From avri  Tue Sep  3 16:25:34 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:25:34 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Recommendations for a Thick WHOIS new recommendation
Message-ID: <4A0491D6-76F1-4A40-88B4-6FFA6B50679C@ella.com>

Hi,

We have moved a lot of privacy issues into a heap called - 'to be worked on later'

I recommend that we include the following recommendation to deal with this myriad  of issues:

We recommend that the ICANN Board request a GNSO issues report to cover the issue of Privacy as related to WHOIS and other GNSO policies.

This recommendation would probably require some glue language in a few other spots in the final report.

The reason for requesting that the Board, as opposed to the GNSO, is the number of ICANN staff organizations, such as legal, that need to be folded into any such effort.  It would also give evidence of ICANN's concern about such issues in this time of great privacy anxiety.

thanks

avri




From avri  Tue Sep  3 17:50:09 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 10:50:09 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Recommendations for a Thick
	WHOIS new recommendation
References: <E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6223F6CC70@LAEX02.MSK.local>
Message-ID: <F2ABC06A-2420-483D-990B-176259FE3BFB@acm.org>


Is it covered?

I will argue for it anyway.

avri


Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Recommendations for a Thick WHOIS new recommendation
> Date: 3 September 2013 10:03:55 EDT
> To: "'avri at acm.org'" <avri at acm.org>, "gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org" <gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org>
> 
> 
> Isn't this already covered by the Board-initiated PDP on Whois that will be launched once the EWG issues its final report, and as to which a preliminary issues report has already been published?  http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gtld-registration-data-15mar13-en.htm 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 9:45 AM
> To: gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org
> Subject: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Recommendations for a Thick WHOIS new recommendation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> We have moved a lot of privacy issues into a heap called - 'to be worked on later'
> 
> I recommend that we include the following recommendation to deal with this myriad  of issues:
> 
> We recommend that the ICANN Board request a GNSO issues report to cover the issue of Privacy as related to WHOIS and other GNSO policies.
> 
> This recommendation would probably require some glue language in a few other spots in the final report.
> 
> The reason for requesting that the Board, as opposed to the GNSO, is the number of ICANN staff organizations, such as legal, that need to be folded into any such effort.  It would also give evidence of ICANN's concern about such issues in this time of great privacy anxiety.
> 
> thanks
> 
> 
> Avri Doria
> 
> 
> 




From avri  Tue Sep  3 23:34:42 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 16:34:42 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [o] Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO Meeting 4 Sept 2013
References: <00e801cea8e2$ab5ac150$021043f0$@berrycobb.com>
Message-ID: <4B5C15EA-39EE-46A7-B301-53A80C15BE8A@acm.org>

Hi,


so i have heard little since my last email on the topic (attached below)

I have edited the chart and replaced all of the agree with "Support with opposition"

Is this correct?

avri




Begin forwarded message:

>  
> Please find below the proposed agenda for Wednesday?s meeting.  Note, that responses to the Consensus Call are due today at 23:59. 
>  
> Proposed Agenda ? IGO-INGO WG Meeting ? 4 SEPTEMBER 2013 @ 16:00 UTC (120 Min):
> 1.       Review Agenda & Changes to SOI?s
> 2.       Status of Consensus Call
> 3.       Review draft Final Report (recommendations, impact on incumbent gTLDs)
> 4.       Review Work Plan
> 5.       Confirm next meeting, 11 September 2013 @ 16:00 UTC
>  


Previous email



Begin forwarded message:

> From: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Informal midway update on NCSG discussions on 'consensus' points.
> Date: 28 August 2013 15:48:55 EDT
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Reply-To: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> An update on the positions inside the NCSG.  
> 
> Or at least my view of it - NCSG, like ALAC, lists are all open archive so anyone can make their own evaluation.
> 
> The NCSG is still deliberating.
> 
> On some topics, we have a range of views ranging from: 
> 
> a - No Specal Privileges  For anyone  to 
>  Let a restricted set of IGO, International Organizations and INGOs use Objection procedures and RPMs
> 
> b - Let INGOs use trademarks like everyone else  to 
>     Accreditation by ECOSOC is equivalent to the IGO treaty requirements and stands in fair stead to business oriented trademarks
> 
> c  - IGO/INGO pay like everyone else to use RPMs to
>    Giving them a break given their not-for-profit status 
> 
> The things I think we are agreed on, though I am still checking - BCC'ing this message to our open discussion list. -
> 
> I - In all issues we tend toward a fair and equivalent standard of treatment.  This is not just a throw away excuse as some may have characterized, but rather is an important driving principle in NCSG considerations.
> 
> II - We do not support blocking of names at either the first or second level.  That is we do not support expanding the reserved name list in any way.
> 
> III - We do not support giving those on reserved name lists (if they are expanded) a special privilege of exception from the reserved name list.
> 
> IV - We should not decide any policy issue based on the degree to which someone has lobbied the GAC and gotten them to issue Advice.   We should consider the Advice as one among many issues but not be ruled by it. 
> 
> I have not yet broached the issue of:
> 
> - Do Incumbents have to obey the same rules as new gTLDs, and what implications does this have for the renewal and transfer of current registration of names that may be have been added to the reserved list.  Is there a 'grandmother' rule?
> 
> 
> I hope to have completed NCSG consensus opinion by next week's meeting.
> 
> avri
> 
> Writing as Alternate Chair of the NCSG Policy Committee in the midst of trying to determine our position.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130903/9942fcd5/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG-130903.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 79872 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130903/9942fcd5/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130903/9942fcd5/attachment-0003.html>


From avri  Wed Sep  4 06:18:59 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 23:18:59 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [o] Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO Meeting 4 Sept 2013
In-Reply-To: <4B5C15EA-39EE-46A7-B301-53A80C15BE8A@acm.org>
References: <00e801cea8e2$ab5ac150$021043f0$@berrycobb.com>
	<4B5C15EA-39EE-46A7-B301-53A80C15BE8A@acm.org>
Message-ID: <FCCC838C-C16D-4C9C-9638-334869392181@acm.org>

Hi,

FYI i sent in that form as our current position.

avri

On 3 Sep 2013, at 16:34, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> 
> so i have heard little since my last email on the topic (attached below)
> 
> I have edited the chart and replaced all of the agree with "Support with opposition"
> 
> Is this correct?
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG-130903.doc>
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>>  
>> Please find below the proposed agenda for Wednesday?s meeting.  Note, that responses to the Consensus Call are due today at 23:59. 
>>  
>> Proposed Agenda ? IGO-INGO WG Meeting ? 4 SEPTEMBER 2013 @ 16:00 UTC (120 Min):
>> 1.       Review Agenda & Changes to SOI?s
>> 2.       Status of Consensus Call
>> 3.       Review draft Final Report (recommendations, impact on incumbent gTLDs)
>> 4.       Review Work Plan
>> 5.       Confirm next meeting, 11 September 2013 @ 16:00 UTC
>>  
> 
> 
> Previous email
> 
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Informal midway update on NCSG discussions on 'consensus' points.
>> Date: 28 August 2013 15:48:55 EDT
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> Reply-To: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> An update on the positions inside the NCSG.  
>> 
>> Or at least my view of it - NCSG, like ALAC, lists are all open archive so anyone can make their own evaluation.
>> 
>> The NCSG is still deliberating.
>> 
>> On some topics, we have a range of views ranging from: 
>> 
>> a - No Specal Privileges  For anyone  to 
>>  Let a restricted set of IGO, International Organizations and INGOs use Objection procedures and RPMs
>> 
>> b - Let INGOs use trademarks like everyone else  to 
>>     Accreditation by ECOSOC is equivalent to the IGO treaty requirements and stands in fair stead to business oriented trademarks
>> 
>> c  - IGO/INGO pay like everyone else to use RPMs to
>>    Giving them a break given their not-for-profit status 
>> 
>> The things I think we are agreed on, though I am still checking - BCC'ing this message to our open discussion list. -
>> 
>> I - In all issues we tend toward a fair and equivalent standard of treatment.  This is not just a throw away excuse as some may have characterized, but rather is an important driving principle in NCSG considerations.
>> 
>> II - We do not support blocking of names at either the first or second level.  That is we do not support expanding the reserved name list in any way.
>> 
>> III - We do not support giving those on reserved name lists (if they are expanded) a special privilege of exception from the reserved name list.
>> 
>> IV - We should not decide any policy issue based on the degree to which someone has lobbied the GAC and gotten them to issue Advice.   We should consider the Advice as one among many issues but not be ruled by it. 
>> 
>> I have not yet broached the issue of:
>> 
>> - Do Incumbents have to obey the same rules as new gTLDs, and what implications does this have for the renewal and transfer of current registration of names that may be have been added to the reserved list.  Is there a 'grandmother' rule?
>> 
>> 
>> I hope to have completed NCSG consensus opinion by next week's meeting.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> Writing as Alternate Chair of the NCSG Policy Committee in the midst of trying to determine our position.
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Wed Sep  4 19:26:01 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 12:26:01 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [o] Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO Meeting 4 Sept 2013
In-Reply-To: <FCCC838C-C16D-4C9C-9638-334869392181@acm.org>
References: <00e801cea8e2$ab5ac150$021043f0$@berrycobb.com>
	<4B5C15EA-39EE-46A7-B301-53A80C15BE8A@acm.org>
	<FCCC838C-C16D-4C9C-9638-334869392181@acm.org>
Message-ID: <6A33654F-3A31-44A3-B52B-AD4C03246106@acm.org>

Hi,

I understand from today's IGO-INGO meeting that NPOC may have a different view that has not yet been brought to this group yet.  As I understood NPOC is considering full support of all the proposals.

If this is the case, this should be captured in the NCSG composite picture.

Opinions?

thanks

avri


On 3 Sep 2013, at 23:18, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> FYI i sent in that form as our current position.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 3 Sep 2013, at 16:34, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> 
>> so i have heard little since my last email on the topic (attached below)
>> 
>> I have edited the chart and replaced all of the agree with "Support with opposition"
>> 
>> Is this correct?
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> <IGO-INGO_Consensus_Recommendations_v0.6-NCSG-130903.doc>
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Please find below the proposed agenda for Wednesday?s meeting.  Note, that responses to the Consensus Call are due today at 23:59. 
>>> 
>>> Proposed Agenda ? IGO-INGO WG Meeting ? 4 SEPTEMBER 2013 @ 16:00 UTC (120 Min):
>>> 1.       Review Agenda & Changes to SOI?s
>>> 2.       Status of Consensus Call
>>> 3.       Review draft Final Report (recommendations, impact on incumbent gTLDs)
>>> 4.       Review Work Plan
>>> 5.       Confirm next meeting, 11 September 2013 @ 16:00 UTC
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Previous email
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
>>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Informal midway update on NCSG discussions on 'consensus' points.
>>> Date: 28 August 2013 15:48:55 EDT
>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>> Reply-To: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG>
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> An update on the positions inside the NCSG.  
>>> 
>>> Or at least my view of it - NCSG, like ALAC, lists are all open archive so anyone can make their own evaluation.
>>> 
>>> The NCSG is still deliberating.
>>> 
>>> On some topics, we have a range of views ranging from: 
>>> 
>>> a - No Specal Privileges  For anyone  to 
>>> Let a restricted set of IGO, International Organizations and INGOs use Objection procedures and RPMs
>>> 
>>> b - Let INGOs use trademarks like everyone else  to 
>>>    Accreditation by ECOSOC is equivalent to the IGO treaty requirements and stands in fair stead to business oriented trademarks
>>> 
>>> c  - IGO/INGO pay like everyone else to use RPMs to
>>>   Giving them a break given their not-for-profit status 
>>> 
>>> The things I think we are agreed on, though I am still checking - BCC'ing this message to our open discussion list. -
>>> 
>>> I - In all issues we tend toward a fair and equivalent standard of treatment.  This is not just a throw away excuse as some may have characterized, but rather is an important driving principle in NCSG considerations.
>>> 
>>> II - We do not support blocking of names at either the first or second level.  That is we do not support expanding the reserved name list in any way.
>>> 
>>> III - We do not support giving those on reserved name lists (if they are expanded) a special privilege of exception from the reserved name list.
>>> 
>>> IV - We should not decide any policy issue based on the degree to which someone has lobbied the GAC and gotten them to issue Advice.   We should consider the Advice as one among many issues but not be ruled by it. 
>>> 
>>> I have not yet broached the issue of:
>>> 
>>> - Do Incumbents have to obey the same rules as new gTLDs, and what implications does this have for the renewal and transfer of current registration of names that may be have been added to the reserved list.  Is there a 'grandmother' rule?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I hope to have completed NCSG consensus opinion by next week's meeting.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> Writing as Alternate Chair of the NCSG Policy Committee in the midst of trying to determine our position.
>>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From avri  Thu Sep  5 01:17:20 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 18:17:20 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG endorsement of NPOC letter on GNSO review
Message-ID: <61A19F39-842A-4E59-B7E3-89033923C3DB@acm.org>




http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/

The suggestion is the the NCSG endorse it.
I will write up a draft note.
It needs to be sent in by the 6th.

Anyone have questions, objection etc?

avri




From AVRI  Thu Sep  5 07:42:56 2013
From: AVRI (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 00:42:56 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Reply period closing on Delay of GNSO review decsion
Message-ID: <53E6C625-811E-4B93-8FC7-244AE3B922DC@ACM.ORG>

Hi

The reply period for the delay of the GNSO proposal ends on 6 June.  At todays' meeting there was a strong sentiment in favor of NCSG endorsing the NPOC statement.

What do people think about the following?

I will ask the NCSG Policy  Committee to decide by  6 September whether they beleive this should be submitted in the NCSG's name.

Please comment.
Any objections?
Any edits?

-----


NCSG wishes to support and endorse the statement submitted by NPOC <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/msg00003.html> against any delay in the beginning the next cycle of GNSO reviews.

The NCSG also support comments submitted by: 

- ISPCP <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/msg00002.html> 
- Google <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/msg00001.html>

against any delay in the beginning of the next cyle of GNSO reviews.

The NCSG wishes to add the following comments to this Reply:

We beleive that with the ATRT2 to publish its report by the end of 2013, the timing is perfect for the process to begin early in 2014 without any further delay.


-----

I can't take complete silence as consent.  silence only works as consent when other people are being noisy.

so please say something

avri




From ngarcia  Thu Sep  5 14:41:15 2013
From: ngarcia (Nuno Garcia)
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 12:41:15 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG endorsement of NPOC letter on GNSO review
In-Reply-To: <61A19F39-842A-4E59-B7E3-89033923C3DB@acm.org>
References: <61A19F39-842A-4E59-B7E3-89033923C3DB@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CALbrTwD3y-zT2vyr8j_wZ9DwtbxqFeyzCWZLqH7SBCKf8aFCOg@mail.gmail.com>

I have doubts about this, and it seems that it may look like an attempt
from NPOC to gain position inside GNSO.

