM
>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study
>>>>
>>>> Thanks McTim,
>>>>
>>>> I?ve replaced ?more study of Whois privacy and proxy abuse should be conducted? with ?more Whois privacy and proxy abuse research should be conducted? in the last paragraph. I hope that?s what you were referring to.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 11, 2013, at 1:27 PM, McTim <dogwallah at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I?ve taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN Whois Privacy & Proxy
>>>>>> Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but we have until November
>>>>>> 13th to submit a statement during the reply period. At this point, I would
>>>>>> like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the policy committee are
>>>>>> willing to endorse this statement, and whether or not there are any
>>>>>> suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I?ve drafted the statement on a Google doc, which you can find here:
>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse should be conducted"
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you need to add the word "research" so it becomes:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research should be conducted"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then it is fine by me.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> McTim
>>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>>>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>




From robin  Wed Nov 13 04:07:57 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 18:07:57 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Council vice chair nomination
References: <E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F622403A7FD@LAEX02.MSK.local>
Message-ID: <DA776BA1-9EFD-4F1A-B1AB-524A64F89DC1@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>
> Subject: RE: Council vice chair nomination 
> Date: November 12, 2013 5:22:59 PM PST
> To: 'David Cake' <dave at difference.com.au>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
> Cc: "bc-secretariat @icann" <bc-secretariat at icann.org>, P0 Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com>, "Anthony Harris" <harris at cabase.org.ar>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, 'Robin Gross' <robin at ipjustice.org>
> 
> David, 
> 
> Thank you for your time in participating (at an early morning hour!) in the conference call yesterday with CSG executive committee and a few others regarding your candidacy to be vice chair of the GNSO council.  
> 
> After discussion with my CSG colleagues I am pleased to advise you that CSG will support your candidacy and the GNSO council reps of our constituencies will be instructed to vote accordingly. 
> 
> I copy Robin Gross to close the loop with NCSG leadership.   
> 
> Thanks again and best wishes for a successful term as Vice Chair.  
> 
> Steve Metalitz, IPC rep to CSG Executive Committee 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131112/6a17f92f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131112/6a17f92f/attachment.sig>


From mllemineur  Wed Nov 13 04:26:13 2013
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 20:26:13 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Council vice chair nomination
In-Reply-To: <DA776BA1-9EFD-4F1A-B1AB-524A64F89DC1@ipjustice.org>
References: <E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F622403A7FD@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<DA776BA1-9EFD-4F1A-B1AB-524A64F89DC1@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqFKtv3FjTJrXgnXobOSmZO7=r3psGJJfsXpuEoSEftuBA@mail.gmail.com>

Good news!

Best,

Marie-laure


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *"Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>
> *Subject: **RE: Council vice chair nomination *
> *Date: *November 12, 2013 5:22:59 PM PST
> *To: *'David Cake' <dave at difference.com.au>, Marilyn Cade <
> marilynscade at hotmail.com>
> *Cc: *"bc-secretariat @icann" <bc-secretariat at icann.org>, P0 Elisa Cooper
> <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com>,
> "Anthony Harris" <harris at cabase.org.ar>, Tony Holmes <
> tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, 'Robin Gross' <robin at ipjustice.org>
>
> David,
>
> Thank you for your time in participating (at an early morning hour!) in
> the conference call yesterday with CSG executive committee and a few others
> regarding your candidacy to be vice chair of the GNSO council.
>
> After discussion with my CSG colleagues I am pleased to advise you that
> CSG will support your candidacy and the GNSO council reps of our
> constituencies will be instructed to vote accordingly.
>
> I copy Robin Gross to close the loop with NCSG leadership.
>
> Thanks again and best wishes for a successful term as Vice Chair.
>
> Steve Metalitz, IPC rep to CSG Executive Committee
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131112/a0a6945d/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Wed Nov 13 10:11:53 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:11:53 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council vice chair nomination
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqFKtv3FjTJrXgnXobOSmZO7=r3psGJJfsXpuEoSEftuBA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F622403A7FD@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<DA776BA1-9EFD-4F1A-B1AB-524A64F89DC1@ipjustice.org>
	<CAD3sNqFKtv3FjTJrXgnXobOSmZO7=r3psGJJfsXpuEoSEftuBA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A3AAAE82-C5CA-4405-9263-E7A49FA5E9E7@uzh.ch>

Very happy to hear there were no problems this time around, congrats David!

Bill

On Nov 13, 2013, at 3:26 AM, marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com> wrote:

> Good news! 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Marie-laure
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:07 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>
>> Subject: RE: Council vice chair nomination 
>> Date: November 12, 2013 5:22:59 PM PST
>> To: 'David Cake' <dave at difference.com.au>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>
>> Cc: "bc-secretariat @icann" <bc-secretariat at icann.org>, P0 Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com>, "Anthony Harris" <harris at cabase.org.ar>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, 'Robin Gross' <robin at ipjustice.org>
>> 
>> David, 
>> 
>> Thank you for your time in participating (at an early morning hour!) in the conference call yesterday with CSG executive committee and a few others regarding your candidacy to be vice chair of the GNSO council.  
>> 
>> After discussion with my CSG colleagues I am pleased to advise you that CSG will support your candidacy and the GNSO council reps of our constituencies will be instructed to vote accordingly. 
>> 
>> I copy Robin Gross to close the loop with NCSG leadership.   
>> 
>> Thanks again and best wishes for a successful term as Vice Chair.  
>> 
>> Steve Metalitz, IPC rep to CSG Executive Committee 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131113/f10ee6aa/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Wed Nov 13 10:33:11 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:33:11 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy
	Abuse Study
In-Reply-To: <678CD338-3AAD-427A-A502-DD087A74CBFD@ella.com>
References: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>
	<CACAaNxg=oV0vQ-eVGUAtpJUHX8b0tZp_m1uxy5OtARXLuov1aQ@mail.gmail.com>,
	<EA718EFA-D07D-43F0-9C4F-C7DD381B1DF6@egyptig.org>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2548B22@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F1C6E4B-4AE8-4E5F-8CB7-77FB9F2BDA09@egyptig.org>
	<678CD338-3AAD-427A-A502-DD087A74CBFD@ella.com>
Message-ID: <96A3364C-2E84-4EBF-AF46-64FB6A2FA491@uzh.ch>

I have no vote, but support.

BD

On Nov 12, 2013, at 11:50 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> At this point we have 24 hours.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> About 24 hrs left.
> 
> Looking for endorsements from the members of this group for putting this forward as the NCSG position
> 
> I have seen a few endorsements, but none from the NPOC members in the group (unless I missed them).  
> 
> And there are Milton's comments.
> 
> I will continue to monitor.  
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> On 12 Nov 2013, at 18:49, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> 
>> Thanks for looking over it, Milton. I initially didn?t open editing rights to keep track of changes, but have changed that so that anyone can edit it now. I will insert some responses to your comments, and if you have the time to look over them and give more feedback, I?d really appreciate it.
>> 
>> Thanks again.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:32 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:
>> 
>>> Amr:
>>> 
>>> I have looked over the comments and would make some suggestions. I would edit it directly but I am not authorized on this doc so I have inserted some comments
>>> 
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on behalf of Amr Elsadr [aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG]
>>> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 8:01 AM
>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study
>>> 
>>> Thanks McTim,
>>> 
>>> I?ve replaced ?more study of Whois privacy and proxy abuse should be conducted? with ?more Whois privacy and proxy abuse research should be conducted? in the last paragraph. I hope that?s what you were referring to.
>>> 
>>> Thanks again.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> On Nov 11, 2013, at 1:27 PM, McTim <dogwallah at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I?ve taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN Whois Privacy & Proxy
>>>>> Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but we have until November
>>>>> 13th to submit a statement during the reply period. At this point, I would
>>>>> like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the policy committee are
>>>>> willing to endorse this statement, and whether or not there are any
>>>>> suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I?ve drafted the statement on a Google doc, which you can find here:
>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Instead of "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse should be conducted"
>>>> 
>>>> I think you need to add the word "research" so it becomes:
>>>> 
>>>> "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research should be conducted"
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Then it is fine by me.
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> McTim
>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131113/b15ee416/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Nov 13 12:05:04 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 11:05:04 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council vice chair nomination
In-Reply-To: <A3AAAE82-C5CA-4405-9263-E7A49FA5E9E7@uzh.ch>
References: <E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F622403A7FD@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<DA776BA1-9EFD-4F1A-B1AB-524A64F89DC1@ipjustice.org>
	<CAD3sNqFKtv3FjTJrXgnXobOSmZO7=r3psGJJfsXpuEoSEftuBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3AAAE82-C5CA-4405-9263-E7A49FA5E9E7@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <03048D59-DEBA-42D5-B53B-5BF20DDC6F97@egyptig.org>

Hi

On Nov 13, 2013, at 9:11 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Very happy to hear there were no problems this time around, congrats David!
> 
> Bill

Same here. I appreciate you putting yourself through it all. :) Good luck as VC.

Amr


From aelsadr  Wed Nov 13 13:35:41 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:35:41 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy
	& Proxy Abuse Study
In-Reply-To: <8F1C6E4B-4AE8-4E5F-8CB7-77FB9F2BDA09@egyptig.org>
References: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>
	<CACAaNxg=oV0vQ-eVGUAtpJUHX8b0tZp_m1uxy5OtARXLuov1aQ@mail.gmail.com>,
	<EA718EFA-D07D-43F0-9C4F-C7DD381B1DF6@egyptig.org>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2548B22@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F1C6E4B-4AE8-4E5F-8CB7-77FB9F2BDA09@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <2083E242-1076-4A0F-8838-4EC54FF47A2A@egyptig.org>

Hi,

This statement has changed substantially over the past 24 hours with what I believe to be a lot of great input from different NCSGers. There is roughly just a little over 12 hours left before the deadline to submit, so this is a last call to take a look at the statement if you can.

The statement can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit

and more on the study can be found here: https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-en.htm

Thanks all.

Amr

On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:49 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Thanks for looking over it, Milton. I initially didn?t open editing rights to keep track of changes, but have changed that so that anyone can edit it now. I will insert some responses to your comments, and if you have the time to look over them and give more feedback, I?d really appreciate it.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:32 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:
> 
>> Amr:
>> 
>> I have looked over the comments and would make some suggestions. I would edit it directly but I am not authorized on this doc so I have inserted some comments
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on behalf of Amr Elsadr [aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG]
>> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 8:01 AM
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study
>> 
>> Thanks McTim,
>> 
>> I?ve replaced ?more study of Whois privacy and proxy abuse should be conducted? with ?more Whois privacy and proxy abuse research should be conducted? in the last paragraph. I hope that?s what you were referring to.
>> 
>> Thanks again.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Nov 11, 2013, at 1:27 PM, McTim <dogwallah at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I?ve taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN Whois Privacy & Proxy
>>>> Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but we have until November
>>>> 13th to submit a statement during the reply period. At this point, I would
>>>> like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the policy committee are
>>>> willing to endorse this statement, and whether or not there are any
>>>> suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.
>>>> 
>>>> I?ve drafted the statement on a Google doc, which you can find here:
>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Instead of "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse should be conducted"
>>> 
>>> I think you need to add the word "research" so it becomes:
>>> 
>>> "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research should be conducted"
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Then it is fine by me.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> McTim
>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel




From maria.farrell  Wed Nov 13 14:30:55 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:30:55 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy
 & Proxy Abuse Study
In-Reply-To: <2083E242-1076-4A0F-8838-4EC54FF47A2A@egyptig.org>
References: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>
	<CACAaNxg=oV0vQ-eVGUAtpJUHX8b0tZp_m1uxy5OtARXLuov1aQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<EA718EFA-D07D-43F0-9C4F-C7DD381B1DF6@egyptig.org>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2548B22@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F1C6E4B-4AE8-4E5F-8CB7-77FB9F2BDA09@egyptig.org>
	<2083E242-1076-4A0F-8838-4EC54FF47A2A@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdBhFqY=Fx4z3Pq8rWyp3Y4m0Q_eouHsaO+QYnyXimat+w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

Just checking, is the statement marked in yellow; "However, the methodology
used here means that these research findings are fundamentally flawed, show
bias and are therefore not a safe basis for policy development. "


Being deleted in favour of the one in bold below? I would support this
deletion and substitution. While no doubt the study is flawed for the
reasons we all know this stuff is more or less impossible to study
comprehensively and fairly, Richard Clayton does a lot of good privacy and
crypto stuff for ORG and I wouldn't like to criticise him as harshly.

While we appreciate the efforts of the research team led by Dr. Richard
Clayton on the work done in an effort of producing the final report, we
respectfully but strongly submit that the results of this study do not
provide the necessary insight to support policy decisions at this time, and
require more Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research being
conducted.


On 13 November 2013 11:35, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This statement has changed substantially over the past 24 hours with what
> I believe to be a lot of great input from different NCSGers. There is
> roughly just a little over 12 hours left before the deadline to submit, so
> this is a last call to take a look at the statement if you can.
>
> The statement can be found here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit
>
> and more on the study can be found here:
> https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-en.htm
>
> Thanks all.
>
> Amr
>
> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:49 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for looking over it, Milton. I initially didn?t open editing
> rights to keep track of changes, but have changed that so that anyone can
> edit it now. I will insert some responses to your comments, and if you have
> the time to look over them and give more feedback, I?d really appreciate it.
> >
> > Thanks again.
> >
> > Amr
> >
> > On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:32 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:
> >
> >> Amr:
> >>
> >> I have looked over the comments and would make some suggestions. I
> would edit it directly but I am not authorized on this doc so I have
> inserted some comments
> >>
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on behalf of Amr
> Elsadr [aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG]
> >> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 8:01 AM
> >> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy &
> Proxy Abuse Study
> >>
> >> Thanks McTim,
> >>
> >> I?ve replaced ?more study of Whois privacy and proxy abuse should be
> conducted? with ?more Whois privacy and proxy abuse research should be
> conducted? in the last paragraph. I hope that?s what you were referring to.
> >>
> >> Thanks again.
> >>
> >> Amr
> >>
> >> On Nov 11, 2013, at 1:27 PM, McTim <dogwallah at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> I?ve taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN Whois Privacy &
> Proxy
> >>>> Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but we have until
> November
> >>>> 13th to submit a statement during the reply period. At this point, I
> would
> >>>> like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the policy committee
> are
> >>>> willing to endorse this statement, and whether or not there are any
> >>>> suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.
> >>>>
> >>>> I?ve drafted the statement on a Google doc, which you can find here:
> >>>>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Instead of "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse should be conducted"
> >>>
> >>> I think you need to add the word "research" so it becomes:
> >>>
> >>> "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research should be conducted"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Then it is fine by me.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> McTim
> >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> >>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131113/171899d2/attachment.html>


From dave  Wed Nov 13 14:51:08 2013
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:51:08 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Council vice chair nomination
In-Reply-To: <03048D59-DEBA-42D5-B53B-5BF20DDC6F97@egyptig.org>
References: <E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F622403A7FD@LAEX02.MSK.local>
	<DA776BA1-9EFD-4F1A-B1AB-524A64F89DC1@ipjustice.org>
	<CAD3sNqFKtv3FjTJrXgnXobOSmZO7=r3psGJJfsXpuEoSEftuBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<A3AAAE82-C5CA-4405-9263-E7A49FA5E9E7@uzh.ch>
	<03048D59-DEBA-42D5-B53B-5BF20DDC6F97@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <886BEE37-FC56-4BFC-BA6B-D6F0941782D7@difference.com.au>

I'm glad to hear that being woken up at 7am to talk to the CSG was worth it. 

See you all in BA, and thanks for everyones confidence in me. 
Cheers

	David


On 13 Nov 2013, at 6:05 pm, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 9:11 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> 
>> Very happy to hear there were no problems this time around, congrats David!
>> 
>> Bill
> 
> Same here. I appreciate you putting yourself through it all. :) Good luck as VC.
> 
> Amr
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Wed Nov 13 19:48:56 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:48:56 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [] [] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois
	Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdAfEZtcE0ptz=+cObCdJoEhXHf4WOZ09BQNdDyLqeemng@mail.gmail.com>
References: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>
	<CACAaNxg=oV0vQ-eVGUAtpJUHX8b0tZp_m1uxy5OtARXLuov1aQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<EA718EFA-D07D-43F0-9C4F-C7DD381B1DF6@egyptig.org>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2548B22@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F1C6E4B-4AE8-4E5F-8CB7-77FB9F2BDA09@egyptig.org>
	<2083E242-1076-4A0F-8838-4EC54FF47A2A@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdBhFqY=Fx4z3Pq8rWyp3Y4m0Q_eouHsaO+QYnyXimat+w@mail.gmail.com>
	<14489666-94C6-4DD5-92B2-F1A5DD92F34D@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdAfEZtcE0ptz=+cObCdJoEhXHf4WOZ09BQNdDyLqeemng@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0EDE2DBF-0BFD-49BF-B5D8-B18FDCC77C46@acm.org>

Hi all,

Few hours to go and I am still not sure we have the consensus to put this forward.

I think we might, but I am not sure?

avri

On 13 Nov 2013, at 13:51, Maria Farrell wrote:

> Hey Amr,
> 
> Thanks for this. I'm going to bow to yours (and Kathy's and Milton's) superior knowledge of this piece of work and withdraw my suggestion. 
> 
> Let's get this one out the door so we can all get on our planes.
> 
> All the best, Maria
> 
> 
> On 13 November 2013 13:12, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> Hi Maria,
> 
> To be honest, I?m not sure who highlighted the text or why. It wasn?t meant to be deleted by me, and nobody posted questions on it until now.
> 
> Regarding the harsh criticism?, to be honest I like the report in one regard; that it exhausts every means to describe the methods used to conduct the research as thoroughly as one would hope to expect. It is because of the excellent reporting of the methodology that it was relatively easy to spot flaws. I don?t know Clayton personally and don?t doubt that he is a great researcher, and I am glad to learn that he does good work on the privacy front. However, IMHO, I don?t see the sentence highlighted in yellow as being harsh criticism to him personally?, but rather an important part of a descriptive summary of our feedback in the conclusion of the statement. This is of course feedback on the results of the study, and not on his person. I hope he can make that distinction.
> 
> I say this, but would like to clarify that I am not the author of that specific sentence. I am in favour of it staying the way it is, unless a more favourable substitute can be drafted. I don?t think it gives the same message as the sentence that is in bold, but rather compliments it.
> 
> Still?, that is just my personal opinion, but if you feel strongly about it sending the wrong sort of message, I don?t mind taking it out.
> 
> Thanks Maria.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Amr,
>> 
>> Just checking, is the statement marked in yellow; "However, the methodology used here means that these research findings are fundamentally flawed, show bias and are therefore not a safe basis for policy development. "
>> 
>> 
>> Being deleted in favour of the one in bold below? I would support this deletion and substitution. While no doubt the study is flawed for the reasons we all know this stuff is more or less impossible to study comprehensively and fairly, Richard Clayton does a lot of good privacy and crypto stuff for ORG and I wouldn't like to criticise him as harshly. 
>> 
>> While we appreciate the efforts of the research team led by Dr. Richard Clayton on the work done in an effort of producing the final report, we respectfully but strongly submit that the results of this study do not provide the necessary insight to support policy decisions at this time, and require more Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research being conducted.
>> 
>> 
>> On 13 November 2013 11:35, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> This statement has changed substantially over the past 24 hours with what I believe to be a lot of great input from different NCSGers. There is roughly just a little over 12 hours left before the deadline to submit, so this is a last call to take a look at the statement if you can.
>> 
>> The statement can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit
>> 
>> and more on the study can be found here: https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-en.htm
>> 
>> Thanks all.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:49 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > Thanks for looking over it, Milton. I initially didn?t open editing rights to keep track of changes, but have changed that so that anyone can edit it now. I will insert some responses to your comments, and if you have the time to look over them and give more feedback, I?d really appreciate it.
>> >
>> > Thanks again.
>> >
>> > Amr
>> >
>> > On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:32 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Amr:
>> >>
>> >> I have looked over the comments and would make some suggestions. I would edit it directly but I am not authorized on this doc so I have inserted some comments
>> >>
>> >> ________________________________________
>> >> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on behalf of Amr Elsadr [aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG]
>> >> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 8:01 AM
>> >> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study
>> >>
>> >> Thanks McTim,
>> >>
>> >> I?ve replaced ?more study of Whois privacy and proxy abuse should be conducted? with ?more Whois privacy and proxy abuse research should be conducted? in the last paragraph. I hope that?s what you were referring to.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks again.
>> >>
>> >> Amr
>> >>
>> >> On Nov 11, 2013, at 1:27 PM, McTim <dogwallah at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> >>>> Hi,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I?ve taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN Whois Privacy & Proxy
>> >>>> Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but we have until November
>> >>>> 13th to submit a statement during the reply period. At this point, I would
>> >>>> like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the policy committee are
>> >>>> willing to endorse this statement, and whether or not there are any
>> >>>> suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I?ve drafted the statement on a Google doc, which you can find here:
>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Instead of "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse should be conducted"
>> >>>
>> >>> I think you need to add the word "research" so it becomes:
>> >>>
>> >>> "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research should be conducted"
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Then it is fine by me.
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>>
>> >>> McTim
>> >>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> >>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131113/422f157a/attachment-0001.sig>


From robin  Wed Nov 13 22:03:04 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:03:04 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Meetings at ICANN #48 in Buenos Aires - agendas,
	remote participation, meeting rooms, etc.
Message-ID: <59600554-8D3E-43F6-ABEA-490DCBCAA4F2@ipjustice.org>

Below and here are posted the various NCSG's Meetings at ICANN #48 in Buenos Aires next week.  Also below and at the links provided in this email are draft discussion agendas and remote participation details. All times are local to Buenos Aires.

Safe travels to everyone heading to BA for these meetings and I hope the rest of you will join in the discussions via the remote participation facilities.

