From avri  Tue Dec  2 08:19:22 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2014 07:19:22 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] Public Comment Period Opens!
In-Reply-To: <D0A24FCA.E743%grace.abuhamad@icann.org>
References: <D0A24FCA.E743%grace.abuhamad@icann.org>
Message-ID: <547D59EA.6010203@acm.org>


Time is short for putting together NCSG comments.

we have only until 22 Dec
there will be no reply period.

avri

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[CWG-Stewardship] Public Comment Period Opens!
Date: 	Tue, 2 Dec 2014 01:03:07 +0000
From: 	Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad at icann.org>
To: 	cwg-stewardship at icann.org <cwg-stewardship at icann.org>



Dear all, 

The Public Comment period is officially open! Please
see: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cwg-naming-transition-2014-12-01-en

In addition, the webinars have been
announced: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-3-2014-12-01-en

I will send calendar invites for the webinars to your individual addresses. 

Please share broadly to ensure a successful public comment.

Best, 
Grace


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141202/9e58d8a7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
CWG-Stewardship mailing list
CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship



From aelsadr  Wed Dec  3 11:36:35 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 10:36:35 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter
	supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
References: <019201d00e4c$4d4204e0$e7c60ea0$@dotsportllc.com>
Message-ID: <4AA2B9E7-BDD3-4219-B28D-833897FB6E05@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Any thoughts? Is there any position we want to take on this? Are we going to send Ron a response? I know we?ve been somewhat divided on certain aspects of this in the past.

Thanks.

Amr

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Ron Andruff" <ra at dotsportllc.com>
> Subject: FW: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
> Date: December 2, 2014 at 5:23:18 PM GMT+1
> To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri at acm.org>, <robin at ipjustice.org>, "'Amr Elsadr'" <aelsadr at egyptig.org>, <dave at difference.com.au>, "'Maria Farrell'" <maria.farrell at gmail.com>, "'Rafik Dammak'" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> 
> Dear all,
>  
> If ever there was an excellent example of Board/staff lack of accountability it is this issue that I have been nagging you about for some months now? You will find a reference in the BC draft (attached) to the NGPC having considered the ALAC resolution not relevant and full steam ahead?  How can that be possible when we are talking about end-user confusion and certain fraud in these regulated industry strings?!
>  
> Now would be a good time to draft some support from the NCUC/NCSG.  (All of the major voices in the BC have signed on to this draft, so I expect it will be send on 10 Dec. as noted.)
>  
> Can you guys make this happen?  Trying to build consensus around this most important issue?
>  
> Please see below and attached.
>  
> Thank you for your consideration.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> RA
>  
>  
> Ron Andruff
> dotSport LLC
> www.lifedotsport.com
> From: bc-private-bounces at icann.org [mailto:bc-private-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 17:25
> To: BC Private
> Subject: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
>  
> Last month, Ron Andruff asked the BC to support ALAC?s call for a freeze on contracting and delegation of new gTLDs in regulated industries. 
>  
> Several BC members supported Ron's idea via email, and we discussed on our 20-Nov member call.
>  
> Drawing on prior BC positions, I drafted a letter (attached) that Ron reviewed and approved. Now we need BC members to review and comment. 
>  
> Please Reply All by 10-Dec-2014 with your edits and comments. 
>  
> ?Steve
>  
>  
> On 11/7/14, 10:32 PM, "Ron Andruff" <randruff at rnapartners.com> wrote:
>  
> Dear BC colleagues,
>  
> Category 1 strings such as .HEALTH, .LOTTO and .INSURANCE (list noted in yellow in the attachment) have been a concern to BC members, to the GAC and to the ALAC since the first discussions at ICANN 38 Brussels during ?the Scorecard? development to resolve open new gTLD issues between the Board and GAC. Numerous discussions have since taken place between the GAC and the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) and every GAC communique since ICANN 46 Beijing has referenced the GAC?s concerns for lack of public interest safeguards.  These strings are associated with highly-sensitive, regulated industry sectors, where consumer confusion or harm is considered a high probability, and while not necessarily regulated exactly alike across all countries, hold more similarities than differences.
>  
> BC members will recall that the Business Constituency has also expressed concern on many occasions in this regard, particularly about fraud and abusive registrations at the second level.
>  
> Despite the GAC having called for safeguards, ICANN staff has roundly ignored these requests and proceeded to sign eight Registry Agreements in preparation for rolling out the 28 high-sensitive strings. Staff gave no indication to the GAC that they were doing so, and several governmental reps to the GAC are very concerned about this.  
> 
> At ICANN 51 LA, Evan Leibovitch, Chair of the ALAC New gTLD Committee, read an ALAC just-passed resolution into the record at the Public Forum.  The resolution calls for freezing the 28 highly-sensitive, regulated industry strings (Category 1 strings) until such time as a joint ALAC-GAC working group can determine that appropriate safeguards are indeed in place to protect the public interest. 
> I believe that the BC positions regarding Category 1 strings are consistent with the ALAC?s resolution and call to action, and therefore would like to make the following recommendations:
> I ask that Steve Delbianco, our Vice Chair, Policy Coordination, convene a small team to draft a letter of support for ALAC?s resolution to be sent to the Chair of the New gTLD Process Committee with a copy to the Board; second, I propose that, if agreed by the BC membership, that the BC then ask the IPC, ISPCP and the NCSG to sign onto our letter, or send a similarly supportive statement. Thirdly, I propose that the BC identify three members to join the ALAC-GAC Working Group, as the resolution specifically noted that other community members are invited to join.
>  
> With staff demonstrating blatant disregard to the ALAC and GAC concerns, time is of the essence for the BC and the greater ICANN community to support the ALAC resolution that calls for a freeze of all 28 strings immediately to ensure appropriate accountability can be put in place.
> In my view, this is a rare opportunity for the community to make right something the NGPC has apparently been loath to do despite repeated requests from both stakeholders in the ICANN community and the GAC to ensure that Category 1 string operators provide appropriate safeguards BEFORE they ?go live?.
> I welcome hearing colleague?s views, in particular, your thoughts Steve?
> Kind regards,
> RA
>  
> Ron Andruff
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141203/d319a7dc/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: BC comment on safeguards for Category 1.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 135455 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141203/d319a7dc/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141203/d319a7dc/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: Untitled attachment 01335.txt
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141203/d319a7dc/attachment-0001.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141203/d319a7dc/attachment-0005.html>


From mshears  Wed Dec  3 11:44:50 2014
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 09:44:50 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter
 supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
In-Reply-To: <4AA2B9E7-BDD3-4219-B28D-833897FB6E05@egyptig.org>
References: <019201d00e4c$4d4204e0$e7c60ea0$@dotsportllc.com>
	<4AA2B9E7-BDD3-4219-B28D-833897FB6E05@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <547EDB92.1000305@cdt.org>

Apologies but could someone elaborate on the divisions on this issue in 
NCSG - thanks.  At first glance (as a newcomer to the issue) this would 
appear to be a pretty clear +1.

On 12/3/2014 9:36 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Any thoughts? Is there any position we want to take on this? Are we 
> going to send Ron a response? I know we've been somewhat divided on 
> certain aspects of this in the past.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> *From: *"Ron Andruff" <ra at dotsportllc.com <mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com>>
>> *Subject: **FW: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter 
>> supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries*
>> *Date: *December 2, 2014 at 5:23:18 PM GMT+1
>> *To: *"'Avri Doria'" <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>, 
>> <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>, "'Amr Elsadr'" 
>> <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>, 
>> <dave at difference.com.au <mailto:dave at difference.com.au>>, "'Maria 
>> Farrell'" <maria.farrell at gmail.com <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>>, 
>> "'Rafik Dammak'" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>> If ever there was an excellent example of Board/staff lack of 
>> accountability it is this issue that I have been nagging you about 
>> for some months now... You will find a reference in the BC draft 
>> (attached) to the NGPC having considered the_ALAC resolution_not 
>> relevant and full steam ahead...  How can that be possible when we 
>> are talking about end-user confusion and certain fraud in these 
>> regulated industry strings?!
>> Now would be a good time to draft some support from the NCUC/NCSG.  
>> (All of the major voices in the BC have signed on to this draft, so I 
>> expect it will be send on 10 Dec. as noted.)
>> Can you guys make this happen?  Trying to build consensus around this 
>> most important issue...
>> Please see below and attached.
>> Thank you for your consideration.
>> Kind regards,
>> RA
>> *Ron Andruff*
>> *dotSport LLC*
>> *www.lifedotsport.com <http://www.lifedotsport.com/>*
>> *From:*bc-private-bounces at icann.org 
>> <mailto:bc-private-bounces at icann.org>[mailto:bc-private-bounces at icann.org]*On 
>> Behalf Of*Steve DelBianco
>> *Sent:*Sunday, November 30, 2014 17:25
>> *To:*BC Private
>> *Subject:*[Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter supporting 
>> ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
>> Last month, Ron Andruff asked the BC to support ALAC's call for a 
>> freeze on contracting and delegation of new gTLDs in regulated 
>> industries.
>> Several BC members supported Ron's idea via email, and we discussed 
>> on our 20-Nov member call.
>> Drawing on prior BC positions, I drafted a letter (attached) that Ron 
>> reviewed and approved. Now we need BC members to review and comment.
>> Please Reply All by 10-Dec-2014 with your edits and comments.
>> ---Steve
>> On 11/7/14, 10:32 PM, "Ron Andruff" <randruff at rnapartners.com 
>> <mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Dear BC colleagues,
>>     Category 1 strings such as .HEALTH, .LOTTO and .INSURANCE (list
>>     noted in yellow in the attachment) have been a concern to BC
>>     members, to the GAC and to the ALAC since the first discussions
>>     at ICANN 38 Brussels during 'the Scorecard' development to
>>     resolve open new gTLD issues between the Board and GAC. Numerous
>>     discussions have since taken place between the GAC and the New
>>     gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) and every GAC communique since
>>     ICANN 46 Beijing has referenced the GAC's concerns for lack of
>>     public interest safeguards.  These strings are associated with
>>     highly-sensitive, regulated industry sectors, where consumer
>>     confusion or harm is considered a high probability, and while not
>>     necessarily regulated exactly alike across all countries, hold
>>     more similarities than differences.
>>     BC members will recall that the Business Constituency has also
>>     expressed concern on many occasions in this regard, particularly
>>     about fraud and abusive registrations at the second level.
>>     Despite the GAC having called for safeguards, ICANN staff has
>>     roundly ignored these requests and proceeded to sign eight
>>     Registry Agreements in preparation for rolling out the 28
>>     high-sensitive strings. Staff gave no indication to the GAC that
>>     they were doing so, and several governmental reps to the GAC are
>>     very concerned about this.
>>
>>     At ICANN 51 LA, Evan Leibovitch, Chair of the ALAC New gTLD
>>     Committee, read an ALAC just-passed resolution
>>     <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49358478/AL-ALAC-ST-1014-01-00-EN.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1413502148000&api=v2>into
>>     the record at the Public Forum.  The resolution calls for
>>     freezing the 28 highly-sensitive, regulated industry strings
>>     (Category 1 strings) until such time as a joint ALAC-GAC working
>>     group can determine that appropriate safeguards are indeed in
>>     place to protect the public interest.
>>     I believe that the BC positions regarding Category 1 strings are
>>     consistent with the ALAC's resolution and call to action, and
>>     therefore would like to make the following recommendations:
>>     I ask that Steve Delbianco, our Vice Chair, Policy Coordination,
>>     convene a small team to draft a letter of support for ALAC's
>>     resolution to be sent to the Chair of the New gTLD Process
>>     Committee with a copy to the Board; second, I propose that, if
>>     agreed by the BC membership, that the BC then ask the IPC, ISPCP
>>     and the NCSG to sign onto our letter, or send a similarly
>>     supportive statement. Thirdly, I propose that the BC identify
>>     three members to join the ALAC-GAC Working Group, as the
>>     resolution specifically noted that other community members are
>>     invited to join.
>>     With staff demonstrating blatant disregard to the ALAC and GAC
>>     concerns, time is of the essence for the BC and the greater ICANN
>>     community to support the ALAC resolution that calls for a freeze
>>     of all 28 strings immediately to ensure appropriate
>>     accountability can be put in place.
>>     In my view, this is a rare opportunity for the community to make
>>     right something the NGPC has apparently been loath to do despite
>>     repeated requests from both stakeholders in the ICANN community
>>     and the GAC to ensure that Category 1 string operators provide
>>     appropriate safeguards BEFORE they 'go live'.
>>     I welcome hearing colleague's views, in particular, your thoughts
>>     Steve?
>>     Kind regards,
>>     RA
>>     *Ron Andruff*
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141203/496f868d/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Dec  3 12:12:40 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 11:12:40 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter
	supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
In-Reply-To: <547EDB92.1000305@cdt.org>
References: <019201d00e4c$4d4204e0$e7c60ea0$@dotsportllc.com>
	<4AA2B9E7-BDD3-4219-B28D-833897FB6E05@egyptig.org>
	<547EDB92.1000305@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <F24A4689-09DF-4C7A-B8AB-8542617BA83D@egyptig.org>

Well?, speaking for myself, I?m not in favour of supporting this. In fact, I?d be inclined to object if the Board/NGPC agreed to these demands. My main problem is with what I see as the primary demand of freezing new gTLDs identified as belonging to regulated sectors, although my opinion is based mainly on the health-related gTLDs, and the objections submitted against their delegations.

Specification 11 (the Public Interest Commitments aka PICs) are part of the registry agreement, and my understanding is that they were added by ICANN staff/board without going through a PDP. There are trademark specifications in the PICs that are very content oriented as opposed to issues specifically pertaining to domain names. I?m pretty much principally opposed to that, but those are there, and need to be dealt with one way or the other.

Despite that, I don?t feel that a revision of Spec 11 or the associated dispute resolution process used to enforce it requires that a new gTLD delegation be frozen. These are specifications included in a registry agreement with ICANN after the application has already been approved. There is another process, which is part of the new gTLD application that allows a person/entity to submit an objection to the application itself before it is approved on the grounds of limited public interest (also specified in the AG). Matt?, if you recall, Stephanie Duchesneau brought this up during the meeting in Frankfurt. In the case of health-related gTLDs, an objection was submitted in response to the applications for .health, which were (IMHO rightly) overruled.

I?m not saying that the concerns that have been raised regarding .health are all illegitimate concerns, but I don?t see how freezing the delegation of these gTLDs will help resolve these issues. I believe the concerns should be addressed, as the registries pointed out, in a normal GNSO PDP, and not imposed from the top.

Like I said, that?s my personal opinion, and I know there are others who disagree with me. I don?t mind that. :)

Thanks.

Amr

On Dec 3, 2014, at 10:44 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

> Apologies but could someone elaborate on the divisions on this issue in NCSG - thanks.  At first glance (as a newcomer to the issue) this would appear to be a pretty clear +1.
> 
> On 12/3/2014 9:36 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Any thoughts? Is there any position we want to take on this? Are we going to send Ron a response? I know we?ve been somewhat divided on certain aspects of this in the past.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: "Ron Andruff" <ra at dotsportllc.com>
>>> Subject: FW: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
>>> Date: December 2, 2014 at 5:23:18 PM GMT+1
>>> To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri at acm.org>, <robin at ipjustice.org>, "'Amr Elsadr'" <aelsadr at egyptig.org>, <dave at difference.com.au>, "'Maria Farrell'" <maria.farrell at gmail.com>, "'Rafik Dammak'" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> 
>>> Dear all,
>>>  
>>> If ever there was an excellent example of Board/staff lack of accountability it is this issue that I have been nagging you about for some months now? You will find a reference in the BC draft (attached) to the NGPC having considered the ALAC resolution not relevant and full steam ahead?  How can that be possible when we are talking about end-user confusion and certain fraud in these regulated industry strings?!
>>>  
>>> Now would be a good time to draft some support from the NCUC/NCSG.  (All of the major voices in the BC have signed on to this draft, so I expect it will be send on 10 Dec. as noted.)
>>>  
>>> Can you guys make this happen?  Trying to build consensus around this most important issue?
>>>  
>>> Please see below and attached.
>>>  
>>> Thank you for your consideration.
>>>  
>>> Kind regards,
>>>  
>>> RA
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Ron Andruff
>>> dotSport LLC
>>> www.lifedotsport.com
>>> From: bc-private-bounces at icann.org [mailto:bc-private-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve                           DelBianco
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 17:25
>>> To: BC Private
>>> Subject: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
>>>  
>>> Last month, Ron Andruff asked the BC to support ALAC?s call for a freeze on contracting and                           delegation of new gTLDs in regulated industries. 
>>>  
>>> Several BC members supported Ron's idea via email, and we discussed on our 20-Nov member call.
>>>  
>>> Drawing on prior BC positions, I drafted a letter (attached) that Ron reviewed and approved. Now we need BC members to review and comment. 
>>>  
>>> Please Reply All by 10-Dec-2014 with your edits and comments. 
>>>  
>>> ?Steve
>>>  
>>>  
>>> On 11/7/14, 10:32 PM, "Ron Andruff" <randruff at rnapartners.com> wrote:
>>>  
>>> Dear BC colleagues,
>>>  
>>> Category 1 strings such as .HEALTH, .LOTTO and .INSURANCE (list noted in yellow in the attachment) have been a concern to BC members, to the GAC and to the ALAC since the first discussions at ICANN 38 Brussels during ?the Scorecard? development to resolve open new gTLD issues between the Board and GAC. Numerous discussions have since taken place between the GAC and the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) and every GAC communique since ICANN 46 Beijing has referenced the GAC?s concerns for lack of public interest safeguards.  These strings are associated with highly-sensitive, regulated industry sectors, where consumer confusion or harm is considered a high probability, and while not necessarily regulated exactly alike across all countries, hold more similarities than differences.
>>>  
>>> BC members will recall that the Business Constituency has also expressed concern on many occasions in this regard, particularly about fraud and abusive registrations at the second level.
>>>  
>>> Despite the GAC having called for safeguards, ICANN staff has roundly ignored these requests and proceeded to sign eight Registry Agreements in preparation for                               rolling out the 28 high-sensitive strings. Staff gave no indication to the GAC that they were doing so, and several governmental reps to the GAC are very concerned about this.  
>>> 
>>> At ICANN 51 LA, Evan Leibovitch, Chair of the ALAC New gTLD Committee, read an ALAC just-passed resolution into the record at the Public Forum.  The resolution calls for freezing the 28 highly-sensitive, regulated industry strings (Category 1 strings) until such time as a joint ALAC-GAC working group can determine that appropriate safeguards are indeed in place to protect the public interest. 
>>> I believe that the BC positions regarding Category 1 strings are consistent with the ALAC?s resolution and call to action, and therefore would like to make the following                               recommendations:
>>> I ask that Steve Delbianco, our Vice Chair, Policy Coordination, convene a small team to draft a letter of support for ALAC?s resolution to be sent to the Chair of the New gTLD Process Committee with a copy to the Board; second, I propose that, if agreed by the BC membership, that the BC then ask the IPC, ISPCP and the NCSG to sign onto our letter, or send a similarly supportive statement. Thirdly, I propose that the BC identify three members to join the ALAC-GAC Working Group, as the resolution specifically noted that other community members are invited to join.
>>>  
>>> With staff demonstrating blatant disregard to the ALAC and GAC concerns, time is of the essence for the BC and the greater ICANN community to support the ALAC resolution that calls for a freeze of all 28 strings immediately to ensure appropriate accountability can be put in place.
>>> In my view, this is a rare opportunity for the community to make right something the                               NGPC has apparently been loath to do despite repeated requests from both stakeholders in the ICANN community and the GAC to ensure that Category 1 string operators provide appropriate safeguards BEFORE they ?go live?.
>>> I welcome hearing colleague?s views, in particular, your thoughts Steve?
>>> Kind regards,
>>> RA
>>>  
>>> Ron Andruff
>>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> -- 
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> + 44 771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141203/3afedc0c/attachment-0001.html>


From wendy  Wed Dec  3 13:59:06 2014
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2014 06:59:06 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter
 supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
In-Reply-To: <547EDB92.1000305@cdt.org>
References: <019201d00e4c$4d4204e0$e7c60ea0$@dotsportllc.com>	<4AA2B9E7-BDD3-4219-B28D-833897FB6E05@egyptig.org>
	<547EDB92.1000305@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <547EFB0A.9050204@seltzer.com>

To me it smacks of content regulation, which I'd prefer to see ICANN
avoid. I don't think ICANN should be giving the impression that the
domain string makes assurances -- which require ICANN enforcement --
about the content that might be hosted there.

--Wendy

> Apologies but could someone elaborate on the divisions on this issue in
> NCSG - thanks.  At first glance (as a newcomer to the issue) this would
> appear to be a pretty clear +1.
> 
> On 12/3/2014 9:36 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Any thoughts? Is there any position we want to take on this? Are we
>> going to send Ron a response? I know we've been somewhat divided on
>> certain aspects of this in the past.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> *From: *"Ron Andruff" <ra at dotsportllc.com <mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com>>
>>> *Subject: **FW: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter
>>> supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries*
>>> *Date: *December 2, 2014 at 5:23:18 PM GMT+1
>>> *To: *"'Avri Doria'" <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>,
>>> <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>, "'Amr Elsadr'"
>>> <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>,
>>> <dave at difference.com.au <mailto:dave at difference.com.au>>, "'Maria
>>> Farrell'" <maria.farrell at gmail.com <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>>,
>>> "'Rafik Dammak'" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>>
>>> Dear all,
>>> If ever there was an excellent example of Board/staff lack of
>>> accountability it is this issue that I have been nagging you about
>>> for some months now... You will find a reference in the BC draft
>>> (attached) to the NGPC having considered the_ALAC resolution_not
>>> relevant and full steam ahead...  How can that be possible when we
>>> are talking about end-user confusion and certain fraud in these
>>> regulated industry strings?!
>>> Now would be a good time to draft some support from the NCUC/NCSG. 
>>> (All of the major voices in the BC have signed on to this draft, so I
>>> expect it will be send on 10 Dec. as noted.)
>>> Can you guys make this happen?  Trying to build consensus around this
>>> most important issue...
>>> Please see below and attached.
>>> Thank you for your consideration.
>>> Kind regards,
>>> RA
>>> *Ron Andruff*
>>> *dotSport LLC*
>>> *www.lifedotsport.com <http://www.lifedotsport.com/>*
>>> *From:*bc-private-bounces at icann.org
>>> <mailto:bc-private-bounces at icann.org>[mailto:bc-private-bounces at icann.org]*On
>>> Behalf Of*Steve DelBianco
>>> *Sent:*Sunday, November 30, 2014 17:25
>>> *To:*BC Private
>>> *Subject:*[Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter supporting
>>> ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
>>> Last month, Ron Andruff asked the BC to support ALAC's call for a
>>> freeze on contracting and delegation of new gTLDs in regulated
>>> industries.
>>> Several BC members supported Ron's idea via email, and we discussed
>>> on our 20-Nov member call.
>>> Drawing on prior BC positions, I drafted a letter (attached) that Ron
>>> reviewed and approved. Now we need BC members to review and comment.
>>> Please Reply All by 10-Dec-2014 with your edits and comments.
>>> ---Steve
>>> On 11/7/14, 10:32 PM, "Ron Andruff" <randruff at rnapartners.com
>>> <mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Dear BC colleagues,
>>>     Category 1 strings such as .HEALTH, .LOTTO and .INSURANCE (list
>>>     noted in yellow in the attachment) have been a concern to BC
>>>     members, to the GAC and to the ALAC since the first discussions
>>>     at ICANN 38 Brussels during 'the Scorecard' development to
>>>     resolve open new gTLD issues between the Board and GAC. Numerous
>>>     discussions have since taken place between the GAC and the New
>>>     gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) and every GAC communique since
>>>     ICANN 46 Beijing has referenced the GAC's concerns for lack of
>>>     public interest safeguards.  These strings are associated with
>>>     highly-sensitive, regulated industry sectors, where consumer
>>>     confusion or harm is considered a high probability, and while not
>>>     necessarily regulated exactly alike across all countries, hold
>>>     more similarities than differences.
>>>     BC members will recall that the Business Constituency has also
>>>     expressed concern on many occasions in this regard, particularly
>>>     about fraud and abusive registrations at the second level.
>>>     Despite the GAC having called for safeguards, ICANN staff has
>>>     roundly ignored these requests and proceeded to sign eight
>>>     Registry Agreements in preparation for rolling out the 28
>>>     high-sensitive strings. Staff gave no indication to the GAC that
>>>     they were doing so, and several governmental reps to the GAC are
>>>     very concerned about this.
>>>
>>>     At ICANN 51 LA, Evan Leibovitch, Chair of the ALAC New gTLD
>>>     Committee, read an ALAC just-passed resolution
>>>    
>>> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49358478/AL-ALAC-ST-1014-01-00-EN.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1413502148000&api=v2>into
>>>
>>>     the record at the Public Forum.  The resolution calls for
>>>     freezing the 28 highly-sensitive, regulated industry strings
>>>     (Category 1 strings) until such time as a joint ALAC-GAC working
>>>     group can determine that appropriate safeguards are indeed in
>>>     place to protect the public interest.
>>>     I believe that the BC positions regarding Category 1 strings are
>>>     consistent with the ALAC's resolution and call to action, and
>>>     therefore would like to make the following recommendations:
>>>     I ask that Steve Delbianco, our Vice Chair, Policy Coordination,
>>>     convene a small team to draft a letter of support for ALAC's
>>>     resolution to be sent to the Chair of the New gTLD Process
>>>     Committee with a copy to the Board; second, I propose that, if
>>>     agreed by the BC membership, that the BC then ask the IPC, ISPCP
>>>     and the NCSG to sign onto our letter, or send a similarly
>>>     supportive statement. Thirdly, I propose that the BC identify
>>>     three members to join the ALAC-GAC Working Group, as the
>>>     resolution specifically noted that other community members are
>>>     invited to join.
>>>     With staff demonstrating blatant disregard to the ALAC and GAC
>>>     concerns, time is of the essence for the BC and the greater ICANN
>>>     community to support the ALAC resolution that calls for a freeze
>>>     of all 28 strings immediately to ensure appropriate
>>>     accountability can be put in place.
>>>     In my view, this is a rare opportunity for the community to make
>>>     right something the NGPC has apparently been loath to do despite
>>>     repeated requests from both stakeholders in the ICANN community
>>>     and the GAC to ensure that Category 1 string operators provide
>>>     appropriate safeguards BEFORE they 'go live'.
>>>     I welcome hearing colleague's views, in particular, your thoughts
>>>     Steve?
>>>     Kind regards,
>>>     RA
>>>     *Ron Andruff*
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 


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



From robin  Wed Dec  3 16:27:05 2014
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2014 06:27:05 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter
	supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
In-Reply-To: <F24A4689-09DF-4C7A-B8AB-8542617BA83D@egyptig.org>
References: <019201d00e4c$4d4204e0$e7c60ea0$@dotsportllc.com>
	<4AA2B9E7-BDD3-4219-B28D-833897FB6E05@egyptig.org>
	<547EDB92.1000305@cdt.org>
	<F24A4689-09DF-4C7A-B8AB-8542617BA83D@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <85E2888F-2765-4DCF-9E9F-4D9C10F753B9@ipjustice.org>

Yes I agree with Amr and would be against this proposal because it moves ICANN closer to the business of regulating the use of the Internet and the kind of information "allowed" to be provided online.

Best,
Robin


On Dec 3, 2014, at 2:12 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:

> Well?, speaking for myself, I?m not in favour of supporting this. In fact, I?d be inclined to object if the Board/NGPC agreed to these demands. My main problem is with what I see as the primary demand of freezing new gTLDs identified as belonging to regulated sectors, although my opinion is based mainly on the health-related gTLDs, and the objections submitted against their delegations.
> 
> Specification 11 (the Public Interest Commitments aka PICs) are part of the registry agreement, and my understanding is that they were added by ICANN staff/board without going through a PDP. There are trademark specifications in the PICs that are very content oriented as opposed to issues specifically pertaining to domain names. I?m pretty much principally opposed to that, but those are there, and need to be dealt with one way or the other.
> 
> Despite that, I don?t feel that a revision of Spec 11 or the associated dispute resolution process used to enforce it requires that a new gTLD delegation be frozen. These are specifications included in a registry agreement with ICANN after the application has already been approved. There is another process, which is part of the new gTLD application that allows a person/entity to submit an objection to the application itself before it is approved on the grounds of limited public interest (also specified in the AG). Matt?, if you recall, Stephanie Duchesneau brought this up during the meeting in Frankfurt. In the case of health-related gTLDs, an objection was submitted in response to the applications for .health, which were (IMHO rightly) overruled.
> 
> I?m not saying that the concerns that have been raised regarding .health are all illegitimate concerns, but I don?t see how freezing the delegation of these gTLDs will help resolve these issues. I believe the concerns should be addressed, as the registries pointed out, in a normal GNSO PDP, and not imposed from the top.
> 
> Like I said, that?s my personal opinion, and I know there are others who disagree with me. I don?t mind that. :)
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Dec 3, 2014, at 10:44 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> 
>> Apologies but could someone elaborate on the divisions on this issue in NCSG - thanks.  At first glance (as a newcomer to the issue) this would appear to be a pretty clear +1.
>> 
>> On 12/3/2014 9:36 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Any thoughts? Is there any position we want to take on this? Are we going to send Ron a response? I know we?ve been somewhat divided on certain aspects of this in the past.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>>> From: "Ron Andruff" <ra at dotsportllc.com>
>>>> Subject: FW: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
>>>> Date: December 2, 2014 at 5:23:18 PM GMT+1
>>>> To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri at acm.org>, <robin at ipjustice.org>, "'Amr Elsadr'" <aelsadr at egyptig.org>, <dave at difference.com.au>, "'Maria Farrell'" <maria.farrell at gmail.com>, "'Rafik Dammak'" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>> 
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>  
>>>> If ever there was an excellent example of Board/staff lack of accountability it is this issue that I have been nagging you about for some months now? You will find a reference in the BC draft (attached) to the NGPC having considered the ALAC resolution not relevant and full steam ahead?  How can that be possible when we are talking about end-user confusion and certain fraud in these regulated industry strings?!
>>>>  
>>>> Now would be a good time to draft some support from the NCUC/NCSG.  (All of the major voices in the BC have signed on to this draft, so I expect it will be send on 10 Dec. as noted.)
>>>>  
>>>> Can you guys make this happen?  Trying to build consensus around this most important issue?
>>>>  
>>>> Please see below and attached.
>>>>  
>>>> Thank you for your consideration.
>>>>  
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>  
>>>> RA
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> Ron Andruff
>>>> dotSport LLC
>>>> www.lifedotsport.com
>>>> From: bc-private-bounces at icann.org [mailto:bc-private-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 17:25
>>>> To: BC Private
>>>> Subject: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
>>>>  
>>>> Last month, Ron Andruff asked the BC to support ALAC?s call for a freeze on contracting and delegation of new gTLDs in regulated industries. 
>>>>  
>>>> Several BC members supported Ron's idea via email, and we discussed on our 20-Nov member call.
>>>>  
>>>> Drawing on prior BC positions, I drafted a letter (attached) that Ron reviewed and approved. Now we need BC members to review and comment. 
>>>>  
>>>> Please Reply All by 10-Dec-2014 with your edits and comments. 
>>>>  
>>>> ?Steve
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> On 11/7/14, 10:32 PM, "Ron Andruff" <randruff at rnapartners.com> wrote:
>>>>  
>>>> Dear BC colleagues,
>>>>  
>>>> Category 1 strings such as .HEALTH, .LOTTO and .INSURANCE (list noted in yellow in the attachment) have been a concern to BC members, to the GAC and to the ALAC since the first discussions at ICANN 38 Brussels during ?the Scorecard? development to resolve open new gTLD issues between the Board and GAC. Numerous discussions have since taken place between the GAC and the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) and every GAC communique since ICANN 46 Beijing has referenced the GAC?s concerns for lack of public interest safeguards.  These strings are associated with highly-sensitive, regulated industry sectors, where consumer confusion or harm is considered a high probability, and while not necessarily regulated exactly alike across all countries, hold more similarities than differences.
>>>>  
>>>> BC members will recall that the Business Constituency has also expressed concern on many occasions in this regard, particularly about fraud and abusive registrations at the second level.
>>>>  
>>>> Despite the GAC having called for safeguards, ICANN staff has roundly ignored these requests and proceeded to sign eight Registry Agreements in preparation for rolling out the 28 high-sensitive strings. Staff gave no indication to the GAC that they were doing so, and several governmental reps to the GAC are very concerned about this.  
>>>> 
>>>> At ICANN 51 LA, Evan Leibovitch, Chair of the ALAC New gTLD Committee, read an ALAC just-passed resolution into the record at the Public Forum.  The resolution calls for freezing the 28 highly-sensitive, regulated industry strings (Category 1 strings) until such time as a joint ALAC-GAC working group can determine that appropriate safeguards are indeed in place to protect the public interest. 
>>>> I believe that the BC positions regarding Category 1 strings are consistent with the ALAC?s resolution and call to action, and therefore would like to make the following recommendations:
>>>> I ask that Steve Delbianco, our Vice Chair, Policy Coordination, convene a small team to draft a letter of support for ALAC?s resolution to be sent to the Chair of the New gTLD Process Committee with a copy to the Board; second, I propose that, if agreed by the BC membership, that the BC then ask the IPC, ISPCP and the NCSG to sign onto our letter, or send a similarly supportive statement. Thirdly, I propose that the BC identify three members to join the ALAC-GAC Working Group, as the resolution specifically noted that other community members are invited to join.
>>>>  
>>>> With staff demonstrating blatant disregard to the ALAC and GAC concerns, time is of the essence for the BC and the greater ICANN community to support the ALAC resolution that calls for a freeze of all 28 strings immediately to ensure appropriate accountability can be put in place.
>>>> In my view, this is a rare opportunity for the community to make right something the NGPC has apparently been loath to do despite repeated requests from both stakeholders in the ICANN community and the GAC to ensure that Category 1 string operators provide appropriate safeguards BEFORE they ?go live?.
>>>> I welcome hearing colleague?s views, in particular, your thoughts Steve?
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> RA
>>>>  
>>>> Ron Andruff
>>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> -- 
>> Matthew Shears
>> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> mshears at cdt.org
>> + 44 771 247 2987
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141203/b790b7c1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141203/b790b7c1/attachment-0001.sig>


From dave  Thu Dec  4 03:46:43 2014
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 12:46:43 +1100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter
	supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
In-Reply-To: <85E2888F-2765-4DCF-9E9F-4D9C10F753B9@ipjustice.org>
References: <019201d00e4c$4d4204e0$e7c60ea0$@dotsportllc.com>
	<4AA2B9E7-BDD3-4219-B28D-833897FB6E05@egyptig.org>
	<547EDB92.1000305@cdt.org>
	<F24A4689-09DF-4C7A-B8AB-8542617BA83D@egyptig.org>
	<85E2888F-2765-4DCF-9E9F-4D9C10F753B9@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CF04E74A-DD4E-4EA9-A2BA-926BE01CFAAB@difference.com.au>

In general, I agree with the position that we should not be trying to turn domain delegation into regulation. And the hand wringing about regulated industries is the GAC overstepping its role - I've noted before, for example, that in many jurisdictions 'doctor' is not a regulated string (including Australia, the govt who initially was pushing the strongest on this issue). I've used the example of the Australian business 'the Tap Doctor', a chain of plumbers who drive around with giant taps on their cars, as an example of the unregulated use of doctor that Australian GAC members would have been aware of. I agree with the general position that, while there are legitimate concerns with health domains, that not delegating them, or trying to make domain registration into a regulatory process, isn't the right way to deal with them. 

That said, while I agree with the general position that trying to turn DNS registration into a regulatory process is a bad idea, I do think that the current PIC process is absolutely terrible, was enacted with terrible process (without multi-stakeholder input, pretty much just by staff in response to GAC), has led to terrible results (like widespread inclusion of explicitly rejected rights protection measures like the GPML idea), and that Ron Andruff's ideas regarding how to improve the PIC are not that bad, and would be an improvement on the current position. So I don't think we should be defending the status quo, which not only entrenches the regulation via delegation idea but does so very badly in a way with a lot of adverse consequences. If the PIC policy etc was to be reviewed, I think we might end up with some significant improvements to the policy from the NC position. But I agree with Avri - revising spec 11 and the PIC policy should not require that delegation is frozen. 

I also think that while I do not agree with the policy position the BC are putting forth, I do think the NGPC simply ignoring a strong ALAC statement like that is something we should be considering very seriously. Consider the whole PIC mess is there in response to GAC concerns - but other ACs concerns about implementation can apparently be ignored with impunity of the board are not forced by regulation to care. If the NGPC can just ignore it, ALAC is effectively made totally irrelevant - is that what we want? 