I maybe wrong, I have been wrong before...

my 2cents

Warm regards,

Nuno


On 4 September 2013 23:17, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/
>
> The suggestion is the the NCSG endorse it.
> I will write up a draft note.
> It needs to be sent in by the 6th.
>
> Anyone have questions, objection etc?
>
> avri
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130905/2e87c224/attachment.html>


From avri  Thu Sep  5 14:51:07 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 07:51:07 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG endorsement of NPOC letter on GNSO review
In-Reply-To: <CALbrTwD3y-zT2vyr8j_wZ9DwtbxqFeyzCWZLqH7SBCKf8aFCOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <61A19F39-842A-4E59-B7E3-89033923C3DB@acm.org>
	<CALbrTwD3y-zT2vyr8j_wZ9DwtbxqFeyzCWZLqH7SBCKf8aFCOg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <60393076-E3BD-4B0D-AB0F-9E6AAC265C67@acm.org>

Hi,

NPOC is part of NCSG.  It is one of our 2 constituencies.

avri


On 5 Sep 2013, at 07:41, Nuno Garcia wrote:

> I have doubts about this, and it seems that it may look like an attempt from NPOC to gain position inside GNSO.
> 
> I maybe wrong, I have been wrong before...
> 
> my 2cents
> 
> Warm regards,
> 
> Nuno
> 
> 
> On 4 September 2013 23:17, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/
> 
> The suggestion is the the NCSG endorse it.
> I will write up a draft note.
> It needs to be sent in by the 6th.
> 
> Anyone have questions, objection etc?
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From wendy  Thu Sep  5 23:38:38 2013
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2013 16:38:38 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Apologies for today's Council call
In-Reply-To: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FF826954887@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5FF826954887@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <5228EBCE.70803@seltzer.com>

My apologies -- I expected to join today's Council call, but found
myself without any telephone or network connection at the time, and so
no way to join or inform the group.

--Wendy

On 09/05/2013 11:14 AM, Glen de Saint G?ry wrote:
> Please find the dial-in numbers for the GNSO Council meeting on Thursday, 5 September 2013 at 15:00 UTC.
> Other times may be found at:
> http://tinyurl.com/mdmrnk9
> Participant passcode: COUNCIL
> Please click on the link to join the GNSO Council Adobe Connect room
> http://icann.na3.acrobat.com/gnsocouncil/
> Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting 5 September 2013 is published on page:
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-05sep13-en.htm
> 
-- 
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 mllemineur  Fri Sep  6 00:02:37 2013
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 15:02:37 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG endorsement of NPOC letter on GNSO review
In-Reply-To: <CALbrTwD3y-zT2vyr8j_wZ9DwtbxqFeyzCWZLqH7SBCKf8aFCOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <61A19F39-842A-4E59-B7E3-89033923C3DB@acm.org>
	<CALbrTwD3y-zT2vyr8j_wZ9DwtbxqFeyzCWZLqH7SBCKf8aFCOg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqHer1CM=QH6TjHEAbU-gi_+F9gLr3tfzrKecPpMuqg6uA@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Nuno,

You are questioning NPOC?s good faith. I also infer from your very clear
wording that in your opinion, it would a bad thing if NPOC could "gain
position inside GNSO".

The periodic review of all SO/AC is mandated by ICANN Bylaws title IV,
Section 4. Thus ICANN is obliged to conduct the review. The issue at stake
is whether it will be further delayed or not.  The review is going to take
place sooner or later,  regardless of NPOC?s views, or any hidden
intentions we might have, as you suggest.

On this particular issue,  we are fighting for a stronger and more
efficient GNSO. What?s at stake is the credibility of the GNSO as a
policy-making body in a changing and challenging context. This is what we
focus our energy on. The bigger picture.  NCSG members and non-NCSG
community members who know us, are aware that we do not spend valuable
volunteer time practicing  what I would qualify as "petty thinking" as you
imply. This simply proves that you do not know us. This is why I feel that
you insinuating that we might have ill intentions by submitting these
comments,  is not only offensive but also unfair;

If you had read our statement as well the other public comments posted - I
invite you to do so -  you would have seen that not only NPOC but also
GOOGLE Inc and  ISPCP are against postponing of the review. Therefore, if
you interpret  NPOC wish to urge the commencement of the GNSO review
soonest, as a possible "attempt to gain position inside GNSO", you should
be coherent and  reach the same conclusion with ISPCP and GOOGLE.  Wouldn?t
this be ridiculous ?

Once again, if you had read our comments, you would have seen that the
arguments exposed in it, are fact-based and contextualized alluding either
to ICANN norms or to the previous review. Since you are an academic, you
should be able to value that.

Lastly, even if you seem to dislike the idea, as Chair of NPOC I can
reassure  you that at NPOC, we are all indeed working very hard to "gain
position within the GNSO".  As Avri rightly reminded you, NPOC is part of
the NCSG. This means that if and when NPOC is able  to "gain position in
the GNSO"  -whatever this means-, NSCG will also be  strong or stronger in
the GNSO. And for those of us who do believe in the mission of the Non
Commercial Stakeholder Group in the ICANN world, this would be good news.

Best,

Marie-laure


On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Nuno Garcia <ngarcia at ngarcia.net> wrote:

> I have doubts about this, and it seems that it may look like an attempt
> from NPOC to gain position inside GNSO.
>
> I maybe wrong, I have been wrong before...
>
> my 2cents
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Nuno
>
>
> On 4 September 2013 23:17, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/
>>
>> The suggestion is the the NCSG endorse it.
>> I will write up a draft note.
>> It needs to be sent in by the 6th.
>>
>> Anyone have questions, objection etc?
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130905/e21f48ec/attachment.html>


From avri  Fri Sep  6 00:22:15 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 17:22:15 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Last Call: NCSG support for those comments against
	delaying the GNSO review
Message-ID: <DE08E9A1-7AF1-4037-AB0C-691577FB80E8@acm.org>

Hi,

Added some starting and ending words.

I think I have heard lots of support and no objections.

Any objections?  Amy fixes?

My plan is to send this off on 6 September before the deadline unless I see objection before then.

thanks

avri

----

The NCSG community has reviewed and the NCSG Policy Committee supports and endorses the comments submitted by NPOC, a constituency within NCSG, against any delay in beginning the next cycle of the GNSO review.

<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/msg00003.html> 


The NCSG also support comments submitted by: 

- ISPCP <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/msg00002.html> 
- Google <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/msg00001.html>

against any delay in the beginning of the next cyle of the GNSO review.

The NCSG wishes to add the following comment to this Reply: We believe that with the ATRT2 about to publish its report by the end of 2013, the timing is perfect for the process to begin early in 2014 without any further delay.

According to the NCSG charter, it is the NCSG Policy Committee that is responsible for surveying the membership and making policy decisions for the NCSG.  

Submitted on behalf of the NCSG-PC

signed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130905/567ab4bb/attachment.html>


From mllemineur  Fri Sep  6 00:26:08 2013
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 15:26:08 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Last Call: NCSG support for those comments against
 delaying the GNSO review
In-Reply-To: <DE08E9A1-7AF1-4037-AB0C-691577FB80E8@acm.org>
References: <DE08E9A1-7AF1-4037-AB0C-691577FB80E8@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqEYQy7yjGPe-j=x-ZkUkSo2wFBja7G0X93W9dNmO0pPxw@mail.gmail.com>

Looks good. Thanks Avri.
mll


On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Added some starting and ending words.
>
> I think I have heard lots of support and no objections.
>
> Any objections?  Amy fixes?
>
> My plan is to send this off on 6 September before the deadline unless I
> see objection before then.
>
> thanks
>
> avri
>
> ----
>
> The NCSG community has reviewed and the NCSG Policy Committee supports and
> endorses the comments submitted by NPOC<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/msg00003.html>,
> a constituency within NCSG, against any delay in beginning the next cycle
> of the GNSO review.
>
> <http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/msg00003.html>
>
>
> The NCSG also support comments submitted by:
>
> - ISPCP <
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/msg00002.html>
> - Google <
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/msg00001.html>
>
> against any delay in the beginning of the next cyle of the GNSO review.
>
> The NCSG wishes to add the following comment to this Reply: We believe
> that with the ATRT2 about to publish its report by the end of 2013, the
> timing is perfect for the process to begin early in 2014 without any
> further delay.
>
> According to the NCSG charter, it is the NCSG Policy Committee that is
> responsible for surveying the membership and making policy decisions for
> the NCSG.
>
> Submitted on behalf of the NCSG-PC
>
> signed
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130905/f7121b6f/attachment-0001.html>


From ngarcia  Fri Sep  6 01:34:23 2013
From: ngarcia (Nuno Garcia)
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 23:34:23 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG endorsement of NPOC letter on GNSO review
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqHer1CM=QH6TjHEAbU-gi_+F9gLr3tfzrKecPpMuqg6uA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <61A19F39-842A-4E59-B7E3-89033923C3DB@acm.org>
	<CALbrTwD3y-zT2vyr8j_wZ9DwtbxqFeyzCWZLqH7SBCKf8aFCOg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqHer1CM=QH6TjHEAbU-gi_+F9gLr3tfzrKecPpMuqg6uA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALbrTwCPzDMvpTOh=oO35oQdOBZNXYXj-z3b6oaRNDS-QnjA+g@mail.gmail.com>

Ch?re Marie-Laure,

I wrote "it may look like", meaning, this may look like NPOC is trying to
gain position. No judgment of values in there. I did not infer, nor assume
it would be bad or good. I also started by saying "I have doubts".

I thank you very much for the time and trouble you took to give such a
detailed explanation, I feel honored.

Warm regards,

Nuno


On 5 September 2013 22:02, marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear Nuno,
>
> You are questioning NPOC?s good faith. I also infer from your very clear
> wording that in your opinion, it would a bad thing if NPOC could "gain
> position inside GNSO".
>
> The periodic review of all SO/AC is mandated by ICANN Bylaws title IV,
> Section 4. Thus ICANN is obliged to conduct the review. The issue at stake
> is whether it will be further delayed or not.  The review is going to take
> place sooner or later,  regardless of NPOC?s views, or any hidden
> intentions we might have, as you suggest.
>
> On this particular issue,  we are fighting for a stronger and more
> efficient GNSO. What?s at stake is the credibility of the GNSO as a
> policy-making body in a changing and challenging context. This is what we
> focus our energy on. The bigger picture.  NCSG members and non-NCSG
> community members who know us, are aware that we do not spend valuable
> volunteer time practicing  what I would qualify as "petty thinking" as you
> imply. This simply proves that you do not know us. This is why I feel that
> you insinuating that we might have ill intentions by submitting these
> comments,  is not only offensive but also unfair;
>
> If you had read our statement as well the other public comments posted - I
> invite you to do so -  you would have seen that not only NPOC but also
> GOOGLE Inc and  ISPCP are against postponing of the review. Therefore, if
> you interpret  NPOC wish to urge the commencement of the GNSO review
> soonest, as a possible "attempt to gain position inside GNSO", you should
> be coherent and  reach the same conclusion with ISPCP and GOOGLE.  Wouldn?t
> this be ridiculous ?
>
> Once again, if you had read our comments, you would have seen that the
> arguments exposed in it, are fact-based and contextualized alluding either
> to ICANN norms or to the previous review. Since you are an academic, you
> should be able to value that.
>
> Lastly, even if you seem to dislike the idea, as Chair of NPOC I can
> reassure  you that at NPOC, we are all indeed working very hard to "gain
> position within the GNSO".  As Avri rightly reminded you, NPOC is part of
> the NCSG. This means that if and when NPOC is able  to "gain position in
> the GNSO"  -whatever this means-, NSCG will also be  strong or stronger in
> the GNSO. And for those of us who do believe in the mission of the Non
> Commercial Stakeholder Group in the ICANN world, this would be good news.
>
> Best,
>
> Marie-laure
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Nuno Garcia <ngarcia at ngarcia.net> wrote:
>
>> I have doubts about this, and it seems that it may look like an attempt
>> from NPOC to gain position inside GNSO.
>>
>> I maybe wrong, I have been wrong before...
>>
>> my 2cents
>>
>> Warm regards,
>>
>> Nuno
>>
>>
>> On 4 September 2013 23:17, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/
>>>
>>> The suggestion is the the NCSG endorse it.
>>> I will write up a draft note.
>>> It needs to be sent in by the 6th.
>>>
>>> Anyone have questions, objection etc?
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20130905/d6df1fc5/attachment.html>


From avri  Fri Sep  6 20:21:24 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 13:21:24 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Mark Monitor's counter attack
Message-ID: <425B65FA-C1BE-4F0C-B941-59B9C3E9BBB3@acm.org>

Hi,

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/input-to-ewg/2013/000024.html

Anyone want to take of the challenge?  A few hours left.

I added a note to a facebook conversation on the issue but am not planning to comment personally to ICANn - will let the NCSG support stand unless the groups decides otherwise.

My comments and comment by Nigel that went before it:

> Nigel Roberts 

> I know and like people on both sides of this spat.
> 
> And I take no side -- in no small part because I don't even understand what NCSG appears to have accused MarkMonitor of.
> 
> But I will just point out one thing .. rebuttal is a sure way to make sure a large number of people (like me) who would NOT otherwise have seen the original complaints, get to see it. 
> I think it's called the Streisand Effect!
> 
> (I'll go back to sleep now and do my best to convince myself I never saw anything, and can get 10 minutes of my life back)

> 
> 
> Avri Doria Good point Nigel, hopefully now everyone will read all of the other points made by Kleinman, Morris et al that were endorsed by the NCSG. Perhaps in insisting people ignore the rest of the comments, they will now see why the TM people would like for our comments to be ignored and will explain the attack the messenger effect. 
> 
> As I understood the request, it was that the COI issue be addressed. The comment from the lawyers (who are coincidentally the representatives for many IP interests in ICANN) to which the Mark Monitor letter was attached is a start for the response to those COI issues. As transparency is one of the key issues at ICANN, it is good to see COI issues called out, and responded to.

avri




From avri  Fri Sep  6 20:39:25 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 13:39:25 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Mark Monitor's counter attack
In-Reply-To: <425B65FA-C1BE-4F0C-B941-59B9C3E9BBB3@acm.org>
References: <425B65FA-C1BE-4F0C-B941-59B9C3E9BBB3@acm.org>
Message-ID: <74E31992-5C25-4513-BB78-2D1A763D25BD@acm.org>


Ps.  One reason I am not interested in taking on the challenge myself in a formal sense, is that the issue has risen to the level of legal language.  Beyond my competency.

If we are going to respond, it should be one of the lawyers that crafts the language.  