Thanks!
Robin

Date
What Meeting
Related To
Time
Place
Remote Participation
Agenda
Transcripts
Audio Recording
Notes
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
10 Dec. 2013	December 2013 NCSG Policy Meeting	GNSO Council Meeting of 12 December 2013	tbd	 	 	 	 	 	 
21 Nov. 2013	NCSG with At-Large Community in Buenos Aires	ICANN #48 in Buenos Aires	
12:30 - 13:30
UTC-3
Golden Hall
Sheraton BA Convention Center
Remote Participation Details	Agenda	 	 	 
20 Nov. 2013	NCSG Executive Committee Meeting in Buenos Aires	ICANN #48 in Buenos Aires	
8:30 - 10:00
UTC-3
Room: Retiro A
Sheraton BA Convention Center
Remote Participation Details
 	Agenda	 	 	 
19 Nov. 2013	NCSG Members with CSG Members Cocktail Social	ICANN #48 in Buenos Aires	
18:30 - 20:00
UTC-3
Basa, Basement Bar and Restaurant
Basavilbaso 1328, 1006 Buenos Aires
 	 	 	 	 
19 Nov. 2013	NCSG with ICANN Board of Directors in Buenos Aires	ICANN #48 in Buenos Aires	
15:30 - 16:30
UTC-3
Room: Libertado A/B
Sheraton BA Convention Center
Remote Participation Details	Agenda	 	 	 
19 Nov. 2013	November 2013 NCSG Open Membership Meeting	
GNSO Council Meeting of 20 November 2013
ICANN #48 in Buenos Aires
13:00 - 15:00
UTC-3
Room: Martin Fiero 1/2
Sheraton BA Convention Center
Remote Participation Details	Agenda	 	 	 
17 Nov. 2013	NCSG Policy Committee Meeting in Buenos Aires	ICANN #48 in Buenos Aires	
16:30 - 18:30
UTC-3
Room: Retiro A
Sheraton BA Convention Center
Remote Participation Details	Agenda	 


Remote Participation details for NCSG meetings in BA:
  https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Remote+Participation+Details+for+NCSG+ at +ICANN+%2348+in+Buenos+Aires

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

NCSG draft meetings plan for ICANN #48:
  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dHN4SURHZUZSSUswQ3BJXzl4ZWUzNXc&usp=sharing

ICANN #48 in Buenos Aires Meetings Schedule:
  http://buenosaires48.icann.org/en/schedule-full

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131113/ed7298a7/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131113/ed7298a7/attachment-0001.sig>


From aelsadr  Wed Nov 13 22:19:37 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:19:37 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [NCSG-Discuss] [] [] NCSG Comment on
	ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study
In-Reply-To: <B0F9FBFB-4216-40AE-B4DF-31610FEB92A5@egyptig.org>
References: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>
	<CACAaNxg=oV0vQ-eVGUAtpJUHX8b0tZp_m1uxy5OtARXLuov1aQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<EA718EFA-D07D-43F0-9C4F-C7DD381B1DF6@egyptig.org>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2548B22@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F1C6E4B-4AE8-4E5F-8CB7-77FB9F2BDA09@egyptig.org>
	<2083E242-1076-4A0F-8838-4EC54FF47A2A@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdBhFqY=Fx4z3Pq8rWyp3Y4m0Q_eouHsaO+QYnyXimat+w@mail.gmail.com>
	<14489666-94C6-4DD5-92B2-F1A5DD92F34D@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdAfEZtcE0ptz=+cObCdJoEhXHf4WOZ09BQNdDyLqeemng@mail.gmail.com>
	<0EDE2DBF-0BFD-49BF-B5D8-B18FDCC77C46@acm.org>
	<AE77FCA0-85EC-41D0-AD5F-10FDE4556803@egyptig.org>
	<CALMg_ZTKKsGVOhZ1YZyM-XU13Wo-MgtEWo_D0Ox7tPiV4=5eWQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B0F9FBFB-4216-40AE-B4DF-31610FEB92A5@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <084D8DCC-F457-48FB-901F-C38F8FD65654@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Any thoughts on how to submit the statement at this point? There?s less than four hours left before the deadline.

Thanks.

Amr

On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Thanks Ed. I?ve taken Richard Clayton?s name out of the document. On language, I don?t feel the language used is inappropriately strong on one hand or restrained on the other. It?s pretty straight forward critical appraisal of a study?s methods and conclusions. I imagine that Clayton is used to this, as I suspect any researcher is.
> 
> If you feel the language in the statement is in parts inappropriate, please correct me. It was not my intent to be aggressive in my comments in any way. I tried to be as objective as possible on the content of the study report.
> 
> Thanks again for your support, Ed.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:08 PM, Edward Morris <edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Amr,
>> 
>> I'm late to the table but am happy to lend my name as well.
>> 
>> Quick question: Are we going with the stronger or more restrained language concerning methodology? As I think we've discussed, I do know Clayton, he'll do what his paymasters want but at heart he's one of us. We could do a lot worse if they do a more extensive follow up study.
>> 
>> Happy to support regardless.
>> 
>> Ed
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> Hi Avri,
>> 
>> From what I can tell, we do not at this time have the support required for this to be an NCSG statement. I?m guessing the prudent course of action at this point so close to the deadline is to submit it as a statement by members of the NCSG, if others are willing to endorse it. Milton, Kathy and Joy contributed to the draft. Wendy, Bill and Maria expressed their support of it. McTim did as well, but some substantial changes were made following this. Not sure if I missed anyone else.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Nov 13, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Few hours to go and I am still not sure we have the consensus to put this forward.
>> >
>> > I think we might, but I am not sure?
>> >
>> > avri
>> >
>> > On 13 Nov 2013, at 13:51, Maria Farrell wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hey Amr,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for this. I'm going to bow to yours (and Kathy's and Milton's) superior knowledge of this piece of work and withdraw my suggestion.
>> >>
>> >> Let's get this one out the door so we can all get on our planes.
>> >>
>> >> All the best, Maria
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 13 November 2013 13:12, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> >> Hi Maria,
>> >>
>> >> To be honest, I?m not sure who highlighted the text or why. It wasn?t meant to be deleted by me, and nobody posted questions on it until now.
>> >>
>> >> Regarding the harsh criticism?, to be honest I like the report in one regard; that it exhausts every means to describe the methods used to conduct the research as thoroughly as one would hope to expect. It is because of the excellent reporting of the methodology that it was relatively easy to spot flaws. I don?t know Clayton personally and don?t doubt that he is a great researcher, and I am glad to learn that he does good work on the privacy front. However, IMHO, I don?t see the sentence highlighted in yellow as being harsh criticism to him personally?, but rather an important part of a descriptive summary of our feedback in the conclusion of the statement. This is of course feedback on the results of the study, and not on his person. I hope he can make that distinction.
>> >>
>> >> I say this, but would like to clarify that I am not the author of that specific sentence. I am in favour of it staying the way it is, unless a more favourable substitute can be drafted. I don?t think it gives the same message as the sentence that is in bold, but rather compliments it.
>> >>
>> >> Still?, that is just my personal opinion, but if you feel strongly about it sending the wrong sort of message, I don?t mind taking it out.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks Maria.
>> >>
>> >> Amr
>> >>
>> >> On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi Amr,
>> >>>
>> >>> Just checking, is the statement marked in yellow; "However, the methodology used here means that these research findings are fundamentally flawed, show bias and are therefore not a safe basis for policy development. "
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Being deleted in favour of the one in bold below? I would support this deletion and substitution. While no doubt the study is flawed for the reasons we all know this stuff is more or less impossible to study comprehensively and fairly, Richard Clayton does a lot of good privacy and crypto stuff for ORG and I wouldn't like to criticise him as harshly.
>> >>>
>> >>> While we appreciate the efforts of the research team led by Dr. Richard Clayton on the work done in an effort of producing the final report, we respectfully but strongly submit that the results of this study do not provide the necessary insight to support policy decisions at this time, and require more Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research being conducted.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 13 November 2013 11:35, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> This statement has changed substantially over the past 24 hours with what I believe to be a lot of great input from different NCSGers. There is roughly just a little over 12 hours left before the deadline to submit, so this is a last call to take a look at the statement if you can.
>> >>>
>> >>> The statement can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit
>> >>>
>> >>> and more on the study can be found here: https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-en.htm
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks all.
>> >>>
>> >>> Amr
>> >>>
>> >>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:49 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Thanks for looking over it, Milton. I initially didn?t open editing rights to keep track of changes, but have changed that so that anyone can edit it now. I will insert some responses to your comments, and if you have the time to look over them and give more feedback, I?d really appreciate it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks again.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Amr
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:32 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Amr:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I have looked over the comments and would make some suggestions. I would edit it directly but I am not authorized on this doc so I have inserted some comments
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ________________________________________
>> >>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on behalf of Amr Elsadr [aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG]
>> >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 8:01 AM
>> >>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks McTim,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I?ve replaced ?more study of Whois privacy and proxy abuse should be conducted? with ?more Whois privacy and proxy abuse research should be conducted? in the last paragraph. I hope that?s what you were referring to.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks again.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Amr
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Nov 11, 2013, at 1:27 PM, McTim <dogwallah at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I?ve taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN Whois Privacy & Proxy
>> >>>>>>> Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but we have until November
>> >>>>>>> 13th to submit a statement during the reply period. At this point, I would
>> >>>>>>> like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the policy committee are
>> >>>>>>> willing to endorse this statement, and whether or not there are any
>> >>>>>>> suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I?ve drafted the statement on a Google doc, which you can find here:
>> >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Instead of "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse should be conducted"
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I think you need to add the word "research" so it becomes:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research should be conducted"
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Then it is fine by me.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> McTim
>> >>>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> >>>>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> 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/20131113/80b9a5ad/attachment.html>


From maria.farrell  Wed Nov 13 22:18:40 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 20:18:40 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [NCSG-Discuss] [] [] NCSG Comment on
 ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study
In-Reply-To: <084D8DCC-F457-48FB-901F-C38F8FD65654@egyptig.org>
References: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>
	<CACAaNxg=oV0vQ-eVGUAtpJUHX8b0tZp_m1uxy5OtARXLuov1aQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<EA718EFA-D07D-43F0-9C4F-C7DD381B1DF6@egyptig.org>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2548B22@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F1C6E4B-4AE8-4E5F-8CB7-77FB9F2BDA09@egyptig.org>
	<2083E242-1076-4A0F-8838-4EC54FF47A2A@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdBhFqY=Fx4z3Pq8rWyp3Y4m0Q_eouHsaO+QYnyXimat+w@mail.gmail.com>
	<14489666-94C6-4DD5-92B2-F1A5DD92F34D@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdAfEZtcE0ptz=+cObCdJoEhXHf4WOZ09BQNdDyLqeemng@mail.gmail.com>
	<0EDE2DBF-0BFD-49BF-B5D8-B18FDCC77C46@acm.org>
	<AE77FCA0-85EC-41D0-AD5F-10FDE4556803@egyptig.org>
	<CALMg_ZTKKsGVOhZ1YZyM-XU13Wo-MgtEWo_D0Ox7tPiV4=5eWQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B0F9FBFB-4216-40AE-B4DF-31610FEB92A5@egyptig.org>
	<084D8DCC-F457-48FB-901F-C38F8FD65654@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdCBrySNoNPc3036CBRaF=NNj-tHTdAXvR2VuauOP9n2eQ@mail.gmail.com>

How about 'members of the NCSG' and name us individually?


On 13 November 2013 20:19, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Any thoughts on how to submit the statement at this point? There?s less
> than four hours left before the deadline.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks Ed. I?ve taken Richard Clayton?s name out of the document. On
> language, I don?t feel the language used is inappropriately strong on one
> hand or restrained on the other. It?s pretty straight forward critical
> appraisal of a study?s methods and conclusions. I imagine that Clayton is
> used to this, as I suspect any researcher is.
>
> If you feel the language in the statement is in parts inappropriate,
> please correct me. It was not my intent to be aggressive in my comments in
> any way. I tried to be as objective as possible on the content of the study
> report.
>
> Thanks again for your support, Ed.
>
> Amr
>
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:08 PM, Edward Morris <edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Amr,
>
> I'm late to the table but am happy to lend my name as well.
>
> Quick question: Are we going with the stronger or more restrained language
> concerning methodology? As I think we've discussed, I do know Clayton,
> he'll do what his paymasters want but at heart he's one of us. We could do
> a lot worse if they do a more extensive follow up study.
>
> Happy to support regardless.
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Avri,
>>
>> From what I can tell, we do not at this time have the support required
>> for this to be an NCSG statement. I?m guessing the prudent course of action
>> at this point so close to the deadline is to submit it as a statement by
>> members of the NCSG, if others are willing to endorse it. Milton, Kathy and
>> Joy contributed to the draft. Wendy, Bill and Maria expressed their support
>> of it. McTim did as well, but some substantial changes were made following
>> this. Not sure if I missed anyone else.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Nov 13, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Few hours to go and I am still not sure we have the consensus to put
>> this forward.
>> >
>> > I think we might, but I am not sure?
>> >
>> > avri
>> >
>> > On 13 Nov 2013, at 13:51, Maria Farrell wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hey Amr,
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for this. I'm going to bow to yours (and Kathy's and Milton's)
>> superior knowledge of this piece of work and withdraw my suggestion.
>> >>
>> >> Let's get this one out the door so we can all get on our planes.
>> >>
>> >> All the best, Maria
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 13 November 2013 13:12, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> >> Hi Maria,
>> >>
>> >> To be honest, I?m not sure who highlighted the text or why. It wasn?t
>> meant to be deleted by me, and nobody posted questions on it until now.
>> >>
>> >> Regarding the harsh criticism?, to be honest I like the report in one
>> regard; that it exhausts every means to describe the methods used to
>> conduct the research as thoroughly as one would hope to expect. It is
>> because of the excellent reporting of the methodology that it was
>> relatively easy to spot flaws. I don?t know Clayton personally and don?t
>> doubt that he is a great researcher, and I am glad to learn that he does
>> good work on the privacy front. However, IMHO, I don?t see the sentence
>> highlighted in yellow as being harsh criticism to him personally?, but
>> rather an important part of a descriptive summary of our feedback in the
>> conclusion of the statement. This is of course feedback on the results of
>> the study, and not on his person. I hope he can make that distinction.
>> >>
>> >> I say this, but would like to clarify that I am not the author of that
>> specific sentence. I am in favour of it staying the way it is, unless a
>> more favourable substitute can be drafted. I don?t think it gives the same
>> message as the sentence that is in bold, but rather compliments it.
>> >>
>> >> Still?, that is just my personal opinion, but if you feel strongly
>> about it sending the wrong sort of message, I don?t mind taking it out.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks Maria.
>> >>
>> >> Amr
>> >>
>> >> On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Hi Amr,
>> >>>
>> >>> Just checking, is the statement marked in yellow; "However, the
>> methodology used here means that these research findings are fundamentally
>> flawed, show bias and are therefore not a safe basis for policy
>> development. "
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Being deleted in favour of the one in bold below? I would support
>> this deletion and substitution. While no doubt the study is flawed for the
>> reasons we all know this stuff is more or less impossible to study
>> comprehensively and fairly, Richard Clayton does a lot of good privacy and
>> crypto stuff for ORG and I wouldn't like to criticise him as harshly.
>> >>>
>> >>> While we appreciate the efforts of the research team led by Dr.
>> Richard Clayton on the work done in an effort of producing the final
>> report, we respectfully but strongly submit that the results of this study
>> do not provide the necessary insight to support policy decisions at this
>> time, and require more Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research being
>> conducted.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 13 November 2013 11:35, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> This statement has changed substantially over the past 24 hours with
>> what I believe to be a lot of great input from different NCSGers. There is
>> roughly just a little over 12 hours left before the deadline to submit, so
>> this is a last call to take a look at the statement if you can.
>> >>>
>> >>> The statement can be found here:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit
>> >>>
>> >>> and more on the study can be found here:
>> https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-en.htm
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks all.
>> >>>
>> >>> Amr
>> >>>
>> >>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:49 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Thanks for looking over it, Milton. I initially didn?t open editing
>> rights to keep track of changes, but have changed that so that anyone can
>> edit it now. I will insert some responses to your comments, and if you have
>> the time to look over them and give more feedback, I?d really appreciate it.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks again.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Amr
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:32 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Amr:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I have looked over the comments and would make some suggestions. I
>> would edit it directly but I am not authorized on this doc so I have
>> inserted some comments
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ________________________________________
>> >>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on behalf of
>> Amr Elsadr [aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG]
>> >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 8:01 AM
>> >>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy &
>> Proxy Abuse Study
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks McTim,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I?ve replaced ?more study of Whois privacy and proxy abuse should
>> be conducted? with ?more Whois privacy and proxy abuse research should be
>> conducted? in the last paragraph. I hope that?s what you were referring to.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks again.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Amr
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Nov 11, 2013, at 1:27 PM, McTim <dogwallah at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I?ve taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN Whois
>> Privacy & Proxy
>> >>>>>>> Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but we have until
>> November
>> >>>>>>> 13th to submit a statement during the reply period. At this
>> point, I would
>> >>>>>>> like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the policy
>> committee are
>> >>>>>>> willing to endorse this statement, and whether or not there are
>> any
>> >>>>>>> suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> I?ve drafted the statement on a Google doc, which you can find
>> here:
>> >>>>>>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Instead of "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse should be
>> conducted"
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I think you need to add the word "research" so it becomes:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research should be
>> conducted"
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Then it is fine by me.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> --
>> >>>>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> McTim
>> >>>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>> >>>>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > PC-NCSG mailing list
>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131113/cdeb90ef/attachment-0001.html>


From joy  Wed Nov 13 22:20:49 2013
From: joy (joy)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 09:20:49 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [NCSG-Discuss] [] [] NCSG Comment on
 ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdCBrySNoNPc3036CBRaF=NNj-tHTdAXvR2VuauOP9n2eQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>	<CACAaNxg=oV0vQ-eVGUAtpJUHX8b0tZp_m1uxy5OtARXLuov1aQ@mail.gmail.com>	<EA718EFA-D07D-43F0-9C4F-C7DD381B1DF6@egyptig.org>	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2548B22@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>	<8F1C6E4B-4AE8-4E5F-8CB7-77FB9F2BDA09@egyptig.org>	<2083E242-1076-4A0F-8838-4EC54FF47A2A@egyptig.org>	<CAC7qwdBhFqY=Fx4z3Pq8rWyp3Y4m0Q_eouHsaO+QYnyXimat+w@mail.gmail.com>	<14489666-94C6-4DD5-92B2-F1A5DD92F34D@egyptig.org>	<CAC7qwdAfEZtcE0ptz=+cObCdJoEhXHf4WOZ09BQNdDyLqeemng@mail.gmail.com>	<0EDE2DBF-0BFD-49BF-B5D8-B18FDCC77C46@acm.org>	<AE77FCA0-85EC-41D0-AD5F-10FDE4556803@egyptig.org>	<CALMg_ZTKKsGVOhZ1YZyM-XU13Wo-MgtEWo_D0Ox7tPiV4=5eWQ@mail.gmail.com>	<B0F9FBFB-4216-40AE-B4DF-31610FEB92A5@egyptig.org>	<084D8DCC-F457-48FB-901F-C38F8FD65654@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdCBrySNoNPc3036CBRaF=NNj-tHTdAXvR2VuauOP9n2eQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5283DF21.4000403@apc.org>