Cheers

David

On 4 Dec 2014, at 1:27 am, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Yes I agree with Amr and would be against this proposal because it moves ICANN closer to the business of regulating the use of the Internet and the kind of information "allowed" to be provided online.
> 
> Best,
> Robin
> 
> 
> On Dec 3, 2014, at 2:12 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> 
>> Well?, speaking for myself, I?m not in favour of supporting this. In fact, I?d be inclined to object if the Board/NGPC agreed to these demands. My main problem is with what I see as the primary demand of freezing new gTLDs identified as belonging to regulated sectors, although my opinion is based mainly on the health-related gTLDs, and the objections submitted against their delegations.
>> 
>> Specification 11 (the Public Interest Commitments aka PICs) are part of the registry agreement, and my understanding is that they were added by ICANN staff/board without going through a PDP. There are trademark specifications in the PICs that are very content oriented as opposed to issues specifically pertaining to domain names. I?m pretty much principally opposed to that, but those are there, and need to be dealt with one way or the other.
>> 
>> Despite that, I don?t feel that a revision of Spec 11 or the associated dispute resolution process used to enforce it requires that a new gTLD delegation be frozen. These are specifications included in a registry agreement with ICANN after the application has already been approved. There is another process, which is part of the new gTLD application that allows a person/entity to submit an objection to the application itself before it is approved on the grounds of limited public interest (also specified in the AG). Matt?, if you recall, Stephanie Duchesneau brought this up during the meeting in Frankfurt. In the case of health-related gTLDs, an objection was submitted in response to the applications for .health, which were (IMHO rightly) overruled.
>> 
>> I?m not saying that the concerns that have been raised regarding .health are all illegitimate concerns, but I don?t see how freezing the delegation of these gTLDs will help resolve these issues. I believe the concerns should be addressed, as the registries pointed out, in a normal GNSO PDP, and not imposed from the top.
>> 
>> Like I said, that?s my personal opinion, and I know there are others who disagree with me. I don?t mind that. :)
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Dec 3, 2014, at 10:44 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Apologies but could someone elaborate on the divisions on this issue in NCSG - thanks.  At first glance (as a newcomer to the issue) this would appear to be a pretty clear +1.
>>> 
>>> On 12/3/2014 9:36 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Any thoughts? Is there any position we want to take on this? Are we going to send Ron a response? I know we?ve been somewhat divided on certain aspects of this in the past.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>>> From: "Ron Andruff" <ra at dotsportllc.com>
>>>>> Subject: FW: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
>>>>> Date: December 2, 2014 at 5:23:18 PM GMT+1
>>>>> To: "'Avri Doria'" <avri at acm.org>, <robin at ipjustice.org>, "'Amr Elsadr'" <aelsadr at egyptig.org>, <dave at difference.com.au>, "'Maria Farrell'" <maria.farrell at gmail.com>, "'Rafik Dammak'" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>  
>>>>> If ever there was an excellent example of Board/staff lack of accountability it is this issue that I have been nagging you about for some months now? You will find a reference in the BC draft (attached) to the NGPC having considered the ALAC resolution not relevant and full steam ahead?  How can that be possible when we are talking about end-user confusion and certain fraud in these regulated industry strings?!
>>>>>  
>>>>> Now would be a good time to draft some support from the NCUC/NCSG.  (All of the major voices in the BC have signed on to this draft, so I expect it will be send on 10 Dec. as noted.)
>>>>>  
>>>>> Can you guys make this happen?  Trying to build consensus around this most important issue?
>>>>>  
>>>>> Please see below and attached.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Thank you for your consideration.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>  
>>>>> RA
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>> Ron Andruff
>>>>> dotSport LLC
>>>>> www.lifedotsport.com
>>>>> From: bc-private-bounces at icann.org [mailto:bc-private-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2014 17:25
>>>>> To: BC Private
>>>>> Subject: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
>>>>>  
>>>>> Last month, Ron Andruff asked the BC to support ALAC?s call for a freeze on contracting and delegation of new gTLDs in regulated industries. 
>>>>>  
>>>>> Several BC members supported Ron's idea via email, and we discussed on our 20-Nov member call.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Drawing on prior BC positions, I drafted a letter (attached) that Ron reviewed and approved. Now we need BC members to review and comment. 
>>>>>  
>>>>> Please Reply All by 10-Dec-2014 with your edits and comments. 
>>>>>  
>>>>> ?Steve
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>> On 11/7/14, 10:32 PM, "Ron Andruff" <randruff at rnapartners.com> wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>> Dear BC colleagues,
>>>>>  
>>>>> Category 1 strings such as .HEALTH, .LOTTO and .INSURANCE (list noted in yellow in the attachment) have been a concern to BC members, to the GAC and to the ALAC since the first discussions at ICANN 38 Brussels during ?the Scorecard? development to resolve open new gTLD issues between the Board and GAC. Numerous discussions have since taken place between the GAC and the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) and every GAC communique since ICANN 46 Beijing has referenced the GAC?s concerns for lack of public interest safeguards.  These strings are associated with highly-sensitive, regulated industry sectors, where consumer confusion or harm is considered a high probability, and while not necessarily regulated exactly alike across all countries, hold more similarities than differences.
>>>>>  
>>>>> BC members will recall that the Business Constituency has also expressed concern on many occasions in this regard, particularly about fraud and abusive registrations at the second level.
>>>>>  
>>>>> Despite the GAC having called for safeguards, ICANN staff has roundly ignored these requests and proceeded to sign eight Registry Agreements in preparation for rolling out the 28 high-sensitive strings. Staff gave no indication to the GAC that they were doing so, and several governmental reps to the GAC are very concerned about this.  
>>>>> 
>>>>> At ICANN 51 LA, Evan Leibovitch, Chair of the ALAC New gTLD Committee, read an ALAC just-passed resolution into the record at the Public Forum.  The resolution calls for freezing the 28 highly-sensitive, regulated industry strings (Category 1 strings) until such time as a joint ALAC-GAC working group can determine that appropriate safeguards are indeed in place to protect the public interest. 
>>>>> I believe that the BC positions regarding Category 1 strings are consistent with the ALAC?s resolution and call to action, and therefore would like to make the following recommendations:
>>>>> I ask that Steve Delbianco, our Vice Chair, Policy Coordination, convene a small team to draft a letter of support for ALAC?s resolution to be sent to the Chair of the New gTLD Process Committee with a copy to the Board; second, I propose that, if agreed by the BC membership, that the BC then ask the IPC, ISPCP and the NCSG to sign onto our letter, or send a similarly supportive statement. Thirdly, I propose that the BC identify three members to join the ALAC-GAC Working Group, as the resolution specifically noted that other community members are invited to join.
>>>>>  
>>>>> With staff demonstrating blatant disregard to the ALAC and GAC concerns, time is of the essence for the BC and the greater ICANN community to support the ALAC resolution that calls for a freeze of all 28 strings immediately to ensure appropriate accountability can be put in place.
>>>>> In my view, this is a rare opportunity for the community to make right something the NGPC has apparently been loath to do despite repeated requests from both stakeholders in the ICANN community and the GAC to ensure that Category 1 string operators provide appropriate safeguards BEFORE they ?go live?.
>>>>> I welcome hearing colleague?s views, in particular, your thoughts Steve?
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> RA
>>>>>  
>>>>> Ron Andruff
>>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>> mshears at cdt.org
>>> + 44 771 247 2987
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20141204/5c293fea/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141204/5c293fea/attachment-0001.sig>


From joy  Thu Dec  4 06:32:05 2014
From: joy (joy)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 17:32:05 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter
 supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
In-Reply-To: <CF04E74A-DD4E-4EA9-A2BA-926BE01CFAAB@difference.com.au>
References: <019201d00e4c$4d4204e0$e7c60ea0$@dotsportllc.com>	<4AA2B9E7-BDD3-4219-B28D-833897FB6E05@egyptig.org>	<547EDB92.1000305@cdt.org>	<F24A4689-09DF-4C7A-B8AB-8542617BA83D@egyptig.org>	<85E2888F-2765-4DCF-9E9F-4D9C10F753B9@ipjustice.org>
	<CF04E74A-DD4E-4EA9-A2BA-926BE01CFAAB@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <547FE3C5.8060909@apc.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141204/522be8ac/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Thu Dec  4 09:43:40 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 08:43:40 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter
	supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
In-Reply-To: <CF04E74A-DD4E-4EA9-A2BA-926BE01CFAAB@difference.com.au>
References: <019201d00e4c$4d4204e0$e7c60ea0$@dotsportllc.com>
	<4AA2B9E7-BDD3-4219-B28D-833897FB6E05@egyptig.org>
	<547EDB92.1000305@cdt.org>
	<F24A4689-09DF-4C7A-B8AB-8542617BA83D@egyptig.org>
	<85E2888F-2765-4DCF-9E9F-4D9C10F753B9@ipjustice.org>
	<CF04E74A-DD4E-4EA9-A2BA-926BE01CFAAB@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <3235AE77-CE3B-4FDE-AACA-C7A6AC919FCE@egyptig.org>

Hi David,

On Dec 4, 2014, at 2:46 AM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

[SNIP]

> I also think that while I do not agree with the policy position the BC are putting forth, I do think the NGPC simply ignoring a strong ALAC statement like that is something we should be considering very seriously. Consider the whole PIC mess is there in response to GAC concerns - but other ACs concerns about implementation can apparently be ignored with impunity of the board are not forced by regulation to care. If the NGPC can just ignore it, ALAC is effectively made totally irrelevant - is that what we want?

I was not aware that the ALAC statement on this topic (submitted in November) was ignored by the board. I was under the impression that it is still under review by the NGPC.

But yes?, I don?t believe the board should be ignoring Advice from ALAC.

Thanks.

Amr


From aelsadr  Thu Dec  4 09:55:13 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 08:55:13 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter
	supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
In-Reply-To: <547FE3C5.8060909@apc.org>
References: <019201d00e4c$4d4204e0$e7c60ea0$@dotsportllc.com>	<4AA2B9E7-BDD3-4219-B28D-833897FB6E05@egyptig.org>	<547EDB92.1000305@cdt.org>	<F24A4689-09DF-4C7A-B8AB-8542617BA83D@egyptig.org>	<85E2888F-2765-4DCF-9E9F-4D9C10F753B9@ipjustice.org>
	<CF04E74A-DD4E-4EA9-A2BA-926BE01CFAAB@difference.com.au>
	<547FE3C5.8060909@apc.org>
Message-ID: <9FF7D419-0C73-431A-81CA-1A1216A7C589@egyptig.org>

Hi,

In the absence of a freeze of any new gTLD contracts or delegations, I would welcome an opportunity to review the PICs and PICDRP. Although I suspect that during a review, we won?t necessarily be on the same page as ALAC, GAC and the CSG constituencies regarding ICANN?s role in content regulation via the registry agreement.

Thanks.

Amr

On Dec 4, 2014, at 5:32 AM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:

> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 
> Hash: SHA1 
>  
> Hi - thanks for raising this Amr and Matthew
> While I agree with Robin and Wendy that ICANN should not regulate content, and that a freeze on delegations is not the right approach. Having said that, I also agree with David that the current Public Interest Commitments is not being very effective.
> I think if the policy is somehow not working, it is better to fix the policy than to institute freezes on some delegations and not others.
> At the same time, standing on pure principles might be a mistake as there are legitimate substantive concerns around this kind of issue for many non-commercial users. At ccTLD level, for example, there are various examples of moderated 2LD e.g related to .gov .health or .bank and many users are very comfortable with that. While gTLD is of course very different, and I am not suggesting ICANN have a role in relation to content regulation, and a freeze on some delegations and not others is unwise, not supporting legitimate concerns about a failure of policy risks sending the wrong message and not reflecting the diversity of views.
> Perhaps a call to review the PIC policy would be a better option?
> 
> 
> Joy
> 
> 
> On 4/12/2014 2:46 p.m., David Cake wrote:
> > In general, I agree with the
>       position that we should not be trying to turn domain delegation
>       into regulation. And the hand wringing about regulated industries
>       is the GAC overstepping its role - I've noted before, for example,
>       that in many jurisdictions 'doctor' is not a regulated string
>       (including Australia, the govt who initially was pushing the
>       strongest on this issue). I've used the example of the Australian
>       business 'the Tap Doctor', a chain of plumbers who drive around
>       with giant taps on their cars, as an example of the unregulated
>       use of doctor that Australian GAC members would have been aware
>       of. I agree with the general position that, while there are
>       legitimate concerns with health domains, that not delegating them,
>       or trying to make domain registration into a regulatory process,
>       isn't the right way to deal with them. 
> 
>       >
> 
>       > That said, while I agree with the general position that
>       trying to turn DNS registration into a regulatory process is a bad
>       idea, I do think that the current PIC process is absolutely
>       terrible, was enacted with terrible process (without
>       multi-stakeholder input, pretty much just by staff in response to
>       GAC), has led to terrible results (like widespread inclusion of
>       explicitly rejected rights protection measures like the GPML
>       idea), and that Ron Andruff's ideas regarding how to improve the
>       PIC are not that bad, and would be an improvement on the current
>       position. So I don't think we should be defending the status quo,
>       which not only entrenches the regulation via delegation idea but
>       does so very badly in a way with a lot of adverse consequences. If
>       the PIC policy etc was to be reviewed, I think we might end up
>       with some significant improvements to the policy from the NC
>       position. But I agree with Avri - revising spec 11 and the PIC
>       policy should not require that delegation is frozen. 
> 
>       >
> 
>       > I also think that while I do not agree with the policy
>       position the BC are putting forth, I do think the NGPC simply
>       ignoring a strong ALAC statement like that is something we should
>       be considering very seriously. Consider the whole PIC mess is
>       there in response to GAC concerns - but other ACs concerns about
>       implementation can apparently be ignored with impunity of the
>       board are not forced by regulation to care. If the NGPC can just
>       ignore it, ALAC is effectively made totally irrelevant - is that
>       what we want? 
> 
>       >
> 
>       > Cheers
> 
>       >
> 
>       > David
> 
>       >
> 
>       > On 4 Dec 2014, at 1:27 am, Robin Gross
>       <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
>       wrote:
> 
>       >
> 
>       >> Yes I agree with Amr and would be against this proposal
>       because it moves ICANN closer to the business of regulating the
>       use of the Internet and the kind of information "allowed" to be
>       provided online.
> 
>       >>
> 
>       >> Best,
> 
>       >> Robin
> 
>       >>
> 
>       >>
> 
>       >> On Dec 3, 2014, at 2:12 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> 
>       >>
> 
>       >>> Well?, speaking for myself, I?m not in favour of
>       supporting this. In fact, I?d be inclined to object if the
>       Board/NGPC agreed to these demands. My main problem is with what I
>       see as the primary demand of freezing new gTLDs identified as
>       belonging to regulated sectors, although my opinion is based
>       mainly on the health-related gTLDs, and the objections submitted
>       against their delegations.
> 
>       >>>
> 
>       >>> Specification 11 (the Public Interest Commitments aka
>       PICs) are part of the registry agreement, and my understanding is
>       that they were added by ICANN staff/board without going through a
>       PDP. There are trademark specifications in the PICs that are very
>       content oriented as opposed to issues specifically pertaining to
>       domain names. I?m pretty much principally opposed to that, but
>       those are there, and need to be dealt with one way or the other.
> 
>       >>>
> 
>       >>> Despite that, I don?t feel that a revision of Spec 11
>       or the associated dispute resolution process used to enforce it
>       requires that a new gTLD delegation be frozen. These are
>       specifications included in a registry agreement with ICANN after
>       the application has already been approved. There is another
>       process, which is part of the new gTLD application that allows a
>       person/entity to submit an objection to the application itself
>       before it is approved on the grounds of limited public interest
>       (also specified in the AG). Matt?, if you recall, Stephanie
>       Duchesneau brought this up during the meeting in Frankfurt. In the
>       case of health-related gTLDs, an objection was submitted in
>       response to the applications for .health, which were (IMHO
>       rightly) overruled.
> 
>       >>>
> 
>       >>> I?m not saying that the concerns that have been
>       raised regarding .health are all illegitimate concerns, but I
>       don?t see how freezing the delegation of these gTLDs will help
>       resolve these issues. I believe the concerns should be addressed,
>       as the registries pointed out, in a normal GNSO PDP, and not
>       imposed from the top.
> 
>       >>>
> 
>       >>> Like I said, that?s my personal opinion, and I know
>       there are others who disagree with me. I don?t mind that. :)
> 
>       >>>
> 
>       >>> Thanks.
> 
>       >>>
> 
>       >>> Amr
> 
>       >>>
> 
>       >>> On Dec 3, 2014, at 10:44 AM, Matthew Shears
>       <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:
> 
>       >>>
> 
>       >>>> Apologies but could someone elaborate on the
>       divisions on this issue in NCSG - thanks.  At first glance (as a
>       newcomer to the issue) this would appear to be a pretty clear +1.
> 
>       >>>>
> 
>       >>>> On 12/3/2014 9:36 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> 
>       >>>>> Hi,
> 
>       >>>>>
> 
>       >>>>> Any thoughts? Is there any position we want
>       to take on this? Are we going to send Ron a response? I know we?ve
>       been somewhat divided on certain aspects of this in the past.
> 
>       >>>>>
> 
>       >>>>> Thanks.
> 
>       >>>>>
> 
>       >>>>> Amr
> 
>       >>>>>
> 
>       >>>>> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>       >>>>>
> 
>       >>>>>> *From: *"Ron Andruff"
>       <ra at dotsportllc.com <mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com>>
> 
>       >>>>>> *Subject: **FW: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW
>       BY 10-DEC: BC Letter supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in
>       regulated industries*
> 
>       >>>>>> *Date: *December 2, 2014 at 5:23:18 PM
>       GMT+1
> 
>       >>>>>> *To: *"'Avri Doria'" <avri at acm.org
>       <mailto:avri at acm.org>>, <robin at ipjustice.org
>       <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>, "'Amr Elsadr'"
>       <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>,
>       <dave at difference.com.au
>       <mailto:dave at difference.com.au>>, "'Maria Farrell'"
>       <maria.farrell at gmail.com
>       <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>>, "'Rafik Dammak'"
>       <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>       <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
> 
>       >>>>>>
> 
>       >>>>>> Dear all,
> 
>       >>>>>>  
> 
>       >>>>>> If ever there was an excellent example of
>       Board/staff lack of accountability it is this issue that I have
>       been nagging you about for some months now? You will find a
>       reference in the BC draft (attached) to the NGPC having considered
>       the _ALAC resolution_ not relevant and full steam ahead?  How can
>       that be possible when we are talking about end-user confusion and
>       certain fraud in these regulated industry strings?!
> 
>       >>>>>>  
> 
>       >>>>>> Now would be a good time to draft some
>       support from the NCUC/NCSG.  (All of the major voices in the BC
>       have signed on to this draft, so I expect it will be send on 10
>       Dec. as noted.)
> 
>       >>>>>>  
> 
>       >>>>>> Can you guys make this happen?  Trying to
>       build consensus around this most important issue?
> 
>       >>>>>>  
> 
>       >>>>>> Please see below and attached.
> 
>       >>>>>>  
> 
>       >>>>>> Thank you for your consideration.
> 
>       >>>>>>  
> 
>       >>>>>> Kind regards,
> 
>       >>>>>>  
> 
>       >>>>>> RA
> 
>       >>>>>>  
> 
>       >>>>>>  
> 
>       >>>>>> *Ron Andruff*
> 
>       >>>>>> *dotSport LLC*
> 
>       >>>>>> *www.lifedotsport.com
>       <http://www.lifedotsport.com/>*
> 
>       >>>>>> *From:* bc-private-bounces at icann.org
>       <mailto:bc-private-bounces at icann.org>
>       [mailto:bc-private-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Steve
>       DelBianco
> 
>       >>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 30, 2014 17:25
> 
>       >>>>>> *To:* BC Private
> 
>       >>>>>> *Subject:* [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY
>       10-DEC: BC Letter supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in
>       regulated industries
> 
>       >>>>>>  
> 
>       >>>>>> Last month, Ron Andruff asked the BC to
>       support ALAC?s call for a freeze on contracting and delegation of
>       new gTLDs in regulated industries. 
> 
>       >>>>>>  
> 
>       >>>>>> Several BC members supported Ron's idea
>       via email, and we discussed on our 20-Nov member call.
> 
>       >>>>>>  
> 
>       >>>>>> Drawing on prior BC positions, I drafted
>       a letter (attached) that Ron reviewed and approved. Now we need BC
>       members to review and comment. 
> 
>       >>>>>>  
> 
>       >>>>>> Please Reply All by 10-Dec-2014 with your
>       edits and comments. 
> 
>       >>>>>>  
> 
>       >>>>>> ?Steve
> 
>       >>>>>>  
> 
>       >>>>>>  
> 
>       >>>>>> On 11/7/14, 10:32 PM, "Ron Andruff"
>       <randruff at rnapartners.com
>       <mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com>> wrote:
> 
>       >>>>>>  
> 
>       >>>>>>
> 
>       >>>>>>     Dear BC colleagues,
> 
>       >>>>>>      
> 
>       >>>>>>     Category 1 strings such as .HEALTH,
>       .LOTTO and .INSURANCE (list noted in yellow in the attachment)
>       have been a concern to BC members, to the GAC and to the ALAC
>       since the first discussions at ICANN 38 Brussels during ?the
>       Scorecard? development to resolve open new gTLD issues between the
>       Board and GAC. Numerous discussions have since taken place between
>       the GAC and the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) and every GAC
>       communique since ICANN 46 Beijing has referenced the GAC?s
>       concerns for lack of public interest safeguards.  These strings
>       are associated with highly-sensitive, regulated industry sectors,
>       where consumer confusion or harm is considered a high probability,
>       and while not necessarily regulated exactly alike across all
>       countries, hold more similarities than differences.
> 
>       >>>>>>      
> 
>       >>>>>>     BC members will recall that the
>       Business Constituency has also expressed concern on many occasions
>       in this regard, particularly about fraud and abusive registrations
>       at the second level.
> 
>       >>>>>>      
> 
>       >>>>>>     Despite the GAC having called for
>       safeguards, ICANN staff has roundly ignored these requests and
>       proceeded to sign eight Registry Agreements in preparation for
>       rolling out the 28 high-sensitive strings. Staff gave no
>       indication to the GAC that they were doing so, and several
>       governmental reps to the GAC are very concerned about this.  
> 
>       >>>>>>
> 
>       >>>>>>     At ICANN 51 LA, Evan Leibovitch,
>       Chair of the ALAC New gTLD Committee, read an ALAC just-passed
>       resolution 
>       <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49358478/AL-ALAC-ST-1014-01-00-EN.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1413502148000&api=v2>into
>       the record at the Public Forum.  The resolution calls for freezing
>       the 28 highly-sensitive, regulated industry strings (Category 1
>       strings) until such time as a joint ALAC-GAC working group can
>       determine that appropriate safeguards are indeed in place to
>       protect the public interest. 
> 
>       >>>>>>     I believe that the BC positions
>       regarding Category 1 strings are consistent with the ALAC?s
>       resolution and call to action, and therefore would like to make
>       the following recommendations:
> 
>       >>>>>>     I ask that Steve Delbianco, our Vice
>       Chair, Policy Coordination, convene a small team to draft a letter
>       of support for ALAC?s resolution to be sent to the Chair of the
>       New gTLD Process Committee with a copy to the Board; second, I
>       propose that, if agreed by the BC membership, that the BC then ask
>       the IPC, ISPCP and the NCSG to sign onto our letter, or send a
>       similarly supportive statement. Thirdly, I propose that the BC
>       identify three members to join the ALAC-GAC Working Group, as the
>       resolution specifically noted that other community members are
>       invited to join.
> 
>       >>>>>>      
> 
>       >>>>>>     With staff demonstrating blatant
>       disregard to the ALAC and GAC concerns, time is of the essence for
>       the BC and the greater ICANN community to support the ALAC
>       resolution that calls for a freeze of all 28 strings immediately
>       to ensure appropriate accountability can be put in place.
> 
>       >>>>>>     In my view, this is a rare
>       opportunity for the community to make right something the NGPC has
>       apparently been loath to do despite repeated requests from both
>       stakeholders in the ICANN community and the GAC to ensure that
>       Category 1 string operators provide appropriate safeguards BEFORE
>       they ?go live?.
> 
>       >>>>>>     I welcome hearing colleague?s views,
>       in particular, your thoughts Steve?
> 
>       >>>>>>     Kind regards,
> 
>       >>>>>>     RA
> 
>       >>>>>>      
> 
>       >>>>>>     *Ron Andruff*
> 
>       >>>>>>      
> 
>       >>>>>>
> 
>       >>>>>
> 
>       >>>>>
> 
>       >>>>>
> 
>       >>>>>
> 
>       >>>>>
> 
>       >>>>>
> 
>       >>>>>
> 
>       >>>>>
>       _______________________________________________
> 
>       >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> 
>       >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> 
>       >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
>       >>>>
> 
>       >>>> -- 
> 
>       >>>> Matthew Shears
> 
>       >>>> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human
>       Rights
> 
>       >>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> 
>       >>>> mshears at cdt.org
> 
>       >>>> + 44 771 247 2987
> 
>       >>>
> 
>       >>> _______________________________________________
> 
>       >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> 
>       >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>       <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> 
>       >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
>       >>
> 
>       >> _______________________________________________
> 
>       >> PC-NCSG mailing list
> 
>       >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>       <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> 
>       >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
>       >
> 
>       >
> 
>       >
> 
>       > _______________________________________________
> 
>       > PC-NCSG mailing list
> 
>       > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> 
>       > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) 
>  
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUf+PEAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqd4gIAJP5Badb3V+KgHcXZAtrfzzW 
> GtxG9ewGLFYC7tJ3VRNEuk4vUPdjDYe7hSCjXSV/2GukZs3y+H6zTRgqX9r0B4mp 
> fCNal/8coPLaVrRkiXDUxsF5/+p0+BVLsdiozIYGQLztd1zvEbaL27hQ7ZPFXYmw 
> Ou8i1R0m8iiz+IrMs1EwKN7jw3bxcq+Gbt8lScVMOSAFNIBZkDg/WloUAE59yU7w 
> EOSqwpnYOgQfq8XFZwDS0e2nqV0HN1FQ17MPlPXR2moBWg/m7iY2I89WC/K9uoYv 
> TPYQwJwsoIwUodSf82jiDRr6u0zAAzcG52SoNPVAVkV32/O4Oy0oe9iBpdZKQmg= 
> =n67N 
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141204/fdbd5625/attachment-0001.html>


From wjdrake  Thu Dec  4 11:10:36 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 10:10:36 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter
	supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
In-Reply-To: <9FF7D419-0C73-431A-81CA-1A1216A7C589@egyptig.org>
References: <019201d00e4c$4d4204e0$e7c60ea0$@dotsportllc.com>
	<4AA2B9E7-BDD3-4219-B28D-833897FB6E05@egyptig.org>
	<547EDB92.1000305@cdt.org>
	<F24A4689-09DF-4C7A-B8AB-8542617BA83D@egyptig.org>
	<85E2888F-2765-4DCF-9E9F-4D9C10F753B9@ipjustice.org>
	<CF04E74A-DD4E-4EA9-A2BA-926BE01CFAAB@difference.com.au>
	<547FE3C5.8060909@apc.org>
	<9FF7D419-0C73-431A-81CA-1A1216A7C589@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CD6B1B27-F4BD-4E81-B003-9B93DFAD0657@gmail.com>

Hi

I don?t know at this point what will happen with the NCPH meeting in DC, it?s looking like the timing is really presenting problems for our participation.  Rafik and I will speak with counterparts tomorrow about it.  But if it does turn out to be held in January, maybe that would be a venue in which however many of us are able to attend could discuss this matter with the CSG?

Bill

> On Dec 4, 2014, at 8:55 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> In the absence of a freeze of any new gTLD contracts or delegations, I would welcome an opportunity to review the PICs and PICDRP. Although I suspect that during a review, we won?t necessarily be on the same page as ALAC, GAC and the CSG constituencies regarding ICANN?s role in content regulation via the registry agreement.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 5:32 AM, joy <joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org>> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 
>> Hash: SHA1 
>>  
>> Hi - thanks for raising this Amr and Matthew
>> While I agree with Robin and Wendy that ICANN should not regulate content, and that a freeze on delegations is not the right approach. Having said that, I also agree with David that the current Public Interest Commitments is not being very effective.
>> I think if the policy is somehow not working, it is better to fix the policy than to institute freezes on some delegations and not others.
>> At the same time, standing on pure principles might be a mistake as there are legitimate substantive concerns around this kind of issue for many non-commercial users. At ccTLD level, for example, there are various examples of moderated 2LD e.g related to .gov .health or .bank and many users are very comfortable with that. While gTLD is of course very different, and I am not suggesting ICANN have a role in relation to content regulation, and a freeze on some delegations and not others is unwise, not supporting legitimate concerns about a failure of policy risks sending the wrong message and not reflecting the diversity of views.
>> Perhaps a call to review the PIC policy would be a better option?
>> 
>> 
>> Joy
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/12/2014 2:46 p.m., David Cake wrote:
>> > In general, I agree with the
>>       position that we should not be trying to turn domain delegation
>>       into regulation. And the hand wringing about regulated industries
>>       is the GAC overstepping its role - I've noted before, for example,
>>       that in many jurisdictions 'doctor' is not a regulated string
>>       (including Australia, the govt who initially was pushing the
>>       strongest on this issue). I've used the example of the Australian
>>       business 'the Tap Doctor', a chain of plumbers who drive around
>>       with giant taps on their cars, as an example of the unregulated
>>       use of doctor that Australian GAC members would have been aware
>>       of. I agree with the general position that, while there are
>>       legitimate concerns with health domains, that not delegating them,
>>       or trying to make domain registration into a regulatory process,
>>       isn't the right way to deal with them. 
>> 
>>       >
>> 
>>       > That said, while I agree with the general position that
>>       trying to turn DNS registration into a regulatory process is a bad
>>       idea, I do think that the current PIC process is absolutely
>>       terrible, was enacted with terrible process (without
>>       multi-stakeholder input, pretty much just by staff in response to
>>       GAC), has led to terrible results (like widespread inclusion of
>>       explicitly rejected rights protection measures like the GPML
>>       idea), and that Ron Andruff's ideas regarding how to improve the
>>       PIC are not that bad, and would be an improvement on the current
>>       position. So I don't think we should be defending the status quo,
>>       which not only entrenches the regulation via delegation idea but
>>       does so very badly in a way with a lot of adverse consequences. If
>>       the PIC policy etc was to be reviewed, I think we might end up
>>       with some significant improvements to the policy from the NC
>>       position. But I agree with Avri - revising spec 11 and the PIC
>>       policy should not require that delegation is frozen. 
>> 
>>       >
>> 
>>       > I also think that while I do not agree with the policy
>>       position the BC are putting forth, I do think the NGPC simply
>>       ignoring a strong ALAC statement like that is something we should
>>       be considering very seriously. Consider the whole PIC mess is
>>       there in response to GAC concerns - but other ACs concerns about
>>       implementation can apparently be ignored with impunity of the
>>       board are not forced by regulation to care. If the NGPC can just
>>       ignore it, ALAC is effectively made totally irrelevant - is that
>>       what we want? 
>> 
>>       >
>> 
>>       > Cheers
>> 
>>       >
>> 
>>       > David
>> 
>>       >
>> 
>>       > On 4 Dec 2014, at 1:27 am, Robin Gross
>>       <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
>>       wrote:
>> 
>>       >
>> 
>>       >> Yes I agree with Amr and would be against this proposal
>>       because it moves ICANN closer to the business of regulating the
>>       use of the Internet and the kind of information "allowed" to be
>>       provided online.
>> 
>>       >>
>> 
>>       >> Best,
>> 
>>       >> Robin
>> 
>>       >>
>> 
>>       >>
>> 
>>       >> On Dec 3, 2014, at 2:12 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> 
>>       >>
>> 
>>       >>> Well?, speaking for myself, I?m not in favour of
>>       supporting this. In fact, I?d be inclined to object if the
>>       Board/NGPC agreed to these demands. My main problem is with what I
>>       see as the primary demand of freezing new gTLDs identified as
>>       belonging to regulated sectors, although my opinion is based
>>       mainly on the health-related gTLDs, and the objections submitted
>>       against their delegations.
>> 
>>       >>>
>> 
>>       >>> Specification 11 (the Public Interest Commitments aka
>>       PICs) are part of the registry agreement, and my understanding is
>>       that they were added by ICANN staff/board without going through a
>>       PDP. There are trademark specifications in the PICs that are very
>>       content oriented as opposed to issues specifically pertaining to
>>       domain names. I?m pretty much principally opposed to that, but
>>       those are there, and need to be dealt with one way or the other.
>> 
>>       >>>
>> 
>>       >>> Despite that, I don?t feel that a revision of Spec 11
>>       or the associated dispute resolution process used to enforce it
>>       requires that a new gTLD delegation be frozen. These are
>>       specifications included in a registry agreement with ICANN after
>>       the application has already been approved. There is another
>>       process, which is part of the new gTLD application that allows a
>>       person/entity to submit an objection to the application itself
>>       before it is approved on the grounds of limited public interest
>>       (also specified in the AG). Matt?, if you recall, Stephanie
>>       Duchesneau brought this up during the meeting in Frankfurt. In the
>>       case of health-related gTLDs, an objection was submitted in
>>       response to the applications for .health, which were (IMHO
>>       rightly) overruled.
>> 
>>       >>>
>> 
>>       >>> I?m not saying that the concerns that have been
>>       raised regarding .health are all illegitimate concerns, but I
>>       don?t see how freezing the delegation of these gTLDs will help
>>       resolve these issues. I believe the concerns should be addressed,
>>       as the registries pointed out, in a normal GNSO PDP, and not
>>       imposed from the top.
>> 
>>       >>>
>> 
>>       >>> Like I said, that?s my personal opinion, and I know
>>       there are others who disagree with me. I don?t mind that. :)
>> 
>>       >>>
>> 
>>       >>> Thanks.
>> 
>>       >>>
>> 
>>       >>> Amr
>> 
>>       >>>
>> 
>>       >>> On Dec 3, 2014, at 10:44 AM, Matthew Shears
>>       <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>       >>>
>> 
>>       >>>> Apologies but could someone elaborate on the
>>       divisions on this issue in NCSG - thanks.  At first glance (as a
>>       newcomer to the issue) this would appear to be a pretty clear +1.
>> 
>>       >>>>
>> 
>>       >>>> On 12/3/2014 9:36 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> 
>>       >>>>> Hi,
>> 
>>       >>>>>
>> 
>>       >>>>> Any thoughts? Is there any position we want
>>       to take on this? Are we going to send Ron a response? I know we?ve
>>       been somewhat divided on certain aspects of this in the past.
>> 
>>       >>>>>
>> 
>>       >>>>> Thanks.
>> 
>>       >>>>>
>> 
>>       >>>>> Amr
>> 
>>       >>>>>
>> 
>>       >>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>       >>>>>
>> 
>>       >>>>>> *From: *"Ron Andruff"
>>       <ra at dotsportllc.com <mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com> <mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com> <mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com>>
>> 
>>       >>>>>> *Subject: **FW: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW
>>       BY 10-DEC: BC Letter supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in
>>       regulated industries*
>> 
>>       >>>>>> *Date: *December 2, 2014 at 5:23:18 PM
>>       GMT+1
>> 
>>       >>>>>> *To: *"'Avri Doria'" <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>
>>       <mailto:avri at acm.org> <mailto:avri at acm.org>>, <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>>       <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>, "'Amr Elsadr'"
>>       <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>,
>>       <dave at difference.com.au <mailto:dave at difference.com.au>
>>       <mailto:dave at difference.com.au> <mailto:dave at difference.com.au>>, "'Maria Farrell'"
>>       <maria.farrell at gmail.com <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>
>>       <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com> <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>>, "'Rafik Dammak'"
>>       <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>       <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>> 
>>       >>>>>>
>> 
>>       >>>>>> Dear all,
>> 
>>       >>>>>>  
>> 
>>       >>>>>> If ever there was an excellent example of
>>       Board/staff lack of accountability it is this issue that I have
>>       been nagging you about for some months now? You will find a
>>       reference in the BC draft (attached) to the NGPC having considered
>>       the _ALAC resolution_ not relevant and full steam ahead?  How can
>>       that be possible when we are talking about end-user confusion and
>>       certain fraud in these regulated industry strings?!
>> 
>>       >>>>>>  
>> 
>>       >>>>>> Now would be a good time to draft some
>>       support from the NCUC/NCSG.  (All of the major voices in the BC
>>       have signed on to this draft, so I expect it will be send on 10
>>       Dec. as noted.)
>> 
>>       >>>>>>  
>> 
>>       >>>>>> Can you guys make this happen?  Trying to
>>       build consensus around this most important issue?
>> 
>>       >>>>>>  
>> 
>>       >>>>>> Please see below and attached.
>> 
>>       >>>>>>  
>> 
>>       >>>>>> Thank you for your consideration.
>> 
>>       >>>>>>  
>> 
>>       >>>>>> Kind regards,
>> 
>>       >>>>>>  
>> 
>>       >>>>>> RA
>> 
>>       >>>>>>  
>> 
>>       >>>>>>  
>> 
>>       >>>>>> *Ron Andruff*
>> 
>>       >>>>>> *dotSport LLC*
>> 
>>       >>>>>> *www.lifedotsport.com <http://www.lifedotsport.com/>
>>       <http://www.lifedotsport.com/> <http://www.lifedotsport.com/>*
>> 
>>       >>>>>> *From:* bc-private-bounces at icann.org <mailto:bc-private-bounces at icann.org>
>>       <mailto:bc-private-bounces at icann.org> <mailto:bc-private-bounces at icann.org>
>>       [mailto:bc-private-bounces at icann.org <mailto:bc-private-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Steve
>>       DelBianco
>> 
>>       >>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, November 30, 2014 17:25
>> 
>>       >>>>>> *To:* BC Private
>> 
>>       >>>>>> *Subject:* [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY
>>       10-DEC: BC Letter supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in
>>       regulated industries
>> 
>>       >>>>>>  
>> 
>>       >>>>>> Last month, Ron Andruff asked the BC to
>>       support ALAC?s call for a freeze on contracting and delegation of
>>       new gTLDs in regulated industries. 
>> 
>>       >>>>>>  
>> 
>>       >>>>>> Several BC members supported Ron's idea
>>       via email, and we discussed on our 20-Nov member call.
>> 
>>       >>>>>>  
>> 
>>       >>>>>> Drawing on prior BC positions, I drafted
>>       a letter (attached) that Ron reviewed and approved. Now we need BC
>>       members to review and comment. 
>> 
>>       >>>>>>  
>> 
>>       >>>>>> Please Reply All by 10-Dec-2014 with your
>>       edits and comments. 
>> 
>>       >>>>>>  
>> 
>>       >>>>>> ?Steve
>> 
>>       >>>>>>  
>> 
>>       >>>>>>  
>> 
>>       >>>>>> On 11/7/14, 10:32 PM, "Ron Andruff"
>>       <randruff at rnapartners.com <mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com>
>>       <mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com> <mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>       >>>>>>  
>> 
>>       >>>>>>
>> 
>>       >>>>>>     Dear BC colleagues,
>> 
>>       >>>>>>      
>> 
>>       >>>>>>     Category 1 strings such as .HEALTH,
>>       .LOTTO and .INSURANCE (list noted in yellow in the attachment)
>>       have been a concern to BC members, to the GAC and to the ALAC
>>       since the first discussions at ICANN 38 Brussels during ?the
>>       Scorecard? development to resolve open new gTLD issues between the
>>       Board and GAC. Numerous discussions have since taken place between
>>       the GAC and the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) and every GAC
>>       communique since ICANN 46 Beijing has referenced the GAC?s
>>       concerns for lack of public interest safeguards.  These strings
>>       are associated with highly-sensitive, regulated industry sectors,
>>       where consumer confusion or harm is considered a high probability,
>>       and while not necessarily regulated exactly alike across all
>>       countries, hold more similarities than differences.
>> 
>>       >>>>>>      
>> 
>>       >>>>>>     BC members will recall that the
>>       Business Constituency has also expressed concern on many occasions
>>       in this regard, particularly about fraud and abusive registrations
>>       at the second level.
>> 
>>       >>>>>>      
>> 
>>       >>>>>>     Despite the GAC having called for
>>       safeguards, ICANN staff has roundly ignored these requests and
>>       proceeded to sign eight Registry Agreements in preparation for
>>       rolling out the 28 high-sensitive strings. Staff gave no
>>       indication to the GAC that they were doing so, and several
>>       governmental reps to the GAC are very concerned about this.  
>> 
>>       >>>>>>
>> 
>>       >>>>>>     At ICANN 51 LA, Evan Leibovitch,
>>       Chair of the ALAC New gTLD Committee, read an ALAC just-passed
>>       resolution 
>>       <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49358478/AL-ALAC-ST-1014-01-00-EN.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1413502148000&api=v2> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49358478/AL-ALAC-ST-1014-01-00-EN.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1413502148000&api=v2>into
>>       the record at the Public Forum.  The resolution calls for freezing
>>       the 28 highly-sensitive, regulated industry strings (Category 1
>>       strings) until such time as a joint ALAC-GAC working group can
>>       determine that appropriate safeguards are indeed in place to
>>       protect the public interest. 
>> 
>>       >>>>>>     I believe that the BC positions
>>       regarding Category 1 strings are consistent with the ALAC?s
>>       resolution and call to action, and therefore would like to make
>>       the following recommendations:
>> 
>>       >>>>>>     I ask that Steve Delbianco, our Vice
>>       Chair, Policy Coordination, convene a small team to draft a letter
>>       of support for ALAC?s resolution to be sent to the Chair of the
>>       New gTLD Process Committee with a copy to the Board; second, I
>>       propose that, if agreed by the BC membership, that the BC then ask
>>       the IPC, ISPCP and the NCSG to sign onto our letter, or send a
>>       similarly supportive statement. Thirdly, I propose that the BC
>>       identify three members to join the ALAC-GAC Working Group, as the
>>       resolution specifically noted that other community members are
>>       invited to join.
>> 
>>       >>>>>>      
>> 
>>       >>>>>>     With staff demonstrating blatant
>>       disregard to the ALAC and GAC concerns, time is of the essence for
>>       the BC and the greater ICANN community to support the ALAC
>>       resolution that calls for a freeze of all 28 strings immediately
>>       to ensure appropriate accountability can be put in place.
>> 
>>       >>>>>>     In my view, this is a rare
>>       opportunity for the community to make right something the NGPC has
>>       apparently been loath to do despite repeated requests from both
>>       stakeholders in the ICANN community and the GAC to ensure that
>>       Category 1 string operators provide appropriate safeguards BEFORE
>>       they ?go live?.
>> 
>>       >>>>>>     I welcome hearing colleague?s views,
>>       in particular, your thoughts Steve?
>> 
>>       >>>>>>     Kind regards,
>> 
>>       >>>>>>     RA
>> 
>>       >>>>>>      
>> 
>>       >>>>>>     *Ron Andruff*
>> 
>>       >>>>>>      
>> 
>>       >>>>>>
>> 
>>       >>>>>
>> 
>>       >>>>>
>> 
>>       >>>>>
>> 
>>       >>>>>
>> 
>>       >>>>>
>> 
>>       >>>>>
>> 
>>       >>>>>
>> 
>>       >>>>>
>>       _______________________________________________
>> 
>>       >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> 
>>       >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> 
>>       >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>> 
>>       >>>>
>> 
>>       >>>> -- 
>> 
>>       >>>> Matthew Shears
>> 
>>       >>>> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human
>>       Rights
>> 
>>       >>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>> 
>>       >>>> mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>> 
>>       >>>> + 44 771 247 2987
>> 
>>       >>>
>> 
>>       >>> _______________________________________________
>> 
>>       >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> 
>>       >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>       <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> 
>>       >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>> 
>>       >>
>> 
>>       >> _______________________________________________
>> 
>>       >> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> 
>>       >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>       <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> 
>>       >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <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 <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- 
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) 
>>  
>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUf+PEAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqd4gIAJP5Badb3V+KgHcXZAtrfzzW 
>> GtxG9ewGLFYC7tJ3VRNEuk4vUPdjDYe7hSCjXSV/2GukZs3y+H6zTRgqX9r0B4mp 
>> fCNal/8coPLaVrRkiXDUxsF5/+p0+BVLsdiozIYGQLztd1zvEbaL27hQ7ZPFXYmw 
>> Ou8i1R0m8iiz+IrMs1EwKN7jw3bxcq+Gbt8lScVMOSAFNIBZkDg/WloUAE59yU7w 
>> EOSqwpnYOgQfq8XFZwDS0e2nqV0HN1FQ17MPlPXR2moBWg/m7iY2I89WC/K9uoYv 
>> TPYQwJwsoIwUodSf82jiDRr6u0zAAzcG52SoNPVAVkV32/O4Oy0oe9iBpdZKQmg= 
>> =n67N 
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141204/1b404fd0/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Fri Dec  5 23:32:49 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 16:32:49 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: RE: [council] NomCom appointee skill sets
In-Reply-To: <005201d010b2$2fd51060$8f7f3120$@afilias.info>
References: <005201d010b2$2fd51060$8f7f3120$@afilias.info>
Message-ID: <54822481.2020801@acm.org>


comments?

