From mllemineur  Tue Feb  4 00:41:09 2014
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 16:41:09 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Pick a new chair
In-Reply-To: <52EC10A9.7030301@acm.org>
References: <864431393.7118441.1391100701781.POLL_INVITECONTACT_PARTICIPANT_INVITATION.doodle@worker1>
	<52EA8535.6030709@acm.org> <52EA8982.2050008@acm.org>
	<52EBEC41.6070400@acm.org> <52EC10A9.7030301@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqH-sJcbNf3wMzTySDoKndMnAiOu2twp4UAr0-ru3i8How@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Avri,

Has everybody from the NCSG-PC voted yet?  Nominations are opened or not
yet?

Thanks,

Marie-laure


On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Was going to cut off in 40 minutes, but was asked to hold it until Monday
> morning.
>
> Given that my reason for rushing things is personal interest in seeing
> someone else with the task of motivating the NCSG PC to do stuff, i realize
> i have no good excuse to rush and will therefore delay until i wake-up
> Monday morning.  in a sense, the engineer-in-me indicates that the
> difference between Friday EOD and Monday AM BOD, is negligible (ignoring
> the fact that I do not recognize weekends as existing in any meaningful
> way.)
>
> Given that, is the following ok?
>
> Monday - Wednesday 2359 EST enough time to nominations
> Thursday an EST - Monday 8am EST enough time for voting?
>
> And while it is still a bit uncertain which model we will follow, I am
> sure people can already be making their plans with regard to nominations.
>
> cheers,
>
> avri
>
>
> On 31-Jan-14 13:32, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Still planning to cut this off in a few hours
>>
>> As far as I can tell there are still 4 members yet to vote.
>>
>> BTW, while i appreciate the comments from the observers, I will not use
>> them in determining the outcome.  Though they offset each other in this
>> case, so it does not affect the outcome.
>>
>>
>> BTW, I am thinking of opening nominations as soon as I can tell you all
>> which process we are using.  And I figure I can close them on Tuesday
>> 2359 UTC and close the election Friday 2359 UTC.
>>
>> Any objection to this schedule?
>>
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 30-Jan-14 12:18, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Oh yeah,
>>> please do this in the near future.
>>> i would like to close this before sundown tomorrow
>>> that is, Friday of this week
>>>
>>> (-: yes, my sundown!)
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>> On 30-Jan-14 12:00, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I put the two choices for ways forward in a poll.
>>>>
>>>> Please all PC members take the poll.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> avri doria invites you to participate in the Doodle poll "Pick a new
>>>> chair."
>>>>
>>>> <https://doodle.com/?tmail=poll_invitecontact_
>>>> participant_invitation&tlink=logo>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi avri doria,
>>>>
>>>> avri doria (avri at acm.org) invites you to participate in the Doodle poll
>>>> "Pick a new chair".
>>>>
>>>> avri doria says:
>>>> We have two choices:
>>>>
>>>> - simple:
>>>>
>>>> Nominees
>>>> Vote
>>>> Winner is chair
>>>>
>>>> Talk more about if and how to do alt-chairs after we have a chair.
>>>>
>>>> - alt simple
>>>>
>>>> Nominees from both Cs
>>>> Top vote getter is Chair,
>>>> Next highest vote getter from other C is Alt-chair
>>>>
>>>> Participate now
>>>>
>>>> <https://doodle.com/znq3d2snbxgze2mp?tmail=poll_
>>>> invitecontact_participant_invitation&tlink=pollbtn>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140203/5c2f0389/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Feb  4 01:21:37 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 18:21:37 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Pick a new chair
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqH-sJcbNf3wMzTySDoKndMnAiOu2twp4UAr0-ru3i8How@mail.gmail.com>
References: <864431393.7118441.1391100701781.POLL_INVITECONTACT_PARTICIPANT_INVITATION.doodle@worker1>	<52EA8535.6030709@acm.org>	<52EA8982.2050008@acm.org>	<52EBEC41.6070400@acm.org>	<52EC10A9.7030301@acm.org>
	<CAD3sNqH-sJcbNf3wMzTySDoKndMnAiOu2twp4UAr0-ru3i8How@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52F02481.90000@acm.org>

hi,


This morning I got into other stuff and forgot to kick it off.

So sorry, I am late.

Atl-simple won by 5:3 (counting only group members not observers) over 
simple.


Please start with nominations.  I will close them at: Wednesday 2359 EST
People should also accept their nomination by then.

And say something about why you want to do it and maybe even an idea 
about how you will do it, if you want to.

No rules about making a stmt, but it might be nice.

Marie-laure thanks for the ping.