hi - couple of options:
1. Simply delete Richard's name and refer to the research efforts in
general
2. members of NCSG with individual sign on - I am happy to sign on to this
Joy
On 14/11/2013 9:18 a.m., Maria Farrell wrote:
> How about 'members of the NCSG' and name us individually?
>
>
> On 13 November 2013 20:19, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Any thoughts on how to submit the statement at this point? There's
>     less than four hours left before the deadline.
>
>     Thanks.
>
>     Amr
>
>     On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>     <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>
>>     Thanks Ed. I've taken Richard Clayton's name out of the document.
>>     On language, I don't feel the language used is inappropriately
>>     strong on one hand or restrained on the other. It's pretty
>>     straight forward critical appraisal of a study's methods and
>>     conclusions. I imagine that Clayton is used to this, as I suspect
>>     any researcher is.
>>
>>     If you feel the language in the statement is in parts
>>     inappropriate, please correct me. It was not my intent to be
>>     aggressive in my comments in any way. I tried to be as objective
>>     as possible on the content of the study report.
>>
>>     Thanks again for your support, Ed.
>>
>>     Amr
>>
>>     On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:08 PM, Edward Morris
>>     <edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu
>>     <mailto:edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu>> wrote:
>>
>>>     Hi Amr,
>>>
>>>     I'm late to the table but am happy to lend my name as well.
>>>
>>>     Quick question: Are we going with the stronger or more
>>>     restrained language concerning methodology? As I think we've
>>>     discussed, I do know Clayton, he'll do what his paymasters want
>>>     but at heart he's one of us. We could do a lot worse if they do
>>>     a more extensive follow up study.
>>>
>>>     Happy to support regardless.
>>>
>>>     Ed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>     <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         Hi Avri,
>>>
>>>         From what I can tell, we do not at this time have the
>>>         support required for this to be an NCSG statement. I'm
>>>         guessing the prudent course of action at this point so close
>>>         to the deadline is to submit it as a statement by members of
>>>         the NCSG, if others are willing to endorse it. Milton, Kathy
>>>         and Joy contributed to the draft. Wendy, Bill and Maria
>>>         expressed their support of it. McTim did as well, but some
>>>         substantial changes were made following this. Not sure if I
>>>         missed anyone else.
>>>
>>>         Thanks.
>>>
>>>         Amr
>>>
>>>         On Nov 13, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>         <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         > Hi all,
>>>         >
>>>         > Few hours to go and I am still not sure we have the
>>>         consensus to put this forward.
>>>         >
>>>         > I think we might, but I am not sure?
>>>         >
>>>         > avri
>>>         >
>>>         > On 13 Nov 2013, at 13:51, Maria Farrell wrote:
>>>         >
>>>         >> Hey Amr,
>>>         >>
>>>         >> Thanks for this. I'm going to bow to yours (and Kathy's
>>>         and Milton's) superior knowledge of this piece of work and
>>>         withdraw my suggestion.
>>>         >>
>>>         >> Let's get this one out the door so we can all get on our
>>>         planes.
>>>         >>
>>>         >> All the best, Maria
>>>         >>
>>>         >>
>>>         >> On 13 November 2013 13:12, Amr Elsadr
>>>         <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>         >> Hi Maria,
>>>         >>
>>>         >> To be honest, I'm not sure who highlighted the text or
>>>         why. It wasn't meant to be deleted by me, and nobody posted
>>>         questions on it until now.
>>>         >>
>>>         >> Regarding the harsh criticism..., to be honest I like the
>>>         report in one regard; that it exhausts every means to
>>>         describe the methods used to conduct the research as
>>>         thoroughly as one would hope to expect. It is because of the
>>>         excellent reporting of the methodology that it was
>>>         relatively easy to spot flaws. I don't know Clayton
>>>         personally and don't doubt that he is a great researcher,
>>>         and I am glad to learn that he does good work on the privacy
>>>         front. However, IMHO, I don't see the sentence highlighted
>>>         in yellow as being harsh criticism to him personally..., but
>>>         rather an important part of a descriptive summary of our
>>>         feedback in the conclusion of the statement. This is of
>>>         course feedback on the results of the study, and not on his
>>>         person. I hope he can make that distinction.
>>>         >>
>>>         >> I say this, but would like to clarify that I am not the
>>>         author of that specific sentence. I am in favour of it
>>>         staying the way it is, unless a more favourable substitute
>>>         can be drafted. I don't think it gives the same message as
>>>         the sentence that is in bold, but rather compliments it.
>>>         >>
>>>         >> Still..., that is just my personal opinion, but if you
>>>         feel strongly about it sending the wrong sort of message, I
>>>         don't mind taking it out.
>>>         >>
>>>         >> Thanks Maria.
>>>         >>
>>>         >> Amr
>>>         >>
>>>         >> On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Maria Farrell
>>>         <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM <mailto:maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM>>
>>>         wrote:
>>>         >>
>>>         >>> Hi Amr,
>>>         >>>
>>>         >>> Just checking, is the statement marked in yellow;
>>>         "However, the methodology used here means that these
>>>         research findings are fundamentally flawed, show bias and
>>>         are therefore not a safe basis for policy development. "
>>>         >>>
>>>         >>>
>>>         >>> Being deleted in favour of the one in bold below? I
>>>         would support this deletion and substitution. While no doubt
>>>         the study is flawed for the reasons we all know this stuff
>>>         is more or less impossible to study comprehensively and
>>>         fairly, Richard Clayton does a lot of good privacy and
>>>         crypto stuff for ORG and I wouldn't like to criticise him as
>>>         harshly.
>>>         >>>
>>>         >>> While we appreciate the efforts of the research team led
>>>         by Dr. Richard Clayton on the work done in an effort of
>>>         producing the final report, we respectfully but strongly
>>>         submit that the results of this study do not provide the
>>>         necessary insight to support policy decisions at this time,
>>>         and require more Whois privacy and proxy service abuse
>>>         research being conducted.
>>>         >>>
>>>         >>>
>>>         >>> On 13 November 2013 11:35, Amr Elsadr
>>>         <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>         >>> Hi,
>>>         >>>
>>>         >>> This statement has changed substantially over the past
>>>         24 hours with what I believe to be a lot of great input from
>>>         different NCSGers. There is roughly just a little over 12
>>>         hours left before the deadline to submit, so this is a last
>>>         call to take a look at the statement if you can.
>>>         >>>
>>>         >>> The statement can be found here:
>>>         https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit
>>>         >>>
>>>         >>> and more on the study can be found here:
>>>         https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-en.htm
>>>         >>>
>>>         >>> Thanks all.
>>>         >>>
>>>         >>> Amr
>>>         >>>
>>>         >>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:49 PM, Amr Elsadr
>>>         <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>         >>>
>>>         >>>> Thanks for looking over it, Milton. I initially didn't
>>>         open editing rights to keep track of changes, but have
>>>         changed that so that anyone can edit it now. I will insert
>>>         some responses to your comments, and if you have the time to
>>>         look over them and give more feedback, I'd really appreciate it.
>>>         >>>>
>>>         >>>> Thanks again.
>>>         >>>>
>>>         >>>> Amr
>>>         >>>>
>>>         >>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:32 PM, Milton L Mueller
>>>         <mueller at SYR.EDU <mailto:mueller at SYR.EDU>> wrote:
>>>         >>>>
>>>         >>>>> Amr:
>>>         >>>>>
>>>         >>>>> I have looked over the comments and would make some
>>>         suggestions. I would edit it directly but I am not
>>>         authorized on this doc so I have inserted some comments
>>>         >>>>>
>>>         >>>>> ________________________________________
>>>         >>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>         <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>] on behalf of Amr
>>>         Elsadr [aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>]
>>>         >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 8:01 AM
>>>         >>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>         <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>>>         >>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on ICANN's
>>>         Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study
>>>         >>>>>
>>>         >>>>> Thanks McTim,
>>>         >>>>>
>>>         >>>>> I've replaced "more study of Whois privacy and proxy
>>>         abuse should be conducted" with "more Whois privacy and
>>>         proxy abuse research should be conducted" in the last
>>>         paragraph. I hope that's what you were referring to.
>>>         >>>>>
>>>         >>>>> Thanks again.
>>>         >>>>>
>>>         >>>>> Amr
>>>         >>>>>
>>>         >>>>> On Nov 11, 2013, at 1:27 PM, McTim
>>>         <dogwallah at GMAIL.COM <mailto:dogwallah at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>>>         >>>>>
>>>         >>>>>> Hi,
>>>         >>>>>>
>>>         >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Amr Elsadr
>>>         <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>         >>>>>>> Hi,
>>>         >>>>>>>
>>>         >>>>>>> I've taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN
>>>         Whois Privacy & Proxy
>>>         >>>>>>> Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but
>>>         we have until November
>>>         >>>>>>> 13th to submit a statement during the reply period.
>>>         At this point, I would
>>>         >>>>>>> like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the
>>>         policy committee are
>>>         >>>>>>> willing to endorse this statement, and whether or
>>>         not there are any
>>>         >>>>>>> suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.
>>>         >>>>>>>
>>>         >>>>>>> I've drafted the statement on a Google doc, which
>>>         you can find here:
>>>         >>>>>>>
>>>         https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
>>>         >>>>>>
>>>         >>>>>>
>>>         >>>>>>
>>>         >>>>>> Instead of "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse
>>>         should be conducted"
>>>         >>>>>>
>>>         >>>>>> I think you need to add the word "research" so it
>>>         becomes:
>>>         >>>>>>
>>>         >>>>>> "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research
>>>         should be conducted"
>>>         >>>>>>
>>>         >>>>>>
>>>         >>>>>> Then it is fine by me.
>>>         >>>>>>
>>>         >>>>>> --
>>>         >>>>>> Cheers,
>>>         >>>>>>
>>>         >>>>>> McTim
>>>         >>>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates
>>>         where it is. A
>>>         >>>>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>>         >>>
>>>         >>>
>>>         >>> _______________________________________________
>>>         >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>         >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>         >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>         >>>
>>>         >>
>>>         >>
>>>         >
>>>         > _______________________________________________
>>>         > PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>         > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>         > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131114/2d782c85/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Nov 13 22:24:31 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:24:31 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [NCSG-Discuss] [] [] NCSG Comment on
	ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdCBrySNoNPc3036CBRaF=NNj-tHTdAXvR2VuauOP9n2eQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>
	<CACAaNxg=oV0vQ-eVGUAtpJUHX8b0tZp_m1uxy5OtARXLuov1aQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<EA718EFA-D07D-43F0-9C4F-C7DD381B1DF6@egyptig.org>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2548B22@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F1C6E4B-4AE8-4E5F-8CB7-77FB9F2BDA09@egyptig.org>
	<2083E242-1076-4A0F-8838-4EC54FF47A2A@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdBhFqY=Fx4z3Pq8rWyp3Y4m0Q_eouHsaO+QYnyXimat+w@mail.gmail.com>
	<14489666-94C6-4DD5-92B2-F1A5DD92F34D@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdAfEZtcE0ptz=+cObCdJoEhXHf4WOZ09BQNdDyLqeemng@mail.gmail.com>
	<0EDE2DBF-0BFD-49BF-B5D8-B18FDCC77C46@acm.org>
	<AE77FCA0-85EC-41D0-AD5F-10FDE4556803@egyptig.org>
	<CALMg_ZTKKsGVOhZ1YZyM-XU13Wo-MgtEWo_D0Ox7tPiV4=5eWQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B0F9FBFB-4216-40AE-B4DF-31610FEB92A5@egyptig.org>
	<084D8DCC-F457-48FB-901F-C38F8FD65654@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdCBrySNoNPc3036CBRaF=NNj-tHTdAXvR2VuauOP9n2eQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <98674E43-02E4-487D-937A-0DF04FCD2662@egyptig.org>

Yeah?, that?s what I was thinking too.

Amr

On Nov 13, 2013, at 9:18 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> wrote:

> How about 'members of the NCSG' and name us individually?
> 
> 
> On 13 November 2013 20:19, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Any thoughts on how to submit the statement at this point? There?s less than four hours left before the deadline.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks Ed. I?ve taken Richard Clayton?s name out of the document. On language, I don?t feel the language used is inappropriately strong on one hand or restrained on the other. It?s pretty straight forward critical appraisal of a study?s methods and conclusions. I imagine that Clayton is used to this, as I suspect any researcher is.
>> 
>> If you feel the language in the statement is in parts inappropriate, please correct me. It was not my intent to be aggressive in my comments in any way. I tried to be as objective as possible on the content of the study report.
>> 
>> Thanks again for your support, Ed.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:08 PM, Edward Morris <edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Amr,
>>> 
>>> I'm late to the table but am happy to lend my name as well.
>>> 
>>> Quick question: Are we going with the stronger or more restrained language concerning methodology? As I think we've discussed, I do know Clayton, he'll do what his paymasters want but at heart he's one of us. We could do a lot worse if they do a more extensive follow up study.
>>> 
>>> Happy to support regardless.
>>> 
>>> Ed
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Avri,
>>> 
>>> From what I can tell, we do not at this time have the support required for this to be an NCSG statement. I?m guessing the prudent course of action at this point so close to the deadline is to submit it as a statement by members of the NCSG, if others are willing to endorse it. Milton, Kathy and Joy contributed to the draft. Wendy, Bill and Maria expressed their support of it. McTim did as well, but some substantial changes were made following this. Not sure if I missed anyone else.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> On Nov 13, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > Few hours to go and I am still not sure we have the consensus to put this forward.
>>> >
>>> > I think we might, but I am not sure?
>>> >
>>> > avri
>>> >
>>> > On 13 Nov 2013, at 13:51, Maria Farrell wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Hey Amr,
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks for this. I'm going to bow to yours (and Kathy's and Milton's) superior knowledge of this piece of work and withdraw my suggestion.
>>> >>
>>> >> Let's get this one out the door so we can all get on our planes.
>>> >>
>>> >> All the best, Maria
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 13 November 2013 13:12, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> >> Hi Maria,
>>> >>
>>> >> To be honest, I?m not sure who highlighted the text or why. It wasn?t meant to be deleted by me, and nobody posted questions on it until now.
>>> >>
>>> >> Regarding the harsh criticism?, to be honest I like the report in one regard; that it exhausts every means to describe the methods used to conduct the research as thoroughly as one would hope to expect. It is because of the excellent reporting of the methodology that it was relatively easy to spot flaws. I don?t know Clayton personally and don?t doubt that he is a great researcher, and I am glad to learn that he does good work on the privacy front. However, IMHO, I don?t see the sentence highlighted in yellow as being harsh criticism to him personally?, but rather an important part of a descriptive summary of our feedback in the conclusion of the statement. This is of course feedback on the results of the study, and not on his person. I hope he can make that distinction.
>>> >>
>>> >> I say this, but would like to clarify that I am not the author of that specific sentence. I am in favour of it staying the way it is, unless a more favourable substitute can be drafted. I don?t think it gives the same message as the sentence that is in bold, but rather compliments it.
>>> >>
>>> >> Still?, that is just my personal opinion, but if you feel strongly about it sending the wrong sort of message, I don?t mind taking it out.
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks Maria.
>>> >>
>>> >> Amr
>>> >>
>>> >> On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Hi Amr,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Just checking, is the statement marked in yellow; "However, the methodology used here means that these research findings are fundamentally flawed, show bias and are therefore not a safe basis for policy development. "
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Being deleted in favour of the one in bold below? I would support this deletion and substitution. While no doubt the study is flawed for the reasons we all know this stuff is more or less impossible to study comprehensively and fairly, Richard Clayton does a lot of good privacy and crypto stuff for ORG and I wouldn't like to criticise him as harshly.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> While we appreciate the efforts of the research team led by Dr. Richard Clayton on the work done in an effort of producing the final report, we respectfully but strongly submit that the results of this study do not provide the necessary insight to support policy decisions at this time, and require more Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research being conducted.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 13 November 2013 11:35, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> >>> Hi,
>>> >>>
>>> >>> This statement has changed substantially over the past 24 hours with what I believe to be a lot of great input from different NCSGers. There is roughly just a little over 12 hours left before the deadline to submit, so this is a last call to take a look at the statement if you can.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The statement can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit
>>> >>>
>>> >>> and more on the study can be found here: https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-en.htm
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Thanks all.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Amr
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:49 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> Thanks for looking over it, Milton. I initially didn?t open editing rights to keep track of changes, but have changed that so that anyone can edit it now. I will insert some responses to your comments, and if you have the time to look over them and give more feedback, I?d really appreciate it.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Thanks again.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Amr
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:32 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> Amr:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I have looked over the comments and would make some suggestions. I would edit it directly but I am not authorized on this doc so I have inserted some comments
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> ________________________________________
>>> >>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on behalf of Amr Elsadr [aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG]
>>> >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 8:01 AM
>>> >>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Thanks McTim,
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> I?ve replaced ?more study of Whois privacy and proxy abuse should be conducted? with ?more Whois privacy and proxy abuse research should be conducted? in the last paragraph. I hope that?s what you were referring to.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Thanks again.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Amr
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On Nov 11, 2013, at 1:27 PM, McTim <dogwallah at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Hi,
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>> Hi,
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> I?ve taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN Whois Privacy & Proxy
>>> >>>>>>> Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but we have until November
>>> >>>>>>> 13th to submit a statement during the reply period. At this point, I would
>>> >>>>>>> like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the policy committee are
>>> >>>>>>> willing to endorse this statement, and whether or not there are any
>>> >>>>>>> suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> I?ve drafted the statement on a Google doc, which you can find here:
>>> >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Instead of "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse should be conducted"
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> I think you need to add the word "research" so it becomes:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research should be conducted"
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Then it is fine by me.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> --
>>> >>>>>> Cheers,
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> McTim
>>> >>>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>>> >>>>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131113/b4ae6639/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Nov 13 22:33:21 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 21:33:21 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] [NCSG-Discuss] [] [] NCSG Comment on
	ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study
In-Reply-To: <5283DF21.4000403@apc.org>
References: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>	<CACAaNxg=oV0vQ-eVGUAtpJUHX8b0tZp_m1uxy5OtARXLuov1aQ@mail.gmail.com>	<EA718EFA-D07D-43F0-9C4F-C7DD381B1DF6@egyptig.org>	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2548B22@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>	<8F1C6E4B-4AE8-4E5F-8CB7-77FB9F2BDA09@egyptig.org>	<2083E242-1076-4A0F-8838-4EC54FF47A2A@egyptig.org>	<CAC7qwdBhFqY=Fx4z3Pq8rWyp3Y4m0Q_eouHsaO+QYnyXimat+w@mail.gmail.com>	<14489666-94C6-4DD5-92B2-F1A5DD92F34D@egyptig.org>	<CAC7qwdAfEZtcE0ptz=+cObCdJoEhXHf4WOZ09BQNdDyLqeemng@mail.gmail.com>	<0EDE2DBF-0BFD-49BF-B5D8-B18FDCC77C46@acm.org>	<AE77FCA0-85EC-41D0-AD5F-10FDE4556803@egyptig.org>	<CALMg_ZTKKsGVOhZ1YZyM-XU13Wo-MgtEWo_D0Ox7tPiV4=5eWQ@mail.gmail.com>	<B0F9FBFB-4216-40AE-B4DF-31610FEB92A5@egyptig.org>	<084D8DCC-F457-48FB-901F-C38F8FD65654@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdCBrySNoNPc3036CBRaF=NNj-tHTdAXvR2VuauOP9n2eQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5283DF21.4000403@apc.org>
Message-ID: <1A73D7B6-396F-4E22-B5EB-C6ABFE835D54@egyptig.org>

Thanks Joy. I?ve already taken Richard Clayton?s name out of the statement. I?ll give it another hour until I get off the policy-implimenatation wg call.

I really do appreciate everyone who?s engaged on this despite the late drafting of the statement.

One last question on how to submit. Should I email it to Mary? She?s listed as the staff contact.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Nov 13, 2013, at 9:20 PM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:

> hi - couple of options:
> 1. Simply delete Richard's name and refer to the research efforts in general 
> 2. members of NCSG with individual sign on - I am happy to sign on to this
> Joy
> On 14/11/2013 9:18 a.m., Maria Farrell wrote:
>> How about 'members of the NCSG' and name us individually?
>> 
>> 
>> On 13 November 2013 20:19, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Any thoughts on how to submit the statement at this point? There?s less than four hours left before the deadline.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:19 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Thanks Ed. I?ve taken Richard Clayton?s name out of the document. On language, I don?t feel the language used is inappropriately strong on one hand or restrained on the other. It?s pretty straight forward critical appraisal of a study?s methods and conclusions. I imagine that Clayton is used to this, as I suspect any researcher is.
>>> 
>>> If you feel the language in the statement is in parts inappropriate, please correct me. It was not my intent to be aggressive in my comments in any way. I tried to be as objective as possible on the content of the study report.
>>> 
>>> Thanks again for your support, Ed.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> On Nov 13, 2013, at 7:08 PM, Edward Morris <edward.morris at alumni.usc.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>> 
>>>> I'm late to the table but am happy to lend my name as well.
>>>> 
>>>> Quick question: Are we going with the stronger or more restrained language concerning methodology? As I think we've discussed, I do know Clayton, he'll do what his paymasters want but at heart he's one of us. We could do a lot worse if they do a more extensive follow up study.
>>>> 
>>>> Happy to support regardless.
>>>> 
>>>> Ed
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>> 
>>>> From what I can tell, we do not at this time have the support required for this to be an NCSG statement. I?m guessing the prudent course of action at this point so close to the deadline is to submit it as a statement by members of the NCSG, if others are willing to endorse it. Milton, Kathy and Joy contributed to the draft. Wendy, Bill and Maria expressed their support of it. McTim did as well, but some substantial changes were made following this. Not sure if I missed anyone else.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> On Nov 13, 2013, at 6:48 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> > Hi all,
>>>> >
>>>> > Few hours to go and I am still not sure we have the consensus to put this forward.
>>>> >
>>>> > I think we might, but I am not sure?
>>>> >
>>>> > avri
>>>> >
>>>> > On 13 Nov 2013, at 13:51, Maria Farrell wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Hey Amr,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thanks for this. I'm going to bow to yours (and Kathy's and Milton's) superior knowledge of this piece of work and withdraw my suggestion.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Let's get this one out the door so we can all get on our planes.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> All the best, Maria
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 13 November 2013 13:12, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>> >> Hi Maria,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> To be honest, I?m not sure who highlighted the text or why. It wasn?t meant to be deleted by me, and nobody posted questions on it until now.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Regarding the harsh criticism?, to be honest I like the report in one regard; that it exhausts every means to describe the methods used to conduct the research as thoroughly as one would hope to expect. It is because of the excellent reporting of the methodology that it was relatively easy to spot flaws. I don?t know Clayton personally and don?t doubt that he is a great researcher, and I am glad to learn that he does good work on the privacy front. However, IMHO, I don?t see the sentence highlighted in yellow as being harsh criticism to him personally?, but rather an important part of a descriptive summary of our feedback in the conclusion of the statement. This is of course feedback on the results of the study, and not on his person. I hope he can make that distinction.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I say this, but would like to clarify that I am not the author of that specific sentence. I am in favour of it staying the way it is, unless a more favourable substitute can be drafted. I don?t think it gives the same message as the sentence that is in bold, but rather compliments it.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Still?, that is just my personal opinion, but if you feel strongly about it sending the wrong sort of message, I don?t mind taking it out.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Thanks Maria.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Amr
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:30 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Hi Amr,
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Just checking, is the statement marked in yellow; "However, the methodology used here means that these research findings are fundamentally flawed, show bias and are therefore not a safe basis for policy development. "
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Being deleted in favour of the one in bold below? I would support this deletion and substitution. While no doubt the study is flawed for the reasons we all know this stuff is more or less impossible to study comprehensively and fairly, Richard Clayton does a lot of good privacy and crypto stuff for ORG and I wouldn't like to criticise him as harshly.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> While we appreciate the efforts of the research team led by Dr. Richard Clayton on the work done in an effort of producing the final report, we respectfully but strongly submit that the results of this study do not provide the necessary insight to support policy decisions at this time, and require more Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research being conducted.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On 13 November 2013 11:35, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>> >>> Hi,
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> This statement has changed substantially over the past 24 hours with what I believe to be a lot of great input from different NCSGers. There is roughly just a little over 12 hours left before the deadline to submit, so this is a last call to take a look at the statement if you can.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> The statement can be found here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> and more on the study can be found here: https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-pp-abuse-study-24sep13-en.htm
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Thanks all.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Amr
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:49 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> Thanks for looking over it, Milton. I initially didn?t open editing rights to keep track of changes, but have changed that so that anyone can edit it now. I will insert some responses to your comments, and if you have the time to look over them and give more feedback, I?d really appreciate it.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Thanks again.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Amr
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> On Nov 12, 2013, at 10:32 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> Amr:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> I have looked over the comments and would make some suggestions. I would edit it directly but I am not authorized on this doc so I have inserted some comments
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> >>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss [NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] on behalf of Amr Elsadr [aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG]
>>>> >>>>> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2013 8:01 AM
>>>> >>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy & Proxy Abuse Study
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Thanks McTim,
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> I?ve replaced ?more study of Whois privacy and proxy abuse should be conducted? with ?more Whois privacy and proxy abuse research should be conducted? in the last paragraph. I hope that?s what you were referring to.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Thanks again.
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> Amr
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>> On Nov 11, 2013, at 1:27 PM, McTim <dogwallah at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Hi,
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 8:05 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>> >>>>>>> Hi,
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> I?ve taken a stab at drafting a comment on the ICANN Whois Privacy & Proxy
>>>> >>>>>>> Abuse Study. The public comment period is over, but we have until November
>>>> >>>>>>> 13th to submit a statement during the reply period. At this point, I would
>>>> >>>>>>> like to know if members of the NCSG as well as the policy committee are
>>>> >>>>>>> willing to endorse this statement, and whether or not there are any
>>>> >>>>>>> suggested changes anyone feels need to be made.
>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> I?ve drafted the statement on a Google doc, which you can find here:
>>>> >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RS5Ze_0TU4ymdq0N8tROKrr2Vg-SpBp5ZEXTLUr7j84/edit?usp=sharing
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Instead of "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse should be conducted"
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> I think you need to add the word "research" so it becomes:
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> "Whois privacy and proxy service abuse research should be conducted"
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> Then it is fine by me.
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> --
>>>> >>>>>> Cheers,
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>> McTim
>>>> >>>>>> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
>>>> >>>>>> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131113/1abb87aa/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Wed Nov 13 22:44:40 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:44:40 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: ICANN Buenos Aires Meeting - List of restaurants &
	tips
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F65E865E2@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <31D774AB-682C-4C2E-BD34-9FCB67635734@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Subject: [liaison6c] ICANN Buenos Aires Meeting - List of restaurants & tips
> Date: November 13, 2013 12:39:38 PM PST
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> 
>  
> FYI some tips and a list of restaurants that you may find handy while here in Buenos Aires!
>  
> 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/20131113/d2cc0e35/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Restaurants in BsAs.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 428888 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131113/d2cc0e35/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131113/d2cc0e35/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131113/d2cc0e35/attachment-0001.sig>