RE: [council] NomCom appointee skill sets
-------- Original Message --------

All,

 

Taking you back to this thread since I have received a follow-up request
on this.

The points made were interesting but we may have got a little
side-tracked, at least in so far as producing a practical outcome for
the Nom Com.

 
...

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141205/97e68864/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NomCom - GNSO Candidate Criteria.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 21188 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141205/97e68864/attachment-0001.docx>


From joy  Sun Dec  7 20:01:18 2014
From: joy (joy)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 07:01:18 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
In-Reply-To: <8ECC009F-9A88-49ED-A256-3F937C031F1A@gmail.com>
References: <18E31637-2DF6-4B8E-842A-40CB7FC9F8B5@uzh.ch>
	<E0B5E6C7-DFFC-439A-9702-C4702BE42565@gmail.com>
	<54745236.2040401@apc.org> <54746D8D.30704@cdt.org>
	<8ECC009F-9A88-49ED-A256-3F937C031F1A@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <548495EE.6090005@apc.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141208/c6cf9abc/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Dec  8 05:58:43 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 12:58:43 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Review Working Party : confirm representatives
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmNyFnGsj_Xx1sYfDNm5KWgeVLbmhO+vm5A8piuaLG5Mg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

Glen contacted me to confirm the representative at the GNSO Review working
party. we got 5 representatives there.
can we confirm them ?
the group will resume working next month to review the report made from the
survey.

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
Date: 2014-12-04 7:35 GMT+09:00
Subject: FW: GNSO Review Working Party : confirm representatives
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>, Amr
Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>, Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll at gmail.com>, Rudi
Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>
Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, Glen de Saint G?ry <
Glen at icann.org>


 Dear Rafik,

The GNSO Review Working Party  is expected to reconvene later in December
to review the initial findings. Would you please be so kind as to review
and confirm your  representatives to this group by the latest 8 December
2014.

   - Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (up to six members):
      - Avri Doria SOI
      <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Avri+Doria+SOI>
      - Rafik Dammak SOI
      <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Rafik+Dammak+SOI>
      - Amr Elsadr SOI
      <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Amr+Elsadr+SOI>
      - Klaus Stoll SOI
      <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Klaus+Stoll+SOI>
      - Rudi Vansnick SOI
      <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Rudi+Vansnick+SOI>

Thank you very much.
Kind regards,

Glen



Glen de Saint G?ry
GNSO Secretariat
*gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>*
*http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141208/6d08d233/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Dec  8 06:58:55 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 13:58:55 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [urgent] PC chair election
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=epjHvRdXYxw_0-L6Gn-jmvC=TV1SVdxax8-LM+fMNUg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

there was no response to my email. so I guess I should amend the timeline
and start the process this week.

- nominations starting from Friday 12th Dec, 00:00UTC until Tuesday 16th
23:59UTC
- candidates confirming their nomination in Wednesday
- Starting the election from Thursday 18th December 00:00UTC  until
Wednesday 24th December 23:59 UTC.
- Thursday 25th December, publishing the results and new PC chair term
starts

lets get the new PC chair before the end of the year so s/he can prepare
for next year and set a plan.

for the voting we can use doodle poll to be setup by Maryam and sent to
eligible voters.

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Date: 2014-11-25 13:04 GMT+09:00
Subject: [urgent] PC chair election
To: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>


Hi everyone,

As discussed it is time to get the election of new chair done.

For the vote, we have as eligible voters:
- 6 councillors
- 2 NCUC reps, 2 NPOC reps
- NCSG chair.

As timeline I would suggest:
- nominations starting from Friday  28th Nov, 00:00UTC until Tuesday 2nd
23:59UTC
- candidates confirming the nomination in Wednesday
- Starting the election from Thursday 4th December 00:00UTC  until Monday
8th December 23:59 UTC.
- Tuesday 9th December new PC chair term starts

nominees should be from the the eligible members.

if there is any objection or suggestion , please do by this Thursday so we
can make amendments quickly.

For the vice-chair or alt-chair it is up to PC to decide about having such
position or not.

whoever will be elected, s/he has a critical role to let the PC work and
ensure that things are done. I see some stuff to be handled asap by the PC
chair like :
thinking about some prioritization work for the coming months, moving from
reactive to proactive mode, improving PC working methods .
As NCSG chair, I can commit to provide assistance and support.

Best,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141208/bd9f67bb/attachment.html>


From wjdrake  Mon Dec  8 10:02:06 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:02:06 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
In-Reply-To: <548495EE.6090005@apc.org>
References: <18E31637-2DF6-4B8E-842A-40CB7FC9F8B5@uzh.ch>
	<E0B5E6C7-DFFC-439A-9702-C4702BE42565@gmail.com>
	<54745236.2040401@apc.org> <54746D8D.30704@cdt.org>
	<8ECC009F-9A88-49ED-A256-3F937C031F1A@gmail.com>
	<548495EE.6090005@apc.org>
Message-ID: <844F7211-CBBC-44D8-A37D-75A96813D517@gmail.com>

Joy would you be able to come to DC if we have an extra slot?

BD

> On Dec 7, 2014, at 7:01 PM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bill
> Thanks for your note on this - just wondering what other support or assitance you need for this now? Please just let us know.
> 
> Joy 
> On 26/11/2014 9:57 p.m., William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> Thanks folks for the good suggestion.   It?s not clear we'd need to do this with the CSG since a) the 4 plenary slots look to be full, b) their forward looking agenda would be different from ours, and c) co-designing it this would turn into another protracted negotiation with our hydra-headed counterpart.  My suggestion would be that we do this amongst ourselves in one of the two time slots reserved for NCSG.  There are a number of other items we may also want to pack into those slots, e.g.
>> 
>> Procedural: dialogue on improving the functioning of NCSG
>> 
>> Substantive: discussions in various places led me to believe that people would like to talk about IANA and/or EWG and privacy.  CSG is not interested in either of these as plenary topics (although if we do the open fourth session I propose we could still raise some things to air views and see what they?ll say).  
>> 
>> (Privacy was part of why I reach out to Rotenberg as a possibility for one of the three additional slots, along with Kathy K and another player TBD.  If we drop it probably he skips, whatever.  Or we could maybe do an outreach thing Wed where he?d fit.  Matt is there someone from CDT that might be interested in attending?)
>> 
>> Fadi: We need the man the morning of day 2 after he visits CSG.  I think it?s important that we are well prepared to lay out our concerns and seek concrete look me in the eye responses, otherwise he?ll fill the void and give us a speech like last time, when we learned that civil society is a bunch of crazies locked in the basement (seriously).  So really, unless we do it online prior, I?d suggest that the day 2 slot entail Fadi-prep.  Which would mean packing everything else into the day one slot, and the constituency slots.
>> 
>> In any event: the participants (NCSG Councilors + 3 others from the PC, NCUC EC, NPOC EC) should have a dialogue about how they want to use those slots.
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> ***********************************************
>> 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> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>>   www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>> ***********************************************
>> 
>>> On Nov 25, 2014, at 12:52 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Excellent idea - Rafik and I were just discussing the same.  Should we create some shareable doc to start the process?  Is there some more formal way of doing it within the PC?
>>> 
>>> Matthew
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 11/25/2014 9:56 AM, joy wrote:
>>>> Hi Bill - thanks a lot for sharing this - just wondering .... would it also be useful to do some kind of forward looking exercise to help planning? For example, mapping those new or emerging issues likely to impact on policy work in the 2015 as well as those spaces outside ICANN where SGs are planning to engage in 2015.
>>>> Joy
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 25/11/2014 10:02 p.m., William Drake wrote:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just to keep folks in the loop on discussions about January.  Any thoughts on any of the below?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Bill
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Subject: Re: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
>>>>>> From: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
>>>>>> Date: November 25, 2014 at 9:55:39 AM GMT+1
>>>>>> Cc: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org <mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>" <lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net <mailto:jolufuye at kontemporary.net>>, Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>>, Brenda Brewer <brenda.brewer at icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org>>, Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org <mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.org>>, Stefania Milan <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
>>>>>> To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Nov 25, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I second Bill?s thanks to Rob for this draft. 
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> I also think Bill?s suggestions re possible topics for the Monday AM sessions make sense.  Would be interested in others? views.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Yes, please
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Beyond accountability, one topic IPC would like to see addressed in the ?plenary? (perhaps on Tuesday afternoon) would be New gTLDs, which should include preparation for the AOC review as well as the other initiatives staff is undertaking.  
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> I don?t think EWG is a great topic for this meeting.  GNSO review certainly could be contentious but maybe good to start having that discussion here, as I see was discussed in dialogue between Bill and Tony earlier today.   
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Ok, so if I?m remembering the conversation correctly, the items suggested so far by more than one SG would be
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1. Accountability 
>>>>>> 2. GNSO review including SG/C issues
>>>>>> 3. In-house coordination as needed in light of past differences on board, GNSO VC, etc. (if we exhaust this topic quickly or hit a wall the remaining time could be spent on larger intra-GNSO dynamics, e.g. role of the Council in relation to the GNSO community, contracted/noncontracted, whatever)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> And options suggested by one SG include
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *IANA or EWG (NCSG)
>>>>>> *New gTLDs and AOC (CSG)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> We need to build in a little flexibility to account for the possibility (likelihood?) that the House will want to ?revisit? on Tuesday one or more of the topics first broached on Monday.  For example, we might reach agreement in principle on something and ask a subgroup to draft a statement for discussion the next day.  In other words, best to frontload the plenary topics a bit so there is some extra time on Tuesday afternoon.  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 3 morning coffee thoughts:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *As the SGs have separate meetings in slots E and H, we?ll have chances to talk about items of less interest to the other SG.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *To leave time for Steve?s flexibility and accommodate any unfinished conversational threads or unaddressed items, why not leave the fourth slot unprogrammed, like a big AOB?  It?s only 90 minutes, and an open discussion opportunity would allow for reflections on the meeting and ensure nobody goes away feeling like they didn?t get to raise something they care about. Would be an integrative way to end the two days.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *Per previous I tend to think it better to lead off with items where there?s broad agreement and ease into topics that might be more difficult after people have been together a bit, which might suggest proceeding 1, 2, 3 above => 4 open/loose ends discussion.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Other bits:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *Additional bodies: I believe we have agreed 3 per SG.  Personally, I would not designate them as ?observers?, if we are going to invite someone they shouldn?t be somehow marked as different and should be able to participate fully like anyone else.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *Lunch speakers: Per previous my suggestion would be to let people chat on the first day, and would strongly encourage people to sit intermingled rather than self-segregated into NCSG and CSG tables.  On the second day, we could do a) Larry; b) a less familiar-to-all beltway denizen, e.g. a Congressional or think tank poobah; or c) Fadi, who will have just met separately with the two SGs and might helpfully address us on an integrative basis thereafter.  I guess one also could argue it?d be  sort of bad form to not invite him to address us as group, no?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *Markus: I would suggest that he be asked to participate in Fadi?s Day 2 discussions with the SGs so he can get more familiar with our respective concerns.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> *?Day 3?: I asked yesterday if others are planning on doing any sort of outreach meeting Wednesday morning on a SG or constituency basis, if so I?d think we should do the same and would need to factor that into our planning soon as it could affect travel schedules etc.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>] 
>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 9:35 AM
>>>>>>> To: Robert Hoggarth
>>>>>>> Cc: Tony Holmes; Elisa Cooper; rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>; Marilyn Cade; lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>; Kristina Rosette; Metalitz, Steven; Rafik Dammak; Jimson Olufuye; Maryam Bakoshi; Brenda Brewer; Benedetta Rossi; Stefania Milan; William Drake
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Hello
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Thanks Rob for moving us along.  Some initial reactions:
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> The overall schedule maps well with what we discussed.
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Re: the Day 1 morning NCPH sessions, perhaps one option would be to lead with one on broader changes/conditions in the ICANN environment on which non-contracted would have broadly similar concerns, e.g. expansion/diversification of contracted parties and possible GNSO implications; and then do the second one on our intra-house dynamics and cooperation, e.g. conduct of elections etc.  In other words, lead off with shared stuff to get everyone acclimated and then ease into items on which we?ve struggled a bit?
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Re: the Day 2 afternoon NCPH sessions, it sounded on the call like we all agreed on Accountability as a substantive discussion topic.  If I understood Steve correctly CSG would be less interested in talking about IANA stewardship in this context.  If so, perhaps EWG?  Or would we want to discuss the GNSO Review and structural issues in more detail?
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> I suppose the four NCPH sessions could be ordered a number of ways. We also could for ex hold the intra-house discussion for one of the Day 2 slots, after folks have been spending time together and are warmed up etc?
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Re: lunches,  on the first day, maybe we?d want more casual conversation opportunities? A speaker on the second day might be good, a beltway luminary of some sort?  
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Steve suggested expanding the head count a little so a few local community members could join.  As discussed, alternative considerations would be keeping the group size reasonably conversational and not being asymmetric.  Could we compromise on adding two heads per house?
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> I had a drink with Markus the other night and he didn?t know about the meeting, but he checked his schedule and is available.  I agree it?d be good to have him there so folks who aren?t could get acquainted. 
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Also, going forward, two process requests:
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> *Please include my NCUC EC colleague Stefania Milan on the Cc, Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>.  She is copied here.
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> *Please send to me at only one address, william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>, I don?t need copies of every message in both my accounts.
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> thanks much
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> On Nov 15, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org <mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Hi Everyone,
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Attached please find a draft "strawman" agenda structure (Version "v1") for the January NCPH meeting.  Per our discussion this week,  please share and discuss it with your individual communities as you see fit.  If our previous 2013 effort is a good guide, this is likely to be the first of several agenda drafts before we reach a final version.
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Please provide as many comments/reactions/edit suggestions/etc. as possible via email over the course of the next week. 
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Benedetta will be circulating a Doodle poll to select the date for the next planning call, and I hope we can make some on-line progress prior to that next meeting.
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Please note that I am now including Maryam Bakoshi and Brenda Brewer on the cc list so that they can be ready to assist you in prepping your individual meeting agendas during the course of the events that week.
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Believe it or not, with one major exception, our planning timetable is still pretty consistent with the timing of the 2013 meeting planning effort. The one area where we REALLY need your help is to provide as many traveler/delegate names as soon as  possible so that we can make sure that all intended travelers/delegates have reasonable travel schedules and any visas they may need to get into the U.S. for the meeting. Please provide that info to me as soon as possible so that we can maximize the use of our support resources for the meeting.
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Thank you all for your help and support of this planning effort!
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Rob 
>>>>>>> <Agenda - NCPH InterSessional (v1- 14Nov2014).docx>
>>>>>>>  
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <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 <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Matthew Shears
>>> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>> mshears at cdt.org <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>
>>> + 44 771 247 2987
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <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 (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141208/680baf25/attachment-0001.html>


From wjdrake  Mon Dec  8 10:03:02 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:03:02 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Review Working Party : confirm representatives
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmNyFnGsj_Xx1sYfDNm5KWgeVLbmhO+vm5A8piuaLG5Mg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThmNyFnGsj_Xx1sYfDNm5KWgeVLbmhO+vm5A8piuaLG5Mg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F20FD3A1-C619-417B-B64D-14BC2285CD52@gmail.com>

Hi

I?d like to join please. Seems like something chairs should be in on, and the others are.

Best

Bill

> On Dec 8, 2014, at 4:58 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Glen contacted me to confirm the representative at the GNSO Review working party. we got 5 representatives there.
> can we confirm them ?
> the group will resume working next month to review the report made from the survey.
> 
> Rafik
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
> Date: 2014-12-04 7:35 GMT+09:00
> Subject: FW: GNSO Review Working Party : confirm representatives
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>, Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll at gmail.com <mailto:kdrstoll at gmail.com>>, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>
> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>" <gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>, Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
> 
> 
> Dear Rafik,
> 
> The GNSO Review Working Party  is expected to reconvene later in December to review the initial findings. Would you please be so kind as to review and confirm your  representatives to this group by the latest 8 December 2014.
> 
> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (up to six members): 
> Avri Doria SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Avri+Doria+SOI>
> Rafik Dammak SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Rafik+Dammak+SOI>
> Amr Elsadr SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Amr+Elsadr+SOI>
> Klaus Stoll SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Klaus+Stoll+SOI>
> Rudi Vansnick SOI <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Rudi+Vansnick+SOI>
> Thank you very much.
> Kind regards,
> 
> Glen
> 
>  
> 
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
> http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141208/8b5e4200/attachment.html>


From mshears  Mon Dec  8 10:49:19 2014
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 08:49:19 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
In-Reply-To: <844F7211-CBBC-44D8-A37D-75A96813D517@gmail.com>
References: <18E31637-2DF6-4B8E-842A-40CB7FC9F8B5@uzh.ch>
	<E0B5E6C7-DFFC-439A-9702-C4702BE42565@gmail.com>
	<54745236.2040401@apc.org> <54746D8D.30704@cdt.org>
	<8ECC009F-9A88-49ED-A256-3F937C031F1A@gmail.com>
	<548495EE.6090005@apc.org>
	<844F7211-CBBC-44D8-A37D-75A96813D517@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5485660F.8080103@cdt.org>

Is the meeting going ahead?

On 12/8/2014 8:02 AM, William Drake wrote:
> Joy would you be able to come to DC if we have an extra slot?
>
> BD
>
>> On Dec 7, 2014, at 7:01 PM, joy <joy at apc.org <mailto:joy at apc.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Bill
>> Thanks for your note on this - just wondering what other support or 
>> assitance you need for this now? Please just let us know.
>>
>> Joy
>> On 26/11/2014 9:57 p.m., William Drake wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Thanks folks for the good suggestion. It?s not clear we'd need to do 
>>> this with the CSG since a) the 4 plenary slots look to be full, b) 
>>> their forward looking agenda would be different from ours, and c) 
>>> co-designing it this would turn into another protracted negotiation 
>>> with our hydra-headed counterpart.  My suggestion would be that we 
>>> do this amongst ourselves in one of the two time slots reserved for 
>>> NCSG.  There are a number of other items we may also want to pack 
>>> into those slots, e.g.
>>>
>>> Procedural: dialogue on improving the functioning of NCSG
>>>
>>> Substantive: discussions in various places led me to believe that 
>>> people would like to talk about IANA and/or EWG and privacy.  CSG is 
>>> not interested in either of these as plenary topics (although if we 
>>> do the open fourth session I propose we could still raise some 
>>> things to air views and see what they?ll say).
>>>
>>> (Privacy was part of why I reach out to Rotenberg as a possibility 
>>> for one of the three additional slots, along with Kathy K and 
>>> another player TBD.  If we drop it probably he skips, whatever.  Or 
>>> we could maybe do an outreach thing Wed where he?d fit.  Matt is 
>>> there someone from CDT that might be interested in attending?)
>>>
>>> Fadi: We need the man the morning of day 2 after he visits CSG.  I 
>>> think it?s important that we are well prepared to lay out our 
>>> concerns and seek concrete look me in the eye responses, otherwise 
>>> he?ll fill the void and give us a speech like last time, when we 
>>> learned that civil society is a bunch of crazies locked in the 
>>> basement (seriously).  So really, unless we do it online prior, I?d 
>>> suggest that the day 2 slot entail Fadi-prep.  Which would mean 
>>> packing everything else into the day one slot, and the constituency 
>>> slots.
>>>
>>> In any event: the participants (NCSG Councilors + 3 others from the 
>>> PC, NCUC EC, NPOC EC) should have a dialogue about how they want to 
>>> use those slots.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> ***********************************************
>>> 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> (direct), 
>>> wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>>> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>>> ***********************************************
>>>
>>>> On Nov 25, 2014, at 12:52 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org 
>>>> <mailto:mshears at cdt.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Excellent idea - Rafik and I were just discussing the same.  Should 
>>>> we create some shareable doc to start the process?  Is there some 
>>>> more formal way of doing it within the PC?
>>>>
>>>> Matthew
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/25/2014 9:56 AM, joy wrote:
>>>>> Hi Bill - thanks a lot for sharing this - just wondering .... 
>>>>> would it also be useful to do some kind of forward looking 
>>>>> exercise to help planning? For example, mapping those new or 
>>>>> emerging issues likely to impact on policy work in the 2015 as 
>>>>> well as those spaces outside ICANN where SGs are planning to 
>>>>> engage in 2015.
>>>>> Joy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 25/11/2014 10:02 p.m., William Drake wrote:
>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just to keep folks in the loop on discussions about January.  Any 
>>>>>> thoughts on any of the below?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Subject: **Re: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting 
>>>>>>> Agenda*
>>>>>>> *From: *William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch 
>>>>>>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
>>>>>>> *Date: *November 25, 2014 at 9:55:39 AM GMT+1
>>>>>>> *Cc: *Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org 
>>>>>>> <mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>>, Tony Holmes 
>>>>>>> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com 
>>>>>>> <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>, Elisa Cooper 
>>>>>>> <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com 
>>>>>>> <mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 
>>>>>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 
>>>>>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, Marilyn Cade 
>>>>>>> <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>, 
>>>>>>> "lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>" 
>>>>>>> <lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>>, 
>>>>>>> Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, 
>>>>>>> Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
>>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, Jimson Olufuye 
>>>>>>> <jolufuye at kontemporary.net <mailto:jolufuye at kontemporary.net>>, 
>>>>>>> Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org 
>>>>>>> <mailto:maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>>, Brenda Brewer 
>>>>>>> <brenda.brewer at icann.org <mailto:brenda.brewer at icann.org>>, 
>>>>>>> Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org 
>>>>>>> <mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.org>>, Stefania Milan 
>>>>>>> <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>>, William 
>>>>>>> Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
>>>>>>> *To: *"Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Nov 25, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com 
>>>>>>>> <mailto:met at msk.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I second Bill?s thanks to Rob for this draft.
>>>>>>>> I also think Bill?s suggestions re possible topics for the 
>>>>>>>> Monday AM sessions make sense.  Would be interested in others? 
>>>>>>>> views.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, please
>>>>>>>> Beyond accountability, one topic IPC would like to see 
>>>>>>>> addressed in the ?plenary? (perhaps on Tuesday afternoon) would 
>>>>>>>> be New gTLDs, which should include preparation for the AOC 
>>>>>>>> review as well as the other initiatives staff is undertaking.
>>>>>>>> I don?t think EWG is a great topic for this meeting. GNSO 
>>>>>>>> review certainly could be contentious but maybe good to start 
>>>>>>>> having that discussion here, as I see was discussed in dialogue 
>>>>>>>> between Bill and Tony earlier today.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok, so if I?m remembering the conversation correctly, the items 
>>>>>>> suggested so far by more than one SG would be
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Accountability
>>>>>>> 2. GNSO review including SG/C issues
>>>>>>> 3. In-house coordination as needed in light of past differences 
>>>>>>> on board, GNSO VC, etc. (if we exhaust this topic quickly or hit 
>>>>>>> a wall the remaining time could be spent on larger intra-GNSO 
>>>>>>> dynamics, e.g. role of the Council in relation to the GNSO 
>>>>>>> community, contracted/noncontracted, whatever)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And options suggested by one SG include
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *IANA or EWG (NCSG)
>>>>>>> *New gTLDs and AOC (CSG)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We need to build in a little flexibility to account for the 
>>>>>>>> possibility (likelihood?) that the House will want to ?revisit? 
>>>>>>>> on Tuesday one or more of the topics first broached on Monday.  
>>>>>>>> For example, we might reach agreement in principle on something 
>>>>>>>> and ask a subgroup to draft a statement for discussion the next 
>>>>>>>> day.  In other words, best to frontload the plenary topics a 
>>>>>>>> bit so there is some extra time on Tuesday afternoon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3 morning coffee thoughts:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *As the SGs have separate meetings in slots E and H, we?ll have 
>>>>>>> chances to talk about items of less interest to the other SG.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *To leave time for Steve?s flexibility and accommodate any 
>>>>>>> unfinished conversational threads or unaddressed items, why not 
>>>>>>> leave the fourth slot unprogrammed, like a big AOB?  It?s only 
>>>>>>> 90 minutes, and an open discussion opportunity would allow for 
>>>>>>> reflections on the meeting and ensure nobody goes away feeling 
>>>>>>> like they didn?t get to raise something they care about. Would 
>>>>>>> be an integrative way to end the two days.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Per previous I tend to think it better to lead off with items 
>>>>>>> where there?s broad agreement and ease into topics that might be 
>>>>>>> more difficult after people have been together a bit, which 
>>>>>>> might suggest proceeding 1, 2, 3 above => 4 open/loose ends 
>>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Other bits:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Additional bodies: I believe we have agreed 3 per SG. 
>>>>>>>  Personally, I would not designate them as ?observers?, if we 
>>>>>>> are going to invite someone they shouldn?t be somehow marked as 
>>>>>>> different and should be able to participate fully like anyone else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Lunch speakers: Per previous my suggestion would be to let 
>>>>>>> people chat on the first day, and would strongly encourage 
>>>>>>> people to sit intermingled rather than self-segregated into NCSG 
>>>>>>> and CSG tables.  On the second day, we could do a) Larry; b) a 
>>>>>>> less familiar-to-all beltway denizen, e.g. a Congressional or 
>>>>>>> think tank poobah; or c) Fadi, who will have just met separately 
>>>>>>> with the two SGs and might helpfully address us on an 
>>>>>>> integrative basis thereafter.  I guess one also could argue it?d 
>>>>>>> be  sort of bad form to not invite him to address us as group, no?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Markus: I would suggest that he be asked to participate in 
>>>>>>> Fadi?s Day 2 discussions with the SGs so he can get more 
>>>>>>> familiar with our respective concerns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *?Day 3?: I asked yesterday if others are planning on doing any 
>>>>>>> sort of outreach meeting Wednesday morning on a SG or 
>>>>>>> constituency basis, if so I?d think we should do the same and 
>>>>>>> would need to factor that into our planning soon as it could 
>>>>>>> affect travel schedules etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *From:*William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch]
>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Saturday, November 15, 2014 9:35 AM
>>>>>>>> *To:*Robert Hoggarth
>>>>>>>> *Cc:*Tony Holmes; Elisa Cooper;rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 
>>>>>>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>; Marilyn 
>>>>>>>> Cade;lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>; 
>>>>>>>> Kristina Rosette; Metalitz, Steven; Rafik Dammak; Jimson 
>>>>>>>> Olufuye; Maryam Bakoshi; Brenda Brewer; Benedetta Rossi; 
>>>>>>>> Stefania Milan; William Drake
>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
>>>>>>>> Hello
>>>>>>>> Thanks Rob for moving us along.  Some initial reactions:
>>>>>>>> The overall schedule maps well with what we discussed.
>>>>>>>> Re: the Day 1 morning NCPH sessions, perhaps one option would 
>>>>>>>> be to lead with one on broader changes/conditions in the ICANN 
>>>>>>>> environment on which non-contracted would have broadly similar 
>>>>>>>> concerns, e.g. expansion/diversification of contracted parties 
>>>>>>>> and possible GNSO implications; and then do the second one on 
>>>>>>>> our intra-house dynamics and cooperation, e.g. conduct of 
>>>>>>>> elections etc.  In other words, lead off with shared stuff to 
>>>>>>>> get everyone acclimated and then ease into items on which we?ve 
>>>>>>>> struggled a bit?
>>>>>>>> Re: the Day 2 afternoon NCPH sessions, it sounded on the call 
>>>>>>>> like we all agreed on Accountability as a substantive 
>>>>>>>> discussion topic.  If I understood Steve correctly CSG would be 
>>>>>>>> less interested in talking about IANA stewardship in this 
>>>>>>>> context.  If so, perhaps EWG?  Or would we want to discuss the 
>>>>>>>> GNSO Review and structural issues in more detail?
>>>>>>>> I suppose the four NCPH sessions could be ordered a number of 
>>>>>>>> ways. We also could for ex hold the intra-house discussion for 
>>>>>>>> one of the Day 2 slots, after folks have been spending time 
>>>>>>>> together and are warmed up etc?
>>>>>>>> Re: lunches,  on the first day, maybe we?d want more casual 
>>>>>>>> conversation opportunities? A speaker on the second day might 
>>>>>>>> be good, a beltway luminary of some sort?
>>>>>>>> Steve suggested expanding the head count a little so a few 
>>>>>>>> local community members could join.  As discussed, alternative 
>>>>>>>> considerations would be keeping the group size reasonably 
>>>>>>>> conversational and not being asymmetric.  Could we compromise 
>>>>>>>> on adding two heads per house?
>>>>>>>> I had a drink with Markus the other night and he didn?t know 
>>>>>>>> about the meeting, but he checked his schedule and is 
>>>>>>>> available.  I agree it?d be good to have him there so folks who 
>>>>>>>> aren?t could get acquainted.
>>>>>>>> Also, going forward, two process requests:
>>>>>>>> *Please include my NCUC EC colleague Stefania Milan on the Cc, 
>>>>>>>> Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>.  She is 
>>>>>>>> copied here.
>>>>>>>> *Please send to me at only one address, william.drake at uzh.ch 
>>>>>>>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>, I don?t need copies of every 
>>>>>>>> message in both my accounts.
>>>>>>>> thanks much
>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     On Nov 15, 2014, at 6:29 AM, Robert Hoggarth
>>>>>>>>     <robert.hoggarth at icann.org
>>>>>>>>     <mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>     Hi Everyone,
>>>>>>>>     Attached please find a draft "strawman" agenda structure
>>>>>>>>     (Version "v1") for the January NCPH meeting.  Per our
>>>>>>>>     discussion this week,  please share and discuss it with
>>>>>>>>     your individual communities as you see fit.  If our
>>>>>>>>     previous 2013 effort is a good guide, this is likely to be
>>>>>>>>     the first of several agenda drafts before we reach a final
>>>>>>>>     version.
>>>>>>>>     Please provide as many comments/reactions/edit
>>>>>>>>     suggestions/etc. as possible via email over the course of
>>>>>>>>     the next week.
>>>>>>>>     Benedetta will be circulating a Doodle poll to select the
>>>>>>>>     date for the next planning call, and I hope we can make
>>>>>>>>     some on-line progress prior to that next meeting.
>>>>>>>>     Please note that I am now including Maryam Bakoshi and
>>>>>>>>     Brenda Brewer on the cc list so that they can be ready to
>>>>>>>>     assist you in prepping your individual meeting agendas
>>>>>>>>     during the course of the events that week.
>>>>>>>>     Believe it or not, with one major exception, our planning
>>>>>>>>     timetable is still pretty consistent with the timing of the
>>>>>>>>     2013 meeting planning effort. The one area where we REALLY
>>>>>>>>     need your help is to provide as many traveler/delegate
>>>>>>>>     names as soon as  possible so that we can make sure that
>>>>>>>>     all intended travelers/delegates have reasonable travel
>>>>>>>>     schedules and any visas they may need to get into the U.S.
>>>>>>>>     for the meeting. Please provide that info to me as soon as
>>>>>>>>     possible so that we can maximize the use of our support
>>>>>>>>     resources for the meeting.
>>>>>>>>     Thank you all for your help and support of this planning
>>>>>>>>     effort!
>>>>>>>>     Best,
>>>>>>>>     Rob
>>>>>>>>     <Agenda - NCPH InterSessional (v1- 14Nov2014).docx>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Matthew Shears
>>>> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
>>>> mshears at cdt.org
>>>> + 44 771 247 2987
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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> (direct), 
> wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
> ***********************************************
>

-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141208/03bc6ef9/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Dec  8 10:50:21 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 17:50:21 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
In-Reply-To: <5485660F.8080103@cdt.org>
References: <18E31637-2DF6-4B8E-842A-40CB7FC9F8B5@uzh.ch>
	<E0B5E6C7-DFFC-439A-9702-C4702BE42565@gmail.com>
	<54745236.2040401@apc.org> <54746D8D.30704@cdt.org>
	<8ECC009F-9A88-49ED-A256-3F937C031F1A@gmail.com>
	<548495EE.6090005@apc.org>
	<844F7211-CBBC-44D8-A37D-75A96813D517@gmail.com>
	<5485660F.8080103@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmUwvR2qBVQTwF4RPTOmXQY3mUYXsSc6mhFfuGyhtrQJw@mail.gmail.com>

Yes

Rafik
On Dec 8, 2014 5:49 PM, "Matthew Shears" <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

>  Is the meeting going ahead?
>
> On 12/8/2014 8:02 AM, William Drake wrote:
>
> Joy would you be able to come to DC if we have an extra slot?
>
>  BD
>
>  On Dec 7, 2014, at 7:01 PM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
>
>  Hi Bill
> Thanks for your note on this - just wondering what other support or
> assitance you need for this now? Please just let us know.
>
> Joy
> On 26/11/2014 9:57 p.m., William Drake wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>  Thanks folks for the good suggestion.   It?s not clear we'd need to do
> this with the CSG since a) the 4 plenary slots look to be full, b) their
> forward looking agenda would be different from ours, and c) co-designing it
> this would turn into another protracted negotiation with our hydra-headed
> counterpart.  My suggestion would be that we do this amongst ourselves in
> one of the two time slots reserved for NCSG.  There are a number of other
> items we may also want to pack into those slots, e.g.
>
>  Procedural: dialogue on improving the functioning of NCSG
>
>  Substantive: discussions in various places led me to believe that people
> would like to talk about IANA and/or EWG and privacy.  CSG is not
> interested in either of these as plenary topics (although if we do the open
> fourth session I propose we could still raise some things to air views and
> see what they?ll say).
>
>  (Privacy was part of why I reach out to Rotenberg as a possibility for
> one of the three additional slots, along with Kathy K and another player
> TBD.  If we drop it probably he skips, whatever.  Or we could maybe do an
> outreach thing Wed where he?d fit.  Matt is there someone from CDT that
> might be interested in attending?)
>
>  Fadi: We need the man the morning of day 2 after he visits CSG.  I think
> it?s important that we are well prepared to lay out our concerns and seek
> concrete look me in the eye responses, otherwise he?ll fill the void and
> give us a speech like last time, when we learned that civil society is a
> bunch of crazies locked in the basement (seriously).  So really, unless we
> do it online prior, I?d suggest that the day 2 slot entail Fadi-prep.
> Which would mean packing everything else into the day one slot, and the
> constituency slots.
>
>  In any event: the participants (NCSG Councilors + 3 others from the PC,
> NCUC EC, NPOC EC) should have a dialogue about how they want to use those
> slots.
>
>  Bill
>
>  ***********************************************
> 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 (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************
>
>  On Nov 25, 2014, at 12:52 PM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>
>  Excellent idea - Rafik and I were just discussing the same.  Should we
> create some shareable doc to start the process?  Is there some more formal
> way of doing it within the PC?
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 11/25/2014 9:56 AM, joy wrote:
>
> Hi Bill - thanks a lot for sharing this - just wondering .... would it
> also be useful to do some kind of forward looking exercise to help
> planning? For example, mapping those new or emerging issues likely to
> impact on policy work in the 2015 as well as those spaces outside ICANN
> where SGs are planning to engage in 2015.
> Joy
>
>
> On 25/11/2014 10:02 p.m., William Drake wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>  Just to keep folks in the loop on discussions about January.  Any
> thoughts on any of the below?
>
>  Bill
>
>  Begin forwarded message:
>
> *Subject: **Re: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda*
>  *From: *William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>  *Date: *November 25, 2014 at 9:55:39 AM GMT+1
>  *Cc: *Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, Tony Holmes <
> tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>,
> "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, Marilyn Cade <
> marilynscade at hotmail.com>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org" <
> lori.schulman at ascd.org>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com>, Rafik
> Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net>,
> Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>, Brenda Brewer <
> brenda.brewer at icann.org>, Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org>,
> Stefania Milan <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>, William Drake <
> william.drake at uzh.ch>
>  *To: *"Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>
>
>  Hi
>
>   On Nov 25, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Metalitz, Steven <met at msk.com> wrote:
>
>  I second Bill?s thanks to Rob for this draft.
>
> I also think Bill?s suggestions re possible topics for the Monday AM
> sessions make sense.  Would be interested in others? views.
>
>
>  Yes, please
>
>
> Beyond accountability, one topic IPC would like to see addressed in the
> ?plenary? (perhaps on Tuesday afternoon) would be New gTLDs, which should
> include preparation for the AOC review as well as the other initiatives
> staff is undertaking.
>
>
> I don?t think EWG is a great topic for this meeting.  GNSO review
> certainly could be contentious but maybe good to start having that
> discussion here, as I see was discussed in dialogue between Bill and Tony
> earlier today.
>
>
>  Ok, so if I?m remembering the conversation correctly, the items
> suggested so far by more than one SG would be
>
>  1. Accountability
> 2. GNSO review including SG/C issues
> 3. In-house coordination as needed in light of past differences on board,
> GNSO VC, etc. (if we exhaust this topic quickly or hit a wall the remaining
> time could be spent on larger intra-GNSO dynamics, e.g. role of the Council
> in relation to the GNSO community, contracted/noncontracted, whatever)
>
>  And options suggested by one SG include
>
>  *IANA or EWG (NCSG)
> *New gTLDs and AOC (CSG)
>
>
> We need to build in a little flexibility to account for the possibility
> (likelihood?) that the House will want to ?revisit? on Tuesday one or more
> of the topics first broached on Monday.  For example, we might reach
> agreement in principle on something and ask a subgroup to draft a statement
> for discussion the next day.  In other words, best to frontload the plenary
> topics a bit so there is some extra time on Tuesday afternoon.
>
>
>  3 morning coffee thoughts:
>
>  *As the SGs have separate meetings in slots E and H, we?ll have chances
> to talk about items of less interest to the other SG.
>
>  *To leave time for Steve?s flexibility and accommodate any unfinished
> conversational threads or unaddressed items, why not leave the fourth slot
> unprogrammed, like a big AOB?  It?s only 90 minutes, and an open discussion
> opportunity would allow for reflections on the meeting and ensure nobody
> goes away feeling like they didn?t get to raise something they care about.
> Would be an integrative way to end the two days.
>
>  *Per previous I tend to think it better to lead off with items where
> there?s broad agreement and ease into topics that might be more difficult
> after people have been together a bit, which might suggest proceeding 1, 2,
> 3 above => 4 open/loose ends discussion.
>
>  Thoughts?
>
>  Other bits:
>
>  *Additional bodies: I believe we have agreed 3 per SG.  Personally, I
> would not designate them as ?observers?, if we are going to invite someone
> they shouldn?t be somehow marked as different and should be able to
> participate fully like anyone else.
>
>  *Lunch speakers: Per previous my suggestion would be to let people chat
> on the first day, and would strongly encourage people to sit intermingled
> rather than self-segregated into NCSG and CSG tables.  On the second day,
> we could do a) Larry; b) a less familiar-to-all beltway denizen, e.g. a
> Congressional or think tank poobah; or c) Fadi, who will have just met
> separately with the two SGs and might helpfully address us on an
> integrative basis thereafter.  I guess one also could argue it?d be  sort
> of bad form to not invite him to address us as group, no?
>
>  *Markus: I would suggest that he be asked to participate in Fadi?s Day 2
> discussions with the SGs so he can get more familiar with our respective
> concerns.
>
>  *?Day 3?: I asked yesterday if others are planning on doing any sort of
> outreach meeting Wednesday morning on a SG or constituency basis, if so I?d
> think we should do the same and would need to factor that into our planning
> soon as it could affect travel schedules etc.
>
>  Thanks
>
>  Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>  *From:* William Drake [mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> ]
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 15, 2014 9:35 AM
> *To:* Robert Hoggarth
> *Cc:* Tony Holmes; Elisa Cooper; rudi.vansnick at isoc.be; Marilyn Cade;
> lori.schulman at ascd.org; Kristina Rosette; Metalitz, Steven; Rafik Dammak;
> Jimson Olufuye; Maryam Bakoshi; Brenda Brewer; Benedetta Rossi; Stefania
> Milan; William Drake
> *Subject:* Re: For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
>
> Hello
>
>  Thanks Rob for moving us along.  Some initial reactions:
>
>  The overall schedule maps well with what we discussed.
>
>  Re: the Day 1 morning NCPH sessions, perhaps one option would be to lead
> with one on broader changes/conditions in the ICANN environment on which
> non-contracted would have broadly similar concerns, e.g.
> expansion/diversification of contracted parties and possible GNSO
> implications; and then do the second one on our intra-house dynamics and
> cooperation, e.g. conduct of elections etc.  In other words, lead off with
> shared stuff to get everyone acclimated and then ease into items on which
> we?ve struggled a bit?
>
>  Re: the Day 2 afternoon NCPH sessions, it sounded on the call like we
> all agreed on Accountability as a substantive discussion topic.  If I
> understood Steve correctly CSG would be less interested in talking about
> IANA stewardship in this context.  If so, perhaps EWG?  Or would we want to
> discuss the GNSO Review and structural issues in more detail?
>
>  I suppose the four NCPH sessions could be ordered a number of ways. We
> also could for ex hold the intra-house discussion for one of the Day 2
> slots, after folks have been spending time together and are warmed up etc?
>
>  Re: lunches,  on the first day, maybe we?d want more casual conversation
> opportunities? A speaker on the second day might be good, a beltway
> luminary of some sort?
>
>  Steve suggested expanding the head count a little so a few local
> community members could join.  As discussed, alternative considerations
> would be keeping the group size reasonably conversational and not being
> asymmetric.  Could we compromise on adding two heads per house?
>
>  I had a drink with Markus the other night and he didn?t know about the
> meeting, but he checked his schedule and is available.  I agree it?d be
> good to have him there so folks who aren?t could get acquainted.
>
>  Also, going forward, two process requests:
>
>  *Please include my NCUC EC colleague Stefania Milan on the Cc,
> Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu.  She is copied here.
>
>  *Please send to me at only one address, william.drake at uzh.ch, I don?t
> need copies of every message in both my accounts.
>
>  thanks much
>
>  Bill
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141208/18f0460f/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Dec  8 14:57:15 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 13:57:15 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Review Working Party : confirm representatives
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmNyFnGsj_Xx1sYfDNm5KWgeVLbmhO+vm5A8piuaLG5Mg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThmNyFnGsj_Xx1sYfDNm5KWgeVLbmhO+vm5A8piuaLG5Mg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CE71C59D-0600-459E-A8CA-3AED971FDFFE@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I?ve done a pretty bad job at following this group. If anyone would like to replace me on it, I?d appreciate it.