Or perhaps Kathy would want to answer for herself as she seems to be singled out by the counterclaim - though we are all named.

avri


On 6 Sep 2013, at 13:21, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/input-to-ewg/2013/000024.html
> 
> Anyone want to take of the challenge?  A few hours left.
> 
> I added a note to a facebook conversation on the issue but am not planning to comment personally to ICANn - will let the NCSG support stand unless the groups decides otherwise.
> 
> My comments and comment by Nigel that went before it:
> 
>> Nigel Roberts 
> 
>> I know and like people on both sides of this spat.
>> 
>> And I take no side -- in no small part because I don't even understand what NCSG appears to have accused MarkMonitor of.
>> 
>> But I will just point out one thing .. rebuttal is a sure way to make sure a large number of people (like me) who would NOT otherwise have seen the original complaints, get to see it. 
>> I think it's called the Streisand Effect!
>> 
>> (I'll go back to sleep now and do my best to convince myself I never saw anything, and can get 10 minutes of my life back)
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Avri Doria Good point Nigel, hopefully now everyone will read all of the other points made by Kleinman, Morris et al that were endorsed by the NCSG. Perhaps in insisting people ignore the rest of the comments, they will now see why the TM people would like for our comments to be ignored and will explain the attack the messenger effect. 
>> 
>> As I understood the request, it was that the COI issue be addressed. The comment from the lawyers (who are coincidentally the representatives for many IP interests in ICANN) to which the Mark Monitor letter was attached is a start for the response to those COI issues. As transparency is one of the key issues at ICANN, it is good to see COI issues called out, and responded to.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From rudi.vansnick  Fri Sep  6 20:47:50 2013
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 19:47:50 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Mark Monitor's counter attack
In-Reply-To: <74E31992-5C25-4513-BB78-2D1A763D25BD@acm.org>
References: <425B65FA-C1BE-4F0C-B941-59B9C3E9BBB3@acm.org>
	<74E31992-5C25-4513-BB78-2D1A763D25BD@acm.org>
Message-ID: <AEB5AE82-0E1A-4DAF-BB8D-19BD7AE1312B@isoc.be>

+1 

I also feel this is a topic where legal advise is required in order to protect NCSG ...
What's the opinion of other NCSG PC members on this ? 

I feel we have been put into a position we didn't want to be in. 

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 6-sep.-2013, om 19:39 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> het volgende geschreven:

> 
> Ps.  One reason I am not interested in taking on the challenge myself in a formal sense, is that the issue has risen to the level of legal language.  Beyond my competency.
> 
> If we are going to respond, it should be one of the lawyers that crafts the language.  
> 
> Or perhaps Kathy would want to answer for herself as she seems to be singled out by the counterclaim - though we are all named.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 6 Sep 2013, at 13:21, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/input-to-ewg/2013/000024.html
>> 
>> Anyone want to take of the challenge?  A few hours left.
>> 
>> I added a note to a facebook conversation on the issue but am not planning to comment personally to ICANn - will let the NCSG support stand unless the groups decides otherwise.
>> 
>> My comments and comment by Nigel that went before it:
>> 
>>> Nigel Roberts 
>> 
>>> I know and like people on both sides of this spat.
>>> 
>>> And I take no side -- in no small part because I don't even understand what NCSG appears to have accused MarkMonitor of.
>>> 
>>> But I will just point out one thing .. rebuttal is a sure way to make sure a large number of people (like me) who would NOT otherwise have seen the original complaints, get to see it. 
>>> I think it's called the Streisand Effect!
>>> 
>>> (I'll go back to sleep now and do my best to convince myself I never saw anything, and can get 10 minutes of my life back)
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Avri Doria Good point Nigel, hopefully now everyone will read all of the other points made by Kleinman, Morris et al that were endorsed by the NCSG. Perhaps in insisting people ignore the rest of the comments, they will now see why the TM people would like for our comments to be ignored and will explain the attack the messenger effect. 
>>> 
>>> As I understood the request, it was that the COI issue be addressed. The comment from the lawyers (who are coincidentally the representatives for many IP interests in ICANN) to which the Mark Monitor letter was attached is a start for the response to those COI issues. As transparency is one of the key issues at ICANN, it is good to see COI issues called out, and responded to.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130906/4ce406d1/attachment-0001.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/20130906/4ce406d1/attachment-0001.sig>


From avri  Fri Sep  6 21:07:48 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 14:07:48 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG endorsement of NPOC letter on GNSO review
In-Reply-To: <CALbrTwCPzDMvpTOh=oO35oQdOBZNXYXj-z3b6oaRNDS-QnjA+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <61A19F39-842A-4E59-B7E3-89033923C3DB@acm.org>
	<CALbrTwD3y-zT2vyr8j_wZ9DwtbxqFeyzCWZLqH7SBCKf8aFCOg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqHer1CM=QH6TjHEAbU-gi_+F9gLr3tfzrKecPpMuqg6uA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALbrTwCPzDMvpTOh=oO35oQdOBZNXYXj-z3b6oaRNDS-QnjA+g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FFFC1B89-EEC1-4068-806B-0AF6FDECBC7C@acm.org>

done

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-15jul13/msg00004.html


avri




From rballeste  Fri Sep  6 21:21:49 2013
From: rballeste (Balleste, Roy)
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 18:21:49 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Mark Monitor's counter attack
In-Reply-To: <AEB5AE82-0E1A-4DAF-BB8D-19BD7AE1312B@isoc.be>
References: <425B65FA-C1BE-4F0C-B941-59B9C3E9BBB3@acm.org>
	<74E31992-5C25-4513-BB78-2D1A763D25BD@acm.org>
	<AEB5AE82-0E1A-4DAF-BB8D-19BD7AE1312B@isoc.be>
Message-ID: <bdccb0d5ae014e389095cf13380a6975@BN1PR08MB251.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>

Speaking as an NCSG member (and not in any legal sense), I do not see what is the problem.
We just raised an honest observation, and asked? Now the reaction is explosive, and unnecessarily so.
I invite all to read the NCSG statement.
In the end, I believe, it is now the ICANN Board that will have to examine the matter and decide.

Roy


From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org [mailto:pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org] On Behalf Of Rudi Vansnick
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 1:48 PM
To: Avri Doria
Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy; <privacy at ipjustice.org>
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Mark Monitor's counter attack

+1

I also feel this is a topic where legal advise is required in order to protect NCSG ...
What's the opinion of other NCSG PC members on this ?

I feel we have been put into a position we didn't want to be in.

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

Op 6-sep.-2013, om 19:39 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>> het volgende geschreven:



Ps.  One reason I am not interested in taking on the challenge myself in a formal sense, is that the issue has risen to the level of legal language.  Beyond my competency.

If we are going to respond, it should be one of the lawyers that crafts the language.

Or perhaps Kathy would want to answer for herself as she seems to be singled out by the counterclaim - though we are all named.

avri


On 6 Sep 2013, at 13:21, Avri Doria wrote:


Hi,

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/input-to-ewg/2013/000024.html

Anyone want to take of the challenge?  A few hours left.

I added a note to a facebook conversation on the issue but am not planning to comment personally to ICANn - will let the NCSG support stand unless the groups decides otherwise.

My comments and comment by Nigel that went before it:


Nigel Roberts


I know and like people on both sides of this spat.

And I take no side -- in no small part because I don't even understand what NCSG appears to have accused MarkMonitor of.

But I will just point out one thing .. rebuttal is a sure way to make sure a large number of people (like me) who would NOT otherwise have seen the original complaints, get to see it.
I think it's called the Streisand Effect!

(I'll go back to sleep now and do my best to convince myself I never saw anything, and can get 10 minutes of my life back)




Avri Doria Good point Nigel, hopefully now everyone will read all of the other points made by Kleinman, Morris et al that were endorsed by the NCSG. Perhaps in insisting people ignore the rest of the comments, they will now see why the TM people would like for our comments to be ignored and will explain the attack the messenger effect.

As I understood the request, it was that the COI issue be addressed. The comment from the lawyers (who are coincidentally the representatives for many IP interests in ICANN) to which the Mark Monitor letter was attached is a start for the response to those COI issues. As transparency is one of the key issues at ICANN, it is good to see COI issues called out, and responded to.

avri


_______________________________________________
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/20130906/8215ff5b/attachment.html>


From avri  Sat Sep  7 06:52:06 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 23:52:06 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Privacy]  Mark Monitor's counter attack
In-Reply-To: <855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24C3931@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
References: <425B65FA-C1BE-4F0C-B941-59B9C3E9BBB3@acm.org>
	<74E31992-5C25-4513-BB78-2D1A763D25BD@acm.org>
	<AEB5AE82-0E1A-4DAF-BB8D-19BD7AE1312B@isoc.be>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24C3931@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <A1D21CD8-9220-46D3-B70A-3D6BF6060E93@acm.org>


On 6 Sep 2013, at 19:42, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Legal advice? Why? 


i wasn't so much thinking of legal advice as dueling legal words.

avri



From william.drake  Sat Sep  7 10:55:34 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 09:55:34 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Privacy]  Mark Monitor's counter attack
In-Reply-To: <A1D21CD8-9220-46D3-B70A-3D6BF6060E93@acm.org>
References: <425B65FA-C1BE-4F0C-B941-59B9C3E9BBB3@acm.org>
	<74E31992-5C25-4513-BB78-2D1A763D25BD@acm.org>
	<AEB5AE82-0E1A-4DAF-BB8D-19BD7AE1312B@isoc.be>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24C3931@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<A1D21CD8-9220-46D3-B70A-3D6BF6060E93@acm.org>
Message-ID: <A38ADAB6-23A6-4D50-8599-3F6199C91920@uzh.ch>

Wow, you guys have undermined the multistakeholder model.  Congrats!  :-)

MM's letter strikes me as more floral and breathlessly overreactive than legal, but maybe the lawyers amongst us see something that requires that sort of response.

One question?since our input was signed "All members of the NCSG," might it be good to send a message to the members list saying this is happening?  Not just on representational/accountability grounds, but because one can imagine scenarios where someday someone from some corner of 'the community' raises it with an uninformed NCSG member and awkwardness ensues?

Best

Bill

On Sep 7, 2013, at 5:52 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> 
> On 6 Sep 2013, at 19:42, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
>> Legal advice? Why? 
> 
> 
> i wasn't so much thinking of legal advice as dueling legal words.
> 
> avri
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Sat Sep  7 15:37:52 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 08:37:52 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Privacy]  Mark Monitor's counter attack
In-Reply-To: <A38ADAB6-23A6-4D50-8599-3F6199C91920@uzh.ch>
References: <425B65FA-C1BE-4F0C-B941-59B9C3E9BBB3@acm.org>
	<74E31992-5C25-4513-BB78-2D1A763D25BD@acm.org>
	<AEB5AE82-0E1A-4DAF-BB8D-19BD7AE1312B@isoc.be>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24C3931@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<A1D21CD8-9220-46D3-B70A-3D6BF6060E93@acm.org>
	<A38ADAB6-23A6-4D50-8599-3F6199C91920@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <A72FEB92-C7F0-4642-ABF3-BFA1844A7F93@acm.org>

Hi,

Thank you so much for the input.

BTW, it was signed by me on behalf of the NCSG Policy Committee, not by all the members of the the NCSG

I will consider writing something to the Discuss list, but i do worry about giving Mark Monitor comments more weight.  Remember, though, people read the ncsg discuss list for attack points as we are one of the few GNSO SG/C's that maintain a required open list archive. 

avri

On 7 Sep 2013, at 03:55, William Drake wrote:

> Wow, you guys have undermined the multistakeholder model.  Congrats!  :-)
> 
> MM's letter strikes me as more floral and breathlessly overreactive than legal, but maybe the lawyers amongst us see something that requires that sort of response.
> 
> One question?since our input was signed "All members of the NCSG," might it be good to send a message to the members list saying this is happening?  Not just on representational/accountability grounds, but because one can imagine scenarios where someday someone from some corner of 'the community' raises it with an uninformed NCSG member and awkwardness ensues?
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill




From avri  Sat Sep  7 16:27:43 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 09:27:43 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Privacy]  Mark Monitor's counter attack
In-Reply-To: <A72FEB92-C7F0-4642-ABF3-BFA1844A7F93@acm.org>
References: <425B65FA-C1BE-4F0C-B941-59B9C3E9BBB3@acm.org>
	<74E31992-5C25-4513-BB78-2D1A763D25BD@acm.org>
	<AEB5AE82-0E1A-4DAF-BB8D-19BD7AE1312B@isoc.be>
	<855077AC3D7A7147A7570370CA01ECD24C3931@SUEX10-mbx-10.ad.syr.edu>
	<A1D21CD8-9220-46D3-B70A-3D6BF6060E93@acm.org>
	<A38ADAB6-23A6-4D50-8599-3F6199C91920@uzh.ch>
	<A72FEB92-C7F0-4642-ABF3-BFA1844A7F93@acm.org>
Message-ID: <0C07D4D8-3252-42E8-BB4F-0ED79F0BB633@ella.com>

message sent to discuss list as requested.

avri



On 7 Sep 2013, at 08:37, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Thank you so much for the input.
> 
> BTW, it was signed by me on behalf of the NCSG Policy Committee, not by all the members of the the NCSG
> 
> I will consider writing something to the Discuss list, but i do worry about giving Mark Monitor comments more weight.  Remember, though, people read the ncsg discuss list for attack points as we are one of the few GNSO SG/C's that maintain a required open list archive. 
> 
> avri
> 
> On 7 Sep 2013, at 03:55, William Drake wrote:
> 
>> Wow, you guys have undermined the multistakeholder model.  Congrats!  :-)
>> 
>> MM's letter strikes me as more floral and breathlessly overreactive than legal, but maybe the lawyers amongst us see something that requires that sort of response.
>> 
>> One question?since our input was signed "All members of the NCSG," might it be good to send a message to the members list saying this is happening?  Not just on representational/accountability grounds, but because one can imagine scenarios where someday someone from some corner of 'the community' raises it with an uninformed NCSG member and awkwardness ensues?
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Bill
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From avri  Sat Sep  7 18:46:08 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 11:46:08 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Recommendations for a Thick
	WHOIS new recommendation
In-Reply-To: <E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6223F74CA7@LAEX02.MSK.local>
References: <CE4E4B53.29641%marika.konings@icann.org>
	<59C82F51-FB7E-4425-AAC6-1CB11528B6AF@acm.org>
	<E5B4A2ED43DFAE4F9E710FA54FEF8F6223F74CA7@LAEX02.MSK.local>
Message-ID: <6ADDF61F-233B-497C-B948-3B0B762F4BF8@acm.org>

Hi Steve,

- I was not aware of there currently being any PDP on Privacy issues in WHOIS.  But I have not been paying the same attention to this over the last few months as I have in the past, so thought that perhaps I had missed it.  I went and looked* and could not find it.  Can you point me toward the ongoing PDP on Privacy issues?