From avri  Wed Nov 13 22:53:48 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:53:48 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy
	& Proxy Abuse Study - any objections?
In-Reply-To: <5283C05B.9090707@kathykleiman.com>
References: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>
	<CACAaNxg=oV0vQ-eVGUAtpJUHX8b0tZp_m1uxy5OtARXLuov1aQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<EA718EFA-D07D-43F0-9C4F-C7DD381B1DF6@egyptig.org>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2548B22@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F1C6E4B-4AE8-4E5F-8CB7-77FB9F2BDA09@egyptig.org>
	<2083E242-1076-4A0F-8838-4EC54FF47A2A@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdBhFqY=Fx4z3Pq8rWyp3Y4m0Q_eouHsaO+QYnyXimat+w@mail.gmail.com>
	<791FA64B-9E64-412B-91D7-D9FCBD6F2753@ipjustice.org>
	<A47D8523-7E4E-47F2-AB90-4A5C2A9475FE@egyptig.org>
	<5283C05B.9090707@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <34ED356C-EA62-4A14-9244-201BF008C368@ella.com>


On 13 Nov 2013, at 15:09, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> 
> Avri, what would like as the process to finalize?  Are we OK to submit since these have been in circulation awhile and up for discussion and review?


Well Milton had a few issues and I was hoping that he would indicate whether his issue had been resolved.

Also, for the Policy committee to submit something, normally want hear at least one voice from each constituency if possible.  

avri

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131113/e3ff4e5b/attachment.sig>


From robin  Wed Nov 13 23:17:29 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 13:17:29 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG Comment on ICANN's Whois Privacy
	& Proxy Abuse Study - any objections?
In-Reply-To: <5283E8A2.6040500@kathykleiman.com>
References: <81D890FA-2EBF-4F19-B625-792E237BA6A2@egyptig.org>
	<CACAaNxg=oV0vQ-eVGUAtpJUHX8b0tZp_m1uxy5OtARXLuov1aQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<EA718EFA-D07D-43F0-9C4F-C7DD381B1DF6@egyptig.org>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD2548B22@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<8F1C6E4B-4AE8-4E5F-8CB7-77FB9F2BDA09@egyptig.org>
	<2083E242-1076-4A0F-8838-4EC54FF47A2A@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdBhFqY=Fx4z3Pq8rWyp3Y4m0Q_eouHsaO+QYnyXimat+w@mail.gmail.com>
	<791FA64B-9E64-412B-91D7-D9FCBD6F2753@ipjustice.org>
	<A47D8523-7E4E-47F2-AB90-4A5C2A9475FE@egyptig.org>
	<5283C05B.9090707@kathykleiman.com>
	<34ED356C-EA62-4A14-9244-201BF008C368@ella.com>
	<5283E8A2.6040500@kathykleiman.com>
Message-ID: <5CA2FA2C-0B39-4536-8D18-BDE548D92465@ipjustice.org>

Hi there,

Rudi Vasnick and Marie-laure are the two NPOC members of the NCSG Policy Committee.  

Rudi, Marie-laure: do either of you have a view on this statement?

Thanks!
Robin


On Nov 13, 2013, at 1:01 PM, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> We resolved Milton's issues last night. Amr and I worked with him on the edits, and incorporated every one he wanted. He's en route today to BA.
> 
> Avri, could you perhaps reach out to the Policy Committee people in each constituency for their support?
> 
> Best,
> Kathy
>> On 13 Nov 2013, at 15:09, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>> 
>>> Avri, what would like as the process to finalize?  Are we OK to submit since these have been in circulation awhile and up for discussion and review?
>> 
>> Well Milton had a few issues and I was hoping that he would indicate whether his issue had been resolved.
>> 
>> Also, for the Policy committee to submit something, normally want hear at least one voice from each constituency if possible.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131113/06cc941b/attachment.sig>


From aelsadr  Tue Nov 19 19:49:49 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 14:49:49 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
References: <CEB11164.3331%mary.wong@icann.org>
Message-ID: <55E8E112-5D13-4216-8C39-1901391CF5BC@egyptig.org>

FYI.

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
> Date: November 19, 2013 at 1:01:34 PM GMT-3
> To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>, "'Thomas Rickert'" <rickert at anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
> 
> Hello - the redlined version is attached.
> 
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
> 
> * One World. One Internet. *
> 
> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:16 PM
> To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert at anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
> 
>> It would be helpful for the constituencies? discussion to have a redline version of the motion available.
>> Could staff please provide it?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Wolf-Ulrich
>> 
>>  
>> From: Neuman, Jeff
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM
>> To: 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson
>> Subject: RE: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>>  
>> Thomas,
>>  
>> Thanks for this.  Just for clarification, are you asking this to be considered by the maker of the motion as a friendly amendment?
>>  
>> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services
>>  
>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:12 AM
>> To: GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson
>> Subject: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>>  
>> Dear Councilors,
>>  
>> In view of the discussion in and feedback from the GNSO's Working Session on Saturday, I've asked ICANN staff to create some additional materials that I hope will be useful during your discussions of the IGO-INGO motion with your respective constituencies and stakeholder groups on Tuesday. ICANN staff has also consulted with ICANN's legal department regarding the questions that were raised about voting thresholds and Consensus Policies.
>>  
>> Voting Thresholds 
>> The voting thresholds for PDP recommendations to be adopted are set out in the ICANN Bylaws herehttp://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X.
>>  
>> As you can see, approving a PDP recommendation requires at a minimum:
>>  
>> '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'.
>>  
>> It should be noted though that depending on whether a supermajority vote is achieved on a recommendation, the voting threshold needed for the ICANN Board to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN differs (i.e. if supermajority is achieved, it requires more than a 2/3 vote of the Board, while if no supermajority is achieved, a majority vote of the Board would be sufficient) - http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA.
>>  
>> Furthermore, if a supermajority threshold is achieved, the certainty of implementing some or parts of some of the recommendations as Consensus Policy may be more clear, but further determinations would need to be made in relation to each of the adopted recommendations as part of the implementation process to determine what would be the most effective / efficient way of implementation. If a supermajority threshold is not achieved, alternative mechanisms can be considered to implement the recommendations.
>>  
>> Finally, to approve an Issue Report, what is required is a quarter of each House or a majority of one House.
>>  
>> Structure of the motion
>> After consultation with Jonathan, I suggest the Council should vote on the second alternative of what was Recommendation 5, which is why we could delete the first alternative from the draft motion.
>>  
>> One additional thing I'd like to suggest is that, instead of considering the request to the SCI (to review consensus levels in the WG Guidelines) as part of the motion, the Council take up that item as part of our Consent Agenda during the Wednesday meeting. Jonathan ? this item is for your attention and action; will you grant the request?
>>  
>> Attached to this email are the following:
>>  
>> (1) A renumbered IGO-INGO motion:
>> Renumbered such that the former Resolved Clause 5 (which contains the language pertaining to those recommendations that received Strong Support but Significant Opposition) is now moved to the end of the motion and the two alternative wordings highlighted in yellow- with the result that all the preceding Resolved clauses now contain only the WG's Consensus recommendations.     
>> All Consensus recommendations are marked with two red **s; those receiving Strong Support but Significant Opposition (now contained in the last Resolved clause with the renumbering (new clause 8)) are marked with three blue ###s.
>> The word "and" has been underlined in the new clause 8, in the bullet point concerning IGO acronyms entering the TM Clearinghouse (currently Strong Support but Significant Opposition) - to emphasize the fact that at the moment there is no WG consensus on whether IGO acronyms should enter the TMCH for second-level protections (there is already Consensus that these acronyms will not receive top level protection).
>> The former Resolved Clause 7 (referring to the SCI review of the WG Guidelines) has been removed ? to be moved to the Council's Consent Agenda if approved.
>> No substantive, language or any other editing changes have been made to the motion ? this is otherwise the same motion that was sent on 10 November and discussed over the weekend.
>> (2) A list of the exact identifiers referred to in the WG report and the motion for each group of organizations (RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGOs other than the RCRC/IOC).
>>  
>> Hopefully these supplementary materials will assist in further constructive discussions on Tuesday and Wednesday.
>>  
>> Thanks,
>> Thomas
>>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131119/0ebf95f2/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: REDLINE MOTION 19 November.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 46130 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131119/0ebf95f2/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131119/0ebf95f2/attachment-0003.html>


From robin  Tue Nov 19 19:53:50 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:53:50 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
In-Reply-To: <55E8E112-5D13-4216-8C39-1901391CF5BC@egyptig.org>
References: <CEB11164.3331%mary.wong@icann.org>
	<55E8E112-5D13-4216-8C39-1901391CF5BC@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <3409CB69-F3EB-42AA-90B5-9FF090126AE7@ipjustice.org>

So, NCSG GNSO Councilors, how do you plan to vote on this motion?

Thanks,
Robin


On Nov 19, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:

> FYI.
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>> Date: November 19, 2013 at 1:01:34 PM GMT-3
>> To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>, "'Thomas Rickert'" <rickert at anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
>> 
>> Hello - the redlined version is attached.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Mary
>> 
>> Mary Wong
>> Senior Policy Director
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>> 
>> * One World. One Internet. *
>> 
>> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:16 PM
>> To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert at anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
>> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>> 
>>> It would be helpful for the constituencies? discussion to have a redline version of the motion available.
>>> Could staff please provide it?
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>> 
>>>  
>>> From: Neuman, Jeff
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM
>>> To: 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson
>>> Subject: RE: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>>>  
>>> Thomas,
>>>  
>>> Thanks for this.  Just for clarification, are you asking this to be considered by the maker of the motion as a friendly amendment?
>>>  
>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
>>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services
>>>  
>>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:12 AM
>>> To: GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson
>>> Subject: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>>>  
>>> Dear Councilors,
>>>  
>>> In view of the discussion in and feedback from the GNSO's Working Session on Saturday, I've asked ICANN staff to create some additional materials that I hope will be useful during your discussions of the IGO-INGO motion with your respective constituencies and stakeholder groups on Tuesday. ICANN staff has also consulted with ICANN's legal department regarding the questions that were raised about voting thresholds and Consensus Policies.
>>>  
>>> Voting Thresholds 
>>> The voting thresholds for PDP recommendations to be adopted are set out in the ICANN Bylaws herehttp://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X.
>>>  
>>> As you can see, approving a PDP recommendation requires at a minimum:
>>>  
>>> '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'.
>>>  
>>> It should be noted though that depending on whether a supermajority vote is achieved on a recommendation, the voting threshold needed for the ICANN Board to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN differs (i.e. if supermajority is achieved, it requires more than a 2/3 vote of the Board, while if no supermajority is achieved, a majority vote of the Board would be sufficient) - http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA.
>>>  
>>> Furthermore, if a supermajority threshold is achieved, the certainty of implementing some or parts of some of the recommendations as Consensus Policy may be more clear, but further determinations would need to be made in relation to each of the adopted recommendations as part of the implementation process to determine what would be the most effective / efficient way of implementation. If a supermajority threshold is not achieved, alternative mechanisms can be considered to implement the recommendations.
>>>  
>>> Finally, to approve an Issue Report, what is required is a quarter of each House or a majority of one House.
>>>  
>>> Structure of the motion
>>> After consultation with Jonathan, I suggest the Council should vote on the second alternative of what was Recommendation 5, which is why we could delete the first alternative from the draft motion.
>>>  
>>> One additional thing I'd like to suggest is that, instead of considering the request to the SCI (to review consensus levels in the WG Guidelines) as part of the motion, the Council take up that item as part of our Consent Agenda during the Wednesday meeting. Jonathan ? this item is for your attention and action; will you grant the request?
>>>  
>>> Attached to this email are the following:
>>>  
>>> (1) A renumbered IGO-INGO motion:
>>> Renumbered such that the former Resolved Clause 5 (which contains the language pertaining to those recommendations that received Strong Support but Significant Opposition) is now moved to the end of the motion and the two alternative wordings highlighted in yellow- with the result that all the preceding Resolved clauses now contain only the WG's Consensus recommendations.     
>>> All Consensus recommendations are marked with two red **s; those receiving Strong Support but Significant Opposition (now contained in the last Resolved clause with the renumbering (new clause 8)) are marked with three blue ###s.
>>> The word "and" has been underlined in the new clause 8, in the bullet point concerning IGO acronyms entering the TM Clearinghouse (currently Strong Support but Significant Opposition) - to emphasize the fact that at the moment there is no WG consensus on whether IGO acronyms should enter the TMCH for second-level protections (there is already Consensus that these acronyms will not receive top level protection).
>>> The former Resolved Clause 7 (referring to the SCI review of the WG Guidelines) has been removed ? to be moved to the Council's Consent Agenda if approved.
>>> No substantive, language or any other editing changes have been made to the motion ? this is otherwise the same motion that was sent on 10 November and discussed over the weekend.
>>> (2) A list of the exact identifiers referred to in the WG report and the motion for each group of organizations (RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGOs other than the RCRC/IOC).
>>>  
>>> Hopefully these supplementary materials will assist in further constructive discussions on Tuesday and Wednesday.
>>>  
>>> Thanks,
>>> Thomas
>>>  
> <REDLINE MOTION 19 November.docx>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131119/5a72197a/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131119/5a72197a/attachment-0001.sig>


From joy  Tue Nov 19 19:56:16 2013
From: joy (joy)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 06:56:16 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
In-Reply-To: <3409CB69-F3EB-42AA-90B5-9FF090126AE7@ipjustice.org>
References: <CEB11164.3331%mary.wong@icann.org>	<55E8E112-5D13-4216-8C39-1901391CF5BC@egyptig.org>
	<3409CB69-F3EB-42AA-90B5-9FF090126AE7@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <528BA640.4090302@apc.org>


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
Hi Robin - I am in the meeting now to get our constituencies' advice on
this :)
Joy
On 20/11/2013 6:53 a.m., Robin Gross wrote:
> So, NCSG GNSO Councilors, how do you plan to vote on this motion?
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
> On Nov 19, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
>> FYI.
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> *From: *Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>>
>>> *Subject: **Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion*
>>> *Date: *November 19, 2013 at 1:01:34 PM GMT-3
>>> *To: *WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>, "Neuman, Jeff"
<Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us <mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>>, "'Thomas
Rickert'" <rickert at anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>>, GNSO
Council List <council at gnso.icann.org <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>,
Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
<mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>>
>>>
>>> Hello - the redlined version is attached.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Mary
>>>
>>> Mary Wong
>>> Senior Policy Director
>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
>>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org <mailto:mary.wong at icann.org>
>>>
>>> * One World. One Internet. *
>>>
>>> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>
>>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de
<mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>>
>>> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:16 PM
>>> To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us
<mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert at anwaelte.de
<mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org
<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>, Jonathan Robinson
<jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com <mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>>
>>> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>>>
>>>> It would be helpful for the constituencies? discussion to have a
redline version of the motion available.
>>>> Could staff please provide it?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> *From:* Neuman, Jeff <mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM
>>>> *To:* 'Thomas Rickert' <mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de> ; GNSO Council
List <mailto:council at gnso.icann.org> ; Jonathan Robinson
<mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
>>>> *Subject:* RE: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>>>> 
>>>> Thomas,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for this.  Just for clarification, are you asking this to be
considered by the maker of the motion as a friendly amendment?
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>> *Jeffrey J. Neuman**
>>>> **Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services*
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> *From:* owner-council at gnso.icann.org
<mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org>
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Thomas Rickert
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:12 AM
>>>> *To:* GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson
>>>> *Subject:* [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Councilors,
>>>> 
>>>> In view of the discussion in and feedback from the GNSO's Working
Session on Saturday, I've asked ICANN staff to create some additional
materials that I hope will be useful during your discussions of the
IGO-INGO motion with your respective constituencies and stakeholder
groups on Tuesday. ICANN staff has also consulted with ICANN's legal
department regarding the questions that were raised about voting
thresholds and Consensus Policies.
>>>> 
>>>> *Voting Thresholds*
>>>> The voting thresholds for PDP recommendations to be adopted are set
out in the ICANN Bylaws
herehttp://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X.
>>>> 
>>>> As you can see, approving a PDP recommendation requires at a minimum:
>>>> 
>>>> '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'.
>>>> 
>>>> It should be noted though that depending on whether a supermajority
vote is achieved on a recommendation, the voting threshold needed for
the ICANN Board to determine that such policy is not in the best
interests of the ICANN community or ICANN differs (i.e. if supermajority
is achieved, it requires more than a 2/3 vote of the Board, while if no
supermajority is achieved, a majority vote of the Board would be
sufficient) - http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA.
>>>> 
>>>> Furthermore, if a supermajority threshold is achieved, the
certainty of implementing some or parts of some of the recommendations
as Consensus Policy may be more clear, but further determinations would
need to be made in relation to each of the adopted recommendations as
part of the implementation process to determine what would be the most
effective / efficient way of implementation. If a supermajority
threshold is not achieved, alternative mechanisms can be considered to
implement the recommendations.
>>>> 
>>>> Finally, to approve an Issue Report, what is required is a quarter
of each House or a majority of one House.
>>>> 
>>>> *Structure of the motion*
>>>> After consultation with Jonathan, I suggest the Council should vote
on the second alternative of what was Recommendation 5, which is why we
could delete the first alternative from the draft motion.
>>>> 
>>>> One additional thing I'd like to suggest is that, instead of
considering the request to the SCI (to review consensus levels in the WG
Guidelines) as part of the motion, the Council take up that item as part
of our Consent Agenda during the Wednesday meeting. Jonathan ? this item
is for your attention and action; will you grant the request?
>>>> 
>>>> Attached to this email are the following:
>>>> 
>>>> (1) A renumbered IGO-INGO motion:
>>>>
>>>>   * Renumbered such that the former Resolved Clause 5 (which
contains the language pertaining to those recommendations that received
Strong Support but Significant Opposition) is now moved to the end of
the motion and the two alternative wordings highlighted in yellow- with
the result that all the preceding Resolved clauses now contain only the
WG's Consensus recommendations.    
>>>>   * All Consensus recommendations are marked with two red **s;
those receiving Strong Support but Significant Opposition (now contained
in the last Resolved clause with the renumbering (new clause 8)) are
marked with three blue ###s.
>>>>   * The word "and" has been underlined in the new clause 8, in the
bullet point concerning IGO acronyms entering the TM Clearinghouse
(currently Strong Support but Significant Opposition) - to emphasize the
fact that at the moment there is no WG consensus on whether IGO acronyms
should enter the TMCH for second-level protections (there is already
Consensus that these acronyms will not receive top level protection).
>>>>   * The former Resolved Clause 7 (referring to the SCI review of
the WG Guidelines) has been removed ? to be moved to the Council's
Consent Agenda if approved.
>>>>   * No substantive, language or any other editing changes have been
made to the motion ? this is otherwise the same motion that was sent on
10 November and discussed over the weekend.
>>>>
>>>> (2) A list of the exact identifiers referred to in the WG report
and the motion for each group of organizations (RCRC, IOC, IGOs and
INGOs other than the RCRC/IOC).
>>>> 
>>>> Hopefully these supplementary materials will assist in further
constructive discussions on Tuesday and Wednesday.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Thomas
>>>> 
>> <REDLINE MOTION 19 November.docx>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
 
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSi6ZAAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqpkkH/jPWc8ZacFzYdghRgIh1/0Om
8+CzAsPWlZAXSo5MX/gDKg40dBtCLHBw7Yo0oElupKm3djW3qgpqM1fva08EQ+j4
mWuego4XtgfYFwiDKDD7tpHu2KTlw67A9nWxjszHastAFmyBVADI62KEGeb7UM27
EtqegNXIpaAsBpbfWSBcI7b9dylzU3aVGeg3J2HbVgCAa0QPQecfuaocFuLdLDGb
HEaIF4/1N9ud9j8Wh8SdnVgtH55MFwvo++NACeU8eAJqI9Zi8lhn4+xdL6eMT2cQ
G2bW2BCPepliQo7NUV0Yh4cPSuUKpsHkHQAqMBFfuYRjHZRCIGgsOo/4BoOTelw=
=zSKH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131120/72708f56/attachment.html>


From dave  Tue Nov 19 19:59:42 2013
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 14:59:42 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
In-Reply-To: <3409CB69-F3EB-42AA-90B5-9FF090126AE7@ipjustice.org>
References: <CEB11164.3331%mary.wong@icann.org>
	<55E8E112-5D13-4216-8C39-1901391CF5BC@egyptig.org>
	<3409CB69-F3EB-42AA-90B5-9FF090126AE7@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <58CE5C4756744EEFA4E8E76C5777BCEC@difference.com.au>

My personal feeling is I?m leaning towards voting in favour of the consensus positions, and against the non-consensus parts. But I?m still very happy to hear from others, especially those who were in the WG.  