Thanks.

Amr

On Dec 8, 2014, at 4:58 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> Glen contacted me to confirm the representative at the GNSO Review working party. we got 5 representatives there.
> can we confirm them ?
> the group will resume working next month to review the report made from the survey.
> 
> Rafik
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: 2014-12-04 7:35 GMT+09:00
> Subject: FW: GNSO Review Working Party : confirm representatives
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>, Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll at gmail.com>, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>
> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> 
> 
> Dear Rafik,
> 
> The GNSO Review Working Party  is expected to reconvene later in December to review the initial findings. Would you please be so kind as to review and confirm your  representatives to this group by the latest 8 December 2014.
> 
> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (up to six members): 
> Avri Doria SOI
> Rafik Dammak SOI
> Amr Elsadr SOI
> Klaus Stoll SOI
> Rudi Vansnick SOI
> Thank you very much.
> Kind regards,
> 
> Glen
> 
>  
> 
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> http://gnso.icann.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/20141208/ebe38437/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Mon Dec  8 16:39:09 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 09:39:09 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Review Working Party : confirm representatives
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmNyFnGsj_Xx1sYfDNm5KWgeVLbmhO+vm5A8piuaLG5Mg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThmNyFnGsj_Xx1sYfDNm5KWgeVLbmhO+vm5A8piuaLG5Mg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5485B80D.9090807@mail.utoronto.ca>

If no-one else is interested in taking that last slot, I would like to 
volunteer.  Thanks for the reminder Rafik.
Stephanie Perrin
On 2014-12-07, 22:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Glen contacted me to confirm the representative at the GNSO Review 
> working party. we got 5 representatives there.
> can we confirm them ?
> the group will resume working next month to review the report made 
> from the survey.
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Glen de Saint G?ry* <Glen at icann.org <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
> Date: 2014-12-04 7:35 GMT+09:00
> Subject: FW: GNSO Review Working Party : confirm representatives
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org 
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org 
> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>, Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll at gmail.com 
> <mailto:kdrstoll at gmail.com>>, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 
> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>
> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>" 
> <gnso-secs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org>>, Glen de Saint G?ry 
> <Glen at icann.org <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
>
>
> Dear Rafik,
>
> The GNSO Review Working Party  is expected to reconvene later in 
> December to review the initial findings. Would you please be so kind 
> as to review and confirm your  representatives to this group by the 
> latest 8 December 2014.
>
>   * Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (up to six members):
>       o Avri Doria SOI
>         <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Avri+Doria+SOI>
>       o Rafik Dammak SOI
>         <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Rafik+Dammak+SOI>
>       o Amr Elsadr SOI
>         <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Amr+Elsadr+SOI>
>       o Klaus Stoll SOI
>         <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Klaus+Stoll+SOI>
>       o Rudi Vansnick SOI
>         <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Rudi+Vansnick+SOI>
>
> Thank you very much.
> Kind regards,
>
> Glen
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> *gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org <mailto:gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>*
> *http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.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/20141208/f88ebe3e/attachment.html>


From joy  Mon Dec  8 23:19:58 2014
From: joy (joy)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 10:19:58 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] For Review and Feedback -- Draft NCPH Meeting Agenda
In-Reply-To: <844F7211-CBBC-44D8-A37D-75A96813D517@gmail.com>
References: <18E31637-2DF6-4B8E-842A-40CB7FC9F8B5@uzh.ch>
	<E0B5E6C7-DFFC-439A-9702-C4702BE42565@gmail.com>
	<54745236.2040401@apc.org> <54746D8D.30704@cdt.org>
	<8ECC009F-9A88-49ED-A256-3F937C031F1A@gmail.com>
	<548495EE.6090005@apc.org>
	<844F7211-CBBC-44D8-A37D-75A96813D517@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <548615FE.90403@apc.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141209/3a1a91d6/attachment-0001.html>


From joy  Tue Dec  9 00:03:38 2014
From: joy (joy)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 11:03:38 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [urgent] PC chair election
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=epjHvRdXYxw_0-L6Gn-jmvC=TV1SVdxax8-LM+fMNUg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=epjHvRdXYxw_0-L6Gn-jmvC=TV1SVdxax8-LM+fMNUg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5486203A.4020403@apc.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141209/6026cb94/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Dec  9 04:03:06 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:03:06 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH Intersessional Planning - Draft Agenda Version
	3, 8 December
In-Reply-To: <D0ABB51B.24475%robert.hoggarth@icann.org>
References: <D0ABB51B.24475%robert.hoggarth@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkPTTwmXhRd46GNQp7iFKBC0-UmBqgis1rS=diYqV6pkQ@mail.gmail.com>

hi everyone,

here the latest version of the draft agenda for NCPH meeting.
please review it and suggest one topic for plenary session #3. btw we will
have co-chairs for each session.
we will have a NCSG session and we can use that as a strategical planning
for 2015 (issues mapping, prioritization etc). we should also start
thinking about the session we will have with Fadi and what topics we want
to discuss with him.

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>
Date: 2014-12-09 10:14 GMT+09:00
Subject: NCPH Intersessional Planning - Draft Agenda Version 3, 8 December
To: Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org>, "Metalitz, Steven" <
met at msk.com>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, Rafik Dammak <
rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, "
lori.schulman at ascd.org" <lori.schulman at ascd.org>, Kristina Rosette <
krosette at cov.com>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, Marilyn
Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>, Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net>,
"Milan, Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>, William Drake <
william.drake at uzh.ch>


Dear All,

Drawing from my notes and the transcript of last Friday's planning call,
attached please find the latest red-line version of the NCPH Intersessional
Meeting Draft agenda (v3-8 December).

I trust that I have captured the latest "gelling" of the agenda.  Please
help by making comments and offering suggested edits leading up to our next
call this Friday. Noting in the edits my hope that we will designate
plenary session co-chairs this week, please consider volunteering for the
panel topics that interest you the most.  First-come, first served seems an
appropriate way to resolve and duplicate co-chair offers.

Looking forward to your edits and comments and to talking with you all at
the end of the week.

Best,

Rob

From: Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org>
Date: Monday, December 8, 2014 1:52 PM
To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>, Tony Holmes <
tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, "
rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org" <
lori.schulman at ascd.org>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com>, "
elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com" <elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>, Marilyn Cade <
marilynscade at hotmail.com>, Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net>,
"Milan, Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>, William Drake <
william.drake at uzh.ch>
Cc: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>
Subject: NCPH Intersessional Planning Call - Dec. 12th 2014 at 14 UTC

Dear all,

Following the call on Friday, please save the date for the upcoming NCPH
Intersessional meeting planning call scheduled to take place on *Friday,
December 12th, 2014 at 14:00 UTC*. Please find the dial in details & Adobe
Connect link below.

Please find other time zones here: http://tinyurl.com/nxfvxs5

Adobe Connect room:*https://icann.adobeconnect.com/community-engagement/*
<https://icann.adobeconnect.com/community-engagement/>

Audio password: *NCPH*

Please let me know if you require a dial out.

*Dial in numbers:**Country**Toll Numbers*
*Freephone/Toll Free Number*
ARGENTINA0800-777-0519AUSTRALIAADELAIDE:61-8-8121-48421-800-657-260AUSTRALIA
BRISBANE:61-7-3102-09441-800-657-260AUSTRALIACANBERRA:61-2-6100-1944
1-800-657-260AUSTRALIAMELBOURNE:61-3-9010-77131-800-657-260AUSTRALIAPERTH:
61-8-9467-52231-800-657-260AUSTRALIASYDNEY:61-2-8205-81291-800-657-260
AUSTRIA43-1-92-81-1130800-005-259BELGIUM32-2-400-98610800-3-8795BRAZIL
0800-7610651CHILE1230-020-2863CHINACHINA A:86-400-810-478910800-712-1670
CHINACHINA B:86-400-810-478910800-120-1670COLOMBIA01800-9-156474CZECH
REPUBLIC420-2-25-98-56-64800-700-177DENMARK45-7014-02848088-8324ESTONIA
800-011-1093FINLAND358-9-5424-71620-800-9-14610FRANCELYON:33-4-26-69-12-85
080-511-1496FRANCEMARSEILLE:33-4-86-06-00-85080-511-1496FRANCEPARIS:
33-1-70-70-60-72080-511-1496GERMANY49-69-2222-203620800-664-4247GREECE
30-80-1-100-068700800-12-7312HONG KONG852-3001-3863800-962-856HUNGARY
06-800-12755INDIAINDIA A:000-800-852-1268INDIAINDIA
B:000-800-001-6305INDIAINDIA
C:1800-300-00491INDONESIA001-803-011-3982IRELAND353-1-246-76461800-992-368
ISRAEL1-80-9216162ITALYMILAN:39-02-3600-6007800-986-383JAPANOSAKA:
81-6-7739-47990066-33-132439JAPANTOKYO:81-3-5539-51910066-33-132439LATVIA
8000-3185LUXEMBOURG352-27-000-1364MALAYSIA1-800-81-3065MEXICO
001-866-376-9696NETHERLANDS31-20-718-85880800-023-4378NEW ZEALAND
64-9-970-47710800-447-722NORWAY47-21-590-062800-15157PANAMA
011-001-800-5072065PERU0800-53713PHILIPPINES63-2-858-3716POLAND
00-800-1212572PORTUGAL8008-14052RUSSIA8-10-8002-0144011SAUDI ARABIA
800-8-110087SINGAPORE65-6883-9230800-120-4663SLOVAK
REPUBLIC421-2-322-422-25SOUTH
AFRICA080-09-80414SOUTH KOREA82-2-6744-108300798-14800-7352SPAIN
34-91-414-25-33800-300-053SWEDEN46-8-566-19-3480200-884-622SWITZERLAND
41-44-580-63980800-120-032TAIWAN886-2-2795-737900801-137-797THAILAND
001-800-1206-66056UNITED KINGDOMBIRMINGHAM:44-121-210-90250808-238-6029UNITED
KINGDOMGLASGOW:44-141-202-32250808-238-6029UNITED KINGDOMLEEDS:
44-113-301-21250808-238-6029UNITED KINGDOMLONDON:44-20-7108-6370
0808-238-6029UNITED KINGDOMMANCHESTER:44-161-601-14250808-238-6029URUGUAY
000-413-598-3421USA1-517-345-9004866-692-5726VENEZUELA0800-1-00-3702


Thank you ever so much,

Kind regards,

Benedetta
--
*Benedetta Rossi*
*Community Engagement Support Coordinator*
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

*Email: *benedetta.rossi at icann.org
*Mobile:* +33.610.38.27.02
*Skype ID:* benedetta.rossi.icann
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141209/eda0e676/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Agenda - NCPH InterSessional (v3- 8Dec2014).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 114669 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141209/eda0e676/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5048 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141209/eda0e676/attachment-0001.p7s>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Dec  9 04:45:16 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 11:45:16 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Review Working Party : confirm representatives
In-Reply-To: <5485B80D.9090807@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CAH5sThmNyFnGsj_Xx1sYfDNm5KWgeVLbmhO+vm5A8piuaLG5Mg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5485B80D.9090807@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=P4hBXJW-uhmNH1W2wJ_-AvGkx_CBj2Lk6cE4fSrunvQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

ok, so we get:
- Avri Doria
- Rudi Vansnick
- Klaus Stoll
- Bill Drake
- Stephanie Perrin
- Rafik Dammak

if there is no objection by today, I will send the names to Glen.

Rafik


2014-12-08 23:39 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:

>  If no-one else is interested in taking that last slot, I would like to
> volunteer.  Thanks for the reminder Rafik.
> Stephanie Perrin
>
> On 2014-12-07, 22:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>  Glen contacted me to confirm the representative at the GNSO Review
> working party. we got 5 representatives there.
> can we confirm them ?
> the group will resume working next month to review the report made from
> the survey.
>
>  Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: 2014-12-04 7:35 GMT+09:00
> Subject: FW: GNSO Review Working Party : confirm representatives
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>, Amr
> Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>, Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll at gmail.com>, Rudi
> Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>
> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, Glen de Saint G?ry <
> Glen at icann.org>
>
>
>  Dear Rafik,
>
> The GNSO Review Working Party  is expected to reconvene later in December
> to review the initial findings. Would you please be so kind as to review
> and confirm your  representatives to this group by the latest 8 December
> 2014.
>
>    - Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (up to six members):
>       - Avri Doria SOI
>       <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Avri+Doria+SOI>
>       - Rafik Dammak SOI
>       <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Rafik+Dammak+SOI>
>       - Amr Elsadr SOI
>       <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Amr+Elsadr+SOI>
>       - Klaus Stoll SOI
>       <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Klaus+Stoll+SOI>
>       - Rudi Vansnick SOI
>       <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Rudi+Vansnick+SOI>
>
> Thank you very much.
> Kind regards,
>
> Glen
>
>
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> GNSO Secretariat
> *gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>*
> *http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>*
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://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/20141209/4764d9a2/attachment.html>


From mshears  Tue Dec  9 12:31:13 2014
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2014 10:31:13 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH Intersessional Planning - Draft Agenda
 Version 3, 8 December
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkPTTwmXhRd46GNQp7iFKBC0-UmBqgis1rS=diYqV6pkQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D0ABB51B.24475%robert.hoggarth@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThkPTTwmXhRd46GNQp7iFKBC0-UmBqgis1rS=diYqV6pkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5486CF71.8020000@cdt.org>

Just wondering if there isn't merit in agreeing some common issues to 
raise with Fadi and perhaps doing so in a plenary session? 
Accountability and globalization might be two issues...  Good that he 
hear common issues from across the NCPH?

On 12/9/2014 2:03 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> hi everyone,
>
> here the latest version of the draft agenda for NCPH meeting.
> please review it and suggest one topic for plenary session #3. btw we 
> will have co-chairs for each session.
> we will have a NCSG session and we can use that as a strategical 
> planning for 2015 (issues mapping, prioritization etc). we should also 
> start thinking about the session we will have with Fadi and what 
> topics we want to discuss with him.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: *Robert Hoggarth* <robert.hoggarth at icann.org 
> <mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>>
> Date: 2014-12-09 10:14 GMT+09:00
> Subject: NCPH Intersessional Planning - Draft Agenda Version 3, 8 December
> To: Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org 
> <mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.org>>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com 
> <mailto:met at msk.com>>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com 
> <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>, Rafik Dammak 
> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, 
> "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>" 
> <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, 
> "lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>" 
> <lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>>, Kristina 
> Rosette <krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, Elisa Cooper 
> <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>>, 
> Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com 
> <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>, Jimson Olufuye 
> <jolufuye at kontemporary.net <mailto:jolufuye at kontemporary.net>>, 
> "Milan, Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu 
> <mailto:Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch 
> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> Drawing from my notes and the transcript of last Friday's planning 
> call, attached please find the latest red-line version of the NCPH 
> Intersessional Meeting Draft agenda (v3-8 December).
>
> I trust that I have captured the latest "gelling" of the agenda.  
> Please help by making comments and offering suggested edits leading up 
> to our next call this Friday. Noting in the edits my hope that we will 
> designate plenary session co-chairs this week, please consider 
> volunteering for the panel topics that interest you the most. 
> First-come, first served seems an appropriate way to resolve and 
> duplicate co-chair offers.
>
> Looking forward to your edits and comments and to talking with you all 
> at the end of the week.
>
> Best,
>
> Rob
>
> From: Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org 
> <mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.org>>
> Date: Monday, December 8, 2014 1:52 PM
> To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>, Tony Holmes 
> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>, 
> Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, 
> "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>" 
> <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, 
> "lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>" 
> <lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>>, Kristina 
> Rosette <krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, 
> "elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com <mailto:elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>" 
> <elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com <mailto:elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>>, 
> Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com 
> <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>, Jimson Olufuye 
> <jolufuye at kontemporary.net <mailto:jolufuye at kontemporary.net>>, 
> "Milan, Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu 
> <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch 
> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
> Cc: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org 
> <mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>>
> Subject: NCPH Intersessional Planning Call - Dec. 12th 2014 at 14 UTC
>
> Dear all,
>
> Following the call on Friday, please save the date for the upcoming 
> NCPH Intersessional meeting planning call scheduled to take place on 
> *Friday, December 12th, 2014 at 14:00 UTC*. Please find the dial in 
> details & Adobe Connect link below.
>
> Please find other time zones here: http://tinyurl.com/nxfvxs5
>
> Adobe Connect room:_https://icann.adobeconnect.com/community-engagement/_
>
> Audio password: *NCPH*
>
> Please let me know if you require a dial out.
>
> *Dial in numbers:*
> *Country* 	
> 	*Toll Numbers* 	*Freephone/
> Toll Free Number*
>
>
> 	
> 	
> 	
> ARGENTINA 	
> 	
> 	0800-777-0519 <tel:0800-777-0519>
> AUSTRALIA 	ADELAIDE: 	61-8-8121-4842 	1-800-657-260
> AUSTRALIA 	BRISBANE: 	61-7-3102-0944 	1-800-657-260
> AUSTRALIA 	CANBERRA: 	61-2-6100-1944 	1-800-657-260
> AUSTRALIA 	MELBOURNE: 	61-3-9010-7713 	1-800-657-260
> AUSTRALIA 	PERTH: 	61-8-9467-5223 	1-800-657-260
> AUSTRALIA 	SYDNEY: 	61-2-8205-8129 	1-800-657-260
> AUSTRIA 	
> 	43-1-92-81-113 	0800-005-259
> BELGIUM 	
> 	32-2-400-9861 	0800-3-8795
> BRAZIL 	
> 	
> 	0800-7610651 <tel:0800-7610651>
> CHILE 	
> 	
> 	1230-020-2863
> CHINA 	CHINA A: 	86-400-810-4789 	10800-712-1670
> CHINA 	CHINA B: 	86-400-810-4789 	10800-120-1670
> COLOMBIA 	
> 	
> 	01800-9-156474
> CZECH REPUBLIC 	
> 	420-2-25-98-56-64 	800-700-177
> DENMARK 	
> 	45-7014-0284 	8088-8324
> ESTONIA 	
> 	
> 	800-011-1093
> FINLAND 	
> 	358-9-5424-7162 	0-800-9-14610
> FRANCE 	LYON: 	33-4-26-69-12-85 	080-511-1496
> FRANCE 	MARSEILLE: 	33-4-86-06-00-85 	080-511-1496
> FRANCE 	PARIS: 	33-1-70-70-60-72 	080-511-1496
> GERMANY 	
> 	49-69-2222-20362 	0800-664-4247 <tel:0800-664-4247>
> GREECE 	
> 	30-80-1-100-0687 	00800-12-7312
> HONG KONG 	
> 	852-3001-3863 	800-962-856
> HUNGARY 	
> 	
> 	06-800-12755
> INDIA 	INDIA A: 	
> 	000-800-852-1268
> INDIA 	INDIA B: 	
> 	000-800-001-6305
> INDIA 	INDIA C: 	
> 	1800-300-00491
> INDONESIA 	
> 	
> 	001-803-011-3982
> IRELAND 	
> 	353-1-246-7646 	1800-992-368
> ISRAEL 	
> 	
> 	1-80-9216162
> ITALY 	MILAN: 	39-02-3600-6007 	800-986-383
> JAPAN 	OSAKA: 	81-6-7739-4799 <tel:81-6-7739-4799> 	0066-33-132439
> JAPAN 	TOKYO: 	81-3-5539-5191 <tel:81-3-5539-5191> 	0066-33-132439
> LATVIA 	
> 	
> 	8000-3185
> LUXEMBOURG 	
> 	352-27-000-1364 	
> MALAYSIA 	
> 	
> 	1-800-81-3065
> MEXICO 	
> 	
> 	001-866-376-9696
> NETHERLANDS 	
> 	31-20-718-8588 	0800-023-4378 <tel:0800-023-4378>
> NEW ZEALAND 	
> 	64-9-970-4771 	0800-447-722
> NORWAY 	
> 	47-21-590-062 	800-15157
> PANAMA 	
> 	
> 	011-001-800-5072065
> PERU 	
> 	
> 	0800-53713
> PHILIPPINES 	
> 	63-2-858-3716 	
> POLAND 	
> 	
> 	00-800-1212572
> PORTUGAL 	
> 	
> 	8008-14052
> RUSSIA 	
> 	
> 	8-10-8002-0144011
> SAUDI ARABIA 	
> 	
> 	800-8-110087
> SINGAPORE 	
> 	65-6883-9230 	800-120-4663
> SLOVAK REPUBLIC 	
> 	421-2-322-422-25 	
> SOUTH AFRICA 	
> 	
> 	080-09-80414
> SOUTH KOREA 	
> 	82-2-6744-1083 	00798-14800-7352
> SPAIN 	
> 	34-91-414-25-33 	800-300-053
> SWEDEN 	
> 	46-8-566-19-348 	0200-884-622
> SWITZERLAND 	
> 	41-44-580-6398 	0800-120-032
> TAIWAN 	
> 	886-2-2795-7379 	00801-137-797
> THAILAND 	
> 	
> 	001-800-1206-66056
> UNITED KINGDOM 	BIRMINGHAM: 	44-121-210-9025 	0808-238-6029
> UNITED KINGDOM 	GLASGOW: 	44-141-202-3225 	0808-238-6029
> UNITED KINGDOM 	LEEDS: 	44-113-301-2125 	0808-238-6029
> UNITED KINGDOM 	LONDON: 	44-20-7108-6370 	0808-238-6029
> UNITED KINGDOM 	MANCHESTER: 	44-161-601-1425 	0808-238-6029
> URUGUAY 	
> 	
> 	000-413-598-3421
> USA 	
> 	1-517-345-9004 	866-692-5726
> VENEZUELA 	
> 	
> 	0800-1-00-3702
>
>
>
> Thank you ever so much,
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Benedetta
> --
> *Benedetta Rossi*
> /Community Engagement Support Coordinator/
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> *Email: *benedetta.rossi at icann.org <mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.org>
> *Mobile:* +33.610.38.27.02
> *Skype ID:* benedetta.rossi.icann
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141209/f1358a35/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Dec  9 12:36:17 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 19:36:17 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH Intersessional Planning - Draft Agenda
 Version 3, 8 December
In-Reply-To: <5486CF71.8020000@cdt.org>
References: <D0ABB51B.24475%robert.hoggarth@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThkPTTwmXhRd46GNQp7iFKBC0-UmBqgis1rS=diYqV6pkQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5486CF71.8020000@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThk-7RQjcuBKrXee2UZoX_dZ1pK7MQkPpDyQyZC+vyc7xQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Mattew,

for the session with Fadi, it will be SG. so we can raise any points to
discuss with him and so we can discuss about accountability and
globalization (the challenge for the latter is to avoid speech about new
hubs and offices). the other session with Fadi including CSG will a lunch
session. accountability is already part of agreed topic for plenary
session.

Rafik

2014-12-09 19:31 GMT+09:00 Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>:

>  Just wondering if there isn't merit in agreeing some common issues to
> raise with Fadi and perhaps doing so in a plenary session?  Accountability
> and globalization might be two issues...  Good that he hear common issues
> from across the NCPH?
>
>
> On 12/9/2014 2:03 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
>
>   hi everyone,
>
>  here the latest version of the draft agenda for NCPH meeting.
> please review it and suggest one topic for plenary session #3. btw we will
> have co-chairs for each session.
> we will have a NCSG session and we can use that as a strategical planning
> for 2015 (issues mapping, prioritization etc). we should also start
> thinking about the session we will have with Fadi and what topics we want
> to discuss with him.
>
>  Best,
>
>  Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>
> Date: 2014-12-09 10:14 GMT+09:00
> Subject: NCPH Intersessional Planning - Draft Agenda Version 3, 8 December
> To: Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org>, "Metalitz, Steven" <
> met at msk.com>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, Rafik Dammak <
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>,
> "lori.schulman at ascd.org" <lori.schulman at ascd.org>, Kristina Rosette <
> krosette at cov.com>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, Marilyn
> Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>, Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net>,
> "Milan, Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>, William Drake <
> william.drake at uzh.ch>
>
>
>  Dear All,
>
>  Drawing from my notes and the transcript of last Friday's planning call,
> attached please find the latest red-line version of the NCPH Intersessional
> Meeting Draft agenda (v3-8 December).
>
>  I trust that I have captured the latest "gelling" of the agenda.  Please
> help by making comments and offering suggested edits leading up to our next
> call this Friday. Noting in the edits my hope that we will designate
> plenary session co-chairs this week, please consider volunteering for the
> panel topics that interest you the most.  First-come, first served seems an
> appropriate way to resolve and duplicate co-chair offers.
>
>  Looking forward to your edits and comments and to talking with you all
> at the end of the week.
>
>  Best,
>
>  Rob
>
>  From: Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org>
> Date: Monday, December 8, 2014 1:52 PM
> To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>, Tony Holmes <
> tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, "
> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org" <
> lori.schulman at ascd.org>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com>, "
> elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com" <elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>, Marilyn
> Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>, Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net>,
> "Milan, Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>, William Drake <
> william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Cc: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>
> Subject: NCPH Intersessional Planning Call - Dec. 12th 2014 at 14 UTC
>
>    Dear all,
>
>  Following the call on Friday, please save the date for the upcoming NCPH
> Intersessional meeting planning call scheduled to take place on *Friday,
> December 12th, 2014 at 14:00 UTC*. Please find the dial in details &
> Adobe Connect link below.
>
>  Please find other time zones here: http://tinyurl.com/nxfvxs5
>
>  Adobe Connect room:*https://icann.adobeconnect.com/community-engagement/*
> <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/community-engagement/>
>
>  Audio password: *NCPH*
>
>  Please let me know if you require a dial out.
>
>   *Dial in numbers:*  *Country*
>  *Toll Numbers*
> *Freephone/ Toll Free Number*
>
>
>
>   ARGENTINA
>
>  0800-777-0519  AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260
> AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260  AUSTRALIA CANBERRA:
> 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260  AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713
> 1-800-657-260  AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260  AUSTRALIA
> SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260  AUSTRIA
>  43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259  BELGIUM
>  32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795  BRAZIL
>
>  0800-7610651  CHILE
>
>  1230-020-2863  CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670  CHINA CHINA
> B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670  COLOMBIA
>
>  01800-9-156474  CZECH REPUBLIC
>  420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177  DENMARK
>  45-7014-0284 8088-8324  ESTONIA
>
>  800-011-1093  FINLAND
>  358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610  FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496
> FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496  FRANCE PARIS:
> 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496  GERMANY
>  49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247  GREECE
>  30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312  HONG KONG
>  852-3001-3863 800-962-856  HUNGARY
>
>  06-800-12755  INDIA INDIA A:
>  000-800-852-1268  INDIA INDIA B:
>  000-800-001-6305  INDIA INDIA C:
>  1800-300-00491  INDONESIA
>
>  001-803-011-3982  IRELAND
>  353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368  ISRAEL
>
>  1-80-9216162  ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383  JAPAN OSAKA:
> 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439  JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439
> LATVIA
>
>  8000-3185  LUXEMBOURG
>  352-27-000-1364
>   MALAYSIA
>
>  1-800-81-3065  MEXICO
>
>  001-866-376-9696  NETHERLANDS
>  31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378  NEW ZEALAND
>  64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722  NORWAY
>  47-21-590-062 800-15157  PANAMA
>
>  011-001-800-5072065  PERU
>
>  0800-53713  PHILIPPINES
>  63-2-858-3716
>   POLAND
>
>  00-800-1212572  PORTUGAL
>
>  8008-14052  RUSSIA
>
>  8-10-8002-0144011  SAUDI ARABIA
>
>  800-8-110087  SINGAPORE
>  65-6883-9230 800-120-4663  SLOVAK REPUBLIC
>  421-2-322-422-25
>   SOUTH AFRICA
>
>  080-09-80414  SOUTH KOREA
>  82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352  SPAIN
>  34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053  SWEDEN
>  46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622  SWITZERLAND
>  41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032  TAIWAN
>  886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797  THAILAND
>
>  001-800-1206-66056  UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025
> 0808-238-6029  UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029  UNITED
> KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029  UNITED KINGDOM LONDON:
> 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029  UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425
> 0808-238-6029  URUGUAY
>
>  000-413-598-3421  USA
>  1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726  VENEZUELA
>
>  0800-1-00-3702
>
>
>  Thank you ever so much,
>
>  Kind regards,
>
>  Benedetta
>  --
> *Benedetta Rossi*
> *Community Engagement Support Coordinator*
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
>  *Email: *benedetta.rossi at icann.org
> *Mobile:* +33.610.38.27.02
> *Skype ID:* benedetta.rossi.icann
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> --
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+ 44 771 247 2987
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141209/a4749035/attachment-0001.html>


From wjdrake  Tue Dec  9 13:36:33 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 12:36:33 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH Intersessional Planning - Draft Agenda Version 3,
	8 December
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkPTTwmXhRd46GNQp7iFKBC0-UmBqgis1rS=diYqV6pkQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D0ABB51B.24475%robert.hoggarth@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThkPTTwmXhRd46GNQp7iFKBC0-UmBqgis1rS=diYqV6pkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5D668A72-1996-448E-870A-900E6520587F@gmail.com>

Hi

> On Dec 9, 2014, at 3:03 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> hi everyone,
> 
> here the latest version of the draft agenda for NCPH meeting.
> please review it and suggest one topic for plenary session #3. btw we will have co-chairs for each session.
> we will have a NCSG session and we can use that as a strategical planning for 2015 (issues mapping, prioritization etc). we should also start thinking about the session we will have with Fadi and what topics we want to discuss with him.

Rob?s trying to accommodate CSG by squeezing mercilessly, don?t know if it works to do accountability and GNSO review both in session 1.  But interesting to see he?s added "Discussion of possible pre-ICANN 53 meeting conference.? to the next session, so in lieu of a direct response I gather that applying for the funding is possible.

Just by way of background since I?ve not mentioned to others, below is the suggestion I made.  CSG so far supports, just need to hear from IPC today.

Bill

???????



> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
> Subject: NCPH conference in BA?
> Date: December 7, 2014 at 11:37:31 AM GMT+1
> Cc: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>, Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> To: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org" <lori.schulman at ascd.org>, "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette at cov.com>, Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org>, Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org>, Stefania Milan <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>
> 
> Hi
> 
> Over morning coffee a random out of the box idea has floated through my head.  I would have sent this to the utterly under-utilized gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org <mailto:gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org> list but I?m not sure who is subscribed there at this point; for some strange reason, only the sysadmin can see the subscriber list.  I see in my saved messages that Glen sent a message 28 February listing subscribers at that time and it seems to be populated more by last year?s Councilors than chairs and VCs.  So I?m redeploying the DC planning Cc (and re-adding Stefi Milan, who it seems was being left off a number of recent messages, and David and Glen FTI).
> 
> So: just a thought.  The FY15 budget allocation includes $33,300 for Pre-public Meeting Seminars.  This is described by staff as follows:
> 
> These types of efforts have proven to be quite useful and popular to the community in  the past. One "conference" slot and room support available for an ICANN community to  host a pre-Public Meeting policy conference before each ICANN Public Meeting in FY15.  To be developed by ICANN staff based on previous NCUC (San Francisco and Singapore)  model. To the extent demand exceeds supply, conference slots will be initially selected by  lottery and rotated among community groups as appropriate.
> 
> (I don?t know why NCUC?s day-long Toronto conference didn?t get a mention too, but whatever).  
> 
> To my knowledge at least, nobody has applied for these funds. It would be a pity to let them go to waste, which presumably would make it harder to justify including such an allocation in future budgets.  And there is certainly a lot to talk about of interest to the community.  NCUC?s Singapore meeting on NETmundial preparations played to a packed house from beginning to end, and the prior ones were pretty full too.
> 
> It would be relatively easy (if massively time consuming) for me to organize another NCUC-led meeting, but staff?s idea here was spread the engagement.  So I?m wondering: what about submitting a proposal for a NCPH-led conference in Buenos Aires?  It could be, in effect, on ICANN Beyond the DNS Industry?concerns of commercial and noncommercial users in the context of new gTLDs, the changing internal composition of the community, etc.  It could e.g. mix a couple panel sessions with a couple structured open dialogue sessions.  Each could be jointly planned and personned, or alternatively the program could be divided and the respective groups organize sessions of particular interest to them.  Lots of configurations possible, any of which could have the positive externality of enhancing communication and collaboration amongst our tribes as well.
> 
> Is this a crazy idea I should abandon forthwith, or something we might like to think about, including with respect to the DC meeting?
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141209/d74c1b59/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Dec  9 14:32:55 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 13:32:55 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Review Working Party : confirm representatives
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=P4hBXJW-uhmNH1W2wJ_-AvGkx_CBj2Lk6cE4fSrunvQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThmNyFnGsj_Xx1sYfDNm5KWgeVLbmhO+vm5A8piuaLG5Mg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5485B80D.9090807@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sTh=P4hBXJW-uhmNH1W2wJ_-AvGkx_CBj2Lk6cE4fSrunvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EC4769DA-FD4E-4657-867D-7B4532F66936@egyptig.org>

Seems like a good team. Good luck to you all.

Thanks.

Amr

On Dec 9, 2014, at 3:45 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> ok, so we get:
> - Avri Doria
> - Rudi Vansnick
> - Klaus Stoll
> - Bill Drake
> - Stephanie Perrin
> - Rafik Dammak
> 
> if there is no objection by today, I will send the names to Glen.
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> 2014-12-08 23:39 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:
> If no-one else is interested in taking that last slot, I would like to volunteer.  Thanks for the reminder Rafik.
> Stephanie Perrin
> 
> On 2014-12-07, 22:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> Glen contacted me to confirm the representative at the GNSO Review working party. we got 5 representatives there.
>> can we confirm them ?
>> the group will resume working next month to review the report made from the survey.
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>> Date: 2014-12-04 7:35 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: FW: GNSO Review Working Party : confirm representatives
>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>, Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll at gmail.com>, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>
>> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Rafik,
>> 
>> The GNSO Review Working Party  is expected to reconvene later in December to review the initial findings. Would you please be so kind as to review and confirm your  representatives to this group by the latest 8 December 2014.
>> 
>> Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (up to six members): 
>> Avri Doria SOI
>> Rafik Dammak SOI
>> Amr Elsadr SOI
>> Klaus Stoll SOI
>> Rudi Vansnick SOI
>> Thank you very much.
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> Glen
>> 
>>  
>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>> GNSO Secretariat
>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>> http://gnso.icann.org
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141209/63662a84/attachment-0001.html>


From joy  Tue Dec  9 16:11:18 2014
From: joy (joy)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 03:11:18 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH Intersessional Planning - Draft Agenda
 Version 3, 8 December
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkPTTwmXhRd46GNQp7iFKBC0-UmBqgis1rS=diYqV6pkQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D0ABB51B.24475%robert.hoggarth@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThkPTTwmXhRd46GNQp7iFKBC0-UmBqgis1rS=diYqV6pkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54870306.20708@apc.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141210/ebdf97d5/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Dec 10 09:37:35 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 16:37:35 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights
In-Reply-To: <fe017f4305384eb1b4b1a6c4957773fc@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <fe017f4305384eb1b4b1a6c4957773fc@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkz7bor56pcXjGSxS0bunbA1Ohq9n9nSX7Z94yfnB7P=Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

We got this request for input from the working group, I guess we have
positions about impact on UDRP and URS.