-  I was not aware of there currently being any pending issues report on Privacy Issue in WHOIS in the GNSO I went and looked and could not find it.  Can you point me toward the pending issues report  on Privacy issues?  Yes there is an old RAA issues report that is being looked at now in the council,. Is that what you meant?  

- It is important that the Privacy work for WHOIS be done in a proper Bylaws GNSO PDP if we want it to be relevant for the operation of gTLDs, not one of the new style top-constructions we see in ICANN these days.

- On the other hand, had there been an existing GNSO PDP, my request would have been that we explicitly recommend the list of Privacy issues that were discussed during the discussion of this PDP, so that the other PDP could have its charter augmented by the issues this group has uncovered but did not have the capacity to handle.  So if I have missed an ongoing effort, I will amend the requested recommendation.

- I am suggesting the WG recommend an issue report.  That is a step short from asking for a PDP.  Though I admit that if the Board did request the issues report that would automatically trigger a PDP.

- I was asking for a Board issues report  mostly because I think it is important to get a-priori Board imprimatur on a GNSO PDP on Privacy issues because it needs the commitment of many ICANN departments, not just the GNSO and the Policy Team.  Yes an issue report by the GNSO might do as well, but it might not have the same influence over ICANN beyond the GNSO as a Board request for an issues report.  While I thought it was better to recommend the Board request the issues report, I can see reason why the GNSO might prefer to do this itself.  In fact, you and others may be right, better to recommend that the GNSO just initiate the issue report immediately as opposed to waiting for the Board to act on it.  We should probably ask ICANN staff to coordinate with whatever ongoing issues reports they may have going with other GNSO gTLD privacy concerns.

- While the specific privacy issues this group has uncovered have to do with the issues that occur in the transition from thin-to-thick, one of the refrains in this group has been, "we can't really differentiate the thin-to-thick case from all privacy cases of a registrar in one jurisdiction transferring private information to another jurisdiction with a lower standard of privacy.  So the related issues may be many.  Other related issues have to do  with some of the issues related to the RAA.  Currently there is discussion in the GNSO and its council on those issues.  They overlap with the issue in this WG  but are not identical in scope.  I would have suggested widening the scope of this group's issue report request, but figured that wouldn't go anywhere.  In any case, if the GNSO has several recommendations for issues reports, they can combine and tune as the Council and Policy Staff see fit. 

- This is a recommendation from this group based on all the Privacy issues related to thin-to-thick that we pushed off to some other time.  The only things in the scope of this PDP WG, as we have been reminded of countless times, are defined in this WG's charter, and not in the possible actions of some other body at some other undetermined point in time.  We need to request an Issues report to have people with the appropriate competency study the issues we were not adequate for,  and layout those issues for a possible PDP.  We cannot judge what will result from other efforts or what they might contribute to the discussion - that is a task for the managers of the policy effort, i.e. the GNSO Council. As a PDP WG, we just need to recommend what we ought to recommend based on this group's work.  And for me that includes a recommendation for an issues report related to the privacy issues that have emerged from this PDP.  I am fine with building an a-priori inter alia list of those issues, but am also comfortable with leaving that to the Council and the Policy Staff.

Thanks for the questions

avri


* searched on GNSO site using search as well as consulting:

http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/projects-list.pdf
http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/policy
https://community.icann.org/category/gnso

I did not find a list of pending issues report.


On 5 Sep 2013, at 21:19, Metalitz, Steven wrote:

> 
> Amr, and Avri, 
> 
> Could you clarify a couple of points?  
> 
> If the recommendation you think the WG should make pertains to privacy issues involved in Whois, isn't that already covered by the Board-initiated PDP?
> 
> If the recommendation relates to privacy issues involved in "other GNSO policies," as Avri suggested, how does that relate to the scope of work we have been asked to do?
> 
> I am also confused by Avri's last post.  Does a recommendation from GNSO council for a consensus policy have a different status when it comes before the Board depending on whether it arose from a PDP initiated by the Board or by the Council?  Or are you referring to some other kind of recommendation?  
> 
> Why would the Council ask the Board to initiate a  PDP (or why would we recommend that Council do so)  when Council  has the full capability to do so itself and indeed nearly all PDPs have arisen in this manner? 
> 
> Thanks for any insights you can provide on these questions.  
> 
> Steve
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 10:58 AM
> To: Thick Whois
> Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Recommendations for a Thick WHOIS new recommendation
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think there are not only substantive issue as Amr points out, but also a recommendation from a PDP WG has a different status from a recommendation for a Board WG and commands a different response from the Board if the GNSO Council approves the recommendation.
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On Sep 5, 2013, at 1:06 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Steve,
>> 
>> The issue report posted at the link you provided does indeed mandate the ensuing PDP WG to consider both the ongoing progress of any WHOIS-related Working Groups, and answer any questions pertaining to privacy laws governing transfer of personal data. However, as far as I can tell, this all seems to be in the context of access to and accuracy of domain name registration data. This will create a scope too narrow to include what I believe Avri is suggesting, which should probably list these same two items in an issue report more specific to the transition of WHOIS from "thin" to "thick".
>> 
>> This seems fitting to me, since we (as per the WG's initial report) lacked the capacity to address this issue conclusively.
>> 
>> I appreciate any more thoughts you and others might have on this.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Sep 3, 2013, at 4:03 PM, "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Isn't this already covered by the Board-initiated PDP on Whois that will be launched once the EWG issues its final report, and as to which a preliminary issues report has already been published?  http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/gtld-registration-data-15mar13-en.htm
>>> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2013 9:45 AM
>>> To: gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org
>>> Subject: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Recommendations for a Thick WHOIS new recommendation
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> We have moved a lot of privacy issues into a heap called - 'to be worked on later'
>>> 
>>> I recommend that we include the following recommendation to deal with this myriad  of issues:
>>> 
>>> We recommend that the ICANN Board request a GNSO issues report to cover the issue of Privacy as related to WHOIS and other GNSO policies.
>>> 
>>> This recommendation would probably require some glue language in a few other spots in the final report.
>>> 
>>> The reason for requesting that the Board, as opposed to the GNSO, is the number of ICANN staff organizations, such as legal, that need to be folded into any such effort.  It would also give evidence of ICANN's concern about such issues in this time of great privacy anxiety.
>>> 
>>> thanks
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Avri Doria
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 




From avri  Wed Sep 11 09:29:26 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 02:29:26 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO Meeting 11 Sept 2013
References: <018e01ceaea9$4d60f930$e822eb90$@berrycobb.com>
Message-ID: <4842A0A5-8D62-4F5D-983C-B02917775337@ella.com>



Draft final docs.

You will see that the consensus does not go with us.

i was thinking of writing minority opinions, but am much to busy with ATRT report writing to bother.  Anyone else who wants to, please feel free.

The end of it is that GNSO will be supporting blocking at top and second level.  The PDP is giving  mostly what the GAC wants.  And there will be TMCH, UDRP and URS for full RCRC, IGO and INGO names.  And probably for IOC too, though there was less support for them - but probably still enough.

but some of you will be happy, there was a consensus, i think, against fee reductions.

I am so glad this one is almost over.

avri

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Berry Cobb" <mail at berrycobb.com>
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] RE: Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO Meeting 11 Sept 2013
> Date: 11 September 2013 00:42:20 EDT
> To: <gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org>
> 
> WG Members,
>  
> Please find attached the first draft of the IGO-INGO Final Report.  This version replaced our prior Section 4 of proposed recommendations with a new Section 5 of the Working Group Recommendations with associated level of consensus.  It is Section 5 that we will spend most of the time on in our next meeting. 
>  
> V0.1 is the redline from the final Initial Report to this version of the draft Final Report
> V0.2 is the version where all changes have been accepted for a clean review of this draft.
>  
> I will send out a v0.3 for WG members to review and provide feedback after our call tomorrow.
>  
> Thank you.  B
>  
> Berry Cobb
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> 720.839.5735
> mail at berrycobb.com
> @berrycobb
>  
>  
> From: Berry Cobb [mailto:mail at berrycobb.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:16
> To: 'gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org'
> Subject: Proposed Agenda - IGO-INGO Meeting 11 Sept 2013
>  
> WG Members,
>  
> Please find below the proposed agenda for Wednesday?s meeting. 
>  
> Proposed Agenda ? IGO-INGO WG Meeting ? 11 SEPTEMBER 2013 @ 16:00 UTC (120 Min):
> 1.       Review Agenda & Changes to SOI?s
> 2.       Review draft Final Report (recommendations, impact on incumbent gTLDs)
> 3.       Review Work Plan
> 4.     Confirm next meeting, 18 September 2013 @ 16:00 UTC
>  
> 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/20130911/336ce369/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGO-INGO_Final_Report_v0.2.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 153365 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130911/336ce369/attachment-0002.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130911/336ce369/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IGO-INGO_Final_Report_v0.1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 233488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130911/336ce369/attachment-0003.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130911/336ce369/attachment-0005.html>


From avri  Fri Sep 13 11:55:46 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 10:55:46 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus and a minority stmt.
Message-ID: <E1B2355C-260A-4E32-B328-7D96C3F228AB@acm.org>



hi,

Personally I accept the consensus determination made by Thomas.  I can also see the point that those who want the call changed on a few points.  Pretty much I am ambivalent on these points.  I think the results are a pity, but they are what they are.

As most know, I strongly object to the addition of some many names to the reserved list.  I will not, however be posting a minority opinion on this, I accept that GAC has won this point despite the fact that this was unnecessary given the existence on objection and RPMs.

I also strongly support waiving fees for IGO and INGO to use these objection and  RPM methods.  But will not file an minority statement on that either.  I accept that ICANN is run by commercials interests and understand that their unwillingness to grant such waivers is another fact of life at ICANN at this point in time.  It is sad, but what are you going to.  A minority opinion that says we should be recognize  the financial constraints of service organizations would be lost in the hurly burly of massive profit making by all and sundry.

It is posible that some others within the NCSG will file minority opinions, but I personally won't do so.

I will however, file two minority statements:

- one the nature of reserved names.  
- one on the treatment of reserved names already registered by incumbent registries

----

The following is my first draft of the minority statement on reserved names:

There appears to be a consensus in the IGO-INGO WG to provide special protections for IGOs, INGO, the RCRC and even the IOC at the second level.  While I beleive this is unfortunate, it does seem to be the accepted. This means that the reserved names list will grow exponentially by 1 or possibly 2 orders of magnitude. 

Buried within this increase in the size of the reserved name list is the recommendation for an exemption that would allow for these reserved names to be registered under some circumstances, such as by the organization to whom it is related or by someone who gets permission to register from the relevant IGO or IGNO.  

I beleive that this notion of an exemption is a fertile ground for abuse that has not be adequately studied by this working group; I admit such a discussion is difficult.  I also beleive that any such exemption procedure essentially creates a new kind of reserved name that is not been adequately understood and for which there are no policy recommendations on how it should be implemented. 

My minority opinion is that exceptions for the registration of the reserved names be postponed until such time as there has been a PDP on reserved names and the process by which exceptions might be made.  In the meantime, my minority recommendation is that these names be treated as names currently on the reserved names are treated, i.e. the only way for such names to be registered as domain names, except for the few  at the second level is through the Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSEP) process.

----

The following is the first draft of my minority statement on the treatment of reserved names already registered by incumbent registries

The recommendations extend the expanded reserved names list to the incumbent registries.  Quite reasonably registrant who already have these names will be allowed to keep them and for any abuse to be handled under the enhanced RPMs as recommended by WG.  My minority view extends to what happens when the registrant of such a reserved names wishes to sell or otherwise transfer the name to another registrant. Allowing such a transfer goes against the nature of the reserved names list and opens an avenue for abuse.

My recommendation is that all names added to the reserved names list  be blocked from sale/transfer to a new registrant at least until such time as a PDP on reserved names has considered the issue in the light of their possible changes to the nature of reserved names.

----

thanks

avri




From avri  Wed Sep 18 00:31:36 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 17:31:36 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.
References: <017c01ceb3e9$cec238f0$6c46aad0$@berrycobb.com>
Message-ID: <C5939F4C-8E47-43FA-B7C8-DFE82F4F771A@acm.org>


Hi,

Any objection to the minority statement being form the NCSG?

avri

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Berry Cobb" <mail at berrycobb.com>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.
> Date: 17 September 2013 17:06:41 EDT
> To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri at acm.org>
> Cc: "Thomas Rickert" <rickert at anwaelte.de>
> 
> Hi Avri,
> 
> Just for clarity on the minority statement below is this on your own behalf
> or that of the NCSG?
> 
> Thank you.  B
> 
> Berry Cobb
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> 720.839.5735
> mail at berrycobb.com
> @berrycobb
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 01:56
> To: GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org)
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hi,
> 
> Personally I accept the consensus determination made by Thomas.  I can also
> see the point that those who want the call changed on a few points.  Pretty
> much I am ambivalent on these points.  I think the results are a pity, but
> they are what they are.
> 
> As most know, I strongly object to the addition of some many names to the
> reserved list.  I will not, however be posting a minority opinion on this, I
> accept that GAC has won this point despite the fact that this was
> unnecessary given the existence on objection and RPMs.
> 
> I also strongly support waiving fees for IGO and INGO to use these objection
> and  RPM methods.  But will not file an minority statement on that either.
> I accept that ICANN is run by commercials interests and understand that
> their unwillingness to grant such waivers is another fact of life at ICANN
> at this point in time.  It is sad, but what are you going to.  A minority
> opinion that says we should be recognize  the financial constraints of
> service organizations would be lost in the hurly burly of massive profit
> making by all and sundry.
> 
> It is posible that some others within the NCSG will file minority opinions,
> but I personally won't do so.
> 
> I will however, file two minority statements:
> 
> - one the nature of reserved names.  
> - one on the treatment of reserved names already registered by incumbent
> registries
> 
> ----
> 
> The following is my first draft of the minority statement on reserved names:
> 
> There appears to be a consensus in the IGO-INGO WG to provide special
> protections for IGOs, INGO, the RCRC and even the IOC at the second level.
> While I beleive this is unfortunate, it does seem to be the accepted. This
> means that the reserved names list will grow exponentially by 1 or possibly
> 2 orders of magnitude. 
> 
> Buried within this increase in the size of the reserved name list is the
> recommendation for an exemption that would allow for these reserved names to
> be registered under some circumstances, such as by the organization to whom
> it is related or by someone who gets permission to register from the
> relevant IGO or IGNO.  
> 
> I beleive that this notion of an exemption is a fertile ground for abuse
> that has not be adequately studied by this working group; I admit such a
> discussion is difficult.  I also beleive that any such exemption procedure
> essentially creates a new kind of reserved name that is not been adequately
> understood and for which there are no policy recommendations on how it
> should be implemented. 
> 
> My minority opinion is that exceptions for the registration of the reserved
> names be postponed until such time as there has been a PDP on reserved names
> and the process by which exceptions might be made.  In the meantime, my
> minority recommendation is that these names be treated as names currently on
> the reserved names are treated, i.e. the only way for such names to be
> registered as domain names, except for the few  at the second level is
> through the Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSEP) process.
> 
> ----
> 
> The following is the first draft of my minority statement on the treatment
> of reserved names already registered by incumbent registries
> 
> The recommendations extend the expanded reserved names list to the incumbent
> registries.  Quite reasonably registrant who already have these names will
> be allowed to keep them and for any abuse to be handled under the enhanced
> RPMs as recommended by WG.  My minority view extends to what happens when
> the registrant of such a reserved names wishes to sell or otherwise transfer
> the name to another registrant. Allowing such a transfer goes against the
> nature of the reserved names list and opens an avenue for abuse.
> 
> My recommendation is that all names added to the reserved names list  be
> blocked from sale/transfer to a new registrant at least until such time as a
> PDP on reserved names has considered the issue in the light of their
> possible changes to the nature of reserved names.
> 
> ----
> 
> thanks
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 




From william.drake  Wed Sep 18 11:16:48 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 10:16:48 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.
In-Reply-To: <C5939F4C-8E47-43FA-B7C8-DFE82F4F771A@acm.org>
References: <017c01ceb3e9$cec238f0$6c46aad0$@berrycobb.com>
	<C5939F4C-8E47-43FA-B7C8-DFE82F4F771A@acm.org>
Message-ID: <C86D4CF3-EA18-4F40-B1CE-40B4EFF4A8E5@uzh.ch>

Not from me?a PDP on reserved names seems pretty obvious at this point.