David  

--  
David Cake
Sent with Sparrow (http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/?sig)


On Tuesday, 19 November 2013 at 2:53 pm, Robin Gross wrote:

> So, NCSG GNSO Councilors, how do you plan to vote on this motion?
>  
> Thanks,
> Robin
>  
>  
> On Nov 19, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> > FYI.
> >  
> > Begin forwarded message:
> > > From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org (mailto:mary.wong at icann.org)>
> > > Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
> > > Date: November 19, 2013 at 1:01:34 PM GMT-3
> > > To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de)>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us (mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us)>, "'Thomas Rickert'" <rickert at anwaelte.de (mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de)>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org (mailto:council at gnso.icann.org)>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com (mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com)>
> > >  
> > > Hello - the redlined version is attached.
> > >  
> > > Cheers
> > > Mary
> > >  
> > > Mary Wong
> > > Senior Policy Director
> > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> > > Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> > > Email: mary.wong at icann.org (mailto:mary.wong at icann.org)
> > >  
> > > * One World. One Internet. *
> > >  
> > > From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de)>
> > > Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de (mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de)>
> > > Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:16 PM
> > > To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us (mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us)>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert at anwaelte.de (mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de)>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org (mailto:council at gnso.icann.org)>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com (mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com)>
> > > Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
> > >  
> > > > It would be helpful for the constituencies? discussion to have a redline version of the motion available.
> > > > Could staff please provide it?
> > > >  
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Wolf-Ulrich
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > > From: Neuman, Jeff (mailto:Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us)
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM
> > > > To: 'Thomas Rickert' (mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de) ; GNSO Council List (mailto:council at gnso.icann.org) ; Jonathan Robinson (mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com)
> > > > Subject: RE: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > > Thomas,
> > > >   
> > > > Thanks for this.  Just for clarification, are you asking this to be considered by the maker of the motion as a friendly amendment?
> > > >   
> > > > Jeffrey J. Neuman  
> > > > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services
> > > >   
> > > > From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org (mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org) [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:12 AM
> > > > To: GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson
> > > > Subject: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
> > > >   
> > > > Dear Councilors,
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > > In view of the discussion in and feedback from the GNSO's Working Session on Saturday, I've asked ICANN staff to create some additional materials that I hope will be useful during your discussions of the IGO-INGO motion with your respective constituencies and stakeholder groups on Tuesday. ICANN staff has also consulted with ICANN's legal department regarding the questions that were raised about voting thresholds and Consensus Policies.
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > > Voting Thresholds  
> > > >  
> > > > The voting thresholds for PDP recommendations to be adopted are set out in the ICANN Bylaws herehttp://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X.
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > > As you can see, approving a PDP recommendation requires at a minimum:
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > > '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'.
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > > It should be noted though that depending on whether a supermajority vote is achieved on a recommendation, the voting threshold needed for the ICANN Board to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN differs (i.e. if supermajority is achieved, it requires more than a 2/3 vote of the Board, while if no supermajority is achieved, a majority vote of the Board would be sufficient) - http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA.
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > > Furthermore, if a supermajority threshold is achieved, the certainty of implementing some or parts of some of the recommendations as Consensus Policy may be more clear, but further determinations would need to be made in relation to each of the adopted recommendations as part of the implementation process to determine what would be the most effective / efficient way of implementation. If a supermajority threshold is not achieved, alternative mechanisms can be considered to implement the recommendations.
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > > Finally, to approve an Issue Report, what is required is a quarter of each House or a majority of one House.
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > > Structure of the motion
> > > >  
> > > > After consultation with Jonathan, I suggest the Council should vote on the second alternative of what was Recommendation 5, which is why we could delete the first alternative from the draft motion.
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > > One additional thing I'd like to suggest is that, instead of considering the request to the SCI (to review consensus levels in the WG Guidelines) as part of the motion, the Council take up that item as part of our Consent Agenda during the Wednesday meeting. Jonathan ? this item is for your attention and action; will you grant the request?
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > > Attached to this email are the following:
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > > (1) A renumbered IGO-INGO motion:
> > > >  
> > > > Renumbered such that the former Resolved Clause 5 (which contains the language pertaining to those recommendations that received Strong Support but Significant Opposition) is now moved to the end of the motion and the two alternative wordings highlighted in yellow- with the result that all the preceding Resolved clauses now contain only the WG's Consensus recommendations.      
> > > > All Consensus recommendations are marked with two red **s; those receiving Strong Support but Significant Opposition (now contained in the last Resolved clause with the renumbering (new clause 8)) are marked with three blue ###s.
> > > > The word "and" has been underlined in the new clause 8, in the bullet point concerning IGO acronyms entering the TM Clearinghouse (currently Strong Support but Significant Opposition) - to emphasize the fact that at the moment there is no WG consensus on whether IGO acronyms should enter the TMCH for second-level protections (there is already Consensus that these acronyms will not receive top level protection).
> > > > The former Resolved Clause 7 (referring to the SCI review of the WG Guidelines) has been removed ? to be moved to the Council's Consent Agenda if approved.
> > > > No substantive, language or any other editing changes have been made to the motion ? this is otherwise the same motion that was sent on 10 November and discussed over the weekend.
> > > >  
> > > > (2) A list of the exact identifiers referred to in the WG report and the motion for each group of organizations (RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGOs other than the RCRC/IOC).
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > > Hopefully these supplementary materials will assist in further constructive discussions on Tuesday and Wednesday.
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >  
> > > > Thomas
> > > >  
> > > >   
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > <REDLINE MOTION 19 November.docx>
> > >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org (mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org)
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>  
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org (mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org)
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>  
>  


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131119/e2a013f1/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Tue Nov 19 20:14:54 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 15:14:54 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
In-Reply-To: <58CE5C4756744EEFA4E8E76C5777BCEC@difference.com.au>
References: <CEB11164.3331%mary.wong@icann.org>
	<55E8E112-5D13-4216-8C39-1901391CF5BC@egyptig.org>
	<3409CB69-F3EB-42AA-90B5-9FF090126AE7@ipjustice.org>
	<58CE5C4756744EEFA4E8E76C5777BCEC@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <1E9B563B-5A33-4D49-AD0F-F9159AF74239@acm.org>

Hi,

All in all I think it is probably best to vote it down.

We are against the extension of reserved name
We are against a new forms of reserved names that allow the IOC to allow reserved names in consideration for past or future considerations

And some of us are against allowing the IGO/INGO to use the RPMs (I am not part of this group - this i support because i don't think TMs are sacred and I think UN blessing is as good as a TM anytime)


avri


On 19 Nov 2013, at 14:59, David Cake wrote:

> My personal feeling is I?m leaning towards voting in favour of the consensus positions, and against the non-consensus parts. But I?m still very happy to hear from others, especially those who were in the WG. 
> 
> David
> 
> -- 
> David Cake
> Sent with Sparrow
> 
> On Tuesday, 19 November 2013 at 2:53 pm, Robin Gross wrote:
> 
>> So, NCSG GNSO Councilors, how do you plan to vote on this motion?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 19, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> 
>>> FYI.
>>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>>> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>>>> Date: November 19, 2013 at 1:01:34 PM GMT-3
>>>> To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>, "'Thomas Rickert'" <rickert at anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
>>>> 
>>>> Hello - the redlined version is attached.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Mary
>>>> 
>>>> Mary Wong
>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
>>>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>>>> 
>>>> * One World. One Internet. *
>>>> 
>>>> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>>>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>>>> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:16 PM
>>>> To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert at anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
>>>> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>>>> 
>>>>> It would be helpful for the constituencies? discussion to have a redline version of the motion available.
>>>>> Could staff please provide it?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> From: Neuman, Jeff
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM
>>>>> To: 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson
>>>>> Subject: RE: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thomas,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for this.  Just for clarification, are you asking this to be considered by the maker of the motion as a friendly amendment?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
>>>>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services
>>>>> 
>>>>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:12 AM
>>>>> To: GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson
>>>>> Subject: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear Councilors,
>>>>> 
>>>>> In view of the discussion in and feedback from the GNSO's Working Session on Saturday, I've asked ICANN staff to create some additional materials that I hope will be useful during your discussions of the IGO-INGO motion with your respective constituencies and stakeholder groups on Tuesday. ICANN staff has also consulted with ICANN's legal department regarding the questions that were raised about voting thresholds and Consensus Policies.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Voting Thresholds 
>>>>> The voting thresholds for PDP recommendations to be adopted are set out in the ICANN Bylaws herehttp://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As you can see, approving a PDP recommendation requires at a minimum:
>>>>> 
>>>>> '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'.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It should be noted though that depending on whether a supermajority vote is achieved on a recommendation, the voting threshold needed for the ICANN Board to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN differs (i.e. if supermajority is achieved, it requires more than a 2/3 vote of the Board, while if no supermajority is achieved, a majority vote of the Board would be sufficient) - http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Furthermore, if a supermajority threshold is achieved, the certainty of implementing some or parts of some of the recommendations as Consensus Policy may be more clear, but further determinations would need to be made in relation to each of the adopted recommendations as part of the implementation process to determine what would be the most effective / efficient way of implementation. If a supermajority threshold is not achieved, alternative mechanisms can be considered to implement the recommendations.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Finally, to approve an Issue Report, what is required is a quarter of each House or a majority of one House.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Structure of the motion
>>>>> After consultation with Jonathan, I suggest the Council should vote on the second alternative of what was Recommendation 5, which is why we could delete the first alternative from the draft motion.
>>>>> 
>>>>> One additional thing I'd like to suggest is that, instead of considering the request to the SCI (to review consensus levels in the WG Guidelines) as part of the motion, the Council take up that item as part of our Consent Agenda during the Wednesday meeting. Jonathan ? this item is for your attention and action; will you grant the request?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Attached to this email are the following:
>>>>> 
>>>>> (1) A renumbered IGO-INGO motion:
>>>>> 	? Renumbered such that the former Resolved Clause 5 (which contains the language pertaining to those recommendations that received Strong Support but Significant Opposition) is now moved to the end of the motion and the two alternative wordings highlighted in yellow- with the result that all the preceding Resolved clauses now contain only the WG's Consensus recommendations.     
>>>>> 	? All Consensus recommendations are marked with two red **s; those receiving Strong Support but Significant Opposition (now contained in the last Resolved clause with the renumbering (new clause 8)) are marked with three blue ###s.
>>>>> 	? The word "and" has been underlined in the new clause 8, in the bullet point concerning IGO acronyms entering the TM Clearinghouse (currently Strong Support but Significant Opposition) - to emphasize the fact that at the moment there is no WG consensus on whether IGO acronyms should enter the TMCH for second-level protections (there is already Consensus that these acronyms will not receive top level protection).
>>>>> 	? The former Resolved Clause 7 (referring to the SCI review of the WG Guidelines) has been removed ? to be moved to the Council's Consent Agenda if approved.
>>>>> 	? No substantive, language or any other editing changes have been made to the motion ? this is otherwise the same motion that was sent on 10 November and discussed over the weekend.
>>>>> (2) A list of the exact identifiers referred to in the WG report and the motion for each group of organizations (RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGOs other than the RCRC/IOC).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hopefully these supplementary materials will assist in further constructive discussions on Tuesday and Wednesday.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Thomas
>>>>> 
>>> <REDLINE MOTION 19 November.docx>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131119/05383e3d/attachment.sig>


From aelsadr  Tue Nov 19 20:38:57 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 15:38:57 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
In-Reply-To: <1E9B563B-5A33-4D49-AD0F-F9159AF74239@acm.org>
References: <CEB11164.3331%mary.wong@icann.org>
	<55E8E112-5D13-4216-8C39-1901391CF5BC@egyptig.org>
	<3409CB69-F3EB-42AA-90B5-9FF090126AE7@ipjustice.org>
	<58CE5C4756744EEFA4E8E76C5777BCEC@difference.com.au>
	<1E9B563B-5A33-4D49-AD0F-F9159AF74239@acm.org>
Message-ID: <174F3050-F8DD-4DB0-ACB3-E43D0C560DBA@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I'm not voting, but to the extent that I understand the motion, I agree with Avri. I don't see the wisdom in supporting extension of reserved names either. 

Amr

Sent from mobile

> On Nov 19, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> All in all I think it is probably best to vote it down.
> 
> We are against the extension of reserved name
> We are against a new forms of reserved names that allow the IOC to allow reserved names in consideration for past or future considerations
> 
> And some of us are against allowing the IGO/INGO to use the RPMs (I am not part of this group - this i support because i don't think TMs are sacred and I think UN blessing is as good as a TM anytime)
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> 
>> On 19 Nov 2013, at 14:59, David Cake wrote:
>> 
>> My personal feeling is I?m leaning towards voting in favour of the consensus positions, and against the non-consensus parts. But I?m still very happy to hear from others, especially those who were in the WG. 
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> -- 
>> David Cake
>> Sent with Sparrow
>> 
>>> On Tuesday, 19 November 2013 at 2:53 pm, Robin Gross wrote:
>>> 
>>> So, NCSG GNSO Councilors, how do you plan to vote on this motion?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Nov 19, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> FYI.
>>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>>> From: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>>>>> Date: November 19, 2013 at 1:01:34 PM GMT-3
>>>>> To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>, "'Thomas Rickert'" <rickert at anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hello - the redlined version is attached.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers
>>>>> Mary
>>>>> 
>>>>> Mary Wong
>>>>> Senior Policy Director
>>>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>>>> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
>>>>> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
>>>>> 
>>>>> * One World. One Internet. *
>>>>> 
>>>>> From: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>>>>> Reply-To: WUKnoben <wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de>
>>>>> Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:16 PM
>>>>> To: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>, 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert at anwaelte.de>, GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>>>>> 
>>>>>> It would be helpful for the constituencies? discussion to have a redline version of the motion available.
>>>>>> Could staff please provide it?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Wolf-Ulrich
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: Neuman, Jeff
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM
>>>>>> To: 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson
>>>>>> Subject: RE: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thomas,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks for this.  Just for clarification, are you asking this to be considered by the maker of the motion as a friendly amendment?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
>>>>>> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:12 AM
>>>>>> To: GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson
>>>>>> Subject: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear Councilors,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In view of the discussion in and feedback from the GNSO's Working Session on Saturday, I've asked ICANN staff to create some additional materials that I hope will be useful during your discussions of the IGO-INGO motion with your respective constituencies and stakeholder groups on Tuesday. ICANN staff has also consulted with ICANN's legal department regarding the questions that were raised about voting thresholds and Consensus Policies.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Voting Thresholds 
>>>>>> The voting thresholds for PDP recommendations to be adopted are set out in the ICANN Bylaws herehttp://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> As you can see, approving a PDP recommendation requires at a minimum:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> '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'.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> It should be noted though that depending on whether a supermajority vote is achieved on a recommendation, the voting threshold needed for the ICANN Board to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN differs (i.e. if supermajority is achieved, it requires more than a 2/3 vote of the Board, while if no supermajority is achieved, a majority vote of the Board would be sufficient) - http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Furthermore, if a supermajority threshold is achieved, the certainty of implementing some or parts of some of the recommendations as Consensus Policy may be more clear, but further determinations would need to be made in relation to each of the adopted recommendations as part of the implementation process to determine what would be the most effective / efficient way of implementation. If a supermajority threshold is not achieved, alternative mechanisms can be considered to implement the recommendations.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Finally, to approve an Issue Report, what is required is a quarter of each House or a majority of one House.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Structure of the motion
>>>>>> After consultation with Jonathan, I suggest the Council should vote on the second alternative of what was Recommendation 5, which is why we could delete the first alternative from the draft motion.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> One additional thing I'd like to suggest is that, instead of considering the request to the SCI (to review consensus levels in the WG Guidelines) as part of the motion, the Council take up that item as part of our Consent Agenda during the Wednesday meeting. Jonathan ? this item is for your attention and action; will you grant the request?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Attached to this email are the following:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (1) A renumbered IGO-INGO motion:
>>>>>>    ? Renumbered such that the former Resolved Clause 5 (which contains the language pertaining to those recommendations that received Strong Support but Significant Opposition) is now moved to the end of the motion and the two alternative wordings highlighted in yellow- with the result that all the preceding Resolved clauses now contain only the WG's Consensus recommendations.     
>>>>>>    ? All Consensus recommendations are marked with two red **s; those receiving Strong Support but Significant Opposition (now contained in the last Resolved clause with the renumbering (new clause 8)) are marked with three blue ###s.
>>>>>>    ? The word "and" has been underlined in the new clause 8, in the bullet point concerning IGO acronyms entering the TM Clearinghouse (currently Strong Support but Significant Opposition) - to emphasize the fact that at the moment there is no WG consensus on whether IGO acronyms should enter the TMCH for second-level protections (there is already Consensus that these acronyms will not receive top level protection).
>>>>>>    ? The former Resolved Clause 7 (referring to the SCI review of the WG Guidelines) has been removed ? to be moved to the Council's Consent Agenda if approved.
>>>>>>    ? No substantive, language or any other editing changes have been made to the motion ? this is otherwise the same motion that was sent on 10 November and discussed over the weekend.
>>>>>> (2) A list of the exact identifiers referred to in the WG report and the motion for each group of organizations (RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGOs other than the RCRC/IOC).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hopefully these supplementary materials will assist in further constructive discussions on Tuesday and Wednesday.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Thomas
>>>> <REDLINE MOTION 19 November.docx>
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From maria.farrell  Tue Nov 19 22:14:32 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:14:32 -0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion - MEETING TODAY
In-Reply-To: <025001cee547$6c4d5850$44e808f0$@afilias.info>
References: <025001cee547$6c4d5850$44e808f0$@afilias.info>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdA3uo71woR85dObH+en58JavU2c9NEPfxX-yi+BNTWT4w@mail.gmail.com>

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
Date: 19 November 2013 13:50
Subject: RE: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion - MEETING TODAY
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>


All,



Please be aware and / or reminded that we have a session *today* for
councillors / group & constituency leadership to come together to discuss
this and any other issues ahead of tomorrow?s council meeting.



Glen will shortly confirm / re-confirm to the list when & where the meeting
will be held.



Jonathan



*From:* WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de]
*Sent:* 19 November 2013 12:16
*To:* Neuman, Jeff; 'Thomas Rickert'; GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson
*Subject:* Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion



It would be helpful for the constituencies? discussion to have a redline
version of the motion available.

Could staff please provide it?


Thanks
Wolf-Ulrich



*From:* Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>

*Sent:* Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM

*To:* 'Thomas Rickert' <rickert at anwaelte.de> ; GNSO Council
List<council at gnso.icann.org>; Jonathan
Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>

*Subject:* RE: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion



Thomas,



Thanks for this.  Just for clarification, are you asking this to be
considered by the maker of the motion as a friendly amendment?



*Jeffrey J. Neuman*
*Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services*



*From:* owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org<owner-council at gnso.icann.org>]
*On Behalf Of *Thomas Rickert
*Sent:* Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:12 AM
*To:* GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson
*Subject:* [council] update on IGO-INGO motion



Dear Councilors,



In view of the discussion in and feedback from the GNSO's Working Session
on Saturday, I've asked ICANN staff to create some additional materials
that I hope will be useful during your discussions of the IGO-INGO motion
with your respective constituencies and stakeholder groups on Tuesday.
ICANN staff has also consulted with ICANN's legal department regarding the
questions that were raised about voting thresholds and Consensus Policies.



*Voting Thresholds*

The voting thresholds for PDP recommendations to be adopted are set out in
the ICANN Bylaws herehttp://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X.



As you can see, approving a PDP recommendation requires at a minimum:



'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'.



It should be noted though that depending on whether a supermajority vote is
achieved on a recommendation, the voting threshold needed for the ICANN
Board to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the
ICANN community or ICANN differs (i.e. if supermajority is achieved, it
requires more than a 2/3 vote of the Board, while if no supermajority is
achieved, a majority vote of the Board would be sufficient) -
http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA.



Furthermore, if a supermajority threshold is achieved, the certainty of
implementing some or parts of some of the recommendations as Consensus
Policy may be more clear, but further determinations would need to be made
in relation to each of the adopted recommendations as part of the
implementation process to determine what would be the most effective /
efficient way of implementation. If a supermajority threshold is not
achieved, alternative mechanisms can be considered to implement the
recommendations.