Rafik
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Glen de Saint G?ry" <Glen at icann.org>
Date: Dec 10, 2014 8:25 AM
Subject: Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights
To: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Cc: "Glen de Saint G?ry" <Glen at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <
gnso-secs at icann.org>, "Steve Chan" <steve.chan at icann.org>



Dear Rafik,



On behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG Co--?Chairs) of the PDP
IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG we request your
input on:

(1) Whether the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and/or the Uniform
Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) should be amended, and if so, how; or



(2) Whether a separate, narrowly-tailored dispute resolution procedure
modeled on the UDRP and/or the URS should be developed, in either case to
address the specific needs and concerns of International Governmental
Organizations (IGOs) and/or International Non-Governmental Organizations
(INGOs).

Please see the attached document for full details.



Thank you very much.

Kind regards,



Glen

Glen de Saint G?ry

GNSO Secretariat

gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org

http://gnso.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141210/5a3a89c3/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ICANN-IGO-Letter to GNSO SG Cs for initial input-Final_draft.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 131574 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141210/5a3a89c3/attachment-0001.pdf>


From aelsadr  Wed Dec 10 12:32:17 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 11:32:17 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkz7bor56pcXjGSxS0bunbA1Ohq9n9nSX7Z94yfnB7P=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fe017f4305384eb1b4b1a6c4957773fc@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sThkz7bor56pcXjGSxS0bunbA1Ohq9n9nSX7Z94yfnB7P=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0D6A440E-87A4-42F6-91CA-2CF03DF5B42E@egyptig.org>

Rafik,

Could you fwd this to the NCSG-Discuss list? There are several NCSG members who are on this WG, but not members of the PC. Their input would be extremely valuable.

Thanks.

Amr

On Dec 10, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> We got this request for input from the working group, I guess we have positions about impact on UDRP and URS.
> 
> Rafik
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Glen de Saint G?ry" <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: Dec 10, 2014 8:25 AM
> Subject: Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights
> To: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Glen de Saint G?ry" <Glen at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, "Steve Chan" <steve.chan at icann.org>
> 
>  
> 
> Dear Rafik,
> 
>  
> 
> On behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG Co--?Chairs) of the PDP IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG we request your input on:
> 
> (1) Whether the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and/or the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) should be amended, and if so, how; or
> 
>  
> 
> (2) Whether a separate, narrowly-tailored dispute resolution procedure modeled on the UDRP and/or the URS should be developed, in either case to address the specific needs and concerns of International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and/or International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs).
> 
> Please see the attached document for full details.
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you very much.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Glen
> 
> Glen de Saint G?ry
> 
> GNSO Secretariat
> 
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> 
> http://gnso.icann.org
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> <ICANN-IGO-Letter to GNSO SG Cs for initial input-Final_draft.pdf>_______________________________________________
> 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/20141210/a43cc459/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Dec 10 15:54:25 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 22:54:25 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] GNSO Review Working Party NCSG representatives confirmed
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnVhehwhq8+YLqx9EgF2NmhdD-vfAbrdP1fF2nZnnzg_A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

seeing no objections, I will send those names to Glen to confirm them as
NCSG representatives to GNSO review working party.
- Avri Doria
- Rudi Vansnick
- Klaus Stoll
- Bill Drake
- Stephanie Perrin
- Rafik Dammak
Thanks,

Best Regards,

Rafik


2014-12-09 11:45 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> ok, so we get:
> - Avri Doria
> - Rudi Vansnick
> - Klaus Stoll
> - Bill Drake
> - Stephanie Perrin
> - Rafik Dammak
>
> if there is no objection by today, I will send the names to Glen.
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2014-12-08 23:39 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:
>
>>  If no-one else is interested in taking that last slot, I would like to
>> volunteer.  Thanks for the reminder Rafik.
>> Stephanie Perrin
>>
>> On 2014-12-07, 22:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>>  Glen contacted me to confirm the representative at the GNSO Review
>> working party. we got 5 representatives there.
>> can we confirm them ?
>> the group will resume working next month to review the report made from
>> the survey.
>>
>>  Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>> Date: 2014-12-04 7:35 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: FW: GNSO Review Working Party : confirm representatives
>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>,
>> Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>, Klaus Stoll <kdrstoll at gmail.com>, Rudi
>> Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>
>> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, Glen de Saint G?ry <
>> Glen at icann.org>
>>
>>
>>  Dear Rafik,
>>
>> The GNSO Review Working Party  is expected to reconvene later in December
>> to review the initial findings. Would you please be so kind as to review
>> and confirm your  representatives to this group by the latest 8 December
>> 2014.
>>
>>    - Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (up to six members):
>>       - Avri Doria SOI
>>       <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Avri+Doria+SOI>
>>       - Rafik Dammak SOI
>>       <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Rafik+Dammak+SOI>
>>       - Amr Elsadr SOI
>>       <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Amr+Elsadr+SOI>
>>       - Klaus Stoll SOI
>>       <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Klaus+Stoll+SOI>
>>       - Rudi Vansnick SOI
>>       <https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Rudi+Vansnick+SOI>
>>
>> Thank you very much.
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Glen
>>
>>
>>
>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>> GNSO Secretariat
>> *gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>*
>> *http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://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/20141210/b71adba6/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Dec 10 16:41:35 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:41:35 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] NCSG comments on IANA transition plan
In-Reply-To: <5b82820e63014972b5ca2af694f56555@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <5b82820e63014972b5ca2af694f56555@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmdYskwurg+DPwNz6dwnCGo9WXm7p2jLCFS45uwKtx-3A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Milton,

Thanks for the reminder and drafting, hopefully we can get the clean
version and resolve all comments. and yes members should take a look there.
since we have 15th Dec as deadline (next monday), NCSG policy committee
will have to act swiftly and endorse the statement in due time

Best,

Rafik

2014-12-10 1:01 GMT+09:00 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:

> Dear NCSG members:
> The document containing our response to the CWG-IANA draft plan has been
> taking shape; thanks a lot to Matthew, Amr, Brenden, Seun and Joy.
> Take a look at the more finished document. We need to submit comments by
> December 15.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14mDNLW17CJ_7rHSprzSAW90jhzPjlMiJf8qkbRM_Lek/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Milton L. Mueller
> Laura J. and L. Douglas Meredith Professor
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/mueller/Home.html
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141210/133f5813/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Dec 11 15:13:12 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 22:13:12 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights
In-Reply-To: <0D6A440E-87A4-42F6-91CA-2CF03DF5B42E@egyptig.org>
References: <fe017f4305384eb1b4b1a6c4957773fc@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sThkz7bor56pcXjGSxS0bunbA1Ohq9n9nSX7Z94yfnB7P=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<0D6A440E-87A4-42F6-91CA-2CF03DF5B42E@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=6hh3Uzj8n=FCPLb20EhXBc7S7h7EFQMCyStkXoL_rfA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

shared but I would expect some discussion here and there to help members to
understand the issue.

Rafik

2014-12-10 19:32 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Rafik,
>
> Could you fwd this to the NCSG-Discuss list? There are several NCSG
> members who are on this WG, but not members of the PC. Their input would be
> extremely valuable.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Dec 10, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> We got this request for input from the working group, I guess we have
> positions about impact on UDRP and URS.
>
> Rafik
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Glen de Saint G?ry" <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: Dec 10, 2014 8:25 AM
> Subject: Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights
> To: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Cc: "Glen de Saint G?ry" <Glen at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <
> gnso-secs at icann.org>, "Steve Chan" <steve.chan at icann.org>
>
>
>
> Dear Rafik,
>
>
>
> On behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG Co--?Chairs) of the PDP
> IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG we request your
> input on:
>
> (1) Whether the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and/or the
> Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) should be amended, and if so, how;
> or
>
>
>
> (2) Whether a separate, narrowly-tailored dispute resolution procedure
> modeled on the UDRP and/or the URS should be developed, in either case to
> address the specific needs and concerns of International Governmental
> Organizations (IGOs) and/or International Non-Governmental Organizations
> (INGOs).
>
> Please see the attached document for full details.
>
>
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Glen
>
> Glen de Saint G?ry
>
> GNSO Secretariat
>
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>
> http://gnso.icann.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    <ICANN-IGO-Letter to GNSO SG Cs for initial input-Final_draft.pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141211/4e33533a/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Thu Dec 11 16:01:03 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:01:03 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=6hh3Uzj8n=FCPLb20EhXBc7S7h7EFQMCyStkXoL_rfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <fe017f4305384eb1b4b1a6c4957773fc@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sThkz7bor56pcXjGSxS0bunbA1Ohq9n9nSX7Z94yfnB7P=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<0D6A440E-87A4-42F6-91CA-2CF03DF5B42E@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=6hh3Uzj8n=FCPLb20EhXBc7S7h7EFQMCyStkXoL_rfA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <992AE6F4-BB4E-4FC5-BB5A-0172D9541D35@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Yeah, I?m one who needs help understanding this issue. I know it?s been going on for years, and it always seemed like a really complex issue that I?ve managed to remain clueless about. It keeps coming back. :)

Thanks for sharing it. I?d appreciate as much insight as possible from those presently (and previously) directly involved.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Dec 11, 2014, at 2:13 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Hi Amr,
> 
> shared but I would expect some discussion here and there to help members to understand the issue.
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 2014-12-10 19:32 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
> Rafik,
> 
> Could you fwd this to the NCSG-Discuss list? There are several NCSG members who are on this WG, but not members of the PC. Their input would be extremely valuable.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Dec 10, 2014, at 8:37 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> We got this request for input from the working group, I guess we have positions about impact on UDRP and URS.
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Glen de Saint G?ry" <Glen at icann.org>
>> Date: Dec 10, 2014 8:25 AM
>> Subject: Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights
>> To: "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> Cc: "Glen de Saint G?ry" <Glen at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>, "Steve Chan" <steve.chan at icann.org>
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Dear Rafik,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On behalf of Philip Corwin & Petter Rindforth (WG Co--?Chairs) of the PDP IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms WG we request your input on:
>> 
>> (1) Whether the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and/or the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) should be amended, and if so, how; or
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> (2) Whether a separate, narrowly-tailored dispute resolution procedure modeled on the UDRP and/or the URS should be developed, in either case to address the specific needs and concerns of International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and/or International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs).
>> 
>> Please see the attached document for full details.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thank you very much.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Glen
>> 
>> Glen de Saint G?ry
>> 
>> GNSO Secretariat
>> 
>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>> 
>> http://gnso.icann.org
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> <ICANN-IGO-Letter to GNSO SG Cs for initial input-Final_draft.pdf>_______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141211/ac0ad011/attachment.html>


From lanfran  Thu Dec 11 20:09:53 2014
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 13:09:53 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Request for Input: IGO/INGO Curative Rights
In-Reply-To: <992AE6F4-BB4E-4FC5-BB5A-0172D9541D35@egyptig.org>
References: <fe017f4305384eb1b4b1a6c4957773fc@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>	<CAH5sThkz7bor56pcXjGSxS0bunbA1Ohq9n9nSX7Z94yfnB7P=Q@mail.gmail.com>	<0D6A440E-87A4-42F6-91CA-2CF03DF5B42E@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sTh=6hh3Uzj8n=FCPLb20EhXBc7S7h7EFQMCyStkXoL_rfA@mail.gmail.com>
	<992AE6F4-BB4E-4FC5-BB5A-0172D9541D35@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5489DDF1.6030408@yorku.ca>

////Policy Committee Colleagues,

I am newer to this issue than Amr, but I too am having trouble getting 
my head around the relationship between the issues and proposed Curative 
Rights Protection Mechanisms. Part of what I will call "my confusion" 
has to do with the issues themselves. Indulge me for a few lines while I 
expand on that point by reference to two related but different policy 
issues on the table for discussion within NPOC.

The first has to do with pending European Community revisions to its 
trademark regulations, revisions that could expose not-for-profit and 
civil society organizations to litigation should their domain names 
contain parts that are related to trademarks. In particular that 
involves the following propose regulation language prohibiting: "Using 
the sign as a trade or company name [...], /or as a domain name, or as a 
part thereof."/. I won't expand on this here but we are working with the 
IP constituency that also sees this as problematic. My point here is 
that this is a real issue in the DNS space, but has nothing to do with 
either ICANN or curative rights protection mechanisms. It has to do with 
propose EC changes to its regulations and stakeholder strategies are 
correctly being focused in that direction.

The second has to do with the issues around the .health gTLD and similar 
regulated professions and sectors gTLDs. I have worked with the global 
health community for years. I have advised them on how to get their 
voices heard in the discussions around .health. This has been fought out 
within the gTLD round, is of concern in the GAC, and ALAC has recently 
asked for a moratorium on such gTLDs.

The global health community contains a multitude of not-for-profit and 
civil society organizations. The .health issue on the table for 
discussion within NPOC. Analysis suggests that literally all of the 
global health constituency concerns about .health will exist, with or 
without a .health gTLD, and independent of whether the registry belongs 
to an LLC or possibly the WHO.  Again, while these are real issues to 
the users of the DNS space, dealing with them has little to do with 
ICANN or curative rights protection mechanisms. Strategies for dealing 
with them have to be directed elsewhere and built by stakeholders within 
the constituency.

Back to Amr's comments, is there a good description somewhere of the 
extent to which the IGO/INGO DNS space concerns are issues that can be 
address with curative rights protection mechanisms? To what extent 
should the issues, while endemic to the IGO/INGO spaces in Internet 
ecosystem, be addressed outside ICANN and its curative rights protection 
mechanisms?

Sam L., Chair, NPOC Policy Committee//

On 11/12/2014 9:01 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:///
/
> /Hi,/
> /Yeah, I'm one who needs help understanding this issue. I know it's 
> been going on for years, and it always seemed like a really complex 
> issue that I've managed to remain clueless about. It keeps coming 
> back. :)/
> /Thanks for sharing it. I'd appreciate as much insight as possible 
> from those presently (and previously) directly involved./
> /Thanks again./
> /Amr/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141211/4b954fc9/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Sat Dec 13 16:58:54 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 15:58:54 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [urgent] PC chair election
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=epjHvRdXYxw_0-L6Gn-jmvC=TV1SVdxax8-LM+fMNUg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=epjHvRdXYxw_0-L6Gn-jmvC=TV1SVdxax8-LM+fMNUg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E07B5E6E-ADFF-471E-81D2-0685B56C4F41@egyptig.org>

Hi Rafik and all,

Don?t want a second nomination period to expire with no one stepping up, so I?m going to volunteer to chair the PC for the next year. I?d be glad if others are also nominated or nominate themselves.

Thanks.

Amr

On Dec 8, 2014, at 5:58 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> there was no response to my email. so I guess I should amend the timeline and start the process this week.
> 
> - nominations starting from Friday 12th Dec, 00:00UTC until Tuesday 16th 23:59UTC
> - candidates confirming their nomination in Wednesday
> - Starting the election from Thursday 18th December 00:00UTC  until Wednesday 24th December 23:59 UTC.
> - Thursday 25th December, publishing the results and new PC chair term starts
> 
> lets get the new PC chair before the end of the year so s/he can prepare for next year and set a plan.
> 
> for the voting we can use doodle poll to be setup by Maryam and sent to eligible voters.
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Date: 2014-11-25 13:04 GMT+09:00
> Subject: [urgent] PC chair election
> To: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> 
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> As discussed it is time to get the election of new chair done.
> 
> For the vote, we have as eligible voters:
> - 6 councillors 
> - 2 NCUC reps, 2 NPOC reps
> - NCSG chair.
> 
> As timeline I would suggest:
> - nominations starting from Friday  28th Nov, 00:00UTC until Tuesday 2nd 23:59UTC
> - candidates confirming the nomination in Wednesday
> - Starting the election from Thursday 4th December 00:00UTC  until Monday 8th December 23:59 UTC.
> - Tuesday 9th December new PC chair term starts
> 
> nominees should be from the the eligible members.
> 
> if there is any objection or suggestion , please do by this Thursday so we can make amendments quickly.
> 
> For the vice-chair or alt-chair it is up to PC to decide about having such position or not.
> 
> whoever will be elected, s/he has a critical role to let the PC work and ensure that things are done. I see some stuff to be handled asap by the PC chair like :
> thinking about some prioritization work for the coming months, moving from reactive to proactive mode, improving PC working methods . 
> As NCSG chair, I can commit to provide assistance and support.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141213/457b8503/attachment.html>


From lanfran  Sat Dec 13 18:08:30 2014
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 11:08:30 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [urgent] PC chair election
In-Reply-To: <E07B5E6E-ADFF-471E-81D2-0685B56C4F41@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sTh=epjHvRdXYxw_0-L6Gn-jmvC=TV1SVdxax8-LM+fMNUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E07B5E6E-ADFF-471E-81D2-0685B56C4F41@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <548C647E.7080001@yorku.ca>

All,

I will support Amr's self-nomination for the position of Chair of the PC 
for the next year.
I am willing to assist Amr if he wishes to call on me for certain tasks.
I am swamped with Internet ecosystem work at the moment, both within the 
ICANN orbit and beyond.

Sam L.

On 13/12/2014 9:58 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi Rafik and all,
>
> Don't want a second nomination period to expire with no one stepping 
> up, so I'm going to volunteer to chair the PC for the next year. I'd 
> be glad if others are also nominated or nominate themselves.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141213/e3af2173/attachment.html>


From wjdrake  Sat Dec 13 19:38:10 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2014 18:38:10 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [urgent] PC chair election
In-Reply-To: <E07B5E6E-ADFF-471E-81D2-0685B56C4F41@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sTh=epjHvRdXYxw_0-L6Gn-jmvC=TV1SVdxax8-LM+fMNUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E07B5E6E-ADFF-471E-81D2-0685B56C4F41@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CE10DE76-595F-404C-9F10-DDB13AC92B2D@gmail.com>

Hi

Sorry Amr, I nominated you on a monthly call held before the formal PC process started and then forgot about the latter.  So I therefore second your nomination, even if it?s not required :-)

Bill

> On Dec 13, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:
> 
> Hi Rafik and all,
> 
> Don?t want a second nomination period to expire with no one stepping up, so I?m going to volunteer to chair the PC for the next year. I?d be glad if others are also nominated or nominate themselves.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Dec 8, 2014, at 5:58 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
> 
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> there was no response to my email. so I guess I should amend the timeline and start the process this week.
>> 
>> - nominations starting from Friday 12th Dec, 00:00UTC until Tuesday 16th 23:59UTC
>> - candidates confirming their nomination in Wednesday
>> - Starting the election from Thursday 18th December 00:00UTC  until Wednesday 24th December 23:59 UTC.
>> - Thursday 25th December, publishing the results and new PC chair term starts
>> 
>> lets get the new PC chair before the end of the year so s/he can prepare for next year and set a plan.
>> 
>> for the voting we can use doodle poll to be setup by Maryam and sent to eligible voters.
>> 
>> Rafik 
>> 
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>> Date: 2014-11-25 13:04 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: [urgent] PC chair election
>> To: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>>
>> 
>> 
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> As discussed it is time to get the election of new chair done.
>> 
>> For the vote, we have as eligible voters:
>> - 6 councillors 
>> - 2 NCUC reps, 2 NPOC reps
>> - NCSG chair.
>> 
>> As timeline I would suggest:
>> - nominations starting from Friday  28th Nov, 00:00UTC until Tuesday 2nd 23:59UTC
>> - candidates confirming the nomination in Wednesday
>> - Starting the election from Thursday 4th December 00:00UTC  until Monday 8th December 23:59 UTC.
>> - Tuesday 9th December new PC chair term starts
>> 
>> nominees should be from the the eligible members.
>> 
>> if there is any objection or suggestion , please do by this Thursday so we can make amendments quickly.
>> 
>> For the vice-chair or alt-chair it is up to PC to decide about having such position or not.
>> 
>> whoever will be elected, s/he has a critical role to let the PC work and ensure that things are done. I see some stuff to be handled asap by the PC chair like :
>> thinking about some prioritization work for the coming months, moving from reactive to proactive mode, improving PC working methods . 
>> As NCSG chair, I can commit to provide assistance and support.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141213/a42c50d2/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Dec 15 06:01:58 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:01:58 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on CCWG on IANA stewardship transition
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnCtU7hGp0a6KaVOWdbRsPefuHaqH14g5vR+KCi2K3jkw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

we have 1 week before the deadline to submit NCSG comment (
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14mDNLW17CJ_7rHSprzSAW90jhzPjlMiJf8qkbRM_Lek
) regarding the CCWG on IANA transition proposal. The active NCSG members
in that WG worked in the statement and resolved the comments . The draft
statement was  also shared in NCSG list for membership review.

it is time that PC members review it for endorsement , acting as interim PC
chair I will make the calls for consensus soon.

Best,

Rafik

for reference please find the draft proposal here
https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-01-en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141215/59c55495/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Dec 15 06:08:48 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:08:48 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [urgent] PC chair election
In-Reply-To: <E07B5E6E-ADFF-471E-81D2-0685B56C4F41@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sTh=epjHvRdXYxw_0-L6Gn-jmvC=TV1SVdxax8-LM+fMNUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E07B5E6E-ADFF-471E-81D2-0685B56C4F41@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnMHs3rWEa0ukViCYMivQJF3ZZVdCAaapNZHMVFSysvSg@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Amr,

Rafik

2014-12-13 23:58 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>
> Hi Rafik and all,
>
> Don?t want a second nomination period to expire with no one stepping up,
> so I?m going to volunteer to chair the PC for the next year. I?d be glad if
> others are also nominated or nominate themselves.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Dec 8, 2014, at 5:58 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> there was no response to my email. so I guess I should amend the timeline
> and start the process this week.
>
> - nominations starting from Friday 12th Dec, 00:00UTC until Tuesday 16th
> 23:59UTC
> - candidates confirming their nomination in Wednesday
> - Starting the election from Thursday 18th December 00:00UTC  until
> Wednesday 24th December 23:59 UTC.
> - Thursday 25th December, publishing the results and new PC chair term
> starts
>
> lets get the new PC chair before the end of the year so s/he can prepare
> for next year and set a plan.
>
> for the voting we can use doodle poll to be setup by Maryam and sent to
> eligible voters.
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Date: 2014-11-25 13:04 GMT+09:00
> Subject: [urgent] PC chair election
> To: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> As discussed it is time to get the election of new chair done.
>
> For the vote, we have as eligible voters:
> - 6 councillors
> - 2 NCUC reps, 2 NPOC reps
> - NCSG chair.
>
> As timeline I would suggest:
> - nominations starting from Friday  28th Nov, 00:00UTC until Tuesday 2nd
> 23:59UTC
> - candidates confirming the nomination in Wednesday
> - Starting the election from Thursday 4th December 00:00UTC  until Monday
> 8th December 23:59 UTC.
> - Tuesday 9th December new PC chair term starts
>
> nominees should be from the the eligible members.
>
> if there is any objection or suggestion , please do by this Thursday so we
> can make amendments quickly.
>
> For the vice-chair or alt-chair it is up to PC to decide about having such
> position or not.
>
> whoever will be elected, s/he has a critical role to let the PC work and
> ensure that things are done. I see some stuff to be handled asap by the PC
> chair like :
> thinking about some prioritization work for the coming months, moving from
> reactive to proactive mode, improving PC working methods .
> As NCSG chair, I can commit to provide assistance and support.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141215/139bf6fd/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Dec 15 06:11:07 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:11:07 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [urgent] PC chair election
In-Reply-To: <548C647E.7080001@yorku.ca>
References: <CAH5sTh=epjHvRdXYxw_0-L6Gn-jmvC=TV1SVdxax8-LM+fMNUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E07B5E6E-ADFF-471E-81D2-0685B56C4F41@egyptig.org>
	<548C647E.7080001@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkGg0ZuTWjGLBGKsrrWbCSEQjMeRyBa4yfq+UQCjBHxBg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Sam,

thanks .
indeed whoever will be the PC chair, will need support from all PC members.
I hope that we can make the PC fully functional to cope with the challenges
we have next year.

Rafik

2014-12-14 1:08 GMT+09:00 Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca>:
>
>  All,
>
> I will support Amr's self-nomination for the position of Chair of the PC
> for the next year.
> I am willing to assist Amr if he wishes to call on me for certain tasks.
> I am swamped with Internet ecosystem work at the moment, both within the
> ICANN orbit and beyond.
>
> Sam L.
>
> On 13/12/2014 9:58 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
> Hi Rafik and all,
>
>  Don?t want a second nomination period to expire with no one stepping up,
> so I?m going to volunteer to chair the PC for the next year. I?d be glad if
> others are also nominated or nominate themselves.
>
>  Thanks.
>
>  Amr
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141215/19c7822a/attachment.html>


From joy  Mon Dec 15 10:09:34 2014
From: joy (joy)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 21:09:34 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [urgent] PC chair election
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnMHs3rWEa0ukViCYMivQJF3ZZVdCAaapNZHMVFSysvSg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=epjHvRdXYxw_0-L6Gn-jmvC=TV1SVdxax8-LM+fMNUg@mail.gmail.com>	<E07B5E6E-ADFF-471E-81D2-0685B56C4F41@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnMHs3rWEa0ukViCYMivQJF3ZZVdCAaapNZHMVFSysvSg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <548E973E.2050903@apc.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141215/3b3d02b6/attachment-0001.html>


From mariliamaciel  Mon Dec 15 17:23:09 2014
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 13:23:09 -0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [urgent] PC chair election
In-Reply-To: <548E973E.2050903@apc.org>
References: <CAH5sTh=epjHvRdXYxw_0-L6Gn-jmvC=TV1SVdxax8-LM+fMNUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E07B5E6E-ADFF-471E-81D2-0685B56C4F41@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnMHs3rWEa0ukViCYMivQJF3ZZVdCAaapNZHMVFSysvSg@mail.gmail.com>
	<548E973E.2050903@apc.org>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK3+JEz3fb_TRe+bAozb=wBL1nGGosrYdcx-MtG=JDs5iQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Amr. Full support to this nomination.
Best wishes,
Mar?lia

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 6:09 AM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
>
>  Thanks Amr!
> Joy
>
> On 15/12/2014 5:08 p.m., Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Thanks Amr,
>
>  Rafik
>
> 2014-12-13 23:58 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>
>>  Hi Rafik and all,
>>
>>  Don?t want a second nomination period to expire with no one stepping
>> up, so I?m going to volunteer to chair the PC for the next year. I?d be
>> glad if others are also nominated or nominate themselves.
>>
>>  Thanks.
>>
>>  Amr
>>
>>   On Dec 8, 2014, at 5:58 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>
>> wrote:
>>
>>    Hi everyone,
>>
>>  there was no response to my email. so I guess I should amend the
>> timeline and start the process this week.
>>
>>  - nominations starting from Friday 12th Dec, 00:00UTC until Tuesday
>> 16th 23:59UTC
>> - candidates confirming their nomination in Wednesday
>> - Starting the election from Thursday 18th December 00:00UTC  until
>> Wednesday 24th December 23:59 UTC.
>> - Thursday 25th December, publishing the results and new PC chair term
>> starts
>>
>>  lets get the new PC chair before the end of the year so s/he can
>> prepare for next year and set a plan.
>>
>>  for the voting we can use doodle poll to be setup by Maryam and sent to
>> eligible voters.
>>
>>  Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> Date: 2014-11-25 13:04 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: [urgent] PC chair election
>> To: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>>  As discussed it is time to get the election of new chair done.
>>
>>  For the vote, we have as eligible voters:
>> - 6 councillors
>> - 2 NCUC reps, 2 NPOC reps
>> - NCSG chair.
>>
>>  As timeline I would suggest:
>> - nominations starting from Friday  28th Nov, 00:00UTC until Tuesday 2nd
>> 23:59UTC
>> - candidates confirming the nomination in Wednesday
>> - Starting the election from Thursday 4th December 00:00UTC  until Monday
>> 8th December 23:59 UTC.
>> - Tuesday 9th December new PC chair term starts
>>
>>  nominees should be from the the eligible members.
>>
>>  if there is any objection or suggestion , please do by this Thursday so
>> we can make amendments quickly.
>>
>>  For the vice-chair or alt-chair it is up to PC to decide about having
>> such position or not.
>>
>>  whoever will be elected, s/he has a critical role to let the PC work
>> and ensure that things are done. I see some stuff to be handled asap by the
>> PC chair like :
>> thinking about some prioritization work for the coming months, moving
>> from reactive to proactive mode, improving PC working methods .
>> As NCSG chair, I can commit to provide assistance and support.
>>
>>  Best,
>>
>>  Rafik
>>
>>
>>    _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>

-- 
*Mar?lia Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio
Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law
School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu
PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/
Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" -
http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141215/0a900c7f/attachment.html>


From lanfran  Mon Dec 15 19:51:45 2014
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 12:51:45 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New Member Policy Process Reflections
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkGg0ZuTWjGLBGKsrrWbCSEQjMeRyBa4yfq+UQCjBHxBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=epjHvRdXYxw_0-L6Gn-jmvC=TV1SVdxax8-LM+fMNUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E07B5E6E-ADFF-471E-81D2-0685B56C4F41@egyptig.org>
	<548C647E.7080001@yorku.ca>
	<CAH5sThkGg0ZuTWjGLBGKsrrWbCSEQjMeRyBa4yfq+UQCjBHxBg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <548F1FB1.2060103@yorku.ca>

All on the Policy Committee,

It may be that I am not looking in the right places but I have a sense 
of an endemic problem in the policy discussions within ICANN. The 
problem leaves both ICANN and the multistakeholder process vulnerable 
from serious attack from outside, and of being marginalized, not in 
terms of presence but in terms of impact, on key issues.

Stakeholder policy discussions here appear good at identifying the" 
What" and the "Why" of policy issues and, for some more narrow areas, 
good at proposing solutions (the "How") that address the issues. 
However, in many cases the proposed processes for dealing with the "How" 
are neither subject to analysis of how they will work, nor if they will 
work. Frequently discussion focuses on a formalism involving stakeholder 
entitlements in the process (i.e., what committee to create and who will 
participate and how) rather than on an assessment of whether the 
approach will address the problem.

A case in point is the long running issue of .health and other regulated 
professions/products gTLDs. The "What" and "Why" of the issues are well 
known, but there has been little discussion around whether the 
existence, or non-existence of such gTLDs make an iota of difference, or 
whether any particular ownership or contract language between ICANN, 
registries, and registrars, is likely to seriously address the issues.

ALAC had recently proposed a moratorium on such gTLD strings. They had a 
lot of discussion of the "What" and the "Why", but again, no assessment 
of what is needed to address the problem, nor reflection on whether or 
not their position makes an iota of difference in light of the issues 
and behavior within the Internet ecosystem. Asking questions about the 
"How" tend to elicit little response.

In the end the policy positions frequently look more like posturing and 
positioning than like contributions to solutions. This leaves the NCSG 
community vulnerable to dismissive attack. It also probably also sends 
the wrong message to stakeholder groups, waiting for policy decisions 
here, when they should be pressing for policy on these issues elsewhere 
within the Internet Ecosystem, as well at their own national and 
regional levels.

I may be alone in this perception and these concerns but as a member of 
the Policy Committee I wanted to put them on the table.

Sam

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141215/884848fb/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Dec 17 04:04:12 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 11:04:12 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCPH Intersessional Planning Call - Agenda Draft
	Version 5.1
In-Reply-To: <D0B6494D.24BCE%robert.hoggarth@icann.org>
References: <D0B6494D.24BCE%robert.hoggarth@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmJijtnkw5MHw_mMKLJSyju+eBgYRyA_BBWhn_u0jM4yQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

updated agenda for NCPH meeting,
as suggested topic from NCSG for plenary #3, Joy proposed last time :"Public
Interest Commitments or more generally, new gTLD review of the first
round", I think the latter is already included and proposed by CSG side
any comments/inputs I can share?
Thanks,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org>
Date: 2014-12-17 10:53 GMT+09:00
Subject: Re: NCPH Intersessional Planning Call - Agenda Draft Version 5.1
To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>, Benedetta Rossi <
benedetta.rossi at icann.org>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>, "
lori.schulman at ascd.org" <lori.schulman at ascd.org>, Marilyn Cade <
marilynscade at hotmail.com>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, "Milan,
Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>, Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net>,
Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com>, Elisa Cooper <
Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <
rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>
Cc: Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org>, Chris Mondini <
chris.mondini at icann.org>, David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>, Jamie
Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org>

Dear Steve and All,

Thanks for your message Steve.  Attached please find a revised version 5.1
of the 2015 NCPH DC Intersessional Meeting agenda.  Not many changes in
this version, but those worth mentioning include ?

1.  Larry Strickling has been confirmed for lunch on Monday the 12th --
with many thanks to Jamie Hedlund for that arrangement.
2.  A new hotel added to the list.  The Beacon Hotel, right across the
street from CSIS, will be the main hotel for traveling delegates.
3.  A new column added to the agenda where I have added yellow blocks to
indicate those sessions where it will be useful to have a volunteer session
leader or leaders to manage the conversation.  Volunteers, please step
forward.

Looking forward to the next group planning conversation on Friday.  If I
get a lot of email feedback on the plenary session topics placement, I will
produce a draft version 6.  Otherwise, this version 5.1 will be the basis
for our discussion on Friday.

Best,

Rob

From: <Metalitz>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>
Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 10:46 AM
To: Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org>, William Drake <
william.drake at uzh.ch>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org" <lori.schulman at ascd.org>,
Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com>, Robert Hoggarth <
robert.hoggarth at icann.org>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, "Milan,
Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>, Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net>,
Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com>, "elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com" <
elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be" <
rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>
Subject: RE: NCPH Intersessional Planning Call

Will another iteration of draft agenda be circulated?



*From:* Benedetta Rossi [mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.org
<benedetta.rossi at icann.org>]
*Sent:* Monday, December 15, 2014 11:36 AM
*To:* William Drake; lori.schulman at ascd.org; Marilyn Cade; Metalitz,
Steven; Robert Hoggarth; Rafik Dammak; Milan, Stefania; Jimson Olufuye;
Kristina Rosette; Elisa Cooper; rudi.vansnick at isoc.be; Tony Holmes
*Subject:* NCPH Intersessional Planning Call



Dear all,



Following the call on Friday and the Doodle poll results, please save the
date for the upcoming NCPH Intersessional meeting planning call scheduled
to take place on *Friday, December 19th, 2014 at 14:00 UTC*. Please find
the dial in details & Adobe Connect link below.



Please find other time zones here: http://tinyurl.com/n8ftrr5



Adobe Connect room:https://icann.adobeconnect.com/community-engagement/



Audio password: *NCPH*



Please let me know if you require a dial out.



*Dial in numbers:*

*Country*

*Toll Numbers*


*Freephone/ Toll Free Number*

ARGENTINA

0800-777-0519

AUSTRALIA

ADELAIDE:

61-8-8121-4842

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

BRISBANE:

61-7-3102-0944

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

CANBERRA:

61-2-6100-1944

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

MELBOURNE:

61-3-9010-7713

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

PERTH:

61-8-9467-5223

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

SYDNEY:

61-2-8205-8129

1-800-657-260

AUSTRIA

43-1-92-81-113

0800-005-259

BELGIUM

32-2-400-9861

0800-3-8795

BRAZIL

0800-7610651

CHILE

1230-020-2863

CHINA

CHINA A:

86-400-810-4789

10800-712-1670

CHINA

CHINA B:

86-400-810-4789

10800-120-1670

COLOMBIA

01800-9-156474

CZECH REPUBLIC

420-2-25-98-56-64

800-700-177

DENMARK

45-7014-0284

8088-8324

ESTONIA

800-011-1093

FINLAND

358-9-5424-7162

0-800-9-14610

FRANCE

LYON:

33-4-26-69-12-85

080-511-1496

FRANCE

MARSEILLE:

33-4-86-06-00-85

080-511-1496

FRANCE

PARIS:

33-1-70-70-60-72

080-511-1496

GERMANY

49-69-2222-20362

0800-664-4247

GREECE

30-80-1-100-0687

00800-12-7312

HONG KONG

852-3001-3863

800-962-856

HUNGARY

06-800-12755

INDIA

INDIA A:

000-800-852-1268

INDIA

INDIA B:

000-800-001-6305

INDIA

INDIA C:

1800-300-00491

INDONESIA

001-803-011-3982

IRELAND

353-1-246-7646

1800-992-368

ISRAEL

1-80-9216162

ITALY

MILAN:

39-02-3600-6007

800-986-383

JAPAN

OSAKA:

81-6-7739-4799

0066-33-132439

JAPAN

TOKYO:

81-3-5539-5191

0066-33-132439

LATVIA

8000-3185

LUXEMBOURG

352-27-000-1364

MALAYSIA

1-800-81-3065

MEXICO

001-866-376-9696

NETHERLANDS

31-20-718-8588

0800-023-4378

NEW ZEALAND

64-9-970-4771

0800-447-722

NORWAY

47-21-590-062

800-15157

PANAMA

011-001-800-5072065

PERU

0800-53713

PHILIPPINES

63-2-858-3716

POLAND

00-800-1212572

PORTUGAL

8008-14052

RUSSIA

8-10-8002-0144011

SAUDI ARABIA

800-8-110087

SINGAPORE

65-6883-9230

800-120-4663

SLOVAK REPUBLIC

421-2-322-422-25

SOUTH AFRICA

080-09-80414

SOUTH KOREA

82-2-6744-1083

00798-14800-7352

SPAIN

34-91-414-25-33

800-300-053

SWEDEN

46-8-566-19-348

0200-884-622

SWITZERLAND

41-44-580-6398

0800-120-032

TAIWAN

886-2-2795-7379

00801-137-797

THAILAND

001-800-1206-66056

UNITED KINGDOM

BIRMINGHAM:

44-121-210-9025

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM

GLASGOW:

44-141-202-3225

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM

LEEDS:

44-113-301-2125

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM

LONDON:

44-20-7108-6370

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM

MANCHESTER:

44-161-601-1425

0808-238-6029

URUGUAY

000-413-598-3421

USA

1-517-345-9004

866-692-5726

VENEZUELA

0800-1-00-3702



Thank you ever so much,



Kind regards,



Benedetta

--

*Benedetta Rossi*

*Community Engagement Support Coordinator*

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)



*Email: *benedetta.rossi at icann.org

*Mobile:* +33.610.38.27.02

*Skype ID:* benedetta.rossi.icann
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141217/776fde6b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Agenda - NCPH InterSessional (v5.1-16Dec2014).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 138428 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141217/776fde6b/attachment-0001.docx>


From wjdrake  Wed Dec 17 10:43:56 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 09:43:56 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH Intersessional Planning Call - Agenda Draft
	Version 5.1
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmJijtnkw5MHw_mMKLJSyju+eBgYRyA_BBWhn_u0jM4yQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D0B6494D.24BCE%robert.hoggarth@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThmJijtnkw5MHw_mMKLJSyju+eBgYRyA_BBWhn_u0jM4yQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8F395F04-0BBC-403C-8705-973E44171846@gmail.com>

Hi

Just to underscore a point, we get one shot at this meeting in session 3 to raise a substantive policy issue that we?d like to engage CSG on, or force them to stand up in public and not be able to evade (if you prefer).  On the planning calls they?ve been very keen to know what this might be so they can prepare, strategize well in advance.  There is another such call on this Friday and it?ll be raised again.  I won?t be able to make the call as I?ll be a plane, hopefully Rafik et al can.