Bill

On Sep 17, 2013, at 11:31 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> Any objection to the minority statement being form the NCSG?
> 
> avri
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: "Berry Cobb" <mail at berrycobb.com>
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.
>> Date: 17 September 2013 17:06:41 EDT
>> To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri at acm.org>
>> Cc: "Thomas Rickert" <rickert at anwaelte.de>
>> 
>> Hi Avri,
>> 
>> Just for clarity on the minority statement below is this on your own behalf
>> or that of the NCSG?
>> 
>> Thank you.  B
>> 
>> Berry Cobb
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>> 720.839.5735
>> mail at berrycobb.com
>> @berrycobb
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org]
>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 01:56
>> To: GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org)
>> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> hi,
>> 
>> Personally I accept the consensus determination made by Thomas.  I can also
>> see the point that those who want the call changed on a few points.  Pretty
>> much I am ambivalent on these points.  I think the results are a pity, but
>> they are what they are.
>> 
>> As most know, I strongly object to the addition of some many names to the
>> reserved list.  I will not, however be posting a minority opinion on this, I
>> accept that GAC has won this point despite the fact that this was
>> unnecessary given the existence on objection and RPMs.
>> 
>> I also strongly support waiving fees for IGO and INGO to use these objection
>> and  RPM methods.  But will not file an minority statement on that either.
>> I accept that ICANN is run by commercials interests and understand that
>> their unwillingness to grant such waivers is another fact of life at ICANN
>> at this point in time.  It is sad, but what are you going to.  A minority
>> opinion that says we should be recognize  the financial constraints of
>> service organizations would be lost in the hurly burly of massive profit
>> making by all and sundry.
>> 
>> It is posible that some others within the NCSG will file minority opinions,
>> but I personally won't do so.
>> 
>> I will however, file two minority statements:
>> 
>> - one the nature of reserved names.  
>> - one on the treatment of reserved names already registered by incumbent
>> registries
>> 
>> ----
>> 
>> The following is my first draft of the minority statement on reserved names:
>> 
>> There appears to be a consensus in the IGO-INGO WG to provide special
>> protections for IGOs, INGO, the RCRC and even the IOC at the second level.
>> While I beleive this is unfortunate, it does seem to be the accepted. This
>> means that the reserved names list will grow exponentially by 1 or possibly
>> 2 orders of magnitude. 
>> 
>> Buried within this increase in the size of the reserved name list is the
>> recommendation for an exemption that would allow for these reserved names to
>> be registered under some circumstances, such as by the organization to whom
>> it is related or by someone who gets permission to register from the
>> relevant IGO or IGNO.  
>> 
>> I beleive that this notion of an exemption is a fertile ground for abuse
>> that has not be adequately studied by this working group; I admit such a
>> discussion is difficult.  I also beleive that any such exemption procedure
>> essentially creates a new kind of reserved name that is not been adequately
>> understood and for which there are no policy recommendations on how it
>> should be implemented. 
>> 
>> My minority opinion is that exceptions for the registration of the reserved
>> names be postponed until such time as there has been a PDP on reserved names
>> and the process by which exceptions might be made.  In the meantime, my
>> minority recommendation is that these names be treated as names currently on
>> the reserved names are treated, i.e. the only way for such names to be
>> registered as domain names, except for the few  at the second level is
>> through the Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSEP) process.
>> 
>> ----
>> 
>> The following is the first draft of my minority statement on the treatment
>> of reserved names already registered by incumbent registries
>> 
>> The recommendations extend the expanded reserved names list to the incumbent
>> registries.  Quite reasonably registrant who already have these names will
>> be allowed to keep them and for any abuse to be handled under the enhanced
>> RPMs as recommended by WG.  My minority view extends to what happens when
>> the registrant of such a reserved names wishes to sell or otherwise transfer
>> the name to another registrant. Allowing such a transfer goes against the
>> nature of the reserved names list and opens an avenue for abuse.
>> 
>> My recommendation is that all names added to the reserved names list  be
>> blocked from sale/transfer to a new registrant at least until such time as a
>> PDP on reserved names has considered the issue in the light of their
>> possible changes to the nature of reserved names.
>> 
>> ----
>> 
>> thanks
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130918/cea7fbc3/attachment.html>


From rudi.vansnick  Wed Sep 18 11:28:15 2013
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 10:28:15 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.
In-Reply-To: <C5939F4C-8E47-43FA-B7C8-DFE82F4F771A@acm.org>
References: <017c01ceb3e9$cec238f0$6c46aad0$@berrycobb.com>
	<C5939F4C-8E47-43FA-B7C8-DFE82F4F771A@acm.org>
Message-ID: <6679265E-D1C7-4379-B2FE-2A8FE43D1A6A@isoc.be>

Hi Avri,
Hi all,

I agree with you, so much time has already been spend on this topic and I'm almost convinced the final decision has already been taken. So I agree with your statement and support it for putting it forward.

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 17-sep.-2013, om 23:31 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> het volgende geschreven:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> Any objection to the minority statement being form the NCSG?
> 
> avri
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: "Berry Cobb" <mail at berrycobb.com>
>> Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.
>> Date: 17 September 2013 17:06:41 EDT
>> To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri at acm.org>
>> Cc: "Thomas Rickert" <rickert at anwaelte.de>
>> 
>> Hi Avri,
>> 
>> Just for clarity on the minority statement below is this on your own behalf
>> or that of the NCSG?
>> 
>> Thank you.  B
>> 
>> Berry Cobb
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>> 720.839.5735
>> mail at berrycobb.com
>> @berrycobb
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org]
>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 01:56
>> To: GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org)
>> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> hi,
>> 
>> Personally I accept the consensus determination made by Thomas.  I can also
>> see the point that those who want the call changed on a few points.  Pretty
>> much I am ambivalent on these points.  I think the results are a pity, but
>> they are what they are.
>> 
>> As most know, I strongly object to the addition of some many names to the
>> reserved list.  I will not, however be posting a minority opinion on this, I
>> accept that GAC has won this point despite the fact that this was
>> unnecessary given the existence on objection and RPMs.
>> 
>> I also strongly support waiving fees for IGO and INGO to use these objection
>> and  RPM methods.  But will not file an minority statement on that either.
>> I accept that ICANN is run by commercials interests and understand that
>> their unwillingness to grant such waivers is another fact of life at ICANN
>> at this point in time.  It is sad, but what are you going to.  A minority
>> opinion that says we should be recognize  the financial constraints of
>> service organizations would be lost in the hurly burly of massive profit
>> making by all and sundry.
>> 
>> It is posible that some others within the NCSG will file minority opinions,
>> but I personally won't do so.
>> 
>> I will however, file two minority statements:
>> 
>> - one the nature of reserved names.  
>> - one on the treatment of reserved names already registered by incumbent
>> registries
>> 
>> ----
>> 
>> The following is my first draft of the minority statement on reserved names:
>> 
>> There appears to be a consensus in the IGO-INGO WG to provide special
>> protections for IGOs, INGO, the RCRC and even the IOC at the second level.
>> While I beleive this is unfortunate, it does seem to be the accepted. This
>> means that the reserved names list will grow exponentially by 1 or possibly
>> 2 orders of magnitude. 
>> 
>> Buried within this increase in the size of the reserved name list is the
>> recommendation for an exemption that would allow for these reserved names to
>> be registered under some circumstances, such as by the organization to whom
>> it is related or by someone who gets permission to register from the
>> relevant IGO or IGNO.  
>> 
>> I beleive that this notion of an exemption is a fertile ground for abuse
>> that has not be adequately studied by this working group; I admit such a
>> discussion is difficult.  I also beleive that any such exemption procedure
>> essentially creates a new kind of reserved name that is not been adequately
>> understood and for which there are no policy recommendations on how it
>> should be implemented. 
>> 
>> My minority opinion is that exceptions for the registration of the reserved
>> names be postponed until such time as there has been a PDP on reserved names
>> and the process by which exceptions might be made.  In the meantime, my
>> minority recommendation is that these names be treated as names currently on
>> the reserved names are treated, i.e. the only way for such names to be
>> registered as domain names, except for the few  at the second level is
>> through the Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSEP) process.
>> 
>> ----
>> 
>> The following is the first draft of my minority statement on the treatment
>> of reserved names already registered by incumbent registries
>> 
>> The recommendations extend the expanded reserved names list to the incumbent
>> registries.  Quite reasonably registrant who already have these names will
>> be allowed to keep them and for any abuse to be handled under the enhanced
>> RPMs as recommended by WG.  My minority view extends to what happens when
>> the registrant of such a reserved names wishes to sell or otherwise transfer
>> the name to another registrant. Allowing such a transfer goes against the
>> nature of the reserved names list and opens an avenue for abuse.
>> 
>> My recommendation is that all names added to the reserved names list  be
>> blocked from sale/transfer to a new registrant at least until such time as a
>> PDP on reserved names has considered the issue in the light of their
>> possible changes to the nature of reserved names.
>> 
>> ----
>> 
>> thanks
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130918/14403101/attachment-0001.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/20130918/14403101/attachment-0001.sig>


From maria.farrell  Wed Sep 18 11:29:09 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 09:29:09 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.
In-Reply-To: <6679265E-D1C7-4379-B2FE-2A8FE43D1A6A@isoc.be>
References: <017c01ceb3e9$cec238f0$6c46aad0$@berrycobb.com>
	<C5939F4C-8E47-43FA-B7C8-DFE82F4F771A@acm.org>
	<6679265E-D1C7-4379-B2FE-2A8FE43D1A6A@isoc.be>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdBAw3ZTRyucLY4gaCzTAqisLRSsLn5k-YN2RD2Rd=sFCQ@mail.gmail.com>

+1 from me.

Maria


On 18 September 2013 09:28, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be> wrote:

> Hi Avri,
> Hi all,
>
> I agree with you, so much time has already been spend on this topic and
> I'm almost convinced the final decision has already been taken. So I agree
> with your statement and support it for putting it forward.
>
> 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 17-sep.-2013, om 23:31 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> het volgende
> geschreven:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Any objection to the minority statement being form the NCSG?
>
> avri
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "Berry Cobb" <mail at berrycobb.com>
> Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.
> Date: 17 September 2013 17:06:41 EDT
> To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri at acm.org>
> Cc: "Thomas Rickert" <rickert at anwaelte.de>
>
> Hi Avri,
>
> Just for clarity on the minority statement below is this on your own behalf
> or that of the NCSG?
>
> Thank you.  B
>
> Berry Cobb
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> 720.839.5735
> mail at berrycobb.com
> @berrycobb
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org]
> On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 01:56
> To: GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org)
> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.
>
>
>
>
> hi,
>
> Personally I accept the consensus determination made by Thomas.  I can also
> see the point that those who want the call changed on a few points.  Pretty
> much I am ambivalent on these points.  I think the results are a pity, but
> they are what they are.
>
> As most know, I strongly object to the addition of some many names to the
> reserved list.  I will not, however be posting a minority opinion on this,
> I
> accept that GAC has won this point despite the fact that this was
> unnecessary given the existence on objection and RPMs.
>
> I also strongly support waiving fees for IGO and INGO to use these
> objection
> and  RPM methods.  But will not file an minority statement on that either.
> I accept that ICANN is run by commercials interests and understand that
> their unwillingness to grant such waivers is another fact of life at ICANN
> at this point in time.  It is sad, but what are you going to.  A minority
> opinion that says we should be recognize  the financial constraints of
> service organizations would be lost in the hurly burly of massive profit
> making by all and sundry.
>
> It is posible that some others within the NCSG will file minority opinions,
> but I personally won't do so.
>
> I will however, file two minority statements:
>
> - one the nature of reserved names.
> - one on the treatment of reserved names already registered by incumbent
> registries
>
> ----
>
> The following is my first draft of the minority statement on reserved
> names:
>
> There appears to be a consensus in the IGO-INGO WG to provide special
> protections for IGOs, INGO, the RCRC and even the IOC at the second level.
> While I beleive this is unfortunate, it does seem to be the accepted. This
> means that the reserved names list will grow exponentially by 1 or possibly
> 2 orders of magnitude.
>
> Buried within this increase in the size of the reserved name list is the
> recommendation for an exemption that would allow for these reserved names
> to
> be registered under some circumstances, such as by the organization to whom
> it is related or by someone who gets permission to register from the
> relevant IGO or IGNO.
>
> I beleive that this notion of an exemption is a fertile ground for abuse
> that has not be adequately studied by this working group; I admit such a
> discussion is difficult.  I also beleive that any such exemption procedure
> essentially creates a new kind of reserved name that is not been adequately
> understood and for which there are no policy recommendations on how it
> should be implemented.
>
> My minority opinion is that exceptions for the registration of the reserved
> names be postponed until such time as there has been a PDP on reserved
> names
> and the process by which exceptions might be made.  In the meantime, my
> minority recommendation is that these names be treated as names currently
> on
> the reserved names are treated, i.e. the only way for such names to be
> registered as domain names, except for the few  at the second level is
> through the Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSEP) process.
>
> ----
>
> The following is the first draft of my minority statement on the treatment
> of reserved names already registered by incumbent registries
>
> The recommendations extend the expanded reserved names list to the
> incumbent
> registries.  Quite reasonably registrant who already have these names will
> be allowed to keep them and for any abuse to be handled under the enhanced
> RPMs as recommended by WG.  My minority view extends to what happens when
> the registrant of such a reserved names wishes to sell or otherwise
> transfer
> the name to another registrant. Allowing such a transfer goes against the
> nature of the reserved names list and opens an avenue for abuse.
>
> My recommendation is that all names added to the reserved names list  be
> blocked from sale/transfer to a new registrant at least until such time as
> a
> PDP on reserved names has considered the issue in the light of their
> possible changes to the nature of reserved names.
>
> ----
>
> thanks
>
> avri
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130918/2e9c6001/attachment.html>