Finally, to approve an Issue Report, what is required is a quarter of each
House or a majority of one House.



*Structure of the motion*

After consultation with Jonathan, I suggest the Council should vote on the
second alternative of what was Recommendation 5, which is why we could
delete the first alternative from the draft motion.



One additional thing I'd like to suggest is that, instead of considering
the request to the SCI (to review consensus levels in the WG Guidelines) as
part of the motion, the Council take up that item as part of our Consent
Agenda during the Wednesday meeting. Jonathan ? this item is for your
attention and action; will you grant the request?



Attached to this email are the following:



(1) A renumbered IGO-INGO motion:

   - Renumbered such that the former Resolved Clause 5 (which contains the
   language pertaining to those recommendations that received Strong Support
   but Significant Opposition) is now moved to the end of the motion and the
   two alternative wordings highlighted in yellow- with the result that all
   the preceding Resolved clauses now contain only the WG's Consensus
   recommendations.
   - All Consensus recommendations are marked with two red **s; those
   receiving Strong Support but Significant Opposition (now contained in the
   last Resolved clause with the renumbering (new clause 8)) are marked with
   three blue ###s.
   - The word "and" has been underlined in the new clause 8, in the bullet
   point concerning IGO acronyms entering the TM Clearinghouse (currently
   Strong Support but Significant Opposition) - to emphasize the fact that at
   the moment there is no WG consensus on whether IGO acronyms should enter
   the TMCH for second-level protections (there is already Consensus that
   these acronyms will not receive top level protection).
   - The former Resolved Clause 7 (referring to the SCI review of the WG
   Guidelines) has been removed ? to be moved to the Council's Consent Agenda
   if approved.
   - No substantive, language or any other editing changes have been made
   to the motion ? this is otherwise the same motion that was sent on 10
   November and discussed over the weekend.

(2) A list of the exact identifiers referred to in the WG report and the
motion for each group of organizations (RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGOs other
than the RCRC/IOC).



Hopefully these supplementary materials will assist in further constructive
discussions on Tuesday and Wednesday.



Thanks,

Thomas
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131119/e6a6ca63/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Nov 19 22:28:14 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 17:28:14 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion - MEETING
	TODAY
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdA3uo71woR85dObH+en58JavU2c9NEPfxX-yi+BNTWT4w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <025001cee547$6c4d5850$44e808f0$@afilias.info>
	<CAC7qwdA3uo71woR85dObH+en58JavU2c9NEPfxX-yi+BNTWT4w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <972EDFB0-3728-452B-9D2F-680168699F4A@egyptig.org>

Yes Maria,

The time and place have been confirmed:

Date: Tuesday, 19 November 2013
Time: 18:30 ? 19:30
Venue: Atalya (24th Floor)
 
I plan on being there.

Thanks.

Amr

On Nov 19, 2013, at 5:14 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> wrote:

> FYI
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jonathan Robinson <jrobinson at afilias.info>
> Date: 19 November 2013 13:50
> Subject: RE: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion - MEETING TODAY
> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> 
> All,
> 
>  
> 
> Please be aware and / or reminded that we have a session today for councillors / group & constituency leadership to come together to discuss this and any other issues ahead of tomorrow?s council meeting.
> 
>  
> 
> Glen will shortly confirm / re-confirm to the list when & where the meeting will be held.
> 
>  
> 
> Jonathan
> 
>  
> 
> From: WUKnoben [mailto:wolf-ulrich.knoben at t-online.de] 
> Sent: 19 November 2013 12:16
> To: Neuman, Jeff; 'Thomas Rickert'; GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson
> Subject: Re: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
> 
>  
> 
> It would be helpful for the constituencies? discussion to have a redline version of the motion available.
> 
> Could staff please provide it?
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Wolf-Ulrich
> 
>  
> 
> From: Neuman, Jeff
> 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:24 AM
> 
> To: 'Thomas Rickert' ; GNSO Council List ; Jonathan Robinson
> 
> Subject: RE: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
> 
>  
> 
> Thomas,
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for this.  Just for clarification, are you asking this to be considered by the maker of the motion as a friendly amendment?
> 
>  
> 
> Jeffrey J. Neuman 
> Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Registry Services
> 
>  
> 
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Rickert
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 11:12 AM
> To: GNSO Council List; Jonathan Robinson
> Subject: [council] update on IGO-INGO motion
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Councilors,
> 
>  
> 
> In view of the discussion in and feedback from the GNSO's Working Session on Saturday, I've asked ICANN staff to create some additional materials that I hope will be useful during your discussions of the IGO-INGO motion with your respective constituencies and stakeholder groups on Tuesday. ICANN staff has also consulted with ICANN's legal department regarding the questions that were raised about voting thresholds and Consensus Policies.
> 
>  
> 
> Voting Thresholds 
> 
> The voting thresholds for PDP recommendations to be adopted are set out in the ICANN Bylaws herehttp://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X.
> 
>  
> 
> As you can see, approving a PDP recommendation requires at a minimum:
> 
>  
> 
> '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'.
> 
>  
> 
> It should be noted though that depending on whether a supermajority vote is achieved on a recommendation, the voting threshold needed for the ICANN Board to determine that such policy is not in the best interests of the ICANN community or ICANN differs (i.e. if supermajority is achieved, it requires more than a 2/3 vote of the Board, while if no supermajority is achieved, a majority vote of the Board would be sufficient) - http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#AnnexA.
> 
>  
> 
> Furthermore, if a supermajority threshold is achieved, the certainty of implementing some or parts of some of the recommendations as Consensus Policy may be more clear, but further determinations would need to be made in relation to each of the adopted recommendations as part of the implementation process to determine what would be the most effective / efficient way of implementation. If a supermajority threshold is not achieved, alternative mechanisms can be considered to implement the recommendations.
> 
>  
> 
> Finally, to approve an Issue Report, what is required is a quarter of each House or a majority of one House.
> 
>  
> 
> Structure of the motion
> 
> After consultation with Jonathan, I suggest the Council should vote on the second alternative of what was Recommendation 5, which is why we could delete the first alternative from the draft motion.
> 
>  
> 
> One additional thing I'd like to suggest is that, instead of considering the request to the SCI (to review consensus levels in the WG Guidelines) as part of the motion, the Council take up that item as part of our Consent Agenda during the Wednesday meeting. Jonathan ? this item is for your attention and action; will you grant the request?
> 
>  
> 
> Attached to this email are the following:
> 
>  
> 
> (1) A renumbered IGO-INGO motion:
> 
> Renumbered such that the former Resolved Clause 5 (which contains the language pertaining to those recommendations that received Strong Support but Significant Opposition) is now moved to the end of the motion and the two alternative wordings highlighted in yellow- with the result that all the preceding Resolved clauses now contain only the WG's Consensus recommendations. 
> All Consensus recommendations are marked with two red **s; those receiving Strong Support but Significant Opposition (now contained in the last Resolved clause with the renumbering (new clause 8)) are marked with three blue ###s.
> The word "and" has been underlined in the new clause 8, in the bullet point concerning IGO acronyms entering the TM Clearinghouse (currently Strong Support but Significant Opposition) - to emphasize the fact that at the moment there is no WG consensus on whether IGO acronyms should enter the TMCH for second-level protections (there is already Consensus that these acronyms will not receive top level protection).
> The former Resolved Clause 7 (referring to the SCI review of the WG Guidelines) has been removed ? to be moved to the Council's Consent Agenda if approved.
> No substantive, language or any other editing changes have been made to the motion ? this is otherwise the same motion that was sent on 10 November and discussed over the weekend.
> (2) A list of the exact identifiers referred to in the WG report and the motion for each group of organizations (RCRC, IOC, IGOs and INGOs other than the RCRC/IOC).
> 
>  
> 
> Hopefully these supplementary materials will assist in further constructive discussions on Tuesday and Wednesday.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Thomas
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131119/95884eda/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Wed Nov 20 10:19:26 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 00:19:26 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
References: <20131120081106.575292D4474@sjc-wfweb08>
Message-ID: <85D60B2A-7759-4A2E-B272-A2986763E939@ipjustice.org>

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Confirmation Message" <no-reply at wufoo.com>
> Subject: GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
> Date: November 20, 2013 12:11:06 AM PST
> To: robin at ipjustice.org
> Reply-To: no-reply at icann.org
> 
> GNSO Council Abstention Notification Form
> Name of Officer: *	Robin Gross
> Officer Email Address: *	robin at ipjustice.org
> Date Prepared: *	Wednesday, November 20, 2013
> GNSO Organization: *	
> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group
> Officer Position or Title: *	
> Chair
> Voting Remedy: *	
> Proxy
> Reason(s) for or condition(s) leading to the remedy: *	
> In the event that Joy Liddicoat looses connectivity during the GNSO Council Vote, her proxy has been assigned to David Cake.
> Specific subject(s)/measure(s)/motion(s)/action(s) of the Council for which the remedy is being exercised: *	
> Any and All
> Date upon which the remedy will expire or terminate:
> [Note: may not exceed 3 months initially; may be renewed by sending an email with explanation to GNSO Secretariat] *	Friday, November 22, 2013
> I affirm that a voting position has been established on the matter(s) at issue pursuant to provisions contained in our Charter or Bylaws. *	
> Yes
> Our GNSO Councilor has been instructed on how to vote on the matter(s). *	
> Yes
> Please identify the GNSO Councilor who will serve as the voting proxy: *	David Cake

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131120/73f115b5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131120/73f115b5/attachment.sig>


From mllemineur  Wed Nov 20 19:33:01 2013
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:33:01 -0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Congrats to Sam!
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqGinnKrc8-8n0tpjno7rWvdUa3YLR=3O3PexCFzw6=Pow@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I am glad to inform you that Sam has been accepted as a member of NPOC.
This is an informal notice since Rafik as Chair of NCSG is going to inform
Sam officially nI just wanted to let you know informally and congratulated
Sam. I am very very happy that we will be counting on Sam?s help . Once the
news is officially out, I will also officialy nominate Sam as our alternate
policy chair. this hopefully will happen soon.
Our policy team is getting stronger.

Best,

Marie-laure
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131120/6cd23059/attachment.html>


From robin  Wed Nov 20 21:16:48 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 11:16:48 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Congrats to Sam!
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqGinnKrc8-8n0tpjno7rWvdUa3YLR=3O3PexCFzw6=Pow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD3sNqGinnKrc8-8n0tpjno7rWvdUa3YLR=3O3PexCFzw6=Pow@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DD1D217D-4C36-4155-BE73-741C01129469@ipjustice.org>

Thanks, Marie-Laure,

Just so I am clear, the 2 NPOC appointees to the NCSG Policy Council are Sam and who?  Is it you or Rudi as the 2nd rep for NPOC on the PC?

Thanks,
Robin

On Nov 20, 2013, at 9:33 AM, marie-laure Lemineur wrote:

> Dear all,
> 
> I am glad to inform you that Sam has been accepted as a member of NPOC. This is an informal notice since Rafik as Chair of NCSG is going to inform Sam officially nI just wanted to let you know informally and congratulated Sam. I am very very happy that we will be counting on Sam?s help . Once the news is officially out, I will also officialy nominate Sam as our alternate policy chair. this hopefully will happen soon. 
> Our policy team is getting stronger.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Marie-laure
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131120/dd196e7d/attachment.sig>


From mllemineur  Wed Nov 20 23:16:06 2013
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 19:16:06 -0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Congrats to Sam!
In-Reply-To: <DD1D217D-4C36-4155-BE73-741C01129469@ipjustice.org>
References: <CAD3sNqGinnKrc8-8n0tpjno7rWvdUa3YLR=3O3PexCFzw6=Pow@mail.gmail.com>
	<DD1D217D-4C36-4155-BE73-741C01129469@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqGp1hcWH+uwR0Heey3ADAn-2ZAdAU2MdrLK1yCx1TGUaQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

Sorry I did not mean to copied the PC-NCSG yet but rather PC-NPOC ! It was
just an informal email. I don?t know if we need to wait for you (or Rafik)
to make the news official about all new  members approved this morning.
 Than, once this is done, we can appoint Sam. In any case, NPOC needs to
respect the formal procedure within NCSG. Unless, you tell me that we can
do it once and for all. It is up to you.

Actually, for the moment, Rudi and myself are the NPOC rep on the PC-NCSG.
Rudi is the Policy Chair and Sam, once officially in :), will be the
alternate chair.

Sorry about the confusion.....

Marie-laure

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131120/4eb2e8eb/attachment.html>


From joy  Thu Nov 21 01:02:16 2013
From: joy (joy)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:02:16 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ATRT2 draft comments
Message-ID: <528D3F78.1060803@apc.org>

Hi all - I volunteered today to collate suggested points for our NCSG
comment to this review.
I simply gathered up the following from either list discussion, input
from Robin offlist, a very helpful summary on the GNSO council list by
Maria Farrel, and our original NCSG comments (which noted positive
progress since ATRT1 and expressed concerns about threats to ICANN's
multi-stakeholder (MSM), bottom-up, consensus-building model of
community participation and decision-making (citing the GAC Beijing
communique and the TM clearinghouse as examples) and recommending the
review team focus on practical operation of the multi-stakeholder model).
Apologies if I am repeating what you know, but as a reminder:
Overall on the ATRT2 report: imho it really is quite an incredible
document - massive (main report 78 pages, total 233 pages) and
comprehensive (these two things do not always correlate!)  I think it is
clear that submissions were listened to and appear to have been well
reflected (others may correct us on that). I will share Maria's
excellent and rather sobering summary and highlights of conclusions
rather than repeat it here.
There are new recommendations related to ATRT 1 (such as developing
metrics for transparency and accountability, rules on transparency for
staff, Board, GAC and SO/AC, proposed protections for whistleblowers)
and arising from ATRT2 (eg increasing equitable participation, GAC
involvement in PDPs, quite lengthy consideration of time for and
accesibility of PDPs and working groups and need for imporvements, and
new recommendations on financial accountability and transparency esp
critiquing this in light ICANN's status as a not for profit
organisation). The section reviewing the WHOIS (72-73) and SSR (p74) are
also interesting, critiquing the processes and implemention.

Overall, suggestions for the comments on this report are:
* welcoming the report and thanking the review team for its work 
* a recommendation to mandate the multi-stakeholder bottom-up process
* a comment about IPC's closed membership list (and this being in
contradiction to transparency and accountability principles of the MSM)
* reference to the tm+50 process and related developments.

Do folks feel able to make any general statements supporting (or not
supporting) the recommendations? Any thing missing?

Cheers

Joy Liddicoat

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131121/2cc38041/attachment.html>


From joy  Thu Nov 21 01:08:02 2013
From: joy (joy)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 12:08:02 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ATRT2 draft comments
In-Reply-To: <528D3F78.1060803@apc.org>
References: <528D3F78.1060803@apc.org>
Message-ID: <528D40D2.50509@apc.org>

sorry gusy - wrong list - will send to the main one
Joy
On 21/11/2013 12:02 p.m., joy wrote:
> Hi all - I volunteered today to collate suggested points for our NCSG
> comment to this review.
> I simply gathered up the following from either list discussion, input
> from Robin offlist, a very helpful summary on the GNSO council list by
> Maria Farrel, and our original NCSG comments (which noted positive
> progress since ATRT1 and expressed concerns about threats to ICANN's
> multi-stakeholder (MSM), bottom-up, consensus-building model of
> community participation and decision-making (citing the GAC Beijing
> communique and the TM clearinghouse as examples) and recommending the
> review team focus on practical operation of the multi-stakeholder model).
> Apologies if I am repeating what you know, but as a reminder:
> Overall on the ATRT2 report: imho it really is quite an incredible
> document - massive (main report 78 pages, total 233 pages) and
> comprehensive (these two things do not always correlate!)  I think it
> is clear that submissions were listened to and appear to have been
> well reflected (others may correct us on that). I will share Maria's
> excellent and rather sobering summary and highlights of conclusions
> rather than repeat it here.
> There are new recommendations related to ATRT 1 (such as developing
> metrics for transparency and accountability, rules on transparency for
> staff, Board, GAC and SO/AC, proposed protections for whistleblowers)
> and arising from ATRT2 (eg increasing equitable participation, GAC
> involvement in PDPs, quite lengthy consideration of time for and
> accesibility of PDPs and working groups and need for imporvements, and
> new recommendations on financial accountability and transparency esp
> critiquing this in light ICANN's status as a not for profit
> organisation). The section reviewing the WHOIS (72-73) and SSR (p74)
> are also interesting, critiquing the processes and implemention.
>
> Overall, suggestions for the comments on this report are:
> * welcoming the report and thanking the review team for its work 
> * a recommendation to mandate the multi-stakeholder bottom-up process
> * a comment about IPC's closed membership list (and this being in
> contradiction to transparency and accountability principles of the MSM)
> * reference to the tm+50 process and related developments.
>
> Do folks feel able to make any general statements supporting (or not
> supporting) the recommendations? Any thing missing?
>
> Cheers
>
> Joy Liddicoat
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131121/89f3548c/attachment.html>


From robin  Thu Nov 21 20:15:05 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:15:05 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Congrats to Sam!
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqGp1hcWH+uwR0Heey3ADAn-2ZAdAU2MdrLK1yCx1TGUaQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD3sNqGinnKrc8-8n0tpjno7rWvdUa3YLR=3O3PexCFzw6=Pow@mail.gmail.com>
	<DD1D217D-4C36-4155-BE73-741C01129469@ipjustice.org>
	<CAD3sNqGp1hcWH+uwR0Heey3ADAn-2ZAdAU2MdrLK1yCx1TGUaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E759491F-9F25-403E-B144-E25DEE48B00B@ipjustice.org>

Thank you.  No worries at all and sorry for my confusion.  I had added Sam to the NCSG Policy Committee email list but understand now that yourself and Rudi are still two NPOC representatives to the NCSG Policy Committee.  Thanks for the clarification.

Best,
Robin

On Nov 20, 2013, at 1:16 PM, marie-laure Lemineur wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Sorry I did not mean to copied the PC-NCSG yet but rather PC-NPOC ! It was just an informal email. I don?t know if we need to wait for you (or Rafik) to make the news official about all new  members approved this morning.  Than, once this is done, we can appoint Sam. In any case, NPOC needs to respect the formal procedure within NCSG. Unless, you tell me that we can do it once and for all. It is up to you. 
> 
> Actually, for the moment, Rudi and myself are the NPOC rep on the PC-NCSG. Rudi is the Policy Chair and Sam, once officially in :), will be the alternate chair. 
> 
> Sorry about the confusion.....
> 
> Marie-laure

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131121/a640aa2f/attachment.sig>


From maria.farrell  Thu Nov 21 21:12:38 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 17:12:38 -0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proxy and Privacy accreditation PDP informal meeting notes
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdDWQvr1RYOEuHbLKXvCVrStEV3msN8Utz7=1EmgRU=xgg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

Just as an FYI, here are my notes of this morning's informal meeting of the
P&P working group. It doesn't kick off officially for a couple of weeks,
but we took advantage of ppl being in BA to get together for an initial
discussion.

We should think of putting someone forward for chair / co-chair. I'm not
putting myself forward as a candidate for chair, but I'll be continuing as
the liaison to the Council.

Nominations for that will probably be open for the next couple of weeks.

We had a great showing from NCSG at the meeting; Wendy, Stephanie and Amr.

All the best, Maria

 Me as interim chair gnso liaison ? said I wasn?t running for chair and
there would need to be nominations for chair / co-chair and possibly vice
chairs.





James Bladel gave a summary of where the present PDP originated, i.e. as an
outcome of the 2013 RAA, and summarised the topics needing to be covered as
including data Disclosure, Contact Relay and reveal



Wendy ? gating questions, what if anything appears , additional burdens to
registrants and users. Don?t get into sunk cost of having developed best
practices and not feel you have to adopt them.





Steve ? as well as james? 4 points, there is unmask. Providing information
to requester who meets a certain standard, for the purpose of relieving
harm, and put the info into the public system. So we may need to id
standards both for revea and unmask. Also verification or validation of
contact information which currently not required, what if any obligations
does aproxy service have to verify customer data? 90% of services are proxy
? with no data ? not privacy, and it?s a huge issue ? icann studies show.



Stephanie ? what is the regulatory reach of icann in this. Risk of driving
more ppl out of icann?s regulatory reach.



Steve ? since icann accredits registrars, we do of them. Could drive ppl to
unaccredited services but ...





wendy Stephanie amr



Michele ? it?s not an either or decision. The current service expires in
2017 and we have to create the alternative.



James ? not always clear that proxy privacy services are selling on own
behalf, are retail, law firm or developer acting on behalf of clients. It?s
never cut and dry. There?s a question of awareness attached to any
responsibility. Richard clayton report showed links between bad actors and
priv proxy, but in some cases it was lower than in the general population.





Kristina ? support steve on adding unmask.



Wendy ? there is room in the raa for us to conclude that accreditation can
be thin.



Stephanie ? govt in Canada has to publish regulatory impact statement.
Don?t want to drive the proxy business to actors you don?t reach.



Amr ? outlined some concerns with the Richard Clayton report on
privacy/proxy services and abuse



Also some discussion on what the PDP should provide, i.e. whether a best
practices is an essential outcome. Conclusion ? we are directed to provide
an issues report on one.



*Actions:*



Staff to send documentation so everyone?s on same page and has common
understanding of definitions: whois privacy abuse study,  EWG draft paper,
wRt team report, Charter, whois definitions from existing documentation,
RAA 2013 section on interim privacy/proxy services.



Staff to send doodle poll for first official meeting of the group, and
deadline for nomination for chair / co-chairs and possibly vice chairs.
First meeting to be held within the next 2 weeks.