So my question is, is the status of the PICs the single most important issue we?d want to engage them on? If so ok.  One could think of others though, e.g. where do they stand with IANA or privacy (both issues they specifically didn?t prefer) or?take your pick. Personally, I thought the BC?s press on the accountability call yesterday for a very narrow definition of the public interest as just guaranteeing name resolution seemed kind of ripe for exploration, particularly since some others seemed prepared to flock to this without much contemplation. This would tie into PICs too, but of course we might not be able to come to a shared view on it ourselves, which might reduce its value from a strategic standpoint.

Anyway this is fairly urgent to decide and it?d be good to hear more views.

Also, the plenaries with CSG will each have co-chairs, so whatever topic we pick we?d also want to be identify this person from our side.

Bill

PS: I?m not allowed to write to "ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org" <ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org> so deleting from the Cc, feel free to forward.

> On Dec 17, 2014, at 3:04 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> updated agenda for NCPH meeting,
> as suggested topic from NCSG for plenary #3, Joy proposed last time :"Public Interest Commitments or more generally, new gTLD review of the first round", I think the latter is already included and proposed by CSG side
> any comments/inputs I can share?
> Thanks,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org <mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>>
> Date: 2014-12-17 10:53 GMT+09:00
> Subject: Re: NCPH Intersessional Planning Call - Agenda Draft Version 5.1
> To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>, Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org <mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.org>>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>" <lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, "Milan, Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>>, Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net <mailto:jolufuye at kontemporary.net>>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, Elisa Cooper <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>
> Cc: Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org <mailto:carlos.reyes at icann.org>>, Chris Mondini <chris.mondini at icann.org <mailto:chris.mondini at icann.org>>, David Olive <david.olive at icann.org <mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>, Jamie Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>>
> 
> Dear Steve and All,
> 
> Thanks for your message Steve.  Attached please find a revised version 5.1 of the 2015 NCPH DC Intersessional Meeting agenda.  Not many changes in this version, but those worth mentioning include ?
> 
> 1.  Larry Strickling has been confirmed for lunch on Monday the 12th -- with many thanks to Jamie Hedlund for that arrangement.
> 2.  A new hotel added to the list.  The Beacon Hotel, right across the street from CSIS, will be the main hotel for traveling delegates.
> 3.  A new column added to the agenda where I have added yellow blocks to indicate those sessions where it will be useful to have a volunteer session leader or leaders to manage the conversation.  Volunteers, please step forward.
> 
> Looking forward to the next group planning conversation on Friday.  If I get a lot of email feedback on the plenary session topics placement, I will produce a draft version 6.  Otherwise, this version 5.1 will be the basis for our discussion on Friday.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rob
> 
> From: <Metalitz>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
> Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 10:46 AM
> To: Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org <mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.org>>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>, "lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>" <lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>, Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org <mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, "Milan, Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>>, Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net <mailto:jolufuye at kontemporary.net>>, Kristina Rosette <krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, "elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com <mailto:elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>" <elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com <mailto:elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>>, "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>
> Subject: RE: NCPH Intersessional Planning Call 
> 
> Will another iteration of draft agenda be circulated? 
> 
>  
> 
> From: Benedetta Rossi [mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.org <mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.org>] 
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 11:36 AM
> To: William Drake; lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>; Marilyn Cade; Metalitz, Steven; Robert Hoggarth; Rafik Dammak; Milan, Stefania; Jimson Olufuye; Kristina Rosette; Elisa Cooper; rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>; Tony Holmes
> Subject: NCPH Intersessional Planning Call
> 
>  
> 
> Dear all,
> 
>  
> 
> Following the call on Friday and the Doodle poll results, please save the date for the upcoming NCPH Intersessional meeting planning call scheduled to take place on Friday, December 19th, 2014 at 14:00 UTC. Please find the dial in details & Adobe Connect link below.
> 
>  
> 
> Please find other time zones here: http://tinyurl.com/n8ftrr5 <http://tinyurl.com/n8ftrr5> 
> 
>  
> 
> Adobe Connect room:https://icann.adobeconnect.com/community-engagement/ <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/community-engagement/>
>  
> 
> Audio password: NCPH
> 
>  
> 
> Please let me know if you require a dial out.
> 
>  
> 
> Dial in numbers:
> 
> Country
> 
> Toll Numbers
> 
> Freephone/
> Toll Free Number
> 
> ARGENTINA
> 
> 0800-777-0519 <tel:0800-777-0519>
> AUSTRALIA
> 
> ADELAIDE:
> 
> 61-8-8121-4842
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA
> 
> BRISBANE:
> 
> 61-7-3102-0944
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA
> 
> CANBERRA:
> 
> 61-2-6100-1944
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA
> 
> MELBOURNE:
> 
> 61-3-9010-7713
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA
> 
> PERTH:
> 
> 61-8-9467-5223
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA
> 
> SYDNEY:
> 
> 61-2-8205-8129
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRIA
> 
> 43-1-92-81-113
> 
> 0800-005-259
> 
> BELGIUM
> 
> 32-2-400-9861
> 
> 0800-3-8795
> 
> BRAZIL
> 
> 0800-7610651 <tel:0800-7610651>
> CHILE
> 
> 1230-020-2863
> 
> CHINA
> 
> CHINA A:
> 
> 86-400-810-4789
> 
> 10800-712-1670
> 
> CHINA
> 
> CHINA B:
> 
> 86-400-810-4789
> 
> 10800-120-1670
> 
> COLOMBIA
> 
> 01800-9-156474
> 
> CZECH REPUBLIC
> 
> 420-2-25-98-56-64
> 
> 800-700-177
> 
> DENMARK
> 
> 45-7014-0284
> 
> 8088-8324
> 
> ESTONIA
> 
> 800-011-1093
> 
> FINLAND
> 
> 358-9-5424-7162
> 
> 0-800-9-14610
> 
> FRANCE
> 
> LYON:
> 
> 33-4-26-69-12-85
> 
> 080-511-1496
> 
> FRANCE
> 
> MARSEILLE:
> 
> 33-4-86-06-00-85
> 
> 080-511-1496
> 
> FRANCE
> 
> PARIS:
> 
> 33-1-70-70-60-72
> 
> 080-511-1496
> 
> GERMANY
> 
> 49-69-2222-20362
> 
> 0800-664-4247 <tel:0800-664-4247>
> GREECE
> 
> 30-80-1-100-0687
> 
> 00800-12-7312
> 
> HONG KONG
> 
> 852-3001-3863
> 
> 800-962-856
> 
> HUNGARY
> 
> 06-800-12755
> 
> INDIA
> 
> INDIA A:
> 
> 000-800-852-1268
> 
> INDIA
> 
> INDIA B:
> 
> 000-800-001-6305
> 
> INDIA
> 
> INDIA C:
> 
> 1800-300-00491
> 
> INDONESIA
> 
> 001-803-011-3982
> 
> IRELAND
> 
> 353-1-246-7646
> 
> 1800-992-368
> 
> ISRAEL
> 
> 1-80-9216162
> 
> ITALY
> 
> MILAN:
> 
> 39-02-3600-6007
> 
> 800-986-383
> 
> JAPAN
> 
> OSAKA:
> 
> 81-6-7739-4799 <tel:81-6-7739-4799>	
> 0066-33-132439
> 
> JAPAN
> 
> TOKYO:
> 
> 81-3-5539-5191 <tel:81-3-5539-5191>	
> 0066-33-132439
> 
> LATVIA
> 
> 8000-3185
> 
> LUXEMBOURG
> 
> 352-27-000-1364
> 
> MALAYSIA
> 
> 1-800-81-3065
> 
> MEXICO
> 
> 001-866-376-9696
> 
> NETHERLANDS
> 
> 31-20-718-8588
> 
> 0800-023-4378 <tel:0800-023-4378>
> NEW ZEALAND
> 
> 64-9-970-4771
> 
> 0800-447-722
> 
> NORWAY
> 
> 47-21-590-062
> 
> 800-15157
> 
> PANAMA
> 
> 011-001-800-5072065
> 
> PERU
> 
> 0800-53713
> 
> PHILIPPINES
> 
> 63-2-858-3716
> 
> POLAND
> 
> 00-800-1212572
> 
> PORTUGAL
> 
> 8008-14052
> 
> RUSSIA
> 
> 8-10-8002-0144011
> 
> SAUDI ARABIA
> 
> 800-8-110087
> 
> SINGAPORE
> 
> 65-6883-9230
> 
> 800-120-4663
> 
> SLOVAK REPUBLIC
> 
> 421-2-322-422-25
> 
> SOUTH AFRICA
> 
> 080-09-80414
> 
> SOUTH KOREA
> 
> 82-2-6744-1083
> 
> 00798-14800-7352
> 
> SPAIN
> 
> 34-91-414-25-33
> 
> 800-300-053
> 
> SWEDEN
> 
> 46-8-566-19-348
> 
> 0200-884-622
> 
> SWITZERLAND
> 
> 41-44-580-6398
> 
> 0800-120-032
> 
> TAIWAN
> 
> 886-2-2795-7379
> 
> 00801-137-797
> 
> THAILAND
> 
> 001-800-1206-66056
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM
> 
> BIRMINGHAM:
> 
> 44-121-210-9025
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM
> 
> GLASGOW:
> 
> 44-141-202-3225
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM
> 
> LEEDS:
> 
> 44-113-301-2125
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM
> 
> LONDON:
> 
> 44-20-7108-6370
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM
> 
> MANCHESTER:
> 
> 44-161-601-1425
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> URUGUAY
> 
> 000-413-598-3421
> 
> USA
> 
> 1-517-345-9004
> 
> 866-692-5726
> 
> VENEZUELA
> 
> 0800-1-00-3702
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you ever so much,
> 
>  
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
>  
> 
> Benedetta
> 
> --
> 
> Benedetta Rossi
> 
> Community Engagement Support Coordinator
> 
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> 
>  
> 
> Email: benedetta.rossi at icann.org <mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.org>
> Mobile: +33.610.38.27.02
> 
> Skype ID: benedetta.rossi.icann
> 
>  
> 
> <Agenda - NCPH InterSessional (v5.1-16Dec2014).docx>_______________________________________________
> 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 (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
  www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141217/fe90bdb4/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Dec 17 17:38:05 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 00:38:05 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [urgent] PC chair election
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=epjHvRdXYxw_0-L6Gn-jmvC=TV1SVdxax8-LM+fMNUg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=epjHvRdXYxw_0-L6Gn-jmvC=TV1SVdxax8-LM+fMNUg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=z1rRYaXfgDUj6OVqxQvmPGvn=j2yzdjZi8kymeyXUzg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

So we have one confirmed candidate: Amr.
I asked Maryam to prepare the ballots for tomorrow, I count on all eligible
PC members to vote.

Rafik

2014-12-08 13:58 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> there was no response to my email. so I guess I should amend the timeline
> and start the process this week.
>
> - nominations starting from Friday 12th Dec, 00:00UTC until Tuesday 16th
> 23:59UTC
> - candidates confirming their nomination in Wednesday
> - Starting the election from Thursday 18th December 00:00UTC  until
> Wednesday 24th December 23:59 UTC.
> - Thursday 25th December, publishing the results and new PC chair term
> starts
>
> lets get the new PC chair before the end of the year so s/he can prepare
> for next year and set a plan.
>
> for the voting we can use doodle poll to be setup by Maryam and sent to
> eligible voters.
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Date: 2014-11-25 13:04 GMT+09:00
> Subject: [urgent] PC chair election
> To: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> As discussed it is time to get the election of new chair done.
>
> For the vote, we have as eligible voters:
> - 6 councillors
> - 2 NCUC reps, 2 NPOC reps
> - NCSG chair.
>
> As timeline I would suggest:
> - nominations starting from Friday  28th Nov, 00:00UTC until Tuesday 2nd
> 23:59UTC
> - candidates confirming the nomination in Wednesday
> - Starting the election from Thursday 4th December 00:00UTC  until Monday
> 8th December 23:59 UTC.
> - Tuesday 9th December new PC chair term starts
>
> nominees should be from the the eligible members.
>
> if there is any objection or suggestion , please do by this Thursday so we
> can make amendments quickly.
>
> For the vice-chair or alt-chair it is up to PC to decide about having such
> position or not.
>
> whoever will be elected, s/he has a critical role to let the PC work and
> ensure that things are done. I see some stuff to be handled asap by the PC
> chair like :
> thinking about some prioritization work for the coming months, moving from
> reactive to proactive mode, improving PC working methods .
> As NCSG chair, I can commit to provide assistance and support.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141218/12193b48/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Dec 17 17:46:29 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 00:46:29 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on CCWG on IANA stewardship transition
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnCtU7hGp0a6KaVOWdbRsPefuHaqH14g5vR+KCi2K3jkw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnCtU7hGp0a6KaVOWdbRsPefuHaqH14g5vR+KCi2K3jkw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThk1sjcvXgMhZyWEC6F+mFQp6s+fkZmxT-oZy619ASa_6Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

I am planning to do call for consensus and set the deadline for Sunday 21st
Dec 23:59UTC
so please review the statement . as reminder we have to submit by 22nd Dec
and as we discussed in confcall yesterday we still have work to do in that
working group and solve some open issues.

Rafik

2014-12-15 13:01 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> we have 1 week before the deadline to submit NCSG comment (
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14mDNLW17CJ_7rHSprzSAW90jhzPjlMiJf8qkbRM_Lek
> ) regarding the CCWG on IANA transition proposal. The active NCSG members
> in that WG worked in the statement and resolved the comments . The draft
> statement was  also shared in NCSG list for membership review.
>
> it is time that PC members review it for endorsement , acting as interim
> PC chair I will make the calls for consensus soon.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> for reference please find the draft proposal here
> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-01-en
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141218/aa6f9e39/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Dec 17 17:49:22 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 10:49:22 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH Intersessional Planning Call - Agenda Draft
 Version 5.1
In-Reply-To: <8F395F04-0BBC-403C-8705-973E44171846@gmail.com>
References: <D0B6494D.24BCE%robert.hoggarth@icann.org>	<CAH5sThmJijtnkw5MHw_mMKLJSyju+eBgYRyA_BBWhn_u0jM4yQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<8F395F04-0BBC-403C-8705-973E44171846@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5491A602.5060406@mail.utoronto.ca>

Privacy and WHOIS gets my vote.
One-trick-pony Stephanie
On 2014-12-17, 3:43, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Just to underscore a point, we get one shot at this meeting in session 
> 3 to raise a substantive policy issue that we'd like to engage CSG on, 
> or force them to stand up in public and not be able to evade (if you 
> prefer).  On the planning calls they've been very keen to know what 
> this might be so they can prepare, strategize well in advance.  There 
> is another such call on this Friday and it'll be raised again.  I 
> won't be able to make the call as I'll be a plane, hopefully Rafik et 
> al can.
>
> So my question is, is the status of the PICs the single most important 
> issue we'd want to engage them on? If so ok.  One could think of 
> others though, e.g. where do they stand with IANA or privacy (both 
> issues they specifically didn't prefer) or...take your pick. 
> Personally, I thought the BC's press on the accountability call 
> yesterday for a very narrow definition of the public interest as just 
> guaranteeing name resolution seemed kind of ripe for exploration, 
> particularly since some others seemed prepared to flock to this 
> without much contemplation. This would tie into PICs too, but of 
> course we might not be able to come to a shared view on it ourselves, 
> which might reduce its value from a strategic standpoint.
>
> Anyway this is fairly urgent to decide and it'd be good to hear more 
> views.
>
> Also, the plenaries with CSG will each have co-chairs, so whatever 
> topic we pick we'd also want to be identify this person from our side.
>
> Bill
>
> PS: I'm not allowed to write to "ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org 
> <mailto:ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org>" <ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org 
> <mailto:ec-ncsg at ipjustice.org>> so deleting from the Cc, feel free to 
> forward.
>
>> On Dec 17, 2014, at 3:04 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> updated agenda for NCPH meeting,
>> as suggested topic from NCSG for plenary #3, Joy proposed last time 
>> :"Public Interest Commitments or more generally, new gTLD review of 
>> the first round", I think the latter is already included and proposed 
>> by CSG side
>> any comments/inputs I can share?
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: *Robert Hoggarth* <robert.hoggarth at icann.org 
>> <mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>>
>> Date: 2014-12-17 10:53 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: Re: NCPH Intersessional Planning Call - Agenda Draft Version 5.1
>> To: "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>, Benedetta 
>> Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org <mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.org>>, 
>> William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>, 
>> "lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>" 
>> <lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>>, Marilyn 
>> Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>, 
>> Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, "Milan, Stefania" 
>> <Stefania.Milan at eui.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>>, Jimson 
>> Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net 
>> <mailto:jolufuye at kontemporary.net>>, Kristina Rosette 
>> <krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, Elisa Cooper 
>> <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com <mailto:Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>>, 
>> "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>" 
>> <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, Tony Holmes 
>> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>
>> Cc: Carlos Reyes <carlos.reyes at icann.org 
>> <mailto:carlos.reyes at icann.org>>, Chris Mondini 
>> <chris.mondini at icann.org <mailto:chris.mondini at icann.org>>, David 
>> Olive <david.olive at icann.org <mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>, Jamie 
>> Hedlund <jamie.hedlund at icann.org <mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org>>
>>
>> Dear Steve and All,
>>
>> Thanks for your message Steve. Attached please find a revised version 
>> 5.1 of the 2015 NCPH DC Intersessional Meeting agenda.  Not many 
>> changes in this version, but those worth mentioning include ...
>>
>> 1.  Larry Strickling has been confirmed for lunch on Monday the 12th 
>> -- with many thanks to Jamie Hedlund for that arrangement.
>> 2.  A new hotel added to the list.  The Beacon Hotel, right across 
>> the street from CSIS, will be the main hotel for traveling delegates.
>> 3.  A new column added to the agenda where I have added yellow blocks 
>> to indicate those sessions where it will be useful to have a 
>> volunteer session leader or leaders to manage the conversation. 
>> Volunteers, please step forward.
>>
>> Looking forward to the next group planning conversation on Friday.  
>> If I get a lot of email feedback on the plenary session topics 
>> placement, I will produce a draft version 6.  Otherwise, this version 
>> 5.1 will be the basis for our discussion on Friday.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> From: <Metalitz>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com <mailto:met at msk.com>>
>> Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 10:46 AM
>> To: Benedetta Rossi <benedetta.rossi at icann.org 
>> <mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.org>>, William Drake 
>> <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>, 
>> "lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>" 
>> <lori.schulman at ascd.org <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>>, Marilyn 
>> Cade <marilynscade at hotmail.com <mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com>>, 
>> Robert Hoggarth <robert.hoggarth at icann.org 
>> <mailto:robert.hoggarth at icann.org>>, Rafik Dammak 
>> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, "Milan, 
>> Stefania" <Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu <mailto:Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu>>, 
>> Jimson Olufuye <jolufuye at kontemporary.net 
>> <mailto:jolufuye at kontemporary.net>>, Kristina Rosette 
>> <krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, 
>> "elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com <mailto:elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>" 
>> <elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com <mailto:elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>>, 
>> "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>" 
>> <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>>, Tony Holmes 
>> <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>
>> Subject: RE: NCPH Intersessional Planning Call
>>
>> Will another iteration of draft agenda be circulated?
>>
>> *From:*Benedetta Rossi [mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.org]
>> *Sent:* Monday, December 15, 2014 11:36 AM
>> *To:* William Drake; lori.schulman at ascd.org 
>> <mailto:lori.schulman at ascd.org>; Marilyn Cade; Metalitz, Steven; 
>> Robert Hoggarth; Rafik Dammak; Milan, Stefania; Jimson Olufuye; 
>> Kristina Rosette; Elisa Cooper; rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 
>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>; Tony Holmes
>> *Subject:* NCPH Intersessional Planning Call
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Following the call on Friday and the Doodle poll results, please save 
>> the date for the upcoming NCPH Intersessional meeting planning call 
>> scheduled to take place on *Friday, December 19th, 2014 at 14:00 
>> UTC*. Please find the dial in details & Adobe Connect link below.
>>
>> Please find other time zones here: http://tinyurl.com/n8ftrr5
>>
>> Adobe Connect room:https://icann.adobeconnect.com/community-engagement/
>>
>> Audio password: *NCPH*
>>
>> Please let me know if you require a dial out.
>>
>> *Dial in numbers:*
>>
>> *Country*
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> *Toll Numbers*
>>
>> 	
>>
>> *Freephone/
>> Toll Free Number*
>>
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> ARGENTINA
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 0800-777-0519 <tel:0800-777-0519>
>>
>> AUSTRALIA
>>
>> 	
>>
>> ADELAIDE:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 61-8-8121-4842
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 1-800-657-260
>>
>> AUSTRALIA
>>
>> 	
>>
>> BRISBANE:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 61-7-3102-0944
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 1-800-657-260
>>
>> AUSTRALIA
>>
>> 	
>>
>> CANBERRA:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 61-2-6100-1944
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 1-800-657-260
>>
>> AUSTRALIA
>>
>> 	
>>
>> MELBOURNE:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 61-3-9010-7713
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 1-800-657-260
>>
>> AUSTRALIA
>>
>> 	
>>
>> PERTH:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 61-8-9467-5223
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 1-800-657-260
>>
>> AUSTRALIA
>>
>> 	
>>
>> SYDNEY:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 61-2-8205-8129
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 1-800-657-260
>>
>> AUSTRIA
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 43-1-92-81-113
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 0800-005-259
>>
>> BELGIUM
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 32-2-400-9861
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 0800-3-8795
>>
>> BRAZIL
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 0800-7610651 <tel:0800-7610651>
>>
>> CHILE
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 1230-020-2863
>>
>> CHINA
>>
>> 	
>>
>> CHINA A:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 86-400-810-4789
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 10800-712-1670
>>
>> CHINA
>>
>> 	
>>
>> CHINA B:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 86-400-810-4789
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 10800-120-1670
>>
>> COLOMBIA
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 01800-9-156474
>>
>> CZECH REPUBLIC
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 420-2-25-98-56-64
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 800-700-177
>>
>> DENMARK
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 45-7014-0284
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 8088-8324
>>
>> ESTONIA
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 800-011-1093
>>
>> FINLAND
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 358-9-5424-7162
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 0-800-9-14610
>>
>> FRANCE
>>
>> 	
>>
>> LYON:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 33-4-26-69-12-85
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 080-511-1496
>>
>> FRANCE
>>
>> 	
>>
>> MARSEILLE:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 33-4-86-06-00-85
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 080-511-1496
>>
>> FRANCE
>>
>> 	
>>
>> PARIS:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 33-1-70-70-60-72
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 080-511-1496
>>
>> GERMANY
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 49-69-2222-20362
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 0800-664-4247 <tel:0800-664-4247>
>>
>> GREECE
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 30-80-1-100-0687
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 00800-12-7312
>>
>> HONG KONG
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 852-3001-3863
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 800-962-856
>>
>> HUNGARY
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 06-800-12755
>>
>> INDIA
>>
>> 	
>>
>> INDIA A:
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 000-800-852-1268
>>
>> INDIA
>>
>> 	
>>
>> INDIA B:
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 000-800-001-6305
>>
>> INDIA
>>
>> 	
>>
>> INDIA C:
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 1800-300-00491
>>
>> INDONESIA
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 001-803-011-3982
>>
>> IRELAND
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 353-1-246-7646
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 1800-992-368
>>
>> ISRAEL
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 1-80-9216162
>>
>> ITALY
>>
>> 	
>>
>> MILAN:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 39-02-3600-6007
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 800-986-383
>>
>> JAPAN
>>
>> 	
>>
>> OSAKA:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 81-6-7739-4799 <tel:81-6-7739-4799>
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 0066-33-132439
>>
>> JAPAN
>>
>> 	
>>
>> TOKYO:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 81-3-5539-5191 <tel:81-3-5539-5191>
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 0066-33-132439
>>
>> LATVIA
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 8000-3185
>>
>> LUXEMBOURG
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 352-27-000-1364
>>
>> 	
>>
>> MALAYSIA
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 1-800-81-3065
>>
>> MEXICO
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 001-866-376-9696
>>
>> NETHERLANDS
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 31-20-718-8588
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 0800-023-4378 <tel:0800-023-4378>
>>
>> NEW ZEALAND
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 64-9-970-4771
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 0800-447-722
>>
>> NORWAY
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 47-21-590-062
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 800-15157
>>
>> PANAMA
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 011-001-800-5072065
>>
>> PERU
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 0800-53713
>>
>> PHILIPPINES
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 63-2-858-3716
>>
>> 	
>>
>> POLAND
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 00-800-1212572
>>
>> PORTUGAL
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 8008-14052
>>
>> RUSSIA
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 8-10-8002-0144011
>>
>> SAUDI ARABIA
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 800-8-110087
>>
>> SINGAPORE
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 65-6883-9230
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 800-120-4663
>>
>> SLOVAK REPUBLIC
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 421-2-322-422-25
>>
>> 	
>>
>> SOUTH AFRICA
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 080-09-80414
>>
>> SOUTH KOREA
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 82-2-6744-1083
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 00798-14800-7352
>>
>> SPAIN
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 34-91-414-25-33
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 800-300-053
>>
>> SWEDEN
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 46-8-566-19-348
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 0200-884-622
>>
>> SWITZERLAND
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 41-44-580-6398
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 0800-120-032
>>
>> TAIWAN
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 886-2-2795-7379
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 00801-137-797
>>
>> THAILAND
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 001-800-1206-66056
>>
>> UNITED KINGDOM
>>
>> 	
>>
>> BIRMINGHAM:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 44-121-210-9025
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 0808-238-6029
>>
>> UNITED KINGDOM
>>
>> 	
>>
>> GLASGOW:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 44-141-202-3225
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 0808-238-6029
>>
>> UNITED KINGDOM
>>
>> 	
>>
>> LEEDS:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 44-113-301-2125
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 0808-238-6029
>>
>> UNITED KINGDOM
>>
>> 	
>>
>> LONDON:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 44-20-7108-6370
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 0808-238-6029
>>
>> UNITED KINGDOM
>>
>> 	
>>
>> MANCHESTER:
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 44-161-601-1425
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 0808-238-6029
>>
>> URUGUAY
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 000-413-598-3421
>>
>> USA
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 1-517-345-9004
>>
>> 	
>>
>> 866-692-5726
>>
>> VENEZUELA
>>
>> 	
>> 	
>> 	
>>
>> 0800-1-00-3702
>>
>> Thank you ever so much,
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Benedetta
>>
>> --
>>
>> *Benedetta Rossi*
>>
>> /Community Engagement Support Coordinator/
>>
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>> *Email: *benedetta.rossi at icann.org <mailto:benedetta.rossi at icann.org>
>>
>> *Mobile:* +33.610.38.27.02
>>
>> *Skype ID:* benedetta.rossi.icann
>>
>> <Agenda - NCPH InterSessional 
>> (v5.1-16Dec2014).docx>_______________________________________________
>> 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> (direct), 
> wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
> 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/20141217/4f179b1e/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Wed Dec 17 18:44:27 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 11:44:27 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on CCWG on IANA stewardship transition
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThk1sjcvXgMhZyWEC6F+mFQp6s+fkZmxT-oZy619ASa_6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnCtU7hGp0a6KaVOWdbRsPefuHaqH14g5vR+KCi2K3jkw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThk1sjcvXgMhZyWEC6F+mFQp6s+fkZmxT-oZy619ASa_6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5491B2EB.5070705@acm.org>

Hi,

I cannot accept it with Seun's edits.

I think we need a frozen version that we take the decision on.  then if
the PC needs to change language to find our consensus we can, but we
can't work on a doc that is still waving from pole to pole.

avri

On 17-Dec-14 10:46, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I am planning to do call for consensus and set the deadline for Sunday
> 21st Dec 23:59UTC
> so please review the statement . as reminder we have to submit by 22nd
> Dec and as we discussed in confcall yesterday we still have work to do
> in that working group and solve some open issues.
>
> Rafik 
>
> 2014-12-15 13:01 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>
>     Hi everyone,
>
>     we have 1 week before the deadline to submit NCSG comment
>     (https://docs.google.com/document/d/14mDNLW17CJ_7rHSprzSAW90jhzPjlMiJf8qkbRM_Lek
>     ) regarding the CCWG on IANA transition proposal. The active NCSG
>     members in that WG worked in the statement and resolved the
>     comments . The draft statement was  also shared in NCSG list for
>     membership review. 
>
>     it is time that PC members review it for endorsement , acting as
>     interim PC chair I will make the calls for consensus soon. 
>
>     Best,
>
>     Rafik
>
>     for reference please find the draft proposal
>     here https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-01-en 
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141217/03e67ddf/attachment.html>


From mshears  Wed Dec 17 18:54:01 2014
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 16:54:01 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on CCWG on IANA stewardship transition
In-Reply-To: <5491B2EB.5070705@acm.org>
References: <CAH5sThnCtU7hGp0a6KaVOWdbRsPefuHaqH14g5vR+KCi2K3jkw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAH5sThk1sjcvXgMhZyWEC6F+mFQp6s+fkZmxT-oZy619ASa_6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5491B2EB.5070705@acm.org>
Message-ID: <5491B529.4030502@cdt.org>

I agree with Avri.  Frozen (version circulated prior to Seun's edits) 
and if there are major disagreements they should be raised on the list.  
No more editing.

On 12/17/2014 4:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I cannot accept it with Seun's edits.
>
> I think we need a frozen version that we take the decision on. then if 
> the PC needs to change language to find our consensus we can, but we 
> can't work on a doc that is still waving from pole to pole.
>
> avri
>
> On 17-Dec-14 10:46, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> I am planning to do call for consensus and set the deadline for 
>> Sunday 21st Dec 23:59UTC
>> so please review the statement . as reminder we have to submit by 
>> 22nd Dec and as we discussed in confcall yesterday we still have work 
>> to do in that working group and solve some open issues.
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2014-12-15 13:01 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>>
>>     Hi everyone,
>>
>>     we have 1 week before the deadline to submit NCSG comment
>>     (https://docs.google.com/document/d/14mDNLW17CJ_7rHSprzSAW90jhzPjlMiJf8qkbRM_Lek
>>     ) regarding the CCWG on IANA transition proposal. The active NCSG
>>     members in that WG worked in the statement and resolved the
>>     comments . The draft statement was  also shared in NCSG list for
>>     membership review.
>>
>>     it is time that PC members review it for endorsement , acting as
>>     interim PC chair I will make the calls for consensus soon.
>>
>>     Best,
>>
>>     Rafik
>>
>>     for reference please find the draft proposal here
>>     https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-01-en
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141217/7e1aa854/attachment.html>


From bkuerbis  Wed Dec 17 18:56:59 2014
From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 11:56:59 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on CCWG on IANA stewardship transition
In-Reply-To: <5491B529.4030502@cdt.org>
References: <CAH5sThnCtU7hGp0a6KaVOWdbRsPefuHaqH14g5vR+KCi2K3jkw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThk1sjcvXgMhZyWEC6F+mFQp6s+fkZmxT-oZy619ASa_6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5491B2EB.5070705@acm.org> <5491B529.4030502@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <CANwsP3ABdeu8B3YuK4J+rTaL9oSCaRzSsBhtkCeEdGOcG=BJqw@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with Matt.

---------------------------------------
Brenden Kuerbis
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>
>  I agree with Avri.  Frozen (version circulated prior to Seun's edits) and
> if there are major disagreements they should be raised on the list.  No
> more editing.
>
>
> On 12/17/2014 4:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I cannot accept it with Seun's edits.
>
> I think we need a frozen version that we take the decision on.  then if
> the PC needs to change language to find our consensus we can, but we can't
> work on a doc that is still waving from pole to pole.
>
> avri
>
> On 17-Dec-14 10:46, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>  I am planning to do call for consensus and set the deadline for Sunday
> 21st Dec 23:59UTC
> so please review the statement . as reminder we have to submit by 22nd Dec
> and as we discussed in confcall yesterday we still have work to do in that
> working group and solve some open issues.
>
>   Rafik
>
>  2014-12-15 13:01 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>>  we have 1 week before the deadline to submit NCSG comment (
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14mDNLW17CJ_7rHSprzSAW90jhzPjlMiJf8qkbRM_Lek
>> ) regarding the CCWG on IANA transition proposal. The active NCSG members
>> in that WG worked in the statement and resolved the comments . The draft
>> statement was  also shared in NCSG list for membership review.
>>
>>  it is time that PC members review it for endorsement , acting as
>> interim PC chair I will make the calls for consensus soon.
>>
>>  Best,
>>
>>  Rafik
>>
>>  for reference please find the draft proposal here
>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-01-en
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> --
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+ 44 771 247 2987
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141217/84ee8513/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Dec 17 19:03:19 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 02:03:19 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on CCWG on IANA stewardship transition
In-Reply-To: <5491B2EB.5070705@acm.org>
References: <CAH5sThnCtU7hGp0a6KaVOWdbRsPefuHaqH14g5vR+KCi2K3jkw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThk1sjcvXgMhZyWEC6F+mFQp6s+fkZmxT-oZy619ASa_6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5491B2EB.5070705@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=BeOAO7VhbVydM8ucXYsJq92+32BYk3U2S4dSeW1AN9A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

easy to do, attached the frozen version prior to seun changes
milton can disable the editing option since he is owner of the google
document.

Rafik
2014-12-18 1:44 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>
>  Hi,
>
> I cannot accept it with Seun's edits.
>
> I think we need a frozen version that we take the decision on.  then if
> the PC needs to change language to find our consensus we can, but we can't
> work on a doc that is still waving from pole to pole.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 17-Dec-14 10:46, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>  I am planning to do call for consensus and set the deadline for Sunday
> 21st Dec 23:59UTC
> so please review the statement . as reminder we have to submit by 22nd Dec
> and as we discussed in confcall yesterday we still have work to do in that
> working group and solve some open issues.
>
>   Rafik
>
>  2014-12-15 13:01 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>>  we have 1 week before the deadline to submit NCSG comment (
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14mDNLW17CJ_7rHSprzSAW90jhzPjlMiJf8qkbRM_Lek
>> ) regarding the CCWG on IANA transition proposal. The active NCSG members
>> in that WG worked in the statement and resolved the comments . The draft
>> statement was  also shared in NCSG list for membership review.
>>
>>  it is time that PC members review it for endorsement , acting as
>> interim PC chair I will make the calls for consensus soon.
>>
>>  Best,
>>
>>  Rafik
>>
>>  for reference please find the draft proposal here
>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-01-en
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://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/20141218/098d947e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CommentsonCWG-IANAdraft.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 151450 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141218/098d947e/attachment-0001.pdf>


From aelsadr  Wed Dec 17 21:02:08 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 20:02:08 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on CCWG on IANA stewardship transition
In-Reply-To: <CANwsP3ABdeu8B3YuK4J+rTaL9oSCaRzSsBhtkCeEdGOcG=BJqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnCtU7hGp0a6KaVOWdbRsPefuHaqH14g5vR+KCi2K3jkw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThk1sjcvXgMhZyWEC6F+mFQp6s+fkZmxT-oZy619ASa_6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5491B2EB.5070705@acm.org> <5491B529.4030502@cdt.org>
	<CANwsP3ABdeu8B3YuK4J+rTaL9oSCaRzSsBhtkCeEdGOcG=BJqw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <730EFA9E-F9C4-44B8-B4E2-17C7F9075282@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I also agree with Matt. Aren?t we past the deadline for editing the document anyway? Any further discussions should be associated with our participation in the CWG moving forward, but not to edit the document meant to inform the CWG during this public comment period.

Thanks.

Amr

On Dec 17, 2014, at 5:56 PM, Brenden Kuerbis <bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org> wrote:

> I agree with Matt.
> 
> ---------------------------------------
> Brenden Kuerbis
> Internet Governance Project
> http://internetgovernance.org
> 
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> I agree with Avri.  Frozen (version circulated prior to Seun's edits) and if there are major disagreements they should be raised on the list.  No more editing.
> 
> 
> On 12/17/2014 4:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I cannot accept it with Seun's edits.
>> 
>> I think we need a frozen version that we take the decision on.  then if the PC needs to change language to find our consensus we can, but we can't work on a doc that is still waving from pole to pole.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 17-Dec-14 10:46, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> 
>>> I am planning to do call for consensus and set the deadline for Sunday 21st Dec 23:59UTC
>>> so please review the statement . as reminder we have to submit by 22nd Dec and as we discussed in confcall yesterday we still have work to do in that working group and solve some open issues.
>>> 
>>> Rafik 
>>> 
>>> 2014-12-15 13:01 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> 
>>> we have 1 week before the deadline to submit NCSG comment (https://docs.google.com/document/d/14mDNLW17CJ_7rHSprzSAW90jhzPjlMiJf8qkbRM_Lek ) regarding the CCWG on IANA transition proposal. The active NCSG members in that WG worked in the statement and resolved the comments . The draft statement was  also shared in NCSG list for membership review. 
>>> 
>>> it is time that PC members review it for endorsement , acting as interim PC chair I will make the calls for consensus soon. 
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>> for reference please find the draft proposal here https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-01-en 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> -- 
> Matthew Shears
> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
> mshears at cdt.org
> + 44 771 247 2987
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141217/5fb3f387/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Dec 18 03:41:31 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 10:41:31 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on CCWG on IANA stewardship transition
In-Reply-To: <730EFA9E-F9C4-44B8-B4E2-17C7F9075282@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sThnCtU7hGp0a6KaVOWdbRsPefuHaqH14g5vR+KCi2K3jkw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThk1sjcvXgMhZyWEC6F+mFQp6s+fkZmxT-oZy619ASa_6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5491B2EB.5070705@acm.org> <5491B529.4030502@cdt.org>
	<CANwsP3ABdeu8B3YuK4J+rTaL9oSCaRzSsBhtkCeEdGOcG=BJqw@mail.gmail.com>
	<730EFA9E-F9C4-44B8-B4E2-17C7F9075282@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmfj-GMBYBWXcPuTGkoKMkeezoL9b5uNkz0qsP+J32bxw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

a frozen version was already shared here. moreover edits were rejected . I
think there was misunderstanding about the purpose of sharing in the NCSG
mailing list.
anyway, I would like to hear PC members opinions asap

Rafik

2014-12-18 4:02 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>
> Hi,
>
> I also agree with Matt. Aren?t we past the deadline for editing the
> document anyway? Any further discussions should be associated with our
> participation in the CWG moving forward, but not to edit the document meant
> to inform the CWG during this public comment period.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Dec 17, 2014, at 5:56 PM, Brenden Kuerbis <
> bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org> wrote:
>
> I agree with Matt.
>
> ---------------------------------------
> Brenden Kuerbis
> Internet Governance Project
> http://internetgovernance.org
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
>>
>>  I agree with Avri.  Frozen (version circulated prior to Seun's edits)
>> and if there are major disagreements they should be raised on the list.  No
>> more editing.
>>
>>
>> On 12/17/2014 4:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I cannot accept it with Seun's edits.
>>
>> I think we need a frozen version that we take the decision on.  then if
>> the PC needs to change language to find our consensus we can, but we can't
>> work on a doc that is still waving from pole to pole.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 17-Dec-14 10:46, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>>  I am planning to do call for consensus and set the deadline for Sunday
>> 21st Dec 23:59UTC
>> so please review the statement . as reminder we have to submit by 22nd
>> Dec and as we discussed in confcall yesterday we still have work to do in
>> that working group and solve some open issues.
>>
>>   Rafik
>>
>>  2014-12-15 13:01 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>>  we have 1 week before the deadline to submit NCSG comment (
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/14mDNLW17CJ_7rHSprzSAW90jhzPjlMiJf8qkbRM_Lek
>>> ) regarding the CCWG on IANA transition proposal. The active NCSG members
>>> in that WG worked in the statement and resolved the comments . The draft
>>> statement was  also shared in NCSG list for membership review.
>>>
>>>  it is time that PC members review it for endorsement , acting as
>>> interim PC chair I will make the calls for consensus soon.
>>>
>>>  Best,
>>>
>>>  Rafik
>>>
>>>  for reference please find the draft proposal here
>>> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-01-en
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthew Shears
>> Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)mshears at cdt.org+ 44 771 247 2987
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141218/0f105d90/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Thu Dec 18 08:58:59 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 07:58:59 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on CCWG on IANA stewardship transition
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=BeOAO7VhbVydM8ucXYsJq92+32BYk3U2S4dSeW1AN9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnCtU7hGp0a6KaVOWdbRsPefuHaqH14g5vR+KCi2K3jkw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThk1sjcvXgMhZyWEC6F+mFQp6s+fkZmxT-oZy619ASa_6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<5491B2EB.5070705@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=BeOAO7VhbVydM8ucXYsJq92+32BYk3U2S4dSeW1AN9A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F0D6E413-DCE8-4ABF-A9DD-9F7E087BEB0B@egyptig.org>

Hi,

As I said on Tuesday?s call, I support this statement being the NCSG's input to the cwg-stewardship initial report public comment period.