From joy  Wed Sep 18 12:33:31 2013
From: joy (joy)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 21:33:31 +1200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.
In-Reply-To: <C86D4CF3-EA18-4F40-B1CE-40B4EFF4A8E5@uzh.ch>
References: <017c01ceb3e9$cec238f0$6c46aad0$@berrycobb.com>
	<C5939F4C-8E47-43FA-B7C8-DFE82F4F771A@acm.org>
	<C86D4CF3-EA18-4F40-B1CE-40B4EFF4A8E5@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <5239736B.6030104@apc.org>

agreed - thanks for your work on this Avri.
Joy
On 18/09/2013 8:16 p.m., William Drake wrote:
> Not from me...a PDP on reserved names seems pretty obvious at this point.
>
> Bill
>
> On Sep 17, 2013, at 11:31 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG
> <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Any objection to the minority statement being form the NCSG?
>>
>> avri
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> From: "Berry Cobb" <mail at berrycobb.com <mailto:mail at berrycobb.com>>
>>> Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.
>>> Date: 17 September 2013 17:06:41 EDT
>>> To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>
>>> Cc: "Thomas Rickert" <rickert at anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de>>
>>>
>>> Hi Avri,
>>>
>>> Just for clarity on the minority statement below is this on your own
>>> behalf
>>> or that of the NCSG?
>>>
>>> Thank you.  B
>>>
>>> Berry Cobb
>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
>>> 720.839.5735
>>> mail at berrycobb.com <mailto:mail at berrycobb.com>
>>> @berrycobb
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org
>>> [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org]
>>> On Behalf Of Avri Doria
>>> Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 01:56
>>> To: GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org)
>>> Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> Personally I accept the consensus determination made by Thomas.  I
>>> can also
>>> see the point that those who want the call changed on a few points.
>>>  Pretty
>>> much I am ambivalent on these points.  I think the results are a
>>> pity, but
>>> they are what they are.
>>>
>>> As most know, I strongly object to the addition of some many names
>>> to the
>>> reserved list.  I will not, however be posting a minority opinion on
>>> this, I
>>> accept that GAC has won this point despite the fact that this was
>>> unnecessary given the existence on objection and RPMs.
>>>
>>> I also strongly support waiving fees for IGO and INGO to use these
>>> objection
>>> and  RPM methods.  But will not file an minority statement on that
>>> either.
>>> I accept that ICANN is run by commercials interests and understand that
>>> their unwillingness to grant such waivers is another fact of life at
>>> ICANN
>>> at this point in time.  It is sad, but what are you going to.  A
>>> minority
>>> opinion that says we should be recognize  the financial constraints of
>>> service organizations would be lost in the hurly burly of massive profit
>>> making by all and sundry.
>>>
>>> It is posible that some others within the NCSG will file minority
>>> opinions,
>>> but I personally won't do so.
>>>
>>> I will however, file two minority statements:
>>>
>>> - one the nature of reserved names.  
>>> - one on the treatment of reserved names already registered by incumbent
>>> registries
>>>
>>> ----
>>>
>>> The following is my first draft of the minority statement on
>>> reserved names:
>>>
>>> There appears to be a consensus in the IGO-INGO WG to provide special
>>> protections for IGOs, INGO, the RCRC and even the IOC at the second
>>> level.
>>> While I beleive this is unfortunate, it does seem to be the
>>> accepted. This
>>> means that the reserved names list will grow exponentially by 1 or
>>> possibly
>>> 2 orders of magnitude.
>>>
>>> Buried within this increase in the size of the reserved name list is the
>>> recommendation for an exemption that would allow for these reserved
>>> names to
>>> be registered under some circumstances, such as by the organization
>>> to whom
>>> it is related or by someone who gets permission to register from the
>>> relevant IGO or IGNO.  
>>>
>>> I beleive that this notion of an exemption is a fertile ground for abuse
>>> that has not be adequately studied by this working group; I admit such a
>>> discussion is difficult.  I also beleive that any such exemption
>>> procedure
>>> essentially creates a new kind of reserved name that is not been
>>> adequately
>>> understood and for which there are no policy recommendations on how it
>>> should be implemented.
>>>
>>> My minority opinion is that exceptions for the registration of the
>>> reserved
>>> names be postponed until such time as there has been a PDP on
>>> reserved names
>>> and the process by which exceptions might be made.  In the meantime, my
>>> minority recommendation is that these names be treated as names
>>> currently on
>>> the reserved names are treated, i.e. the only way for such names to be
>>> registered as domain names, except for the few  at the second level is
>>> through the Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSEP) process.
>>>
>>> ----
>>>
>>> The following is the first draft of my minority statement on the
>>> treatment
>>> of reserved names already registered by incumbent registries
>>>
>>> The recommendations extend the expanded reserved names list to the
>>> incumbent
>>> registries.  Quite reasonably registrant who already have these
>>> names will
>>> be allowed to keep them and for any abuse to be handled under the
>>> enhanced
>>> RPMs as recommended by WG.  My minority view extends to what happens
>>> when
>>> the registrant of such a reserved names wishes to sell or otherwise
>>> transfer
>>> the name to another registrant. Allowing such a transfer goes
>>> against the
>>> nature of the reserved names list and opens an avenue for abuse.
>>>
>>> My recommendation is that all names added to the reserved names list  be
>>> blocked from sale/transfer to a new registrant at least until such
>>> time as a
>>> PDP on reserved names has considered the issue in the light of their
>>> possible changes to the nature of reserved names.
>>>
>>> ----
>>>
>>> thanks
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto: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 <http://www.ncuc.org>
> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>
> (w), wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (h),
>   www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> ***********************************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130918/5ccefb2a/attachment-0001.html>


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter  Wed Sep 18 13:48:41 2013
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 12:48:41 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.
References: <017c01ceb3e9$cec238f0$6c46aad0$@berrycobb.com>
	<C5939F4C-8E47-43FA-B7C8-DFE82F4F771A@acm.org>
	<C86D4CF3-EA18-4F40-B1CE-40B4EFF4A8E5@uzh.ch>
	<5239736B.6030104@apc.org>
Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331FAF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

I agree with some minor reservations with the final report and have nothing against Avris minority statement. The report could have been clearer but in a multistakeholder environment final results are based on "take and give" and if we support the final outcome of this very complex and complicated working grouo we demonstrate also our ability to enter into rough consensus at the end of the day. 
 
wolfgang
 

________________________________

Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von joy
Gesendet: Mi 18.09.2013 11:33
An: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.


agreed - thanks for your work on this Avri.
Joy

On 18/09/2013 8:16 p.m., William Drake wrote:


	Not from me...a PDP on reserved names seems pretty obvious at this point. 

	Bill

	On Sep 17, 2013, at 11:31 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:



		Hi,
		
		Any objection to the minority statement being form the NCSG?
		
		avri
		
		Begin forwarded message:
		
		

			From: "Berry Cobb" <mail at berrycobb.com>
			Subject: RE: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.
			Date: 17 September 2013 17:06:41 EDT
			To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri at acm.org>
			Cc: "Thomas Rickert" <rickert at anwaelte.de>
			
			Hi Avri,
			
			Just for clarity on the minority statement below is this on your own behalf
			or that of the NCSG?
			
			Thank you.  B
			
			Berry Cobb
			Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
			720.839.5735
			mail at berrycobb.com
			@berrycobb
			
			
			
			-----Original Message-----
			From: owner-gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org]
			On Behalf Of Avri Doria
			Sent: Friday, September 13, 2013 01:56
			To: GNSO IGO INGO (gnso-igo-ingo at icann.org)
			Subject: [gnso-igo-ingo] Consensus and a minority stmt.
			
			
			
			
			hi,
			
			Personally I accept the consensus determination made by Thomas.  I can also
			see the point that those who want the call changed on a few points.  Pretty
			much I am ambivalent on these points.  I think the results are a pity, but
			they are what they are.
			
			As most know, I strongly object to the addition of some many names to the
			reserved list.  I will not, however be posting a minority opinion on this, I
			accept that GAC has won this point despite the fact that this was
			unnecessary given the existence on objection and RPMs.
			
			I also strongly support waiving fees for IGO and INGO to use these objection
			and  RPM methods.  But will not file an minority statement on that either.
			I accept that ICANN is run by commercials interests and understand that
			their unwillingness to grant such waivers is another fact of life at ICANN
			at this point in time.  It is sad, but what are you going to.  A minority
			opinion that says we should be recognize  the financial constraints of
			service organizations would be lost in the hurly burly of massive profit
			making by all and sundry.
			
			It is posible that some others within the NCSG will file minority opinions,
			but I personally won't do so.
			
			I will however, file two minority statements:
			
			- one the nature of reserved names.  
			- one on the treatment of reserved names already registered by incumbent
			registries
			
			----
			
			The following is my first draft of the minority statement on reserved names:
			
			There appears to be a consensus in the IGO-INGO WG to provide special
			protections for IGOs, INGO, the RCRC and even the IOC at the second level.
			While I beleive this is unfortunate, it does seem to be the accepted. This
			means that the reserved names list will grow exponentially by 1 or possibly
			2 orders of magnitude. 
			
			Buried within this increase in the size of the reserved name list is the
			recommendation for an exemption that would allow for these reserved names to
			be registered under some circumstances, such as by the organization to whom
			it is related or by someone who gets permission to register from the
			relevant IGO or IGNO.  
			
			I beleive that this notion of an exemption is a fertile ground for abuse
			that has not be adequately studied by this working group; I admit such a
			discussion is difficult.  I also beleive that any such exemption procedure
			essentially creates a new kind of reserved name that is not been adequately
			understood and for which there are no policy recommendations on how it
			should be implemented. 
			
			My minority opinion is that exceptions for the registration of the reserved
			names be postponed until such time as there has been a PDP on reserved names
			and the process by which exceptions might be made.  In the meantime, my
			minority recommendation is that these names be treated as names currently on
			the reserved names are treated, i.e. the only way for such names to be
			registered as domain names, except for the few  at the second level is
			through the Registry Service Evaluation Process (RSEP) process.
			
			----
			
			The following is the first draft of my minority statement on the treatment
			of reserved names already registered by incumbent registries
			
			The recommendations extend the expanded reserved names list to the incumbent
			registries.  Quite reasonably registrant who already have these names will
			be allowed to keep them and for any abuse to be handled under the enhanced
			RPMs as recommended by WG.  My minority view extends to what happens when
			the registrant of such a reserved names wishes to sell or otherwise transfer
			the name to another registrant. Allowing such a transfer goes against the
			nature of the reserved names list and opens an avenue for abuse.
			
			My recommendation is that all names added to the reserved names list  be
			blocked from sale/transfer to a new registrant at least until such time as a
			PDP on reserved names has considered the issue in the light of their
			possible changes to the nature of reserved names.
			
			----
			
			thanks
			
			avri
			
			
			
			
			
			
			



		_______________________________________________
		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 <http://www.ncuc.org/> 
	william.drake at uzh.ch (w), wjdrake at gmail.com (h),
	  www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/> 
	***********************************************************


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





From avri  Thu Sep 19 17:54:47 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 10:54:47 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] missing recommendation in 7.1
In-Reply-To: <A7F73677-09F5-4CCF-B819-B06EBEBDD0C0@haven2.com>
References: <891C39D0-7C5E-4B6A-A45C-DE171D4B1ABE@acm.org>
	<A7F73677-09F5-4CCF-B819-B06EBEBDD0C0@haven2.com>
Message-ID: <BFB8AB50-03E9-4E2B-95A6-6F152222D808@acm.org>

Hi,

For me this needs to be a Recommendation (7.1, big R), not an extra consideration.  This issue was within the purview of the group and the group bailed on it for lack of capability.  Fine, then lets step and recommend that those that have the capability do so.    In this age of world attention on privacy issues, I can't beleive we are still dancing around the point.

I am currently working on getting the NCSG to endorse this.  As the alternate chair of the NCSG Policy committee I beleive this is something that will be supported by the NCSG.  I will personally submit a minority position and work to get the NCSG to endorse it, if this recommendation is not included in 7.1.  For myself at this point, I will reject the entire report without this, as the report is incomplete without this as a primary Recommendation.  To my mind NCSG would be shirking it responsibilities if we let this report go out without such a recommendation.

Incidentally, my impression from the list discussion was that there was support, but that wording needed changing.  It was changed.