Participants to read documentation if they haven?t already, get message out
to potential participants, work on possible nominations for leadership, and
start thinking about what the work-plan should look like.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131121/b2fc7a35/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Fri Nov 22 17:46:15 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 07:46:15 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Duties of the NCSG-PC Chair and Alternate Chair
Message-ID: <1B06C275-C67B-459B-87C7-86B51EB21D98@ipjustice.org>

In February of this year, the NCSG-PC agreed to the accept the following 4 basic duties for the NCSG-PC Chair and Alt. Chair.  Perhaps we want to re-work these a little or add or subtract some, etc.  But here's a starting place.

1.  Comment Periods
Keep track of ICANN public comment periods and assist with drafting  
and filing of member comments in coordination with NCSG-PC members,  
NCSG working group representatives and other NCSG members and  
constituencies.  This means encouraging both individual NCSG members  
to file individual comments and also the drafting and filing of  
official NCSG statements.  For NCSG statements, NCSG-PC Chair will  
call for "rough consensus" of NCSG-PC members regarding any  
particular statement and determine the reaching of rough consensus as  
per NCSG Charter.

2. Other NCSG Statements
Organize the drafting of other policy statements made in NCSG's name  
including the specific policy issue summaries requested by CEO (aka  
"policy cheat sheets").  NCSG-Chair does not have to personally "hold  
the drafting pen" on every statement, but rather, the Chair will  
recruit the person responsible for holding the drafting pen on any  
particular statement.

3.  Working Groups
Keep track of GNSO and other ICANN policy working groups and  
encourage participation from NCSG members in those policy working  
groups.  Endeavor to find adequate NCSG member participation and  
other noncommercial expertise in the policy working groups of concern  
to NCSG members.

4.NCSG Policy Calls
Participate in the monthly NCSG Policy calls and send out a brief  
"voting guide" after the call to NCSG-PC members to summarize  
discussions on how NCSG GNSO Councilors intend to vote on motions  
pending before the next GNSO Council Meeting.

and perhaps we should ask the chair / alt chair to CHAIR the policy calls, (not only participate).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131122/624c5222/attachment.sig>


From aelsadr  Tue Nov 26 11:54:25 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 10:54:25 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Proxy and Privacy accreditation PDP informal meeting
	notes
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdDWQvr1RYOEuHbLKXvCVrStEV3msN8Utz7=1EmgRU=xgg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC7qwdDWQvr1RYOEuHbLKXvCVrStEV3msN8Utz7=1EmgRU=xgg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FB3A0791-BB8B-49AE-8C9B-1E651F32A45B@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Thanks for the summary, Maria. NCSG has pretty decent representation on this WG, although we could always use more help. Apart from Maria, both Wendy and myself have joined this WG, and Roy said he would too. It would be great to have a few folks from NPOC on board as well. This topic is a very important one on the privacy front, and will cross-cut with some of the work being done by the EWG. For a NCSG constituency to have no representation on it at all would be very disappointing. Maria?, as the WG liaison to the Council, does that mean you are required to have a more-or-less neutral role?

I predict some heated debates on this one, especially with the IPC familiars and whoever shows up from At-Large.

Thanks.

Amr

On Nov 21, 2013, at 8:12 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> Just as an FYI, here are my notes of this morning's informal meeting of the P&P working group. It doesn't kick off officially for a couple of weeks, but we took advantage of ppl being in BA to get together for an initial discussion. 
> 
> We should think of putting someone forward for chair / co-chair. I'm not putting myself forward as a candidate for chair, but I'll be continuing as the liaison to the Council. 
> 
> Nominations for that will probably be open for the next couple of weeks. 
> 
> We had a great showing from NCSG at the meeting; Wendy, Stephanie and Amr. 
> 
> All the best, Maria
> 
> Me as interim chair gnso liaison ? said I wasn?t running for chair and there would need to be nominations for chair / co-chair and possibly vice chairs.
>  
>  
> James Bladel gave a summary of where the present PDP originated, i.e. as an outcome of the 2013 RAA, and summarised the topics needing to be covered as including data Disclosure, Contact Relay and reveal
>  
> Wendy ? gating questions, what if anything appears , additional burdens to registrants and users. Don?t get into sunk cost of having developed best practices and not feel you have to adopt them.
>  
>  
> Steve ? as well as james? 4 points, there is unmask. Providing information to requester who meets a certain standard, for the purpose of relieving harm, and put the info into the public system. So we may need to id standards both for revea and unmask. Also verification or validation of contact information which currently not required, what if any obligations does aproxy service have to verify customer data? 90% of services are proxy ? with no data ? not privacy, and it?s a huge issue ? icann studies show.
>  
> Stephanie ? what is the regulatory reach of icann in this. Risk of driving more ppl out of icann?s regulatory reach.
>  
> Steve ? since icann accredits registrars, we do of them. Could drive ppl to unaccredited services but ...
>  
>  
> wendy Stephanie amr
>  
> Michele ? it?s not an either or decision. The current service expires in 2017 and we have to create the alternative.  
>  
> James ? not always clear that proxy privacy services are selling on own behalf, are retail, law firm or developer acting on behalf of clients. It?s never cut and dry. There?s a question of awareness attached to any responsibility. Richard clayton report showed links between bad actors and priv proxy, but in some cases it was lower than in the general population.
>  
>  
> Kristina ? support steve on adding unmask.
>  
> Wendy ? there is room in the raa for us to conclude that accreditation can be thin.
>  
> Stephanie ? govt in Canada has to publish regulatory impact statement. Don?t want to drive the proxy business to actors you don?t reach.
>  
> Amr ? outlined some concerns with the Richard Clayton report on privacy/proxy services and abuse
>  
> Also some discussion on what the PDP should provide, i.e. whether a best practices is an essential outcome. Conclusion ? we are directed to provide an issues report on one.
>  
> Actions:
>  
> Staff to send documentation so everyone?s on same page and has common understanding of definitions: whois privacy abuse study,  EWG draft paper, wRt team report, Charter, whois definitions from existing documentation, RAA 2013 section on interim privacy/proxy services.
>  
> Staff to send doodle poll for first official meeting of the group, and deadline for nomination for chair / co-chairs and possibly vice chairs. First meeting to be held within the next 2 weeks.
>  
> Participants to read documentation if they haven?t already, get message out to potential participants, work on possible nominations for leadership, and start thinking about what the work-plan should look like.
>  
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131126/170fecc7/attachment.html>


From maria.farrell  Thu Nov 28 20:37:18 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 18:37:18 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Privacy and proxy accreditation working group
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdAjiiEtCZgBedcaSmRydyY2nZtemAxkF9zD1Uc=ws-Wbg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

It looks like the first call of the P&P working group will be next Tuesday
at 1500 UTC. They'll be electing a chair / co-chairs. I'd talked to
registrars and IPC about this when I thought I might run for chair, and
they were happy with the idea of an NCSG and an IPC co-chair, both for some
notion of balance and also because it's a really large working group (30+
ppl already) and will likely be pretty intensive.

Staff will send out note of the call in the next 24 hours.

We should think in the meantime of who we may want to put forward as a co
chair. Amr? Stephanie?

Wendy is also signed up to this group as well as Don Blumenthal who's obv
not a member but will be helpful. I'll continue to be in it and be the
liaison to the gnso council for it, basically just reporting back. I don't
remember if any NPOC ppl were signed up.

Or we may decide we want to maximise our number of advocates in the group
and not lose one to chairing.

Either way, we should decide and prepare.

Thoughts?

Maria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131128/508d2de1/attachment.html>


From avri  Thu Nov 28 22:34:10 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 20:34:10 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Privacy and proxy accreditation working group
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdAjiiEtCZgBedcaSmRydyY2nZtemAxkF9zD1Uc=ws-Wbg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC7qwdAjiiEtCZgBedcaSmRydyY2nZtemAxkF9zD1Uc=ws-Wbg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8577de99-de5d-44d1-8453-0f660d6116c7@email.android.com>

Hi,

Maria is this the group you are liaison for? If so that might be enough leadership and contribution to the neutral pool.

Unless this is a group with lots of NCSG participants, we might want to give the neutralizing chair role a pass.


Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>It looks like the first call of the P&P working group will be next
>Tuesday
>at 1500 UTC. They'll be electing a chair / co-chairs. I'd talked to
>registrars and IPC about this when I thought I might run for chair, and
>they were happy with the idea of an NCSG and an IPC co-chair, both for
>some
>notion of balance and also because it's a really large working group
>(30+
>ppl already) and will likely be pretty intensive.
>
>Staff will send out note of the call in the next 24 hours.
>
>We should think in the meantime of who we may want to put forward as a
>co
>chair. Amr? Stephanie?
>
>Wendy is also signed up to this group as well as Don Blumenthal who's
>obv
>not a member but will be helpful. I'll continue to be in it and be the
>liaison to the gnso council for it, basically just reporting back. I
>don't
>remember if any NPOC ppl were signed up.
>
>Or we may decide we want to maximise our number of advocates in the
>group
>and not lose one to chairing.
>
>Either way, we should decide and prepare.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Maria
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>PC-NCSG mailing list
>PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131128/8145f31a/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Thu Nov 28 22:59:14 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 21:59:14 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Privacy and proxy accreditation working group
In-Reply-To: <8577de99-de5d-44d1-8453-0f660d6116c7@email.android.com>
References: <CAC7qwdAjiiEtCZgBedcaSmRydyY2nZtemAxkF9zD1Uc=ws-Wbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8577de99-de5d-44d1-8453-0f660d6116c7@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <E571CF3B-3BBD-4C96-A00B-5D5DB31DC86C@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I agree with Avri. The WG Wiki page doesn?t have a list of WG members posted there yet, but from what I saw at the WG introductory meeting in BA, I?m guessing there will be considerable CSG/IPC and At-Large participation. With Maria serving as the Council liaison, having one of us serve as a co-chair will impact our participation as advocates. Speaking for myself, I?d rather spend my time on this WG duking it out with the IPC and At-Large familiars than doing anything else. If the rest of you have thoughts on the importance of having an NCSG co-chair, I would reconsider. Maybe having someone from the contracted parties would do instead?

Avri?, I?m not sure if you?re on this WG, so apart from Maria, the NCSG members I?m aware of on this one are Stephanie, Roy, Wendy and myself. I am also not aware of any NPOC members on board. If I?m not mistaken, Marie-Laure, Rudi and Klaus are on this list (the PC list). Folks?, please try to get at least one member from NPOC on this WG.

Having Don on this WG will also be great. He helped a great deal chairing the privacy sub-team on the ?thick? Whois PDP WG. He?s also a good choice to consider as co-chair along with a CSG member.

Thanks.

Amr

On Nov 28, 2013, at 9:34 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Maria is this the group you are liaison for? If so that might be enough leadership and contribution to the neutral pool.
> 
> Unless this is a group with lots of NCSG participants, we might want to give the neutralizing chair role a pass.
> 
> 
> Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> It looks like the first call of the P&P working group will be next Tuesday at 1500 UTC. They'll be electing a chair / co-chairs. I'd talked to registrars and IPC about this when I thought I might run for chair, and they were happy with the idea of an NCSG and an IPC co-chair, both for some notion of balance and also because it's a really large working group (30+ ppl already) and will likely be pretty intensive. 
> 
> Staff will send out note of the call in the next 24 hours. 
> 
> We should think in the meantime of who we may want to put forward as a co chair. Amr? Stephanie?
> 
> Wendy is also signed up to this group as well as Don Blumenthal who's obv not a member but will be helpful. I'll continue to be in it and be the liaison to the gnso council for it, basically just reporting back. I don't remember if any NPOC ppl were signed up. 
> 
> Or we may decide we want to maximise our number of advocates in the group and not lose one to chairing. 
> 
> Either way, we should decide and prepare. 
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Maria
> 
> 
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> Avri Doria
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131128/45d699f9/attachment.html>


From maria.farrell  Thu Nov 28 23:20:51 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 21:20:51 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Privacy and proxy accreditation working group
In-Reply-To: <E571CF3B-3BBD-4C96-A00B-5D5DB31DC86C@egyptig.org>
References: <CAC7qwdAjiiEtCZgBedcaSmRydyY2nZtemAxkF9zD1Uc=ws-Wbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8577de99-de5d-44d1-8453-0f660d6116c7@email.android.com>
	<E571CF3B-3BBD-4C96-A00B-5D5DB31DC86C@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdDBAkbN9Qf5thtW1hRxKfDUOOy6ddKSwPvrRxEhiXSsOw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks, Avri & Amr. I've no horse in the race, chair wise, so if we're
happier to let someone else do the work, then good.

But we should probably have a Plan B in place in case the ipc put someone
up and no one else runs (unlikely, I know).

Also, I had another message from staff. There'll be a discussion of the
chairmanship on next tuesday's call, but it looks like the actual selection
will happen a bit later, so we have more time than I'd thought.

cheers, m


On 28 November 2013 20:59, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I agree with Avri. The WG Wiki page<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43983094> doesn?t
> have a list of WG members posted there yet, but from what I saw at the WG
> introductory meeting in BA, I?m guessing there will be considerable CSG/IPC
> and At-Large participation. With Maria serving as the Council liaison,
> having one of us serve as a co-chair will impact our participation as
> advocates. Speaking for myself, I?d rather spend my time on this WG duking
> it out with the IPC and At-Large familiars than doing anything else. If the
> rest of you have thoughts on the importance of having an NCSG co-chair, I
> would reconsider. Maybe having someone from the contracted parties would do
> instead?
>
> Avri?, I?m not sure if you?re on this WG, so apart from Maria, the NCSG
> members I?m aware of on this one are Stephanie, Roy, Wendy and myself. I am
> also not aware of any NPOC members on board. If I?m not mistaken,
> Marie-Laure, Rudi and Klaus are on this list (the PC list). Folks?, *please
> try to get at least one member from NPOC on this WG*.
>
> Having Don on this WG will also be great. He helped a great deal chairing
> the privacy sub-team on the ?thick? Whois PDP WG. He?s also a good choice
> to consider as co-chair along with a CSG member.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Nov 28, 2013, at 9:34 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Maria is this the group you are liaison for? If so that might be enough
> leadership and contribution to the neutral pool.
>
> Unless this is a group with lots of NCSG participants, we might want to
> give the neutralizing chair role a pass.
>
>
> Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> It looks like the first call of the P&P working group will be next
>> Tuesday at 1500 UTC. They'll be electing a chair / co-chairs. I'd talked to
>> registrars and IPC about this when I thought I might run for chair, and
>> they were happy with the idea of an NCSG and an IPC co-chair, both for some
>> notion of balance and also because it's a really large working group (30+
>> ppl already) and will likely be pretty intensive.
>>
>> Staff will send out note of the call in the next 24 hours.
>>
>> We should think in the meantime of who we may want to put forward as a co
>> chair. Amr? Stephanie?
>>
>> Wendy is also signed up to this group as well as Don Blumenthal who's obv
>> not a member but will be helpful. I'll continue to be in it and be the
>> liaison to the gnso council for it, basically just reporting back. I don't
>> remember if any NPOC ppl were signed up.
>>
>> Or we may decide we want to maximise our number of advocates in the group
>> and not lose one to chairing.
>>
>> Either way, we should decide and prepare.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Maria
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
> Avri Doria
> _______________________________________________
>
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131128/2903ef22/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Thu Nov 28 23:30:34 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 22:30:34 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Privacy and proxy accreditation working group
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdDBAkbN9Qf5thtW1hRxKfDUOOy6ddKSwPvrRxEhiXSsOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC7qwdAjiiEtCZgBedcaSmRydyY2nZtemAxkF9zD1Uc=ws-Wbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8577de99-de5d-44d1-8453-0f660d6116c7@email.android.com>
	<E571CF3B-3BBD-4C96-A00B-5D5DB31DC86C@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdDBAkbN9Qf5thtW1hRxKfDUOOy6ddKSwPvrRxEhiXSsOw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E1FCD8A8-DA7B-4A41-A3B8-56B9EB62AF46@egyptig.org>

Thanks Maria. Good to know.

Amr

On Nov 28, 2013, at 10:20 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Avri & Amr. I've no horse in the race, chair wise, so if we're happier to let someone else do the work, then good. 
> 
> But we should probably have a Plan B in place in case the ipc put someone up and no one else runs (unlikely, I know). 
> 
> Also, I had another message from staff. There'll be a discussion of the chairmanship on next tuesday's call, but it looks like the actual selection will happen a bit later, so we have more time than I'd thought. 
> 
> cheers, m
> 
> 
> On 28 November 2013 20:59, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I agree with Avri. The WG Wiki page doesn?t have a list of WG members posted there yet, but from what I saw at the WG introductory meeting in BA, I?m guessing there will be considerable CSG/IPC and At-Large participation. With Maria serving as the Council liaison, having one of us serve as a co-chair will impact our participation as advocates. Speaking for myself, I?d rather spend my time on this WG duking it out with the IPC and At-Large familiars than doing anything else. If the rest of you have thoughts on the importance of having an NCSG co-chair, I would reconsider. Maybe having someone from the contracted parties would do instead?
> 
> Avri?, I?m not sure if you?re on this WG, so apart from Maria, the NCSG members I?m aware of on this one are Stephanie, Roy, Wendy and myself. I am also not aware of any NPOC members on board. If I?m not mistaken, Marie-Laure, Rudi and Klaus are on this list (the PC list). Folks?, please try to get at least one member from NPOC on this WG.
> 
> Having Don on this WG will also be great. He helped a great deal chairing the privacy sub-team on the ?thick? Whois PDP WG. He?s also a good choice to consider as co-chair along with a CSG member.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Nov 28, 2013, at 9:34 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Maria is this the group you are liaison for? If so that might be enough leadership and contribution to the neutral pool.
>> 
>> Unless this is a group with lots of NCSG participants, we might want to give the neutralizing chair role a pass.
>> 
>> 
>> Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> It looks like the first call of the P&P working group will be next Tuesday at 1500 UTC. They'll be electing a chair / co-chairs. I'd talked to registrars and IPC about this when I thought I might run for chair, and they were happy with the idea of an NCSG and an IPC co-chair, both for some notion of balance and also because it's a really large working group (30+ ppl already) and will likely be pretty intensive. 
>> 
>> Staff will send out note of the call in the next 24 hours. 
>> 
>> We should think in the meantime of who we may want to put forward as a co chair. Amr? Stephanie?
>> 
>> Wendy is also signed up to this group as well as Don Blumenthal who's obv not a member but will be helpful. I'll continue to be in it and be the liaison to the gnso council for it, basically just reporting back. I don't remember if any NPOC ppl were signed up. 
>> 
>> Or we may decide we want to maximise our number of advocates in the group and not lose one to chairing. 
>> 
>> Either way, we should decide and prepare. 
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Maria
>> 
>> 
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> Avri Doria
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131128/7653ef96/attachment.html>


From wendy  Thu Nov 28 23:41:59 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 16:41:59 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Privacy and proxy accreditation working group
In-Reply-To: <E571CF3B-3BBD-4C96-A00B-5D5DB31DC86C@egyptig.org>
References: <CAC7qwdAjiiEtCZgBedcaSmRydyY2nZtemAxkF9zD1Uc=ws-Wbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8577de99-de5d-44d1-8453-0f660d6116c7@email.android.com>
	<E571CF3B-3BBD-4C96-A00B-5D5DB31DC86C@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5297B8A7.6030208@seltzer.com>

Hi,

In my opinion, we'd get more from the agenda-setting of chairing than
we'd lose in advocacy -- so I'd love to see one of us do it if willing.

I'm unlikely to be able to join a call this Tuesday, due to a prior
engagement all day, but I do plan to participate in the group.

--Wendy

On 11/28/2013 03:59 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I agree with Avri. The WG Wiki page doesn?t have a list of WG members posted there yet, but from what I saw at the WG introductory meeting in BA, I?m guessing there will be considerable CSG/IPC and At-Large participation. With Maria serving as the Council liaison, having one of us serve as a co-chair will impact our participation as advocates. Speaking for myself, I?d rather spend my time on this WG duking it out with the IPC and At-Large familiars than doing anything else. If the rest of you have thoughts on the importance of having an NCSG co-chair, I would reconsider. Maybe having someone from the contracted parties would do instead?
> 
> Avri?, I?m not sure if you?re on this WG, so apart from Maria, the NCSG members I?m aware of on this one are Stephanie, Roy, Wendy and myself. I am also not aware of any NPOC members on board. If I?m not mistaken, Marie-Laure, Rudi and Klaus are on this list (the PC list). Folks?, please try to get at least one member from NPOC on this WG.
> 
> Having Don on this WG will also be great. He helped a great deal chairing the privacy sub-team on the ?thick? Whois PDP WG. He?s also a good choice to consider as co-chair along with a CSG member.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Nov 28, 2013, at 9:34 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> Maria is this the group you are liaison for? If so that might be enough leadership and contribution to the neutral pool.
>>
>> Unless this is a group with lots of NCSG participants, we might want to give the neutralizing chair role a pass.
>>
>>
>> Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> It looks like the first call of the P&P working group will be next Tuesday at 1500 UTC. They'll be electing a chair / co-chairs. I'd talked to registrars and IPC about this when I thought I might run for chair, and they were happy with the idea of an NCSG and an IPC co-chair, both for some notion of balance and also because it's a really large working group (30+ ppl already) and will likely be pretty intensive. 
>>
>> Staff will send out note of the call in the next 24 hours. 
>>
>> We should think in the meantime of who we may want to put forward as a co chair. Amr? Stephanie?
>>
>> Wendy is also signed up to this group as well as Don Blumenthal who's obv not a member but will be helpful. I'll continue to be in it and be the liaison to the gnso council for it, basically just reporting back. I don't remember if any NPOC ppl were signed up. 
>>
>> Or we may decide we want to maximise our number of advocates in the group and not lose one to chairing. 
>>
>> Either way, we should decide and prepare. 
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Maria
>>
>>
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> Avri Doria
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 


-- 
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 aelsadr  Fri Nov 29 01:29:07 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 00:29:07 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Privacy and proxy accreditation working group
In-Reply-To: <5297B8A7.6030208@seltzer.com>
References: <CAC7qwdAjiiEtCZgBedcaSmRydyY2nZtemAxkF9zD1Uc=ws-Wbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8577de99-de5d-44d1-8453-0f660d6116c7@email.android.com>
	<E571CF3B-3BBD-4C96-A00B-5D5DB31DC86C@egyptig.org>
	<5297B8A7.6030208@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <64767F45-AE91-4384-981C-EA5483027F79@egyptig.org>

Hey Wendy,

You raise an interesting point. I would be grateful if you could elaborate on it a little. In my limited experience, I have yet to participate in any effort where the Chair of a WG used his/her coordination role to direct the deliberations in favour of one interest group or another. Is that sort of scenario common? Can a WG Chair get away with it? Can?t the WG members do anything to reign him/her in?