Thanks.

Amr

On Dec 17, 2014, at 6:03 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> easy to do, attached the frozen version prior to seun changes
> milton can disable the editing option since he is owner of the google document.
> 
> Rafik 
> 2014-12-18 1:44 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
> Hi,
> 
> I cannot accept it with Seun's edits.
> 
> I think we need a frozen version that we take the decision on.  then if the PC needs to change language to find our consensus we can, but we can't work on a doc that is still waving from pole to pole.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 17-Dec-14 10:46, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> I am planning to do call for consensus and set the deadline for Sunday 21st Dec 23:59UTC
>> so please review the statement . as reminder we have to submit by 22nd Dec and as we discussed in confcall yesterday we still have work to do in that working group and solve some open issues.
>> 
>> Rafik 
>> 
>> 2014-12-15 13:01 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> we have 1 week before the deadline to submit NCSG comment (https://docs.google.com/document/d/14mDNLW17CJ_7rHSprzSAW90jhzPjlMiJf8qkbRM_Lek ) regarding the CCWG on IANA transition proposal. The active NCSG members in that WG worked in the statement and resolved the comments . The draft statement was  also shared in NCSG list for membership review. 
>> 
>> it is time that PC members review it for endorsement , acting as interim PC chair I will make the calls for consensus soon. 
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> for reference please find the draft proposal here https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-01-en 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> <CommentsonCWG-IANAdraft.pdf>_______________________________________________
> 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/20141218/2a556445/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Thu Dec 18 10:28:56 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 09:28:56 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New Member Policy Process Reflections
In-Reply-To: <548F1FB1.2060103@yorku.ca>
References: <CAH5sTh=epjHvRdXYxw_0-L6Gn-jmvC=TV1SVdxax8-LM+fMNUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E07B5E6E-ADFF-471E-81D2-0685B56C4F41@egyptig.org>
	<548C647E.7080001@yorku.ca>
	<CAH5sThkGg0ZuTWjGLBGKsrrWbCSEQjMeRyBa4yfq+UQCjBHxBg@mail.gmail.com>
	<548F1FB1.2060103@yorku.ca>
Message-ID: <231CFD34-3DFE-43C5-9571-250499F97642@egyptig.org>

Hi Sam,

I believe I understand what you?re alluding to, but in case my thoughts indicate otherwise, I would welcome any clarification you can provide.

I would say that identifying all three of the ?What?, the ?Why? and the ?How? are not perfect within the gTLD policy development context at ICANN. Perhaps in some instances, I would agree that this is more true for the ?How?. However, I?m not sure how this makes the multistakeholder process vulnerable. If you could give examples on how you think this may happen, that?d be helpful.

Identifying the ?What? and the ?Why? (according to my relatively limited experience) is usually easier to achieve than identifying the ?How?. When I say easier, I mean to say it costs significantly less in terms of man-hours put into the effort. And although formalism and stakeholder entitlement in the process is a frequent discussion (which I believe it should continue to be), I wouldn?t say that it trumps the assessment, discussions and work put into the details of the solution (the ?How?).

Assuming they go through the appropriate process, gTLD policies aren't just randomly conjured. They go through a painstakingly long process that may take years from identification of the problem to implementation of the solution. Because of the overwhelming effort and investment of resources (human and other) required, there is a relatively poor number of individuals and organisations that are involved in this process. For those not involved, this was made rather clear in the findings of the ATRT2 report.

As far as .health is concerned, I believe the issues raised and the concerns expressed are far too many to list in one email. I?ve been paying rather close attention to them over the past couple of years (for academic purposes), including articles posted in The Lancet and the Journal of Medical Internet Research. A couple of those were also attached to a limited public interest objection on the .health string during the application process, which was overruled. From what I can tell, a significant portion of the concerns are related to web content, which is (and should not) be any of ICANN?s business. Others involve how the .health gTLD is being marketed, associating it with trusted sources of health information; again?, perhaps questionable, but none of ICANN?s business.

My best guess is that the real problem with the .health is the disconnect between those raising the concerns, and the gTLD policy development process. They are simply not nearly as involved as others, and yet seek the authority to overrule those who have been. This is somewhat consistent with the ATRT2 findings I mentioned above, and not limited to the healthcare community. They started paying attention late in the game, and still have not become as actively engaged as they could be. I wouldn?t put the blame on ICANN or the multistakeholder processes it hosts. Again, I?m not saying they?re perfect, but to characterise them in a way you have is IMHO slightly exaggerated.

As far as ALAC are concerned, I am not informed enough on how much work or reflection they?ve put into the issue of .health and other strings involving ?regulated? industries to comment on their insight on the topic. However, I do think their inputs so far are very much consistent with their positions on supporting policies that would regulate anything that can perceivably be regulated. I have yet to find a policy discussion involving ALAC in which I am in agreement with them.

Well?, those are my thoughts.

Thanks.

Amr

On Dec 15, 2014, at 6:51 PM, Sam Lanfranco <Lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:

> All on the Policy Committee,
> 
> It may be that I am not looking in the right places but I have a sense of an endemic problem in the policy discussions within ICANN. The problem leaves both ICANN and the multistakeholder process vulnerable from serious attack from outside, and of being marginalized, not in terms of presence but in terms of impact, on key issues.
> 
> Stakeholder policy discussions here appear good at identifying the" What" and the "Why" of policy issues and, for some more narrow areas, good at proposing solutions (the "How") that address the issues. However, in many cases the proposed processes for dealing with the "How" are neither subject to analysis of how they will work, nor if they will work. Frequently discussion focuses on a formalism involving stakeholder entitlements in the process (i.e., what committee to create and who will participate and how) rather than on an assessment of whether the approach will address the problem.
> 
>  A case in point is the long running issue of .health and other regulated professions/products gTLDs. The "What" and "Why" of the issues are well known, but there has been little discussion around whether the existence, or non-existence of such gTLDs make an iota of difference, or whether any particular ownership or contract language between ICANN, registries, and registrars, is likely to seriously address the issues.
> 
> ALAC had recently proposed a moratorium on such gTLD strings. They had a lot of discussion of the "What" and the "Why", but again, no assessment of what is needed to address the problem, nor reflection on whether or not their position makes an iota of difference in light of the issues and behavior within the Internet ecosystem. Asking questions about the "How" tend to elicit little response.
> 
> In the end the policy positions frequently look more like posturing and positioning than like contributions to solutions. This leaves the NCSG community vulnerable to dismissive attack. It also probably also sends the wrong message to stakeholder groups, waiting for policy decisions here, when they should be pressing for policy on these issues elsewhere within the Internet Ecosystem, as well at their own national and regional levels.
> 
> I may be alone in this perception and these concerns but as a member of the Policy Committee I wanted to put them on the table.  
> 
> Sam 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141218/79cbe781/attachment-0001.html>


From mshears  Thu Dec 18 17:34:50 2014
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 15:34:50 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on CCWG on IANA stewardship transition
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=BeOAO7VhbVydM8ucXYsJq92+32BYk3U2S4dSeW1AN9A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnCtU7hGp0a6KaVOWdbRsPefuHaqH14g5vR+KCi2K3jkw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAH5sThk1sjcvXgMhZyWEC6F+mFQp6s+fkZmxT-oZy619ASa_6Q@mail.gmail.com>	<5491B2EB.5070705@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=BeOAO7VhbVydM8ucXYsJq92+32BYk3U2S4dSeW1AN9A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5492F41A.1080200@cdt.org>

I think this proposal merits being submitted to the CWG consultation as is.

On 12/17/2014 5:03 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> easy to do, attached the frozen version prior to seun changes
> milton can disable the editing option since he is owner of the google 
> document.
>
> Rafik
> 2014-12-18 1:44 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org 
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     I cannot accept it with Seun's edits.
>
>     I think we need a frozen version that we take the decision on. 
>     then if the PC needs to change language to find our consensus we
>     can, but we can't work on a doc that is still waving from pole to
>     pole.
>
>     avri
>
>
>     On 17-Dec-14 10:46, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>     Hi everyone,
>>
>>     I am planning to do call for consensus and set the deadline for
>>     Sunday 21st Dec 23:59UTC
>>     so please review the statement . as reminder we have to submit by
>>     22nd Dec and as we discussed in confcall yesterday we still have
>>     work to do in that working group and solve some open issues.
>>
>>     Rafik
>>
>>     2014-12-15 13:01 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>>
>>         Hi everyone,
>>
>>         we have 1 week before the deadline to submit NCSG comment
>>         (https://docs.google.com/document/d/14mDNLW17CJ_7rHSprzSAW90jhzPjlMiJf8qkbRM_Lek
>>         ) regarding the CCWG on IANA transition proposal. The active
>>         NCSG members in that WG worked in the statement and resolved
>>         the comments . The draft statement was  also shared in NCSG
>>         list for membership review.
>>
>>         it is time that PC members review it for endorsement , acting
>>         as interim PC chair I will make the calls for consensus soon.
>>
>>         Best,
>>
>>         Rafik
>>
>>         for reference please find the draft proposal here
>>         https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-01-en
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org  <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141218/cdaf1574/attachment.html>


From avri  Thu Dec 18 17:40:01 2014
From: avri (avri)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 10:40:01 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on CCWG on IANA stewardship transition
Message-ID: <b4p4f779u6580kj3ayv1u68g.1418917201606@email.android.com>

Agree


avri

Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

<div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> </div><div>Date:12/18/2014  10:34 AM  (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org </div><div>Cc:  </div><div>Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on CCWG on IANA stewardship transition </div><div>
</div>I think this proposal merits being submitted to the CWG consultation as is.

On 12/17/2014 5:03 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
Hi,

easy to do, attached the frozen version prior to seun changes
milton can disable the editing option since he is owner of the google document.

Rafik 
2014-12-18 1:44 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
Hi,

I cannot accept it with Seun's edits.

I think we need a frozen version that we take the decision on.  then if the PC needs to change language to find our consensus we can, but we can't work on a doc that is still waving from pole to pole.

avri


On 17-Dec-14 10:46, Rafik Dammak wrote:
Hi everyone,

I am planning to do call for consensus and                           set the deadline for Sunday 21st Dec 23:59UTC
so please review the                           statement . as reminder we have to submit by 22nd Dec and as we discussed in confcall yesterday we still have work to do in that working group and solve some open issues.

Rafik 

2014-12-15 13:01 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
Hi everyone,

we have 1 week before the deadline to submit NCSG comment (https://docs.google.com/document/d/14mDNLW17CJ_7rHSprzSAW90jhzPjlMiJf8qkbRM_Lek ) regarding the CCWG on IANA transition proposal. The active NCSG members in that WG worked in the statement and resolved the comments . The draft statement was also shared in NCSG list for membership review.

it is time that PC members review it for endorsement , acting as interim PC chair I will make the calls for consensus soon.

Best,

Rafik

for reference please find the draft proposal here https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-01-en


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


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



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

-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141218/71b21170/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Thu Dec 18 18:10:02 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 11:10:02 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New Member Policy Process Reflections
In-Reply-To: <231CFD34-3DFE-43C5-9571-250499F97642@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sTh=epjHvRdXYxw_0-L6Gn-jmvC=TV1SVdxax8-LM+fMNUg@mail.gmail.com>	<E07B5E6E-ADFF-471E-81D2-0685B56C4F41@egyptig.org>	<548C647E.7080001@yorku.ca>	<CAH5sThkGg0ZuTWjGLBGKsrrWbCSEQjMeRyBa4yfq+UQCjBHxBg@mail.gmail.com>	<548F1FB1.2060103@yorku.ca>
	<231CFD34-3DFE-43C5-9571-250499F97642@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5492FC5A.7070007@mail.utoronto.ca>

I think you have raised an important point Amr, one which I am 
attempting to wrestle with right now in my writing.  This is the fact 
that engaging in ICANN, in the multi-stakeholder process, requires 
enormous amounts of dedication and work.  If you are not there to argue 
for your desired outcome in the PDPs, when the comment periods come out, 
etc etc, then you cannot really protest an outcome.  Only those with 
resources can participate for the years that it takes.  So managing an 
effective campaign to achieve an outcome requires long-haul 
perspectives, something that the ICC and business interests are well set 
up to achieve, but which has been a troubling weakness in civil society 
for decades.  Combine that with an altruistic view that we must be open 
and transparent (to the point of letting anyone join, not something the 
intellectual property constituency or the business group engage in) and 
the willingness to let every view be heard, it explains a lot of the 
inability to get traction on many issues.
We need more folks on the PDPs.  This is weekly heavy lifting, and we 
need more folks to sign up and help.
cheers Stephanie
On 2014-12-18, 3:28, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi Sam,
>
> I believe I understand what you're alluding to, but in case my 
> thoughts indicate otherwise, I would welcome any clarification you can 
> provide.
>
> I would say that identifying all three of the "What", the "Why" and 
> the "How" are not perfect within the gTLD policy development context 
> at ICANN. Perhaps in some instances, I would agree that this is more 
> true for the "How". However, I'm not sure how this makes the 
> multistakeholder process vulnerable. If you could give examples on how 
> you think this may happen, that'd be helpful.
>
> Identifying the "What" and the "Why" (according to my relatively 
> limited experience) is usually easier to achieve than identifying the 
> "How". When I say easier, I mean to say it costs significantly less in 
> terms of man-hours put into the effort. And although formalism and 
> stakeholder entitlement in the process is a frequent discussion (which 
> I believe it should continue to be), I wouldn't say that it trumps the 
> assessment, discussions and work put into the details of the solution 
> (the "How").
>
> Assuming they go through the appropriate process, gTLD policies aren't 
> just randomly conjured. They go through a painstakingly long process 
> that may take years from identification of the problem to 
> implementation of the solution. Because of the overwhelming effort and 
> investment of resources (human and other) required, there is a 
> relatively poor number of individuals and organisations that are 
> involved in this process. For those not involved, this was made rather 
> clear in the findings of the ATRT2 report.
>
> As far as .health is concerned, I believe the issues raised and the 
> concerns expressed are far too many to list in one email. I've been 
> paying rather close attention to them over the past couple of years 
> (for academic purposes), including articles posted in The Lancet and 
> the Journal of Medical Internet Research. A couple of those were also 
> attached to a limited public interest objection on the .health string 
> during the application process, which was overruled. From what I can 
> tell, a significant portion of the concerns are related to web 
> content, which is (and should not) be any of ICANN's business. Others 
> involve how the .health gTLD is being marketed, associating it with 
> trusted sources of health information; again..., perhaps questionable, 
> but none of ICANN's business.
>
> My best guess is that the real problem with the .health is the 
> disconnect between those raising the concerns, and the gTLD policy 
> development process. They are simply not nearly as involved as others, 
> and yet seek the authority to overrule those who have been. This is 
> somewhat consistent with the ATRT2 findings I mentioned above, and not 
> limited to the healthcare community. They started paying attention 
> late in the game, and still have not become as actively engaged as 
> they could be. I wouldn't put the blame on ICANN or the 
> multistakeholder processes it hosts. Again, I'm not saying they're 
> perfect, but to characterise them in a way you have is IMHO slightly 
> exaggerated.
>
> As far as ALAC are concerned, I am not informed enough on how much 
> work or reflection they've put into the issue of .health and other 
> strings involving "regulated" industries to comment on their insight 
> on the topic. However, I do think their inputs so far are very much 
> consistent with their positions on supporting policies that would 
> regulate anything that can perceivably be regulated. I have yet to 
> find a policy discussion involving ALAC in which I am in agreement 
> with them.
>
> Well..., those are my thoughts.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Dec 15, 2014, at 6:51 PM, Sam Lanfranco <Lanfran at yorku.ca 
> <mailto:Lanfran at yorku.ca>> wrote:
>
>> All on the Policy Committee,
>>
>> It may be that I am not looking in the right places but I have a 
>> sense of an endemic problem in the policy discussions within ICANN. 
>> The problem leaves both ICANN and the multistakeholder process 
>> vulnerable from serious attack from outside, and of being 
>> marginalized, not in terms of presence but in terms of impact, on key 
>> issues.
>>
>> Stakeholder policy discussions here appear good at identifying the" 
>> What" and the "Why" of policy issues and, for some more narrow areas, 
>> good at proposing solutions (the "How") that address the 
>> issues.However, in many cases the proposed processes for dealing with 
>> the "How" are neither subject to analysis of how they will work, nor 
>> if they will work. Frequently discussion focuses on a formalism 
>> involving stakeholder entitlements in the process (i.e., what 
>> committee to create and who will participate and how) rather than on 
>> an assessment of whether the approach will address the problem.
>>
>> A case in point is the long running issue of .health and other 
>> regulated professions/products gTLDs. The "What" and "Why" of the 
>> issues are well known, but there has been little discussion around 
>> whether the existence, or non-existence of such gTLDs make an iota of 
>> difference, or whether any particular ownership or contract language 
>> between ICANN, registries, and registrars, is likely to seriously 
>> address the issues.
>>
>> ALAC had recently proposed a moratorium on such gTLD strings. They 
>> had a lot of discussion of the "What" and the "Why", but again, no 
>> assessment of what is needed to address the problem, nor reflection 
>> on whether or not their position makes an iota of difference in light 
>> of the issues and behavior within the Internet ecosystem. Asking 
>> questions about the "How" tend to elicit little response.
>>
>> In the end the policy positions frequently look more like posturing 
>> and positioning than like contributions to solutions. This leaves the 
>> NCSG community vulnerable to dismissive attack. It also probably also 
>> sends the wrong message to stakeholder groups, waiting for policy 
>> decisions here, when they should be pressing for policy on these 
>> issues elsewhere within the Internet Ecosystem, as well at their own 
>> national and regional levels.
>>
>> I may be alone in this perception and these concerns but as a member 
>> of the Policy Committee I wanted to put them on the table.
>>
>> Sam
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141218/ba69d37a/attachment.html>


From wjdrake  Thu Dec 18 18:21:33 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 17:21:33 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on CCWG on IANA stewardship transition
In-Reply-To: <b4p4f779u6580kj3ayv1u68g.1418917201606@email.android.com>
References: <b4p4f779u6580kj3ayv1u68g.1418917201606@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <E3DFC3D2-CF5E-4CE1-B95B-65F779FABB08@gmail.com>

Si oui ja from the peanut gallery

BD

> On Dec 18, 2014, at 4:40 PM, avri <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Agree
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
> 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org>
> Date:12/18/2014 10:34 AM (GMT-05:00)
> To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on CCWG on IANA stewardship transition
> 
> I think this proposal merits being submitted to the CWG consultation as is.
> 
> On 12/17/2014 5:03 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> easy to do, attached the frozen version prior to seun changes
>> milton can disable the editing option since he is owner of the google document.
>> 
>> Rafik 
>> 2014-12-18 1:44 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I cannot accept it with Seun's edits.
>> 
>> I think we need a frozen version that we take the decision on.  then if the PC needs to change language to find our consensus we can, but we can't work on a doc that is still waving from pole to pole.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> On 17-Dec-14 10:46, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> 
>>> I am planning to do call for consensus and set the deadline for Sunday 21st Dec 23:59UTC
>>> so please review the statement . as reminder we have to submit by 22nd Dec and as we discussed in confcall yesterday we still have work to do in that working group and solve some open issues.
>>> 
>>> Rafik 
>>> 
>>> 2014-12-15 13:01 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> 
>>> we have 1 week before the deadline to submit NCSG comment (https://docs.google.com/document/d/14mDNLW17CJ_7rHSprzSAW90jhzPjlMiJf8qkbRM_Lek <https://docs.google.com/document/d/14mDNLW17CJ_7rHSprzSAW90jhzPjlMiJf8qkbRM_Lek> ) regarding the CCWG on IANA transition proposal. The active NCSG members in that WG worked in the statement and resolved the comments . The draft statement was  also shared in NCSG list for membership review. 
>>> 
>>> it is time that PC members review it for endorsement , acting as interim PC chair I will make the calls for consensus soon. 
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>> for reference please find the draft proposal here https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-01-en <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-01-en> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg <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 <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 <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141218/151ba6ef/attachment-0001.html>


From director-general  Thu Dec 18 18:47:49 2014
From: director-general (Dorothy K. Gordon)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 16:47:49 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on CCWG on IANA stewardship transition
In-Reply-To: <E3DFC3D2-CF5E-4CE1-B95B-65F779FABB08@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <27121532.95271418921269842.JavaMail.root@mail.aiti-kace.com.gh>

Ok with frozen version from sunny Accra.

best

Dorothy K. Gordon
Director-General
Ghana-India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT
Mobile: 233 265005712
Direct Line: 233 302 683579
Website: www.aiti-kace.com.gh
Encrypt Everything - https://gpgtools.org https://silentcircle.com

----- Original Message -----
From: "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com>
To: "NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>
Sent: Thursday, 18 December, 2014 4:21:33 PM GMT +00:00 Casablanca / Monrovia
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on CCWG on IANA stewardship transition


Si oui ja from the peanut gallery 


BD 





On Dec 18, 2014, at 4:40 PM, avri < avri at acm.org > wrote: 



Agree 




avri 


Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device 


-------- Original message -------- 
From: Matthew Shears < mshears at cdt.org > 
Date:12/18/2014 10:34 AM (GMT-05:00) 
To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org 
Cc: 
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on CCWG on IANA stewardship transition 

I think this proposal merits being submitted to the CWG consultation as is. 


On 12/17/2014 5:03 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: 



Hi, 


easy to do, attached the frozen version prior to seun changes 
milton can disable the editing option since he is owner of the google document. 





Rafik 
2014-12-18 1:44 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria < avri at acm.org > : 


Hi, 

I cannot accept it with Seun's edits. 

I think we need a frozen version that we take the decision on. then if the PC needs to change language to find our consensus we can, but we can't work on a doc that is still waving from pole to pole. 

avri 




On 17-Dec-14 10:46, Rafik Dammak wrote: 





Hi everyone, 


I am planning to do call for consensus and set the deadline for Sunday 21st Dec 23:59UTC 
so please review the statement . as reminder we have to submit by 22nd Dec and as we discussed in confcall yesterday we still have work to do in that working group and solve some open issues. 





Rafik 


2014-12-15 13:01 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com > : 


Hi everyone, 


we have 1 week before the deadline to submit NCSG comment ( https://docs.google.com/document/d/14mDNLW17CJ_7rHSprzSAW90jhzPjlMiJf8qkbRM_Lek ) regarding the CCWG on IANA transition proposal. The active NCSG members in that WG worked in the statement and resolved the comments . The draft statement was also shared in NCSG list for membership review. 


it is time that PC members review it for endorsement , acting as interim PC chair I will make the calls for consensus soon. 


Best, 


Rafik 


for reference please find the draft proposal here https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-01-en 

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

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



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


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



From lanfran  Thu Dec 18 19:58:42 2014
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 12:58:42 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New Member Policy Process Reflections
In-Reply-To: <231CFD34-3DFE-43C5-9571-250499F97642@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sTh=epjHvRdXYxw_0-L6Gn-jmvC=TV1SVdxax8-LM+fMNUg@mail.gmail.com>
	<E07B5E6E-ADFF-471E-81D2-0685B56C4F41@egyptig.org>
	<548C647E.7080001@yorku.ca>
	<CAH5sThkGg0ZuTWjGLBGKsrrWbCSEQjMeRyBa4yfq+UQCjBHxBg@mail.gmail.com>
	<548F1FB1.2060103@yorku.ca>
	<231CFD34-3DFE-43C5-9571-250499F97642@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <549315D2.2050909@yorku.ca>

Amr,

Thanks for your detailed response. In the interests of brevity I will 
not reproduce the two previous NCSG-Policy postings here. I will try to 
focus on the key issues you raise. This is a meta level discussion 
compared to the usual work of the NCSG community, but stepping back and 
looking from a distance can be healthy. For the most part, while we 
appear to be in agreement on much of this, I will focus on areas where 
there is still some need for clarification.

With regard to the vulnerability of the multistakeholder process within 
ICANN, here are two short comments. First, I am heavily invested in the 
multistakeholder processes with regard to policy. I believe it will turn 
out to be the hallmark advance in governance in the 21st Century, in 
large part because of the Internet ecosystem. Second, I worry that 
ICANN?s multistakeholder process is vulnerable to outside pressures from 
two sources. One, which you cite, is the narrow breadth and shallow 
depth of NPO/Civil Society engagement, especially if that comes under 
attack from governments. NPOC, beyond its role within NCSG and ICANN, is 
devoting increased attention to that issue. The other vulnerability is 
around elements within policy positions, as apart from policy development.

Our comments agree with regard to the What, Why and How of policy 
development. Each stage is never perfect and policy is an ongoing 
process. The dialogue and decisions around the What and Why set the 
context, within which the How is the always a difficult part. You ask 
how my assessment of inadequate attention to the policy "How" makes the 
multistakeholder process vulnerable. I will address that as an issue 
beyond the one of breadth and depth of engagement.

Let me use the .health gTLD to illustrate the vulnerability, and link it 
back to the problem of anemic engagement in the policy processes. I am 
in full agreement with you on the assessment that virtually all of the 
issues surrounding .health have nothing to do with the existence or 
non-existence of .health as a gTLD, nor whether the registry is a 
private entity or belongs to an entity like the WHO (which did not 
compete for it). The issues are outside ICANN?s remit and there is 
nothing within ICANN itself that can address those issues. So what is 
the vulnerability here?

Let me draw on the thoughts of A.K. Sen in his book, /The Idea of 
Justice/, where he reminds us that the purpose of engagement is twofold. 
It is to participate in the decision making process, such as voting in a 
democracy or reaching consensus within ICANN, but it is also to educate 
and raise the levels of awareness within constituent communities, both 
for social cohesion and for future decision making. This is especially 
applicable for Internet governance since there are multiple venues 
within the Internet ecosystem where policy issues arise.

I would have hoped, and expected, that the dialogue within ICANN could 
have produced a more explicit position with regard to where the 
constituencies stood on gTLDs like .health. I especially think that we 
have an obligation to turn around and also help raise awareness and 
understanding within our own constituent communities. They raised the 
questions and we should help answer them.

For example, my analysis of .health is the same as yours. As Chair of 
the Policy Committee in NPOC I am trying to get NPOC to take a position 
on .health, not just to have a position but to also raise awareness and 
knowledge within the global health community. That is not easy. In a 
venue strongly opposed to .health an email to 2300 members suggesting 
they express their views to their own governments generated 5 actions. 
My personal view as expressed in that discussion is that the issues 
attached to .health are indeed serious but are wrongly attached to 
.health and should be addressed elsewhere. This is at odds with the ALAC 
position where I am unsure of both the analysis and the argument behind 
their position. Ideally this could serve as a basis for further dialogue 
between ICANN constituency groups such as ALAC and NPOC, dialogue that 
could produce at least a deeper understanding of the issues, and maybe 
lay this matter to rest within ICANN.

Again, where is the multistakeholder processes vulnerability here? It 
exists at two levels. ICANN, and its constituencies continue to be a 
target for misplaced strategies trying to pressure ICANN, or NPOC, or 
whomever, to ?do something about .health?. These attacks are not by 
politically motivated adversaries of ICANN, nor attacks on the 
multistakeholder process. They are driven by poorly informed 
frustration, but they damage both ICANN and the credibility of 
multistakeholder processes. The other vulnerability is that this 
presents ammunition for moves by politically motivated adversaries of 
ICANN.

How would I address these risks of vulnerability? Again using .health as 
an example, I would (and am) pushing for a clearer statement of ICANN 
constituency positions, starting with NPOC. I would also urge each 
organized constituency within ICANN to take greater initiative in 
raising the awareness, knowledge, and understanding of such Internet 
ecosystem issues, in order to promote greater engagement in policy 
within the appropriate venues, many of which are outside ICANN and at 
the national level. This is not to diminish the importance of work under 
way by others, but is to suggest that ICANN constituencies themselves 
also have an outreach obligation that goes beyond recruitment.

Sam Lanfranco, Chair
NPOC Policy Committee.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141218/662d473b/attachment.html>


From lanfran  Thu Dec 18 20:15:32 2014
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 13:15:32 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on CCWG on IANA stewardship transition
In-Reply-To: <b4p4f779u6580kj3ayv1u68g.1418917201606@email.android.com>
References: <b4p4f779u6580kj3ayv1u68g.1418917201606@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <549319C4.3090504@yorku.ca>

I support the document as is.

/ (not sure what the red anonymous rhino thingy is in the first para of 
the "The 'ICANN Only' Option"  (p. 3))

Sam L. /
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141218/bfb397e5/attachment-0001.html>


From mshears  Fri Dec 19 12:38:50 2014
From: mshears (Matthew Shears)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 10:38:50 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] For those going to Singapore
In-Reply-To: <5493FE0E.8060809@abaster.com>
References: <5493FE0E.8060809@abaster.com>
Message-ID: <5494003A.1070305@cdt.org>


	

	

	



http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2014/dec/19/top-10-restaurants-singapore




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141219/1ff5941e/attachment.html>


From lanfran  Fri Dec 19 16:30:14 2014
From: lanfran (Sam Lanfranco)
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 09:30:14 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] For those going to Singapore
In-Reply-To: <5494003A.1070305@cdt.org>
References: <5493FE0E.8060809@abaster.com> <5494003A.1070305@cdt.org>
Message-ID: <54943676.1010901@yorku.ca>

On 19/12/2014 5:38 AM, Matthew Shears wrote:
> http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2014/dec/19/top-10-restaurants-singapore

plus, for cheap and good Singapore food:


http://www.ladyironchef.com/tag/cheap-and-good-food-in-singapore/



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141219/b2c98107/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Dec 22 02:24:01 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 09:24:01 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Consensus call NCSG statement on CCWG on IANA stewardship
	transition
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=pB=WqOfF2Z39VJAPB_Fh+DuV6qCQK+-RweTAvDLLw8g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

thanks for supporting the statement. the time for the consensus call passed
and seeing no objection so I can consider that the comment is endorsed by
NCSG PC. I will submit it today.

Best,

Rafik

>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141222/f8146b53/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CommentsonCWG-IANAdraft.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 151450 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141222/f8146b53/attachment-0001.pdf>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Dec 22 14:29:40 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 21:29:40 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH Intersessional Planning Call - select topics/
	co-chairs
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkOHaH8sLq3O60+nw+vtoF6HaFvhuP8Kmtbf3-sBp7tPg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

we shall agree on topic in the next days and share it with CSG. I  saw
suggestions such:
- "Public Interest Commitments or more generally, new gTLD review of the
first round"
- IANA
- privacy

I am thinking  what we can achieve with those topics exactly. adding some
description would be helpful and what we can advance,
please express your preference for 1 among those topics within the next 3
days (just before you disappear into Christmas dimension :))

on other hands, we need to have co-chairs for each slot(please check the
attached agenda), I guess that I may co-chair more than 1 session (at least
slot E and slot L) but it will be great to have others to volunteer since
we need to prepare for those topics. Bill already expressed interest in
the slot B. Lori also expressed interest to volunteer for co-chairing a
slot.


Best Regards,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141222/1dd02af9/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Agenda - NCPH InterSessional (v5.1-16Dec2014).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 138428 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141222/1dd02af9/attachment-0001.docx>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Dec 22 15:15:55 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 22:15:55 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: Status Update of GNSO Review
In-Reply-To: <f431352ed8a745b0894d47328b36234c@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
References: <BN1PR06MB326E433872F776B61E4E9F0DF6F0@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
	<2df2fdaf93d74ffab3470454df47f804@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<c278cdd1feb94e36999f25bbf7e4c9d5@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<f431352ed8a745b0894d47328b36234c@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmYwcHYY3raPzPWwyx_Sd3U+ZGFgUjejwTaMFP+SkO3Tw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

some updates from the GNSO review working party.

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
Date: 2014-12-16 1:44 GMT+09:00
Subject: FW: Status Update of GNSO Review
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Cc: Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>, Glen de Saint G?ry <
gnso-secretariat at gnso.icann.org>, "Jen Wolfe (jwolfe at wolfedomain.com)" <
jwolfe at wolfedomain.com>




*O**n behalf of:* Jen Wolfe
*Sent:* lundi 15 d?cembre 2014 17:17



Dear GNSO Council and GNSO leadership,



I hope everyone is having a great holiday season!  I?d like to update you
on the progress of the review and provide you with the revised schedule.



Westlake team will deliver the Working Text and staff will organize the
wiki space to capture the feedback and views from the GNSO Review Working
Party on *2 January 2015*.  The GNSO Review Working Party will have until *30
January* to provide consolidated comments on the Working Text back to
Westlake.  This will ensure sufficient time to review the Working Text,
without interfering with everyone?s holiday.   Two special meetings of the
GNSO Review Working Party will be scheduled in January.  It will be very
important to have full participation from the Working Party, representing
the various stakeholder and constituency groups, to actively participate in
providing feedback.  Once Westlake has received feedback from the Working
Party, they will prepare the draft report to be released.



Providing comments on the Working Text allows the GNSO Review Working Party
to offer feedback before it is publicly released and ensure any real or
perceived inaccuracies are addressed, as well as begin to capture issues
for further discussion as the Review process moves forward.  Westlake will
then draft their report which will be posted for Public Comment at the end
of February, for the GNSO as a whole, along with the rest of the ICANN
community to provide feedback.



Please see the schedule below for further details. Key dates are also
available on the GNSO Review wiki <https://community.icann.org/x/OJLhAg>.



For your reference, I am forwarding an email from Richard Westlake, which
provides a brief overview of the status of the 360 Assessment survey,
interviews conducted and overall review methodology.



If you have any questions or would like clarification on any issue related
to the Review, please don?t hesitate to reach out to me directly and I will
be happy to respond as quickly as possible to ensure any concerns are
addressed prior to the release of the report.  I am happy to be available
during upcoming Council meetings to answer questions and will look forward
to a more detailed briefing with Council in Singapore.



Wishing you all a joyous holiday season and New Year!



Jen





*GNSO Review: Important Dates*

Working text for the GNSO Review Working Party and Staff for clarification
and comments (distributed and posted on the wiki)

2 January 2015

GNSO Review Working Party working session #1 ? Westlake Briefing

16 January 201518:00 UTC

GNSO Review Working Party working session #2 ? discussion, Q&A

22 January 18:00 UTC

Consolidated comments on Working Text due to Westlake from GNSO Review
Working Party and Staff

30 January

Updates and discussions during ICANN52

8-12 February; public session date TBD

Draft Report delivered by Westlake

20 February

Draft Report posted for public comment

27 February

Public Comment period (42 days)

27 February ? 10 April

Final Report

30 April (tentative, depending on volume and nature of public comments)





*Update from Richard Westlake*



Dear Jen and Larisa,



Following recent questions about Westlake?s review methods and individual
interviews, I should like to highlight some points to reiterate why we
consider that we have collected extensive, diverse, balanced and
fact-based sets of data.  We have and will continue to apply our
professional expertise and independent perspective to ensure a high-quality
useful final report, and we note that many of our observations and
recommendations will be a matter of  informed subject judgment in addition
to, and based largely on, our research findings.



1.       The GNSO Review Methodology formulated by the Structural
Improvement Committee and used as the basis for the Request for Proposal,
Westlake's response, and the Terms of Reference/Scope of Work consisted of
three data collection mechanisms:



a.       360 Assessment designed to collect feedback from GNSO, other
SOs/ACs, Board and Staff (quantitative and qualitative) ? our primary and
critical component. In addition (and outside the scope originally
envisaged), following feedback and advice, we added the Supplementary
Working Group 360 Assessment, to provide a greater depth of information on
the WGs;

b.       Review of documents and records;

c.       Limited interviews to fill in the gaps.

(As you know, the GNSO Review Working Party has provided substantive
feedback and guidance on the review methodology, including extensive input
into the formulation of the 360 Assessment and Supplementary WG 360.)



2.       We and ICANN staff carried out extensive outreach and engagement
efforts between July and October, to encourage participation in the 360
Assessment, including two extensions to allow ample time for people to
respond ? see chart below.  These efforts resulted in 178 completed
responses from a broad and diverse group of people by the time the 360
closed at the end of ICANN51.



3.       From the start, Westlake advocated for the interview component to
be given more weight (both in our original response to the RfP
and subsequently). This led to a modification in the original plans to
enable our team to attend ICANN51, where we spoke to many people and
attended many of the SG/C meetings, providing us with a first-hand view of
GNSO proceedings.  We contacted an extensive list of relevant people -
including some, but not all, SG/C chairs - before the LA meeting.
We successfully conducted interviews, in person and subsequently over the
phone, with about 27 individuals to date and likely to total about 30.
Several people we contacted failed even to respond, despite several
attempts and others have been unable to make time to speak to us.
Since LA, we have again tried to contact several people with only limited
response. Although we are at a very late stage, we still aim to speak to a
few more people.



4.       Our team has reviewed extensive documents relating to the
implementation of earlier review recommendations, along with other
documentation, and has analysed records detailing the work of the GNSO.



5.       The data our team has gathered from these channels has been
extensive and in our view sufficiently broad and diverse to support our
observations, leading to findings and recommendations that we shall include
in our Draft Report.  As a further opportunity for feedback, before we
finalise our report, there will be additional opportunities for the GNSO
and others to offer their views:



a.      The GNSO Review Working Party will review our Working Text and
engage in a dialogue to clarify, expand and correct information, as
appropriate.  We will be particularly interested in this group?s feedback
on the usefulness and practicality of our draft recommendations.

b.      An overview will be presented in a session at ICANN52 in February,
with another opportunity to provide feedback.

c.      The formal Public Comment Period will open in February and the
feedback will be considered as we prepare our Final Report.

d.      We will continue to work closely with the GNSO Review Working Party
through the balance of the Review.



I trust that this information covers your questions about our methodology
and any remaining concerns about our interviews.



Please contact me again if you need any additional information.



Have a good weekend!




Kind regards

Richard

Richard G A Westlake
*Westlake Governance*



*GNSO Review Statistics*

*360 Assessment:*



-- Main survey

152 completed responses



(250 started)

-- Supplementary survey (WG)

26 completed responses



(50 started)

*Total*

*178 completed responses*



*60% completion rate*

*Interviews:*

*27 to date, likely total 30+*

*(Plus several other shorter informal discussions, mainly in LA)*

*GNSO Review Working Party meetings:*

*13*

*Engagement:*



-- Announcements page views

*1,709*

-- Blog page views

*2,957*

*Outreach:*



-- Webinars

*3*

-- Update presentations

*14*

-- Blogs

*2*

-- Videos

*2*

-- FAQ Brochures and Post cards distributed at ICANN51

*3,000*













*jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB*

Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm

*513.746.2801*

*IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014*

What will you do with your Dot Brand?  : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P

Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs  http://ow.ly/Eblgc

Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column  http://ow.ly/EbljP

Linked In Group:  gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141222/2a5c2c59/attachment-0001.html>


From wendy  Mon Dec 22 15:34:16 2014
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 08:34:16 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: Status Update of GNSO Review
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmYwcHYY3raPzPWwyx_Sd3U+ZGFgUjejwTaMFP+SkO3Tw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BN1PR06MB326E433872F776B61E4E9F0DF6F0@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>	<2df2fdaf93d74ffab3470454df47f804@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>	<c278cdd1feb94e36999f25bbf7e4c9d5@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>	<f431352ed8a745b0894d47328b36234c@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sThmYwcHYY3raPzPWwyx_Sd3U+ZGFgUjejwTaMFP+SkO3Tw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54981DD8.7010009@seltzer.com>

I can't help wanting to see a diff between the version the Working Party
gets and that circulated to the whole GNSO and public...