I understand that there are those who may be playing divide and conquer games behind the scenes, claiming that my position will hurt NCSG's reputation.  I have bcc'e d the NCSG on this note so that they themselves can determine if it is reputation damaging.  There are others who are are cynically claiming that I am going against the bottom-up model by insisting on privacy considerations.  I reject those claims.

avri



On 19 Sep 2013, at 10:25, Mike O'Connor wrote:

> hi all,
> 
> i may have been the culprit here.  Avri, my interpretation of the desultory conversation on the list was that there *wasn't* much support for the idea.  and then when you didn't show up on last week's call to pitch/push it, i forgot to bring it up.  my bad -- sorry about that.
> 
> let's try to have a vigorous conversation about this on the list, and drive to a conclusion on the call next week.
> 
> Avri, you and i had a one-to-one email exchange about this and i suggested that this recommendation might fit better, and be more widely accepted, if it was in the privacy and data protection part of our report (Section 7.3).  could you give us an indication of whether acceptance of this version of the recommendation is required?  in more casual terms, is there any wiggle room here?  i think it would be helpful for the rest of the group to know the framework for the conversation.
> 
> carry on folks,
> 
> mikey
> 
> 
> On Sep 18, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I was disappointed to not see the recommendation for the Issues report included in 7.1.    I thought we had discussed it on this list and thee had been little opposition, though there was some.  I cannot support this report with a strong recommendation for follow on work on the Privacy issues.  And, contrary to what others may beleive, I do not see any such work currently ongoing in ICANN.  I think it i s unfortunate that we keep pushing off this work and are not willing to face it directly.  I beleive I have the support of others in the NCSG, though the content of a minority statement has yet to be decided on.
>> 
>> While still somewhat inadequate, I am ready to argue for going along with consensus on this document if the following is included in 7.1:
>> 
>> 
>> The WG  discussed many of the issues involved in moving from having a registration currently governed under the privacy rules by one jurisdiction in a thick whois to another jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the Registry in a thick whois.  The WG did not feel it was competent to fully discuss these privacy issues and was not able to fully separate the privacy issues involved in such a move from the general privacy issues that need to be resolved in Whois.  there was also concern with intersection with other related Privacy issues that ICANN currently needs to work on.  The Working group therefore makes the following recommendation:
>> 
>> . We recommend that the ICANN Board request a GNSO issues report to cover the issue of Privacy as related to WHOIS and other related GNSO policies.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
> 




From avri  Thu Sep 19 18:21:40 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 11:21:40 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] missing recommendation in 7.1
In-Reply-To: <7E7DA3D7D47D58488D97D7EDD4BBC3EA76BA660E@ORSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com>
References: <891C39D0-7C5E-4B6A-A45C-DE171D4B1ABE@acm.org>
	<A7F73677-09F5-4CCF-B819-B06EBEBDD0C0@haven2.com>
	<BFB8AB50-03E9-4E2B-95A6-6F152222D808@acm.org>
	<7E7DA3D7D47D58488D97D7EDD4BBC3EA76BA660E@ORSMSX102.amr.corp.intel.com>
Message-ID: <DB8237C6-0C93-4744-B137-039645E927B7@acm.org>

Hi,

I was not making that recommendation in this compromise position.  I.e I think that moving to Thick Whois is harmful for registrants from regions with better policy regimes. I beleive this is a general NCSG position on thick whois.  But I also beleive that once we understand these considerations, we may be able to make the conditions under which thick Whois works for all thick whois registrants, including those in the new gTLDS.  So I am willing to accept as a compromise that there is an ICANn consensus of moving incumbents to a thick model, but only if the work of privacy issue is begun without further delay.  I am not sure that NCSG will accept this compromise, but I will argue for it if the recommendation is put in 7.1

On the other hand it could indeed be part of the minority recommendation if the compromise is not accepted.  In general NCSG is agains the move to Thick Whois by ICANN.  We are aware we are in a minority, but we still beleie it is our duty to argue for protection of non commercial registrants.


avri


On 19 Sep 2013, at 11:06, George, Christopher E wrote:

> Avri,
> 
> Does your recommendation intend that any move to a Thick WHOIS be delayed pending the conclusion of a GNSO report on Privacy/etc?  It's not clear to me from the below how the timing would work.
> 
> Chris 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 7:55 AM
> To: Thick Whois
> Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] missing recommendation in 7.1
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> For me this needs to be a Recommendation (7.1, big R), not an extra consideration.  This issue was within the purview of the group and the group bailed on it for lack of capability.  Fine, then lets step and recommend that those that have the capability do so.    In this age of world attention on privacy issues, I can't beleive we are still dancing around the point.
> 
> I am currently working on getting the NCSG to endorse this.  As the alternate chair of the NCSG Policy committee I beleive this is something that will be supported by the NCSG.  I will personally submit a minority position and work to get the NCSG to endorse it, if this recommendation is not included in 7.1.  For myself at this point, I will reject the entire report without this, as the report is incomplete without this as a primary Recommendation.  To my mind NCSG would be shirking it responsibilities if we let this report go out without such a recommendation.
> 
> Incidentally, my impression from the list discussion was that there was support, but that wording needed changing.  It was changed.
> 
> I understand that there are those who may be playing divide and conquer games behind the scenes, claiming that my position will hurt NCSG's reputation.  I have bcc'e d the NCSG on this note so that they themselves can determine if it is reputation damaging.  There are others who are are cynically claiming that I am going against the bottom-up model by insisting on privacy considerations.  I reject those claims.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 19 Sep 2013, at 10:25, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> 
>> hi all,
>> 
>> i may have been the culprit here.  Avri, my interpretation of the desultory conversation on the list was that there *wasn't* much support for the idea.  and then when you didn't show up on last week's call to pitch/push it, i forgot to bring it up.  my bad -- sorry about that.
>> 
>> let's try to have a vigorous conversation about this on the list, and drive to a conclusion on the call next week.
>> 
>> Avri, you and i had a one-to-one email exchange about this and i suggested that this recommendation might fit better, and be more widely accepted, if it was in the privacy and data protection part of our report (Section 7.3).  could you give us an indication of whether acceptance of this version of the recommendation is required?  in more casual terms, is there any wiggle room here?  i think it would be helpful for the rest of the group to know the framework for the conversation.
>> 
>> carry on folks,
>> 
>> mikey
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 18, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I was disappointed to not see the recommendation for the Issues report included in 7.1.    I thought we had discussed it on this list and thee had been little opposition, though there was some.  I cannot support this report with a strong recommendation for follow on work on the Privacy issues.  And, contrary to what others may beleive, I do not see any such work currently ongoing in ICANN.  I think it i s unfortunate that we keep pushing off this work and are not willing to face it directly.  I beleive I have the support of others in the NCSG, though the content of a minority statement has yet to be decided on.
>>> 
>>> While still somewhat inadequate, I am ready to argue for going along with consensus on this document if the following is included in 7.1:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The WG  discussed many of the issues involved in moving from having a registration currently governed under the privacy rules by one jurisdiction in a thick whois to another jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the Registry in a thick whois.  The WG did not feel it was competent to fully discuss these privacy issues and was not able to fully separate the privacy issues involved in such a move from the general privacy issues that need to be resolved in Whois.  there was also concern with intersection with other related Privacy issues that ICANN currently needs to work on.  The Working group therefore makes the following recommendation:
>>> 
>>> . We recommend that the ICANN Board request a GNSO issues report to cover the issue of Privacy as related to WHOIS and other related GNSO policies.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>> 
> 
> 
> 




From robin  Thu Sep 19 18:30:04 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:30:04 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] missing recommendation in 7.1
In-Reply-To: <BFB8AB50-03E9-4E2B-95A6-6F152222D808@acm.org>
References: <891C39D0-7C5E-4B6A-A45C-DE171D4B1ABE@acm.org>
	<A7F73677-09F5-4CCF-B819-B06EBEBDD0C0@haven2.com>
	<BFB8AB50-03E9-4E2B-95A6-6F152222D808@acm.org>
Message-ID: <A5B28A58-38C5-49A2-9ED2-13C92AFC228C@ipjustice.org>

Thanks, Avri,

A couple points.  First, on the underlying substantive issue (privacy rights).  We definitely need to push for ICANN to develop an org-wide privacy policy that complies with international legal treaties and the privacy rights of Internet users.  GAC and certain law enforcement agencies along with the trademark industry have been pushing ICANN for years to make it easier to track Internet users, and so we haven't been able to get anywhere with encouraging ICANN to begin to consider the privacy rights of Internet users.  But this may very well be the right moment to push for that policy goal at ICANN.

On the issue of whether or not NCSG should just accept the wishes of the commercial users and rubber stamp the report so we don't "hurt NCSG's reputation", all I can say is this argument is trotted out every time NCSG stands on principle and refuses to just go along with the plans of others.  Remember in Costa Rica, when we were warned "it would be the death of the GNSO" if NCSG did not go along with the plan to give special privileges to the RedCross / Olympic Cmte without a proper PDP process?  Well, NCSG's GNSO Councilor Rafik didn't go along with it, the Council couldn't rubber stamp the proposal that day, and the world did not come to an end.  If I had a dime for every time we were threatened with the "we won't approve of you if you don't go along with our wishes" argument....

If NCSG's reputation is "damaged" because we are the only place in ICANN that recognizes the need for the org to deal with the privacy rights of Internet users, then so be it.

My two cents,
Robin

On Sep 19, 2013, at 7:54 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> For me this needs to be a Recommendation (7.1, big R), not an extra consideration.  This issue was within the purview of the group and the group bailed on it for lack of capability.  Fine, then lets step and recommend that those that have the capability do so.    In this age of world attention on privacy issues, I can't beleive we are still dancing around the point.
> 
> I am currently working on getting the NCSG to endorse this.  As the alternate chair of the NCSG Policy committee I beleive this is something that will be supported by the NCSG.  I will personally submit a minority position and work to get the NCSG to endorse it, if this recommendation is not included in 7.1.  For myself at this point, I will reject the entire report without this, as the report is incomplete without this as a primary Recommendation.  To my mind NCSG would be shirking it responsibilities if we let this report go out without such a recommendation.
> 
> Incidentally, my impression from the list discussion was that there was support, but that wording needed changing.  It was changed.
> 
> I understand that there are those who may be playing divide and conquer games behind the scenes, claiming that my position will hurt NCSG's reputation.  I have bcc'e d the NCSG on this note so that they themselves can determine if it is reputation damaging.  There are others who are are cynically claiming that I am going against the bottom-up model by insisting on privacy considerations.  I reject those claims.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 19 Sep 2013, at 10:25, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> 
>> hi all,
>> 
>> i may have been the culprit here.  Avri, my interpretation of the desultory conversation on the list was that there *wasn't* much support for the idea.  and then when you didn't show up on last week's call to pitch/push it, i forgot to bring it up.  my bad -- sorry about that.
>> 
>> let's try to have a vigorous conversation about this on the list, and drive to a conclusion on the call next week.
>> 
>> Avri, you and i had a one-to-one email exchange about this and i suggested that this recommendation might fit better, and be more widely accepted, if it was in the privacy and data protection part of our report (Section 7.3).  could you give us an indication of whether acceptance of this version of the recommendation is required?  in more casual terms, is there any wiggle room here?  i think it would be helpful for the rest of the group to know the framework for the conversation.
>> 
>> carry on folks,
>> 
>> mikey
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 18, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I was disappointed to not see the recommendation for the Issues report included in 7.1.    I thought we had discussed it on this list and thee had been little opposition, though there was some.  I cannot support this report with a strong recommendation for follow on work on the Privacy issues.  And, contrary to what others may beleive, I do not see any such work currently ongoing in ICANN.  I think it i s unfortunate that we keep pushing off this work and are not willing to face it directly.  I beleive I have the support of others in the NCSG, though the content of a minority statement has yet to be decided on.
>>> 
>>> While still somewhat inadequate, I am ready to argue for going along with consensus on this document if the following is included in 7.1:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The WG  discussed many of the issues involved in moving from having a registration currently governed under the privacy rules by one jurisdiction in a thick whois to another jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the Registry in a thick whois.  The WG did not feel it was competent to fully discuss these privacy issues and was not able to fully separate the privacy issues involved in such a move from the general privacy issues that need to be resolved in Whois.  there was also concern with intersection with other related Privacy issues that ICANN currently needs to work on.  The Working group therefore makes the following recommendation:
>>> 
>>> . We recommend that the ICANN Board request a GNSO issues report to cover the issue of Privacy as related to WHOIS and other related GNSO policies.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 




From maria.farrell  Fri Sep 20 10:41:13 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 08:41:13 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Council letter to ATRT2 on Reconsideration Requests
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdA3Myhs0OLucVRZ76JQZzty7btzT2rZ=juwtfVb4D2dwg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

The last GNSO Council decided the Chair would write to the ATRT2 to:

a. To highlight concerns with the reconsideration process as a mechanism
for ensuring accountability and transparency.

As we've had some experience with that in NCSG, would anyone who knows more
about it than me volunteer to help me draft something the GNSO Council
Chair could send (Edward?)

All the best, Maria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130920/5bcfe341/attachment.html>


From robin  Fri Sep 20 23:02:58 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 13:02:58 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN #48 Meetings Plan - NCSG with ATRT in Buenos Aires?
Message-ID: <147AA2CD-64FC-4449-903C-11CE5B6E2114@ipjustice.org>

Folks,

I'm working on the ICANN #48 in Buenos Aires meetings plan and want to schedule some time for NCSG with the ATRT team.  We have the option of them coming to the NCSG mtg on Tuesday afternoon (19 Nov) and talking with us during the NCSG mtg or we can set up a separate dedicated meeting with them on another time during 18-19-20 November in BA.  My preference would be the separate, dedicated, meeting between NCSG and the ATRT because we only have 2-hours on Tuesday to cover lots of different issues and it would be better if we could spend some focused time, at least an hour with ATRT in BA in my view.  However, I don't want to schedule a meeting and have no one show-up because of other commitments during the week, so please let me know if you think a separate mtg between NCSG & ATRT in BA would be useful and if so, would (the 18th) Monday afternoon be a good time to propose for this meeting?

Also, I've started to keep track of the various NCSG meeting details for ICANN #48 in BA here:
  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dHN4SURHZUZSSUswQ3BJXzl4ZWUzNXc#gid=0

Thanks much,
Robin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130920/ef0218bf/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Sat Sep 21 10:55:06 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:55:06 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN #48 Meetings Plan - NCSG with ATRT in Buenos
	Aires?
In-Reply-To: <147AA2CD-64FC-4449-903C-11CE5B6E2114@ipjustice.org>
References: <147AA2CD-64FC-4449-903C-11CE5B6E2114@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <DB7A58BC-D21F-4DE2-8555-11A181F8ECDB@uzh.ch>

Hi Robin

I can't write to NCSG EC for please forward.

As they contacted me and asked for a meeting, ATRT is already booked with NCUC for 45 minutes on Constituency Day morning, 11-11:45.  Why not have NPOC do their own with ATRT do discuss intraorganizational matters and we use the NCSG time to drill down on Council policy issues, which is the SG's primary focal point?  I don't know about NPOC's plans, but we don't intend in the NCUC time to get into Council matters, precisely because these are for the SG.

Best

Bill

On Sep 20, 2013, at 10:02 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> I'm working on the ICANN #48 in Buenos Aires meetings plan and want to schedule some time for NCSG with the ATRT team.  We have the option of them coming to the NCSG mtg on Tuesday afternoon (19 Nov) and talking with us during the NCSG mtg or we can set up a separate dedicated meeting with them on another time during 18-19-20 November in BA.  My preference would be the separate, dedicated, meeting between NCSG and the ATRT because we only have 2-hours on Tuesday to cover lots of different issues and it would be better if we could spend some focused time, at least an hour with ATRT in BA in my view.  However, I don't want to schedule a meeting and have no one show-up because of other commitments during the week, so please let me know if you think a separate mtg between NCSG & ATRT in BA would be useful and if so, would (the 18th) Monday afternoon be a good time to propose for this meeting?
> 
> Also, I've started to keep track of the various NCSG meeting details for ICANN #48 in BA here:
>   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dHN4SURHZUZSSUswQ3BJXzl4ZWUzNXc#gid=0
> 
> Thanks much,
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130921/f9636760/attachment.html>


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter  Sat Sep 21 11:04:25 2013
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 10:04:25 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN #48 Meetings Plan - NCSG with ATRT in
	Buenos	Aires?
References: <147AA2CD-64FC-4449-903C-11CE5B6E2114@ipjustice.org>
	<DB7A58BC-D21F-4DE2-8555-11A181F8ECDB@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331FD7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Hi Robin,
 
1. yes, I would like to reserve a full hour for a special meeting with the ATRT. My personal opinion is that the communigy underestimates the role of the ATRT. Agiants the background of the posiopopnement of the GNSO review we should wencourage the ATRT to think also strategically and to make receommendations which go beyond the day to day operations. They have a mandate to do so if they wish. 
 