Thanks.

Amr

On Nov 28, 2013, at 10:41 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at SELTZER.COM> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> In my opinion, we'd get more from the agenda-setting of chairing than
> we'd lose in advocacy -- so I'd love to see one of us do it if willing.
> 
> I'm unlikely to be able to join a call this Tuesday, due to a prior
> engagement all day, but I do plan to participate in the group.
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> On 11/28/2013 03:59 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I agree with Avri. The WG Wiki page doesn?t have a list of WG members posted there yet, but from what I saw at the WG introductory meeting in BA, I?m guessing there will be considerable CSG/IPC and At-Large participation. With Maria serving as the Council liaison, having one of us serve as a co-chair will impact our participation as advocates. Speaking for myself, I?d rather spend my time on this WG duking it out with the IPC and At-Large familiars than doing anything else. If the rest of you have thoughts on the importance of having an NCSG co-chair, I would reconsider. Maybe having someone from the contracted parties would do instead?
>> 
>> Avri?, I?m not sure if you?re on this WG, so apart from Maria, the NCSG members I?m aware of on this one are Stephanie, Roy, Wendy and myself. I am also not aware of any NPOC members on board. If I?m not mistaken, Marie-Laure, Rudi and Klaus are on this list (the PC list). Folks?, please try to get at least one member from NPOC on this WG.
>> 
>> Having Don on this WG will also be great. He helped a great deal chairing the privacy sub-team on the ?thick? Whois PDP WG. He?s also a good choice to consider as co-chair along with a CSG member.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Nov 28, 2013, at 9:34 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Maria is this the group you are liaison for? If so that might be enough leadership and contribution to the neutral pool.
>>> 
>>> Unless this is a group with lots of NCSG participants, we might want to give the neutralizing chair role a pass.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> It looks like the first call of the P&P working group will be next Tuesday at 1500 UTC. They'll be electing a chair / co-chairs. I'd talked to registrars and IPC about this when I thought I might run for chair, and they were happy with the idea of an NCSG and an IPC co-chair, both for some notion of balance and also because it's a really large working group (30+ ppl already) and will likely be pretty intensive. 
>>> 
>>> Staff will send out note of the call in the next 24 hours. 
>>> 
>>> We should think in the meantime of who we may want to put forward as a co chair. Amr? Stephanie?
>>> 
>>> Wendy is also signed up to this group as well as Don Blumenthal who's obv not a member but will be helpful. I'll continue to be in it and be the liaison to the gnso council for it, basically just reporting back. I don't remember if any NPOC ppl were signed up. 
>>> 
>>> Or we may decide we want to maximise our number of advocates in the group and not lose one to chairing. 
>>> 
>>> Either way, we should decide and prepare. 
>>> 
>>> Thoughts?
>>> 
>>> Maria
>>> 
>>> 
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> Avri Doria
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 rafik.dammak  Fri Nov 29 17:32:10 2013
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 00:32:10 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Privacy and proxy accreditation working group
In-Reply-To: <64767F45-AE91-4384-981C-EA5483027F79@egyptig.org>
References: <CAC7qwdAjiiEtCZgBedcaSmRydyY2nZtemAxkF9zD1Uc=ws-Wbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8577de99-de5d-44d1-8453-0f660d6116c7@email.android.com>
	<E571CF3B-3BBD-4C96-A00B-5D5DB31DC86C@egyptig.org>
	<5297B8A7.6030208@seltzer.com>
	<64767F45-AE91-4384-981C-EA5483027F79@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmbc8EKkkj6g76bXmQPZiJOMuor41NFGg2AxORzLzkO1Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

I agree with Wendy here, chair role is critical and I don't see why someone
here shouldn't volunteer
I see that you are working already on coordination and you can support each
other there.  is Kathy also involved? I was thinking if it is possible to
take such opportunity and bringing other privacy experts within NCSG to be
involved in the WG (we have some and I will try to approach them). also
having newbies involved there to learn from you (there are really  few WGs
where you can find several NCSG members involved), just following the
discussion and endorsing your proposals and comments  can be enough(just
think about the impact when it will be the  time to decide for the
consensus..).
I don't want to add a burden on you, but we can work to expand the base of
members participating in WGs , sharing the workload and doing some
knowledge transfer because it can be definitely intimidating for newcomers.

Best,

Rafik


2013/11/29 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>

> Hey Wendy,
>
> You raise an interesting point. I would be grateful if you could elaborate
> on it a little. In my limited experience, I have yet to participate in any
> effort where the Chair of a WG used his/her coordination role to direct the
> deliberations in favour of one interest group or another. Is that sort of
> scenario common? Can a WG Chair get away with it? Can?t the WG members do
> anything to reign him/her in?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Nov 28, 2013, at 10:41 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at SELTZER.COM> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > In my opinion, we'd get more from the agenda-setting of chairing than
> > we'd lose in advocacy -- so I'd love to see one of us do it if willing.
> >
> > I'm unlikely to be able to join a call this Tuesday, due to a prior
> > engagement all day, but I do plan to participate in the group.
> >
> > --Wendy
> >
> > On 11/28/2013 03:59 PM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I agree with Avri. The WG Wiki page doesn?t have a list of WG members
> posted there yet, but from what I saw at the WG introductory meeting in BA,
> I?m guessing there will be considerable CSG/IPC and At-Large participation.
> With Maria serving as the Council liaison, having one of us serve as a
> co-chair will impact our participation as advocates. Speaking for myself,
> I?d rather spend my time on this WG duking it out with the IPC and At-Large
> familiars than doing anything else. If the rest of you have thoughts on the
> importance of having an NCSG co-chair, I would reconsider. Maybe having
> someone from the contracted parties would do instead?
> >>
> >> Avri?, I?m not sure if you?re on this WG, so apart from Maria, the NCSG
> members I?m aware of on this one are Stephanie, Roy, Wendy and myself. I am
> also not aware of any NPOC members on board. If I?m not mistaken,
> Marie-Laure, Rudi and Klaus are on this list (the PC list). Folks?, please
> try to get at least one member from NPOC on this WG.
> >>
> >> Having Don on this WG will also be great. He helped a great deal
> chairing the privacy sub-team on the ?thick? Whois PDP WG. He?s also a good
> choice to consider as co-chair along with a CSG member.
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Amr
> >>
> >> On Nov 28, 2013, at 9:34 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Maria is this the group you are liaison for? If so that might be
> enough leadership and contribution to the neutral pool.
> >>>
> >>> Unless this is a group with lots of NCSG participants, we might want
> to give the neutralizing chair role a pass.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> It looks like the first call of the P&P working group will be next
> Tuesday at 1500 UTC. They'll be electing a chair / co-chairs. I'd talked to
> registrars and IPC about this when I thought I might run for chair, and
> they were happy with the idea of an NCSG and an IPC co-chair, both for some
> notion of balance and also because it's a really large working group (30+
> ppl already) and will likely be pretty intensive.
> >>>
> >>> Staff will send out note of the call in the next 24 hours.
> >>>
> >>> We should think in the meantime of who we may want to put forward as a
> co chair. Amr? Stephanie?
> >>>
> >>> Wendy is also signed up to this group as well as Don Blumenthal who's
> obv not a member but will be helpful. I'll continue to be in it and be the
> liaison to the gnso council for it, basically just reporting back. I don't
> remember if any NPOC ppl were signed up.
> >>>
> >>> Or we may decide we want to maximise our number of advocates in the
> group and not lose one to chairing.
> >>>
> >>> Either way, we should decide and prepare.
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> Maria
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>
> >>> Avri Doria
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131130/b44ef255/attachment-0001.html>


From mllemineur  Fri Nov 29 22:15:51 2013
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 14:15:51 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Privacy and proxy accreditation working group
In-Reply-To: <E571CF3B-3BBD-4C96-A00B-5D5DB31DC86C@egyptig.org>
References: <CAC7qwdAjiiEtCZgBedcaSmRydyY2nZtemAxkF9zD1Uc=ws-Wbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8577de99-de5d-44d1-8453-0f660d6116c7@email.android.com>
	<E571CF3B-3BBD-4C96-A00B-5D5DB31DC86C@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqHhcQDcL9KE3UhbVvZX6nb8bVn-4V8U9Pht6wT0r3eaEg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Amr and all,

Since we discussed it in BA, I have joined.

Thanks

mll


On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I agree with Avri. The WG Wiki page<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43983094> doesn?t
> have a list of WG members posted there yet, but from what I saw at the WG
> introductory meeting in BA, I?m guessing there will be considerable CSG/IPC
> and At-Large participation. With Maria serving as the Council liaison,
> having one of us serve as a co-chair will impact our participation as
> advocates. Speaking for myself, I?d rather spend my time on this WG duking
> it out with the IPC and At-Large familiars than doing anything else. If the
> rest of you have thoughts on the importance of having an NCSG co-chair, I
> would reconsider. Maybe having someone from the contracted parties would do
> instead?
>
> Avri?, I?m not sure if you?re on this WG, so apart from Maria, the NCSG
> members I?m aware of on this one are Stephanie, Roy, Wendy and myself. I am
> also not aware of any NPOC members on board. If I?m not mistaken,
> Marie-Laure, Rudi and Klaus are on this list (the PC list). Folks?, *please
> try to get at least one member from NPOC on this WG*.
>
> Having Don on this WG will also be great. He helped a great deal chairing
> the privacy sub-team on the ?thick? Whois PDP WG. He?s also a good choice
> to consider as co-chair along with a CSG member.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Nov 28, 2013, at 9:34 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Maria is this the group you are liaison for? If so that might be enough
> leadership and contribution to the neutral pool.
>
> Unless this is a group with lots of NCSG participants, we might want to
> give the neutralizing chair role a pass.
>
>
> Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> It looks like the first call of the P&P working group will be next
>> Tuesday at 1500 UTC. They'll be electing a chair / co-chairs. I'd talked to
>> registrars and IPC about this when I thought I might run for chair, and
>> they were happy with the idea of an NCSG and an IPC co-chair, both for some
>> notion of balance and also because it's a really large working group (30+
>> ppl already) and will likely be pretty intensive.
>>
>> Staff will send out note of the call in the next 24 hours.
>>
>> We should think in the meantime of who we may want to put forward as a co
>> chair. Amr? Stephanie?
>>
>> Wendy is also signed up to this group as well as Don Blumenthal who's obv
>> not a member but will be helpful. I'll continue to be in it and be the
>> liaison to the gnso council for it, basically just reporting back. I don't
>> remember if any NPOC ppl were signed up.
>>
>> Or we may decide we want to maximise our number of advocates in the group
>> and not lose one to chairing.
>>
>> Either way, we should decide and prepare.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Maria
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
> Avri Doria
> _______________________________________________
>
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131129/6c1921d5/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Fri Nov 29 22:57:30 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 21:57:30 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Privacy and proxy accreditation working group
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmbc8EKkkj6g76bXmQPZiJOMuor41NFGg2AxORzLzkO1Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC7qwdAjiiEtCZgBedcaSmRydyY2nZtemAxkF9zD1Uc=ws-Wbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8577de99-de5d-44d1-8453-0f660d6116c7@email.android.com>
	<E571CF3B-3BBD-4C96-A00B-5D5DB31DC86C@egyptig.org>
	<5297B8A7.6030208@seltzer.com>
	<64767F45-AE91-4384-981C-EA5483027F79@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThmbc8EKkkj6g76bXmQPZiJOMuor41NFGg2AxORzLzkO1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <27B7EFE9-0A64-4D08-B70A-7D25B48AD1F2@egyptig.org>

Hello All,

On Nov 29, 2013, at 4:32 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I agree with Wendy here, chair role is critical and I don't see why someone here shouldn't volunteer

OK?, I?m sold. I was also happy to see Kathy?s name on the list of WG members. I could have sworn that Stephanie was there too, but I can?t seem to find her anymore. Roy, who had said that he signed up for it is also missing on the list. I?ll check with him to verify his participation.

> I see that you are working already on coordination and you can support each other there.  is Kathy also involved? I was thinking if it is possible to take such opportunity and bringing other privacy experts within NCSG to be involved in the WG (we have some and I will try to approach them).

Yes?, Stephanie would be great.

> also having newbies involved there to learn from you (there are really  few WGs where you can find several NCSG members involved), just following the discussion and endorsing your proposals and comments  can be enough(just think about the impact when it will be the  time to decide for the consensus..).

Definitely agree. I think newbies will have a great level of support from more experienced members here (I think I mentioned that before) weaning into the GNSO?s PDP on an issue of great importance to us.

> I don't want to add a burden on you, but we can work to expand the base of members participating in WGs , sharing the workload and doing some knowledge transfer because it can be definitely intimidating for newcomers.

Increasing the workload now would hopefully give us a broader base of members to lighten the load in the long run, and improve our representation in WGs. ?, that is if they sign up for more WGs in the future.

Thanks.

Amr




From aelsadr  Fri Nov 29 22:58:57 2013
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 21:58:57 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Privacy and proxy accreditation working group
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqHhcQDcL9KE3UhbVvZX6nb8bVn-4V8U9Pht6wT0r3eaEg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC7qwdAjiiEtCZgBedcaSmRydyY2nZtemAxkF9zD1Uc=ws-Wbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8577de99-de5d-44d1-8453-0f660d6116c7@email.android.com>
	<E571CF3B-3BBD-4C96-A00B-5D5DB31DC86C@egyptig.org>
	<CAD3sNqHhcQDcL9KE3UhbVvZX6nb8bVn-4V8U9Pht6wT0r3eaEg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <798C4007-3B51-4281-9A79-30FE45E37544@egyptig.org>

Good to know. Thanks Marie-Laure. Any chance you could recruit one or two more NPOC members as well? It?ll be a good opportunity for them to start getting more involved.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Nov 29, 2013, at 9:15 PM, marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Amr and all,
> 
> Since we discussed it in BA, I have joined.  
> 
> Thanks
> 
> mll
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I agree with Avri. The WG Wiki page doesn?t have a list of WG members posted there yet, but from what I saw at the WG introductory meeting in BA, I?m guessing there will be considerable CSG/IPC and At-Large participation. With Maria serving as the Council liaison, having one of us serve as a co-chair will impact our participation as advocates. Speaking for myself, I?d rather spend my time on this WG duking it out with the IPC and At-Large familiars than doing anything else. If the rest of you have thoughts on the importance of having an NCSG co-chair, I would reconsider. Maybe having someone from the contracted parties would do instead?
> 
> Avri?, I?m not sure if you?re on this WG, so apart from Maria, the NCSG members I?m aware of on this one are Stephanie, Roy, Wendy and myself. I am also not aware of any NPOC members on board. If I?m not mistaken, Marie-Laure, Rudi and Klaus are on this list (the PC list). Folks?, please try to get at least one member from NPOC on this WG.
> 
> Having Don on this WG will also be great. He helped a great deal chairing the privacy sub-team on the ?thick? Whois PDP WG. He?s also a good choice to consider as co-chair along with a CSG member.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Nov 28, 2013, at 9:34 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Maria is this the group you are liaison for? If so that might be enough leadership and contribution to the neutral pool.
>> 
>> Unless this is a group with lots of NCSG participants, we might want to give the neutralizing chair role a pass.
>> 
>> 
>> Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> It looks like the first call of the P&P working group will be next Tuesday at 1500 UTC. They'll be electing a chair / co-chairs. I'd talked to registrars and IPC about this when I thought I might run for chair, and they were happy with the idea of an NCSG and an IPC co-chair, both for some notion of balance and also because it's a really large working group (30+ ppl already) and will likely be pretty intensive. 
>> 
>> Staff will send out note of the call in the next 24 hours. 
>> 
>> We should think in the meantime of who we may want to put forward as a co chair. Amr? Stephanie?
>> 
>> Wendy is also signed up to this group as well as Don Blumenthal who's obv not a member but will be helpful. I'll continue to be in it and be the liaison to the gnso council for it, basically just reporting back. I don't remember if any NPOC ppl were signed up. 
>> 
>> Or we may decide we want to maximise our number of advocates in the group and not lose one to chairing. 
>> 
>> Either way, we should decide and prepare. 
>> 
>> Thoughts?
>> 
>> Maria
>> 
>> 
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> Avri Doria
>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131129/66611993/attachment-0001.html>


From mllemineur  Sat Nov 30 00:57:07 2013
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 16:57:07 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Privacy and proxy accreditation working group
In-Reply-To: <798C4007-3B51-4281-9A79-30FE45E37544@egyptig.org>
References: <CAC7qwdAjiiEtCZgBedcaSmRydyY2nZtemAxkF9zD1Uc=ws-Wbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8577de99-de5d-44d1-8453-0f660d6116c7@email.android.com>
	<E571CF3B-3BBD-4C96-A00B-5D5DB31DC86C@egyptig.org>
	<CAD3sNqHhcQDcL9KE3UhbVvZX6nb8bVn-4V8U9Pht6wT0r3eaEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<798C4007-3B51-4281-9A79-30FE45E37544@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqF=NecK2_2MDee+XcVzdk39XZWrnpqAB4CAKe3dXkzZVQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Working on it but some are still traveling and others are in the process of
formally joining us. I will be able to confirm around mid-week next
week..and let?s not forget that there is still a possibility to join after
the WG gets started :)

best

mll

best,

mll



On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Good to know. Thanks Marie-Laure. Any chance you could recruit one or two
> more NPOC members as well? It?ll be a good opportunity for them to start
> getting more involved.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Amr
>
> On Nov 29, 2013, at 9:15 PM, marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hello Amr and all,
>
> Since we discussed it in BA, I have joined.
>
> Thanks
>
> mll
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I agree with Avri. The WG Wiki page<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=43983094> doesn?t
>> have a list of WG members posted there yet, but from what I saw at the WG
>> introductory meeting in BA, I?m guessing there will be considerable CSG/IPC
>> and At-Large participation. With Maria serving as the Council liaison,
>> having one of us serve as a co-chair will impact our participation as
>> advocates. Speaking for myself, I?d rather spend my time on this WG duking
>> it out with the IPC and At-Large familiars than doing anything else. If the
>> rest of you have thoughts on the importance of having an NCSG co-chair, I
>> would reconsider. Maybe having someone from the contracted parties would do
>> instead?
>>
>> Avri?, I?m not sure if you?re on this WG, so apart from Maria, the NCSG
>> members I?m aware of on this one are Stephanie, Roy, Wendy and myself. I am
>> also not aware of any NPOC members on board. If I?m not mistaken,
>> Marie-Laure, Rudi and Klaus are on this list (the PC list). Folks?, *please
>> try to get at least one member from NPOC on this WG*.
>>
>> Having Don on this WG will also be great. He helped a great deal chairing
>> the privacy sub-team on the ?thick? Whois PDP WG. He?s also a good choice
>> to consider as co-chair along with a CSG member.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Nov 28, 2013, at 9:34 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Maria is this the group you are liaison for? If so that might be enough
>> leadership and contribution to the neutral pool.
>>
>> Unless this is a group with lots of NCSG participants, we might want to
>> give the neutralizing chair role a pass.
>>
>>
>> Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> It looks like the first call of the P&P working group will be next
>>> Tuesday at 1500 UTC. They'll be electing a chair / co-chairs. I'd talked to
>>> registrars and IPC about this when I thought I might run for chair, and
>>> they were happy with the idea of an NCSG and an IPC co-chair, both for some
>>> notion of balance and also because it's a really large working group (30+
>>> ppl already) and will likely be pretty intensive.
>>>
>>> Staff will send out note of the call in the next 24 hours.
>>>
>>> We should think in the meantime of who we may want to put forward as a
>>> co chair. Amr? Stephanie?
>>>
>>> Wendy is also signed up to this group as well as Don Blumenthal who's
>>> obv not a member but will be helpful. I'll continue to be in it and be the
>>> liaison to the gnso council for it, basically just reporting back. I don't
>>> remember if any NPOC ppl were signed up.
>>>
>>> Or we may decide we want to maximise our number of advocates in the
>>> group and not lose one to chairing.
>>>
>>> Either way, we should decide and prepare.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Maria
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>> Avri Doria
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131129/98cedd84/attachment.html>


From rudi.vansnick  Sat Nov 30 00:57:30 2013
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 23:57:30 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Privacy and proxy accreditation working group
In-Reply-To: <E571CF3B-3BBD-4C96-A00B-5D5DB31DC86C@egyptig.org>
References: <CAC7qwdAjiiEtCZgBedcaSmRydyY2nZtemAxkF9zD1Uc=ws-Wbg@mail.gmail.com>
	<8577de99-de5d-44d1-8453-0f660d6116c7@email.android.com>
	<E571CF3B-3BBD-4C96-A00B-5D5DB31DC86C@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <D5740EF0-1D2F-4F64-B24F-414077ADFF26@isoc.be>

Dear Amr,
dear all,

NPOC will delegate Rudi Vansnick to this working group. If more NPOC members are interested we will get more involved. We?ll track them down asap.

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

Op 28-nov.-2013, om 21:59 heeft Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> het volgende geschreven:

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20131129/f666057f/attachment-0001.html>