--Wendy

On 12/22/2014 08:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> some updates from the GNSO review working party.
> 
> Rafik
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: 2014-12-16 1:44 GMT+09:00
> Subject: FW: Status Update of GNSO Review
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Cc: Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>, Glen de Saint G?ry <
> gnso-secretariat at gnso.icann.org>, "Jen Wolfe (jwolfe at wolfedomain.com)" <
> jwolfe at wolfedomain.com>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *O**n behalf of:* Jen Wolfe
> *Sent:* lundi 15 d?cembre 2014 17:17
> 
> 
> 
> Dear GNSO Council and GNSO leadership,
> 
> 
> 
> I hope everyone is having a great holiday season!  I?d like to update you
> on the progress of the review and provide you with the revised schedule.
> 
> 
> 
> Westlake team will deliver the Working Text and staff will organize the
> wiki space to capture the feedback and views from the GNSO Review Working
> Party on *2 January 2015*.  The GNSO Review Working Party will have until *30
> January* to provide consolidated comments on the Working Text back to
> Westlake.  This will ensure sufficient time to review the Working Text,
> without interfering with everyone?s holiday.   Two special meetings of the
> GNSO Review Working Party will be scheduled in January.  It will be very
> important to have full participation from the Working Party, representing
> the various stakeholder and constituency groups, to actively participate in
> providing feedback.  Once Westlake has received feedback from the Working
> Party, they will prepare the draft report to be released.
> 
> 
> 
> Providing comments on the Working Text allows the GNSO Review Working Party
> to offer feedback before it is publicly released and ensure any real or
> perceived inaccuracies are addressed, as well as begin to capture issues
> for further discussion as the Review process moves forward.  Westlake will
> then draft their report which will be posted for Public Comment at the end
> of February, for the GNSO as a whole, along with the rest of the ICANN
> community to provide feedback.
> 
> 
> 
> Please see the schedule below for further details. Key dates are also
> available on the GNSO Review wiki <https://community.icann.org/x/OJLhAg>.
> 
> 
> 
> For your reference, I am forwarding an email from Richard Westlake, which
> provides a brief overview of the status of the 360 Assessment survey,
> interviews conducted and overall review methodology.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have any questions or would like clarification on any issue related
> to the Review, please don?t hesitate to reach out to me directly and I will
> be happy to respond as quickly as possible to ensure any concerns are
> addressed prior to the release of the report.  I am happy to be available
> during upcoming Council meetings to answer questions and will look forward
> to a more detailed briefing with Council in Singapore.
> 
> 
> 
> Wishing you all a joyous holiday season and New Year!
> 
> 
> 
> Jen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *GNSO Review: Important Dates*
> 
> Working text for the GNSO Review Working Party and Staff for clarification
> and comments (distributed and posted on the wiki)
> 
> 2 January 2015
> 
> GNSO Review Working Party working session #1 ? Westlake Briefing
> 
> 16 January 201518:00 UTC
> 
> GNSO Review Working Party working session #2 ? discussion, Q&A
> 
> 22 January 18:00 UTC
> 
> Consolidated comments on Working Text due to Westlake from GNSO Review
> Working Party and Staff
> 
> 30 January
> 
> Updates and discussions during ICANN52
> 
> 8-12 February; public session date TBD
> 
> Draft Report delivered by Westlake
> 
> 20 February
> 
> Draft Report posted for public comment
> 
> 27 February
> 
> Public Comment period (42 days)
> 
> 27 February ? 10 April
> 
> Final Report
> 
> 30 April (tentative, depending on volume and nature of public comments)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Update from Richard Westlake*
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Jen and Larisa,
> 
> 
> 
> Following recent questions about Westlake?s review methods and individual
> interviews, I should like to highlight some points to reiterate why we
> consider that we have collected extensive, diverse, balanced and
> fact-based sets of data.  We have and will continue to apply our
> professional expertise and independent perspective to ensure a high-quality
> useful final report, and we note that many of our observations and
> recommendations will be a matter of  informed subject judgment in addition
> to, and based largely on, our research findings.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.       The GNSO Review Methodology formulated by the Structural
> Improvement Committee and used as the basis for the Request for Proposal,
> Westlake's response, and the Terms of Reference/Scope of Work consisted of
> three data collection mechanisms:
> 
> 
> 
> a.       360 Assessment designed to collect feedback from GNSO, other
> SOs/ACs, Board and Staff (quantitative and qualitative) ? our primary and
> critical component. In addition (and outside the scope originally
> envisaged), following feedback and advice, we added the Supplementary
> Working Group 360 Assessment, to provide a greater depth of information on
> the WGs;
> 
> b.       Review of documents and records;
> 
> c.       Limited interviews to fill in the gaps.
> 
> (As you know, the GNSO Review Working Party has provided substantive
> feedback and guidance on the review methodology, including extensive input
> into the formulation of the 360 Assessment and Supplementary WG 360.)
> 
> 
> 
> 2.       We and ICANN staff carried out extensive outreach and engagement
> efforts between July and October, to encourage participation in the 360
> Assessment, including two extensions to allow ample time for people to
> respond ? see chart below.  These efforts resulted in 178 completed
> responses from a broad and diverse group of people by the time the 360
> closed at the end of ICANN51.
> 
> 
> 
> 3.       From the start, Westlake advocated for the interview component to
> be given more weight (both in our original response to the RfP
> and subsequently). This led to a modification in the original plans to
> enable our team to attend ICANN51, where we spoke to many people and
> attended many of the SG/C meetings, providing us with a first-hand view of
> GNSO proceedings.  We contacted an extensive list of relevant people -
> including some, but not all, SG/C chairs - before the LA meeting.
> We successfully conducted interviews, in person and subsequently over the
> phone, with about 27 individuals to date and likely to total about 30.
> Several people we contacted failed even to respond, despite several
> attempts and others have been unable to make time to speak to us.
> Since LA, we have again tried to contact several people with only limited
> response. Although we are at a very late stage, we still aim to speak to a
> few more people.
> 
> 
> 
> 4.       Our team has reviewed extensive documents relating to the
> implementation of earlier review recommendations, along with other
> documentation, and has analysed records detailing the work of the GNSO.
> 
> 
> 
> 5.       The data our team has gathered from these channels has been
> extensive and in our view sufficiently broad and diverse to support our
> observations, leading to findings and recommendations that we shall include
> in our Draft Report.  As a further opportunity for feedback, before we
> finalise our report, there will be additional opportunities for the GNSO
> and others to offer their views:
> 
> 
> 
> a.      The GNSO Review Working Party will review our Working Text and
> engage in a dialogue to clarify, expand and correct information, as
> appropriate.  We will be particularly interested in this group?s feedback
> on the usefulness and practicality of our draft recommendations.
> 
> b.      An overview will be presented in a session at ICANN52 in February,
> with another opportunity to provide feedback.
> 
> c.      The formal Public Comment Period will open in February and the
> feedback will be considered as we prepare our Final Report.
> 
> d.      We will continue to work closely with the GNSO Review Working Party
> through the balance of the Review.
> 
> 
> 
> I trust that this information covers your questions about our methodology
> and any remaining concerns about our interviews.
> 
> 
> 
> Please contact me again if you need any additional information.
> 
> 
> 
> Have a good weekend!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Richard
> 
> Richard G A Westlake
> *Westlake Governance*
> 
> 
> 
> *GNSO Review Statistics*
> 
> *360 Assessment:*
> 
> 
> 
> -- Main survey
> 
> 152 completed responses
> 
> 
> 
> (250 started)
> 
> -- Supplementary survey (WG)
> 
> 26 completed responses
> 
> 
> 
> (50 started)
> 
> *Total*
> 
> *178 completed responses*
> 
> 
> 
> *60% completion rate*
> 
> *Interviews:*
> 
> *27 to date, likely total 30+*
> 
> *(Plus several other shorter informal discussions, mainly in LA)*
> 
> *GNSO Review Working Party meetings:*
> 
> *13*
> 
> *Engagement:*
> 
> 
> 
> -- Announcements page views
> 
> *1,709*
> 
> -- Blog page views
> 
> *2,957*
> 
> *Outreach:*
> 
> 
> 
> -- Webinars
> 
> *3*
> 
> -- Update presentations
> 
> *14*
> 
> -- Blogs
> 
> *2*
> 
> -- Videos
> 
> *2*
> 
> -- FAQ Brochures and Post cards distributed at ICANN51
> 
> *3,000*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB*
> 
> Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm
> 
> *513.746.2801*
> 
> *IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014*
> 
> What will you do with your Dot Brand?  : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P
> 
> Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs  http://ow.ly/Eblgc
> 
> Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column  http://ow.ly/EbljP
> 
> Linked In Group:  gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 


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



From rafik.dammak  Mon Dec 22 15:44:53 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 22:44:53 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: Status Update of GNSO Review
In-Reply-To: <54981DD8.7010009@seltzer.com>
References: <BN1PR06MB326E433872F776B61E4E9F0DF6F0@BN1PR06MB326.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
	<2df2fdaf93d74ffab3470454df47f804@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<c278cdd1feb94e36999f25bbf7e4c9d5@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<f431352ed8a745b0894d47328b36234c@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sThmYwcHYY3raPzPWwyx_Sd3U+ZGFgUjejwTaMFP+SkO3Tw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54981DD8.7010009@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmo5zOGbEbWwhbsAmFHCCR-2q3wGb5V6kP9AYk+LBA6CQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Wendy,

it seems the case, we got longer version with Westlake input :)

Rafik

2014-12-22 22:34 GMT+09:00 Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>:

> I can't help wanting to see a diff between the version the Working Party
> gets and that circulated to the whole GNSO and public...
>
> --Wendy
>
> On 12/22/2014 08:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > some updates from the GNSO review working party.
> >
> > Rafik
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> > Date: 2014-12-16 1:44 GMT+09:00
> > Subject: FW: Status Update of GNSO Review
> > To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> > Cc: Maryam Bakoshi <maryam.bakoshi at icann.org>, Glen de Saint G?ry <
> > gnso-secretariat at gnso.icann.org>, "Jen Wolfe (jwolfe at wolfedomain.com)" <
> > jwolfe at wolfedomain.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *O**n behalf of:* Jen Wolfe
> > *Sent:* lundi 15 d?cembre 2014 17:17
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear GNSO Council and GNSO leadership,
> >
> >
> >
> > I hope everyone is having a great holiday season!  I?d like to update you
> > on the progress of the review and provide you with the revised schedule.
> >
> >
> >
> > Westlake team will deliver the Working Text and staff will organize the
> > wiki space to capture the feedback and views from the GNSO Review Working
> > Party on *2 January 2015*.  The GNSO Review Working Party will have
> until *30
> > January* to provide consolidated comments on the Working Text back to
> > Westlake.  This will ensure sufficient time to review the Working Text,
> > without interfering with everyone?s holiday.   Two special meetings of
> the
> > GNSO Review Working Party will be scheduled in January.  It will be very
> > important to have full participation from the Working Party, representing
> > the various stakeholder and constituency groups, to actively participate
> in
> > providing feedback.  Once Westlake has received feedback from the Working
> > Party, they will prepare the draft report to be released.
> >
> >
> >
> > Providing comments on the Working Text allows the GNSO Review Working
> Party
> > to offer feedback before it is publicly released and ensure any real or
> > perceived inaccuracies are addressed, as well as begin to capture issues
> > for further discussion as the Review process moves forward.  Westlake
> will
> > then draft their report which will be posted for Public Comment at the
> end
> > of February, for the GNSO as a whole, along with the rest of the ICANN
> > community to provide feedback.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please see the schedule below for further details. Key dates are also
> > available on the GNSO Review wiki <https://community.icann.org/x/OJLhAg
> >.
> >
> >
> >
> > For your reference, I am forwarding an email from Richard Westlake, which
> > provides a brief overview of the status of the 360 Assessment survey,
> > interviews conducted and overall review methodology.
> >
> >
> >
> > If you have any questions or would like clarification on any issue
> related
> > to the Review, please don?t hesitate to reach out to me directly and I
> will
> > be happy to respond as quickly as possible to ensure any concerns are
> > addressed prior to the release of the report.  I am happy to be available
> > during upcoming Council meetings to answer questions and will look
> forward
> > to a more detailed briefing with Council in Singapore.
> >
> >
> >
> > Wishing you all a joyous holiday season and New Year!
> >
> >
> >
> > Jen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *GNSO Review: Important Dates*
> >
> > Working text for the GNSO Review Working Party and Staff for
> clarification
> > and comments (distributed and posted on the wiki)
> >
> > 2 January 2015
> >
> > GNSO Review Working Party working session #1 ? Westlake Briefing
> >
> > 16 January 201518:00 UTC
> >
> > GNSO Review Working Party working session #2 ? discussion, Q&A
> >
> > 22 January 18:00 UTC
> >
> > Consolidated comments on Working Text due to Westlake from GNSO Review
> > Working Party and Staff
> >
> > 30 January
> >
> > Updates and discussions during ICANN52
> >
> > 8-12 February; public session date TBD
> >
> > Draft Report delivered by Westlake
> >
> > 20 February
> >
> > Draft Report posted for public comment
> >
> > 27 February
> >
> > Public Comment period (42 days)
> >
> > 27 February ? 10 April
> >
> > Final Report
> >
> > 30 April (tentative, depending on volume and nature of public comments)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *Update from Richard Westlake*
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Jen and Larisa,
> >
> >
> >
> > Following recent questions about Westlake?s review methods and individual
> > interviews, I should like to highlight some points to reiterate why we
> > consider that we have collected extensive, diverse, balanced and
> > fact-based sets of data.  We have and will continue to apply our
> > professional expertise and independent perspective to ensure a
> high-quality
> > useful final report, and we note that many of our observations and
> > recommendations will be a matter of  informed subject judgment in
> addition
> > to, and based largely on, our research findings.
> >
> >
> >
> > 1.       The GNSO Review Methodology formulated by the Structural
> > Improvement Committee and used as the basis for the Request for Proposal,
> > Westlake's response, and the Terms of Reference/Scope of Work consisted
> of
> > three data collection mechanisms:
> >
> >
> >
> > a.       360 Assessment designed to collect feedback from GNSO, other
> > SOs/ACs, Board and Staff (quantitative and qualitative) ? our primary and
> > critical component. In addition (and outside the scope originally
> > envisaged), following feedback and advice, we added the Supplementary
> > Working Group 360 Assessment, to provide a greater depth of information
> on
> > the WGs;
> >
> > b.       Review of documents and records;
> >
> > c.       Limited interviews to fill in the gaps.
> >
> > (As you know, the GNSO Review Working Party has provided substantive
> > feedback and guidance on the review methodology, including extensive
> input
> > into the formulation of the 360 Assessment and Supplementary WG 360.)
> >
> >
> >
> > 2.       We and ICANN staff carried out extensive outreach and engagement
> > efforts between July and October, to encourage participation in the 360
> > Assessment, including two extensions to allow ample time for people to
> > respond ? see chart below.  These efforts resulted in 178 completed
> > responses from a broad and diverse group of people by the time the 360
> > closed at the end of ICANN51.
> >
> >
> >
> > 3.       From the start, Westlake advocated for the interview component
> to
> > be given more weight (both in our original response to the RfP
> > and subsequently). This led to a modification in the original plans to
> > enable our team to attend ICANN51, where we spoke to many people and
> > attended many of the SG/C meetings, providing us with a first-hand view
> of
> > GNSO proceedings.  We contacted an extensive list of relevant people -
> > including some, but not all, SG/C chairs - before the LA meeting.
> > We successfully conducted interviews, in person and subsequently over the
> > phone, with about 27 individuals to date and likely to total about 30.
> > Several people we contacted failed even to respond, despite several
> > attempts and others have been unable to make time to speak to us.
> > Since LA, we have again tried to contact several people with only limited
> > response. Although we are at a very late stage, we still aim to speak to
> a
> > few more people.
> >
> >
> >
> > 4.       Our team has reviewed extensive documents relating to the
> > implementation of earlier review recommendations, along with other
> > documentation, and has analysed records detailing the work of the GNSO.
> >
> >
> >
> > 5.       The data our team has gathered from these channels has been
> > extensive and in our view sufficiently broad and diverse to support our
> > observations, leading to findings and recommendations that we shall
> include
> > in our Draft Report.  As a further opportunity for feedback, before we
> > finalise our report, there will be additional opportunities for the GNSO
> > and others to offer their views:
> >
> >
> >
> > a.      The GNSO Review Working Party will review our Working Text and
> > engage in a dialogue to clarify, expand and correct information, as
> > appropriate.  We will be particularly interested in this group?s feedback
> > on the usefulness and practicality of our draft recommendations.
> >
> > b.      An overview will be presented in a session at ICANN52 in
> February,
> > with another opportunity to provide feedback.
> >
> > c.      The formal Public Comment Period will open in February and the
> > feedback will be considered as we prepare our Final Report.
> >
> > d.      We will continue to work closely with the GNSO Review Working
> Party
> > through the balance of the Review.
> >
> >
> >
> > I trust that this information covers your questions about our methodology
> > and any remaining concerns about our interviews.
> >
> >
> >
> > Please contact me again if you need any additional information.
> >
> >
> >
> > Have a good weekend!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > Richard G A Westlake
> > *Westlake Governance*
> >
> >
> >
> > *GNSO Review Statistics*
> >
> > *360 Assessment:*
> >
> >
> >
> > -- Main survey
> >
> > 152 completed responses
> >
> >
> >
> > (250 started)
> >
> > -- Supplementary survey (WG)
> >
> > 26 completed responses
> >
> >
> >
> > (50 started)
> >
> > *Total*
> >
> > *178 completed responses*
> >
> >
> >
> > *60% completion rate*
> >
> > *Interviews:*
> >
> > *27 to date, likely total 30+*
> >
> > *(Plus several other shorter informal discussions, mainly in LA)*
> >
> > *GNSO Review Working Party meetings:*
> >
> > *13*
> >
> > *Engagement:*
> >
> >
> >
> > -- Announcements page views
> >
> > *1,709*
> >
> > -- Blog page views
> >
> > *2,957*
> >
> > *Outreach:*
> >
> >
> >
> > -- Webinars
> >
> > *3*
> >
> > -- Update presentations
> >
> > *14*
> >
> > -- Blogs
> >
> > *2*
> >
> > -- Videos
> >
> > *2*
> >
> > -- FAQ Brochures and Post cards distributed at ICANN51
> >
> > *3,000*
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *jennifer c. WOLFE, esq., apr, SSBB*
> >
> > Founder & President, wolfe domain, a digital brand strategy advisory firm
> >
> > *513.746.2801*
> >
> > *IAM 300 - TOp 300 global ip strategists 2011-2014*
> >
> > What will you do with your Dot Brand?  : http://ow.ly/Ebl8P
> >
> > Subscribe to Our You Tube Channel on Brand gTLDs  http://ow.ly/Eblgc
> >
> > Jen Wolfe gTLD Click Z Column  http://ow.ly/EbljP
> >
> > Linked In Group:  gTLD Strategy for Brands http://ow.ly/EbloM
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >
>
>
> --
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141222/55e32401/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Sat Dec 27 15:48:56 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2014 22:48:56 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC chair election
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmE7BqHash4sLEHT-Cz0r+ucLTCak4Xc=4P8kotdUrsnw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

sorry for delayed announcement, scheduling during a holidays seasons was
not a good idea. Maryam set up the voting using opvote and most of you
voted in the designed period.

among 11 eligible votes, 10 were casted and from them 8 were for Amr.
we can announce that Amr is elected as the new PC chair for 1 year term.
with that my short interim term for PC chair ends here.

congratulations Amr and good luck for the coming year. it will be great to
hear from you what you see to be done within PC and hopefully doing some
planning. as I said before, as NCSG chair, I am here to support the PC
chair.

on other hand, PC can decide to have a an vice-chair or alt-chair in order
to have backup and ensuring continuity.

Thanks and happy holidays,

Best Regards,

Rafik

2014-12-18 0:38 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> Hi everyone,
>
> So we have one confirmed candidate: Amr.
> I asked Maryam to prepare the ballots for tomorrow, I count on all
> eligible PC members to vote.
>
> Rafik
>
> 2014-12-08 13:58 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> there was no response to my email. so I guess I should amend the timeline
>> and start the process this week.
>>
>> - nominations starting from Friday 12th Dec, 00:00UTC until Tuesday 16th
>> 23:59UTC
>> - candidates confirming their nomination in Wednesday
>> - Starting the election from Thursday 18th December 00:00UTC  until
>> Wednesday 24th December 23:59 UTC.
>> - Thursday 25th December, publishing the results and new PC chair term
>> starts
>>
>> lets get the new PC chair before the end of the year so s/he can prepare
>> for next year and set a plan.
>>
>> for the voting we can use doodle poll to be setup by Maryam and sent to
>> eligible voters.
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> Date: 2014-11-25 13:04 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: [urgent] PC chair election
>> To: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> As discussed it is time to get the election of new chair done.
>>
>> For the vote, we have as eligible voters:
>> - 6 councillors
>> - 2 NCUC reps, 2 NPOC reps
>> - NCSG chair.
>>
>> As timeline I would suggest:
>> - nominations starting from Friday  28th Nov, 00:00UTC until Tuesday 2nd
>> 23:59UTC
>> - candidates confirming the nomination in Wednesday
>> - Starting the election from Thursday 4th December 00:00UTC  until Monday
>> 8th December 23:59 UTC.
>> - Tuesday 9th December new PC chair term starts
>>
>> nominees should be from the the eligible members.
>>
>> if there is any objection or suggestion , please do by this Thursday so
>> we can make amendments quickly.
>>
>> For the vice-chair or alt-chair it is up to PC to decide about having
>> such position or not.
>>
>> whoever will be elected, s/he has a critical role to let the PC work and
>> ensure that things are done. I see some stuff to be handled asap by the PC
>> chair like :
>> thinking about some prioritization work for the coming months, moving
>> from reactive to proactive mode, improving PC working methods .
>> As NCSG chair, I can commit to provide assistance and support.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141227/9ece3fb7/attachment.html>


From emorris  Tue Dec 30 00:31:36 2014
From: emorris (Edward Morris)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 17:31:36 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Operating Plan
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmo5zOGbEbWwhbsAmFHCCR-2q3wGb5V6kP9AYk+LBA6CQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2df2fdaf93d74ffab3470454df47f804@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<c278cdd1feb94e36999f25bbf7e4c9d5@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<f431352ed8a745b0894d47328b36234c@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sThmYwcHYY3raPzPWwyx_Sd3U+ZGFgUjejwTaMFP+SkO3Tw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54981DD8.7010009@seltzer.com>
	<CAH5sThmo5zOGbEbWwhbsAmFHCCR-2q3wGb5V6kP9AYk+LBA6CQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <WC20141229223136.750075@milk.toast.net>

Hi guys,

I?m a bit confused as to where we?re at in getting the PC up and running 
(heck, I?m still confused as to what happened to the DIDP I, along with 
Stephanie, submitted to the PC for consideration many months ago) but I note 
that the reply period for public comments on ICANN?s operating plan ends 
within a week 
(https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-opplan-budget-2016-2020-2014-11-11-en 
). Most of this stuff is administrative in nature, so I suspect of more 
interest to our esteemed Constituency and SG leaders than to others, but I 
do have the following questions or concerns:

1. In SG 1.1, and elsewhere, making materials available in ?multiple 
languages? appears to be a metric used to measure ICANN?s increased 
globalization . That?s great but what do we mean by multiple languages? 
Put everything in French as well as English and we all go home happy? Should 
not a goal be to greatly increase the number of languages ICANN produces 
basic materials in while providing real time translation in major languages 
of at least select working groups? Producing post hoc documents in French or 
Spanish really does not do much to ?globalize and regionalize ICANN 
functions? beyond the French and Spanish speaking worlds. The young girl 
in Yanji who only speaks the most popular language in the world, Chinese, is 
not going to be helped by post hoc translation of materials into ?multiple 
languages? that do not include Chinese. The metrics in this area need to 
be drastically improved so that ICANN is committed to true globalization.

2. In the FY17 phasing for SG 1.3 it is noted that the final SO-AC special 
request process will be conducted and presumably it then will be be 
discontinued. With all of the additional demands being placed on SO/AC?s 
is this really the time to reduce resources directed to them? Is anything 
being contemplated to replace the special request process?

2. In SG 3.3 mention is made of ?ICANN Technical University?. An online 
search results only in this unique mention of our new institution. Has 
anybody come across this before? Is ICANN now in the university business? 
With the ongoing mission creep at ICANN I wouldn?t be shocked, just would 
like to be informed. Anybody?

3. The metrics for SG 4.1 (ICANN?s engagement with the existing IG 
ecosystem) is a bit narrow: MOU?s with international organizations with 
mutual recognition of roles within ICANN. Seems to me the metrics for SG4 
could be considerably broader and incorporate community participation in the 
IG ecosystem. I?m also a bit concerned about what exactly ?mutual 
recognition of roles within ICANN? means. Are we looking at more 
?stakeholder plus? type deals, such as with the GAC?

4. The metric for SG 4.2 is ?Increase # of GAC members?. I support that; 
perhaps my native Ireland will join. It would be nice, considering the fact 
we?re meeting in Dublin in the fall. My concern is that there does not 
seem to be an equal concern about ?increasing the number of noncommercial 
members? or ?increasing the number of commercial members?. Why does 
GAC membership get this special mention? I personally would like to see the 
same concern shown for other groups and a specific  strategic plan, complete 
with metrics,  to make that happen.

5. The metric for SG 5.1 (Act as a steward of the public interest) involves 
a  ?common consensus based definition of public interest?. Can we have 
the definition please? I?d suggest one does not exist. The phasing is 
equally problematic.  In FY16, for example, ICANN is to ?create (a) 
framework for ICANN?s SOs and ACs to assist them in assessing how their 
actions align to the public interest?. We thus  may find ourselves in the 
position of having to assess how our actions align to some nebulous concept 
of ?public interest? created by an undefined ?common consensus?. 
Might I suggest that this may be one of the reasons the BC has been so 
active in pushing their own co0ncept of the ?public interest? in the 
Accountability discussions? I?d suggest we need to push back here.

There is a lot of material in the Draft 5 Year Operating Plan and I?m sure 
many of those more experienced than I may have more nuanced takes on things. 
The BC and IPC have already submitted comments. Should we as a PC gear up 
and try to do the same? If so, as a newbie I?d like to ask how shall we do 
so?

Thanks for considering,

Ed 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141229/4070433a/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Dec 30 17:41:13 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 00:41:13 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Operating Plan
In-Reply-To: <WC20141229223136.750075@milk.toast.net>
References: <2df2fdaf93d74ffab3470454df47f804@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<c278cdd1feb94e36999f25bbf7e4c9d5@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<f431352ed8a745b0894d47328b36234c@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sThmYwcHYY3raPzPWwyx_Sd3U+ZGFgUjejwTaMFP+SkO3Tw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54981DD8.7010009@seltzer.com>
	<CAH5sThmo5zOGbEbWwhbsAmFHCCR-2q3wGb5V6kP9AYk+LBA6CQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<WC20141229223136.750075@milk.toast.net>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThk4ZnSBn7z9FM0e-X0L53Tpx8ZeVzuQwJ-fx3W4uetJjw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ed,

Thanks for this note,
There was no work in our side about the strategical and operating plan . We
missed that unfortunately.
I am concerned about the point #2 , the SO-AC requests is just getting
shape , with the community support for non-contracted party. A change will
hinder our work in future.
I have limited bandwidth now and I am wondering if we can ask ICANN staff
for extra days to draft something.

Best,

Rafik
On Dec 30, 2014 7:31 AM, "Edward Morris" <emorris at milk.toast.net> wrote:

>
>  Hi guys,
>
> I?m a bit confused as to where we?re at in getting the PC up and running
> (heck, I?m still confused as to what happened to the DIDP I, along with
> Stephanie, submitted to the PC for consideration many months ago) but I
> note that the reply period for public comments on ICANN?s operating plan
> ends within a week (
> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-opplan-budget-2016-2020-2014-11-11-en
> ). Most of this stuff is administrative in nature, so I suspect of more
> interest to our esteemed Constituency and SG leaders than to others, but I
> do have the following questions or concerns:
>
> 1. In SG 1.1, and elsewhere, making materials available in ?multiple
> languages? appears to be a metric used to measure ICANN?s increased
> globalization . That?s great but what do we mean by multiple languages? Put
> everything in French as well as English and we all go home happy? Should
> not a goal be to greatly increase the number of languages ICANN produces
> basic materials in while providing real time translation in major languages
> of at least select working groups? Producing post hoc documents in French
> or Spanish really does not do much to ?globalize and regionalize ICANN
> functions? beyond the French and Spanish speaking worlds. The young girl in
> Yanji who only speaks the most popular language in the world, Chinese, is
> not going to be helped by post hoc translation of materials into ?multiple
> languages? that do not include Chinese. The metrics in this area need to be
> drastically improved so that ICANN is committed to true globalization.
>
> 2. In the FY17 phasing for SG 1.3 it is noted that the final SO-AC special
> request process will be conducted and presumably it then will be be
> discontinued. With all of the additional demands being placed on SO/AC?s is
> this really the time to reduce resources directed to them? Is anything
> being contemplated to replace the special request process?
>
> 2. In SG 3.3 mention is made of ?ICANN Technical University?. An online
> search results only in this unique mention of our new institution. Has
> anybody come across this before? Is ICANN now in the university business?
> With the ongoing mission creep at ICANN I wouldn?t be shocked, just would
> like to be informed. Anybody?
>
> 3. The metrics for SG 4.1 (ICANN?s engagement with the existing IG
> ecosystem) is a bit narrow: MOU?s with international organizations with
> mutual recognition of roles within ICANN. Seems to me the metrics for SG4
> could be considerably broader and incorporate community participation in
> the IG ecosystem. I?m also a bit concerned about what exactly ?mutual
> recognition of roles within ICANN? means. Are we looking at more
> ?stakeholder plus? type deals, such as with the GAC?
>
> 4. The metric for SG 4.2 is ?Increase # of GAC members?. I support that;
> perhaps my native Ireland will join. It would be nice, considering the fact
> we?re meeting in Dublin in the fall. My concern is that there does not seem
> to be an equal concern about ?increasing the number of noncommercial
> members? or ?increasing the number of commercial members?. Why does GAC
> membership get this special mention? I personally would like to see the
> same concern shown for other groups and a specific  strategic plan,
> complete with metrics,  to make that happen.
>
> 5. The metric for SG 5.1 (Act as a steward of the public interest)
> involves a  ?common consensus based definition of public interest?. Can we
> have the definition please? I?d suggest one does not exist. The phasing is
> equally problematic.  In FY16, for example, ICANN is to ?create (a)
> framework for ICANN?s SOs and ACs to assist them in assessing how their
> actions align to the public interest?. We thus  may find ourselves in the
> position of having to assess how our actions align to some nebulous concept
> of ?public interest? created by an undefined ?common consensus?. Might I
> suggest that this may be one of the reasons the BC has been so active in
> pushing their own co0ncept of the ?public interest? in the Accountability
> discussions? I?d suggest we need to push back here.
>
> There is a lot of material in the Draft 5 Year Operating Plan and I?m sure
> many of those more experienced than I may have more nuanced takes on
> things. The BC and IPC have already submitted comments. Should we as a PC
> gear up and try to do the same? If so, as a newbie I?d like to ask how
> shall we do so?
>
> Thanks for considering,
>
> Ed
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141231/d15c6735/attachment.html>


From emorris  Wed Dec 31 02:06:16 2014
From: emorris (Edward Morris)
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 19:06:16 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Operating Plan
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThk4ZnSBn7z9FM0e-X0L53Tpx8ZeVzuQwJ-fx3W4uetJjw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f431352ed8a745b0894d47328b36234c@PMBX112-W1-CA-1.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>
	<CAH5sThmYwcHYY3raPzPWwyx_Sd3U+ZGFgUjejwTaMFP+SkO3Tw@mail.gmail.com>
	<54981DD8.7010009@seltzer.com>
	<CAH5sThmo5zOGbEbWwhbsAmFHCCR-2q3wGb5V6kP9AYk+LBA6CQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<WC20141229223136.750075@milk.toast.net>
	<CAH5sThk4ZnSBn7z9FM0e-X0L53Tpx8ZeVzuQwJ-fx3W4uetJjw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <WC20141231000616.72018D@milk.toast.net>


Hi Rafik,

It really is not a good document from our perspective - but it is a very 
important one. To date there have only been two public comments (the BC and 
IPC) and I do think we have a bit of a different perspective and should be 
heard. I think we're all bandwidth challenged because of the holidays. I 
know I am. The reply period ends Monday. If you could get us some extra 
time, or can suggest how I can try to do it, that would be great. I'd really 
like to get more eyes on the document ( 
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposed-opplan-budget-2016-2020-10nov14-en.pdf 
) as it really is not very good and we'll likely have to live with it for 
half a decade: I think it's important to try to make it a bit better right 
now.

Best, 

Ed
-----Original Message-----
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
To: Edward Morris <emorris at milk.toast.net>
Cc: NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 00:41:13 +0900
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] Operating Plan

Hi Ed,

Thanks for this note,
There was no work in our side about the strategical and operating plan . We 
missed that unfortunately.
I am concerned about the point #2 , the SO-AC requests is just getting shape 
, with the community support for non-contracted party. A change will hinder 
our work in future.
I have limited bandwidth now and I am wondering if we can ask ICANN staff 
for extra days to draft something.

Best,

Rafik

On Dec 30, 2014 7:31 AM, "Edward Morris" <emorris at milk.toast.net> wrote:

Hi guys,

I?m a bit confused as to where we?re at in getting the PC up and running 
(heck, I?m still confused as to what happened to the DIDP I, along with 
Stephanie, submitted to the PC for consideration many months ago) but I note 
that the reply period for public comments on ICANN?s operating plan ends 
within a week ( 
https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-opplan-budget-2016-2020-2014-11-11-en 
). Most of this stuff is administrative in nature, so I suspect of more 
interest to our esteemed Constituency and SG leaders than to others, but I 
do have the following questions or concerns:

1. In SG 1.1, and elsewhere, making materials available in ?multiple 
languages? appears to be a metric used to measure ICANN?s increased 
globalization . That?s great but what do we mean by multiple languages? 
Put everything in French as well as English and we all go home happy? Should 
not a goal be to greatly increase the number of languages ICANN produces 
basic materials in while providing real time translation in major languages 
of at least select working groups? Producing post hoc documents in French or 
Spanish really does not do much to ?globalize and regionalize ICANN 
functions? beyond the French and Spanish speaking worlds. The young girl 
in Yanji who only speaks the most popular language in the world, Chinese, is 
not going to be helped by post hoc translation of materials into ?multiple 
languages? that do not include Chinese. The metrics in this area need to 
be drastically improved so that ICANN is committed to true globalization.

2. In the FY17 phasing for SG 1.3 it is noted that the final SO-AC special 
request process will be conducted and presumably it then will be be 
discontinued. With all of the additional demands being placed on SO/AC?s 
is this really the time to reduce resources directed to them? Is anything 
being contemplated to replace the special request process?

2. In SG 3.3 mention is made of ?ICANN Technical University?. An online 
search results only in this unique mention of our new institution. Has 
anybody come across this before? Is ICANN now in the university business? 
With the ongoing mission creep at ICANN I wouldn?t be shocked, just would 
like to be informed. Anybody?

3. The metrics for SG 4.1 (ICANN?s engagement with the existing IG 
ecosystem) is a bit narrow: MOU?s with international organizations with 
mutual recognition of roles within ICANN. Seems to me the metrics for SG4 
could be considerably broader and incorporate community participation in the 
IG ecosystem. I?m also a bit concerned about what exactly ?mutual 
recognition of roles within ICANN? means. Are we looking at more 
?stakeholder plus? type deals, such as with the GAC?

4. The metric for SG 4.2 is ?Increase # of GAC members?. I support that; 
perhaps my native Ireland will join. It would be nice, considering the fact 
we?re meeting in Dublin in the fall. My concern is that there does not 
seem to be an equal concern about ?increasing the number of noncommercial 
members? or ?increasing the number of commercial members?. Why does 
GAC membership get this special mention? I personally would like to see the 
same concern shown for other groups and a specific  strategic plan, complete 
with metrics,  to make that happen.

5. The metric for SG 5.1 (Act as a steward of the public interest) involves 
a  ?common consensus based definition of public interest?. Can we have 
the definition please? I?d suggest one does not exist. The phasing is 
equally problematic.  In FY16, for example, ICANN is to ?create (a) 
framework for ICANN?s SOs and ACs to assist them in assessing how their 
actions align to the public interest?. We thus  may find ourselves in the 
position of having to assess how our actions align to some nebulous concept 
of ?public interest? created by an undefined ?common consensus?. 
Might I suggest that this may be one of the reasons the BC has been so 
active in pushing their own co0ncept of the ?public interest? in the 
Accountability discussions? I?d suggest we need to push back here.

There is a lot of material in the Draft 5 Year Operating Plan and I?m sure 
many of those more experienced than I may have more nuanced takes on things. 
The BC and IPC have already submitted comments. Should we as a PC gear up 
and try to do the same? If so, as a newbie I?d like to ask how shall we do 
so?

Thanks for considering,

Ed 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141230/a030a220/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Dec 31 03:00:47 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 10:00:47 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH Intersessional Planning Call - select topics/
	co-chairs
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkOHaH8sLq3O60+nw+vtoF6HaFvhuP8Kmtbf3-sBp7tPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThkOHaH8sLq3O60+nw+vtoF6HaFvhuP8Kmtbf3-sBp7tPg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmuSj7VZQxqY8NHjkcyhUNgTHCiOHGx0+VMP894xDtudg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

Please find attached the list of attendees for NCPH meeting and latest
version of the agenda.
we still have to fill up the slots for co-chairs from our side and pick a
topic. sith the discussion in NCSG list, I guess Public interest/PICs (in
relation to accountability) makes sense here. if there is no objection, I
will send it.
for co-chairs:
- Bill volunteered for B
- myself for E, L and possibly C too
happy new year!

Rafik

2014-12-22 21:29 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> Hi everyone,
>
> we shall agree on topic in the next days and share it with CSG. I  saw
> suggestions such:
> - "Public Interest Commitments or more generally, new gTLD review of the
> first round"
> - IANA
> - privacy
>
> I am thinking  what we can achieve with those topics exactly. adding some
> description would be helpful and what we can advance,
> please express your preference for 1 among those topics within the next 3
> days (just before you disappear into Christmas dimension :))
>
> on other hands, we need to have co-chairs for each slot(please check the
> attached agenda), I guess that I may co-chair more than 1 session (at least
> slot E and slot L) but it will be great to have others to volunteer since
> we need to prepare for those topics. Bill already expressed interest in
> the slot B. Lori also expressed interest to volunteer for co-chairing a
> slot.
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141231/24a537e1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCPH Intersessional 2015 - Confirmed Delegates (23Dec).xlsx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
Size: 48247 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141231/24a537e1/attachment-0001.xlsx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Agenda - NCPH InterSessional (v6.1-23Dec2014).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 156881 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141231/24a537e1/attachment-0001.docx>