2. Timing is critical GNSO Council?s agenda is fully packed. A detailed meeting plan is not yet fiex, but Monday seems a good day. 
 
wolfgang   

________________________________

Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von William Drake
Gesendet: Sa 21.09.2013 09:55
An: Robin Gross
Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy
Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] ICANN #48 Meetings Plan - NCSG with ATRT in Buenos Aires?


Hi Robin 

I can't write to NCSG EC for please forward.


As they contacted me and asked for a meeting, ATRT is already booked with NCUC for 45 minutes on Constituency Day morning, 11-11:45.  Why not have NPOC do their own with ATRT do discuss intraorganizational matters and we use the NCSG time to drill down on Council policy issues, which is the SG's primary focal point?  I don't know about NPOC's plans, but we don't intend in the NCUC time to get into Council matters, precisely because these are for the SG.

Best

Bill

On Sep 20, 2013, at 10:02 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:


	Folks, 

	I'm working on the ICANN #48 in Buenos Aires meetings plan and want to schedule some time for NCSG with the ATRT team.  We have the option of them coming to the NCSG mtg on Tuesday afternoon (19 Nov) and talking with us during the NCSG mtg or we can set up a separate dedicated meeting with them on another time during 18-19-20 November in BA.  My preference would be the separate, dedicated, meeting between NCSG and the ATRT because we only have 2-hours on Tuesday to cover lots of different issues and it would be better if we could spend some focused time, at least an hour with ATRT in BA in my view.  However, I don't want to schedule a meeting and have no one show-up because of other commitments during the week, so please let me know if you think a separate mtg between NCSG & ATRT in BA would be useful and if so, would (the 18th) Monday afternoon be a good time to propose for this meeting?

	Also, I've started to keep track of the various NCSG meeting details for ICANN #48 in BA here:
	  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dHN4SURHZUZSSUswQ3BJXzl4ZWUzNXc#gid=0

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






From wolfgang.kleinwaechter  Sat Sep 21 11:08:29 2013
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 10:08:29 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Council meeting
References: <147AA2CD-64FC-4449-903C-11CE5B6E2114@ipjustice.org>
	<DB7A58BC-D21F-4DE2-8555-11A181F8ECDB@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331FD8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

 
Hi
 
I will be not in a position to participate in the forthcoming GNSO Council Telco meeting on October 10, 2013 die to a conflicting conmitment.and would need a proxy. Who can help?
 
LG
 
wolfgang 




From maria.farrell  Sat Sep 21 11:53:43 2013
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 09:53:43 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Council meeting
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331FD8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <147AA2CD-64FC-4449-903C-11CE5B6E2114@ipjustice.org>
	<DB7A58BC-D21F-4DE2-8555-11A181F8ECDB@uzh.ch>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331FD8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdCmTxH=fzGCqF2tVXvCfHs0CYQDSzj1ZT7h37_t98M2ng@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Wolfgang,

I'm happy to hold your proxy for you.

Maria


On 21 September 2013 09:08, "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

>
> Hi
>
> I will be not in a position to participate in the forthcoming GNSO Council
> Telco meeting on October 10, 2013 die to a conflicting conmitment.and would
> need a proxy. Who can help?
>
> LG
>
> wolfgang
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130921/148f8f60/attachment.html>


From william.drake  Sat Sep 21 12:08:53 2013
From: william.drake (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 11:08:53 +0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN #48 Meetings Plan - NCSG with ATRT in
	Buenos	Aires?
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331FD7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <147AA2CD-64FC-4449-903C-11CE5B6E2114@ipjustice.org>
	<DB7A58BC-D21F-4DE2-8555-11A181F8ECDB@uzh.ch>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A801331FD7@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <6AEE6BE0-34AA-45A1-9613-A3FEE42F29B6@uzh.ch>

Are you saying you want two special hours, or one?

On Sep 21, 2013, at 10:04 AM, "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:

> Hi Robin,
> 
> 1. yes, I would like to reserve a full hour for a special meeting with the ATRT. My personal opinion is that the communigy underestimates the role of the ATRT. Agiants the background of the posiopopnement of the GNSO review we should wencourage the ATRT to think also strategically and to make receommendations which go beyond the day to day operations. They have a mandate to do so if they wish. 
> 
> 2. Timing is critical GNSO Council?s agenda is fully packed. A detailed meeting plan is not yet fiex, but Monday seems a good day. 
> 
> wolfgang   
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von William Drake
> Gesendet: Sa 21.09.2013 09:55
> An: Robin Gross
> Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy
> Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] ICANN #48 Meetings Plan - NCSG with ATRT in Buenos Aires?
> 
> 
> Hi Robin 
> 
> I can't write to NCSG EC for please forward.
> 
> 
> As they contacted me and asked for a meeting, ATRT is already booked with NCUC for 45 minutes on Constituency Day morning, 11-11:45.  Why not have NPOC do their own with ATRT do discuss intraorganizational matters and we use the NCSG time to drill down on Council policy issues, which is the SG's primary focal point?  I don't know about NPOC's plans, but we don't intend in the NCUC time to get into Council matters, precisely because these are for the SG.
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Sep 20, 2013, at 10:02 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 	Folks, 
> 
> 	I'm working on the ICANN #48 in Buenos Aires meetings plan and want to schedule some time for NCSG with the ATRT team.  We have the option of them coming to the NCSG mtg on Tuesday afternoon (19 Nov) and talking with us during the NCSG mtg or we can set up a separate dedicated meeting with them on another time during 18-19-20 November in BA.  My preference would be the separate, dedicated, meeting between NCSG and the ATRT because we only have 2-hours on Tuesday to cover lots of different issues and it would be better if we could spend some focused time, at least an hour with ATRT in BA in my view.  However, I don't want to schedule a meeting and have no one show-up because of other commitments during the week, so please let me know if you think a separate mtg between NCSG & ATRT in BA would be useful and if so, would (the 18th) Monday afternoon be a good time to propose for this meeting?
> 
> 	Also, I've started to keep track of the various NCSG meeting details for ICANN #48 in BA here:
> 	  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dHN4SURHZUZSSUswQ3BJXzl4ZWUzNXc#gid=0
> 
> 	Thanks much,
> 	Robin
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	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/20130921/9536fcf6/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Mon Sep 23 18:20:11 2013
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 11:20:11 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] Thick Whois Final Report for consensus call
References: <9A2C27F6-4184-4D82-A154-2FF797448991@acm.org>
Message-ID: <79AFA872-B3A6-4936-A4FE-CDC04128028A@ella.com>


forgot to bcc the policy group on this.

avri


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg] Thick Whois Final Report for consensus call
> Date: 23 September 2013 11:00:18 EDT
> To: "Mike O'Connor" <mike at haven2.com>
> Cc: Thick Whois WG <gnso-thickwhoispdp-wg at icann.org>
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 18 Sep 2013, at 09:09, Mike O'Connor wrote:
> 
>> we have one remaining issue to work through, which i'm hoping we can work through this week on the list or on our next call.  look for some email from Avri on that.  
> 
> 
> Well, I guess I don't see any changes yet i the docs and am not really sure what this group is going to allow to happen.
> 
> I beleive that 7.1 should contain a recommendation for an issues report. 
> 
> As I understand I have people rather pointedly and forcefully telling me:
> 
> - "We don't have the scope to Recommend an issue report"* - this i just don't understand - every WG has the scope to recommend an issue report on further work it did not feel scoped or qualified to do.  Also, legal opinion is usually delivered in the context of issues reports and WG requests.
> 
> - "We need more legal advice before we can contemplate policy" - and it the staff writing the issues report agrees with this, they will say so and the issues report will serve to kick of that work.
> 
> - "We had a sub-group and we agreed, so please stop going for a second bite of the apple -  it is improper MSM* behavior" -  My impression of WG process had always been that a sub-group discusses in detail and then this is subjected to a full WG discussion and later, after the comment resolution period, a consensus call.  I consider that the appropriate times for last bites at the apple are during the consensus call, when the council votes on whether proper process was followed in the WG to determine consensus and whether the recommendations should go forward based on the WG having done its job properly, and during the final comment period before the Board makes it decision.  I promise I will not be contacting my congressmen once the Council and then the Board approve the recommendation asking for a yet another congressional hearing.
> 
> - "Not everyone thinks that the privacy issues are as important and critical as you do. And not everyone understands the facts of the case in the same way you do."  - Well, ummmm, sure, ok.
> 
> So it seems I will not get the minimum I think is necessary, i.e. there will be no Recommendation for an issues report in the Recommendations section of the report.  the compromise being offered is less than what I consider minimal.
> 
> But on this issue, one where I felt  the work and issues my colleagues brought up were being given short shrift, having brought the issue to discussion and having collected the viewpoint of many in the group, I am willing to defer to those colleagues.  Current indications inform me the compromise offered will be forever be less than I think is necessary and I may add public comments to that effect in the public comment and in the NCSG Policy Committee discussions.  But if my NCSG colleagues indicate they can live with the compromise that is being offered, I will acquiesce for the purposes of this working group and will not file a solo dissenting report.
> 
> avri
> 
> * all 'quotes' my approximations of the comments being directed my way
> * MSM - Multistakeholder model
> 




From robin  Tue Sep 24 05:32:38 2013
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 19:32:38 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: ICANN #48 Meetings Plan - NCSG with ATRT in Buenos
	Aires?
References: <DB7A58BC-D21F-4DE2-8555-11A181F8ECDB@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <E20A41B8-30A6-4EB2-BDA7-A4890A4A566B@ipjustice.org>

Hi Bill,

Thanks for letting me know.  I do not want to be duplicative and the ATRT group is already meeting with constituencies then it might be too much to also meet with NCSG that day.

Thanks again,
Robin


Begin forwarded message:

> From: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] ICANN #48 Meetings Plan - NCSG with ATRT in Buenos Aires?
> Date: September 21, 2013 12:55:06 AM PDT
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
> 
> Hi Robin
> 
> I can't write to NCSG EC for please forward.
> 
> As they contacted me and asked for a meeting, ATRT is already booked with NCUC for 45 minutes on Constituency Day morning, 11-11:45.  Why not have NPOC do their own with ATRT do discuss intraorganizational matters and we use the NCSG time to drill down on Council policy issues, which is the SG's primary focal point?  I don't know about NPOC's plans, but we don't intend in the NCUC time to get into Council matters, precisely because these are for the SG.
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Sep 20, 2013, at 10:02 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>> I'm working on the ICANN #48 in Buenos Aires meetings plan and want to schedule some time for NCSG with the ATRT team.  We have the option of them coming to the NCSG mtg on Tuesday afternoon (19 Nov) and talking with us during the NCSG mtg or we can set up a separate dedicated meeting with them on another time during 18-19-20 November in BA.  My preference would be the separate, dedicated, meeting between NCSG and the ATRT because we only have 2-hours on Tuesday to cover lots of different issues and it would be better if we could spend some focused time, at least an hour with ATRT in BA in my view.  However, I don't want to schedule a meeting and have no one show-up because of other commitments during the week, so please let me know if you think a separate mtg between NCSG & ATRT in BA would be useful and if so, would (the 18th) Monday afternoon be a good time to propose for this meeting?
>> 
>> Also, I've started to keep track of the various NCSG meeting details for ICANN #48 in BA here:
>>   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dHN4SURHZUZSSUswQ3BJXzl4ZWUzNXc#gid=0
>> 
>> Thanks much,
>> Robin
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130923/96ced833/attachment.html>


From mllemineur  Thu Sep 26 19:03:45 2013
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 10:03:45 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ICANN #48 Meetings Plan - NCSG with ATRT in Buenos
	Aires?
In-Reply-To: <DB7A58BC-D21F-4DE2-8555-11A181F8ECDB@uzh.ch>
References: <147AA2CD-64FC-4449-903C-11CE5B6E2114@ipjustice.org>
	<DB7A58BC-D21F-4DE2-8555-11A181F8ECDB@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqHZZM6L3a10AOZ=JvqUUKgsJnj9QfO86XkvPUCkoZuYpQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

We already have a scheduled meeting with ATRT meeting early morning on
Tuesday 19 before our internal NPOC session. Agree with Bill about using
NCSG time to discuss Council policy issues.

best,

mll


On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 1:55 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> Hi Robin
>
> I can't write to NCSG EC for please forward.
>
> As they contacted me and asked for a meeting, ATRT is already booked with
> NCUC for 45 minutes on Constituency Day morning, 11-11:45.  Why not have
> NPOC do their own with ATRT do discuss intraorganizational matters and we
> use the NCSG time to drill down on Council policy issues, which is the SG's
> primary focal point?  I don't know about NPOC's plans, but we don't intend
> in the NCUC time to get into Council matters, precisely because these are
> for the SG.
>
> Best
>
> Bill
>
> On Sep 20, 2013, at 10:02 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> I'm working on the ICANN #48 in Buenos Aires meetings plan and want to
> schedule some time for NCSG with the ATRT team.  We have the option of them
> coming to the NCSG mtg on Tuesday afternoon (19 Nov) and talking with us
> during the NCSG mtg or we can set up a separate dedicated meeting with them
> on another time during 18-19-20 November in BA.  My preference would be the
> separate, dedicated, meeting between NCSG and the ATRT because we only have
> 2-hours on Tuesday to cover lots of different issues and it would be better
> if we could spend some focused time, at least an hour with ATRT in BA in my
> view.  However, I don't want to schedule a meeting and have no one show-up
> because of other commitments during the week, *so please let me know if
> you think a separate mtg between NCSG & ATRT in BA would be useful and if
> so, would (the 18th) Monday afternoon be a good time to propose for this
> meeting?*
>
> Also, I've started to keep track of the various NCSG meeting details for
> ICANN #48 in BA here:
>
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AmHFgvYjF_e4dHN4SURHZUZSSUswQ3BJXzl4ZWUzNXc#gid=0
>
> Thanks much,
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20130926/fdea5a47/attachment.html>