avri




On 03-Feb-14 17:41, marie-laure Lemineur wrote:
> Hello Avri,
>
> Has everybody from the NCSG-PC voted yet?  Nominations are opened or not
> yet?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marie-laure
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Was going to cut off in 40 minutes, but was asked to hold it until
>     Monday morning.
>
>     Given that my reason for rushing things is personal interest in
>     seeing someone else with the task of motivating the NCSG PC to do
>     stuff, i realize i have no good excuse to rush and will therefore
>     delay until i wake-up Monday morning.  in a sense, the
>     engineer-in-me indicates that the difference between Friday EOD and
>     Monday AM BOD, is negligible (ignoring the fact that I do not
>     recognize weekends as existing in any meaningful way.)
>
>     Given that, is the following ok?
>
>     Monday - Wednesday 2359 EST enough time to nominations
>     Thursday an EST - Monday 8am EST enough time for voting?
>
>     And while it is still a bit uncertain which model we will follow, I
>     am sure people can already be making their plans with regard to
>     nominations.
>
>     cheers,
>
>     avri
>
>
>     On 31-Jan-14 13:32, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>         Hi,
>
>         Still planning to cut this off in a few hours
>
>         As far as I can tell there are still 4 members yet to vote.
>
>         BTW, while i appreciate the comments from the observers, I will
>         not use
>         them in determining the outcome.  Though they offset each other
>         in this
>         case, so it does not affect the outcome.
>
>
>         BTW, I am thinking of opening nominations as soon as I can tell
>         you all
>         which process we are using.  And I figure I can close them on
>         Tuesday
>         2359 UTC and close the election Friday 2359 UTC.
>
>         Any objection to this schedule?
>
>
>         avri
>
>         On 30-Jan-14 12:18, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>
>             Oh yeah,
>             please do this in the near future.
>             i would like to close this before sundown tomorrow
>             that is, Friday of this week
>
>             (-: yes, my sundown!)
>
>             avri
>
>             On 30-Jan-14 12:00, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>
>                 I put the two choices for ways forward in a poll.
>
>                 Please all PC members take the poll.
>
>                 avri
>
>                 -------- Original Message --------
>
>
>                 avri doria invites you to participate in the Doodle poll
>                 "Pick a new
>                 chair."
>
>                 <https://doodle.com/?tmail=__poll_invitecontact___participant_invitation&tlink=__logo
>                 <https://doodle.com/?tmail=poll_invitecontact_participant_invitation&tlink=logo>>
>
>
>
>                 Hi avri doria,
>
>                 avri doria (avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>) invites
>                 you to participate in the Doodle poll
>                 "Pick a new chair".
>
>                 avri doria says:
>                 We have two choices:
>
>                 - simple:
>
>                 Nominees
>                 Vote
>                 Winner is chair
>
>                 Talk more about if and how to do alt-chairs after we
>                 have a chair.
>
>                 - alt simple
>
>                 Nominees from both Cs
>                 Top vote getter is Chair,
>                 Next highest vote getter from other C is Alt-chair
>
>                 Participate now
>
>                 <https://doodle.com/__znq3d2snbxgze2mp?tmail=poll___invitecontact_participant___invitation&tlink=pollbtn
>                 <https://doodle.com/znq3d2snbxgze2mp?tmail=poll_invitecontact_participant_invitation&tlink=pollbtn>>
>
>
>
>
>                 _________________________________________________
>                 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>
>
>
>
>     _________________________________________________
>     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>
>
>



From mllemineur  Tue Feb  4 03:07:03 2014
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 19:07:03 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Nomination for PC Chair
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqFMsGVvhHG7ZFq4POFgkfGeRjJ+1VZGN8K+61jZwj9yig@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

I would like to nominate Rudi Vansnick, NPOC Policy Chair for Policy Chair
of the NCSG policy committee.

Best,

Marie-laure
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140203/036fe551/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Feb  4 13:46:21 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 20:46:21 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Request for Input: Translation and Transliteration
 of Contact Information Policy Development Process (PDP) WG
In-Reply-To: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F69624BA6@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F69624BA6@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=aHPOKD65_UyyJ2ZJjZhtfb+VuEqJfsTE6WAo5YHxNAw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

I received this from Glen , requesting NCSG input on the translation and
transliteration WG.
maybe the member of WGs can brief us and explain what are the expectations
for the inputs?
Thanks,

Best,

Rafik


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
Date: 2014-02-04
Subject: Request for Input: Translation and Transliteration of Contact
Information Policy Development Process (PDP) WG
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>, Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann at icann.org>






Dear Rafik,



The Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Policy
Development Process (PDP) Working Group is seeking your group?s input.

Once you have filled in this template, please submit your repose at the
latest by 11 March 2014 to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso-secs at icann.org),
which will forward your statement to the

Working group.



Thank you in advance for your kind co-operation, we look forward to
receiving your response.

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/20140204/d2ced1ab/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: SG and C Template T&T.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 47616 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140204/d2ced1ab/attachment-0001.doc>


From avri  Wed Feb  5 18:06:59 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 11:06:59 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC Chair nominations.
Message-ID: <52F261A3.7010508@acm.org>


Hi,

This is planned as the last day for nominations.

If I have noticed everything we have:

1 nomination - Rudi Vansnick
0 acceptances

Note: if we have only one accepting nominee, we can just revert from 
Alt-simple procedure to Simple procedure.  I propose holding a secret 
vote even if we have just one.  I would add a 'none of the above' if we 
have only one candidate - not that i expect it would be used, but just 
to allow a choice.

avri

> Please start with nominations.  I will close them at: Wednesday 2359 EST
> People should also accept their nomination by then.
>
> And say something about why you want to do it and maybe even an idea about how you will do it, if you want to.
>
> No rules about making a stmt, but it might be nice.



From rudi.vansnick  Wed Feb  5 18:11:14 2014
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 17:11:14 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC Chair nominations.
In-Reply-To: <52F261A3.7010508@acm.org>
References: <52F261A3.7010508@acm.org>
Message-ID: <23DA10A9-7807-41E1-AEB6-A207CA01C60D@isoc.be>

Dear all,

I herewith confirm I?m accepting the nomination.

Kind regards,

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

Op 5-feb.-2014, om 17:06 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> het volgende geschreven:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is planned as the last day for nominations.
> 
> If I have noticed everything we have:
> 
> 1 nomination - Rudi Vansnick
> 0 acceptances
> 
> Note: if we have only one accepting nominee, we can just revert from Alt-simple procedure to Simple procedure.  I propose holding a secret vote even if we have just one.  I would add a 'none of the above' if we have only one candidate - not that i expect it would be used, but just to allow a choice.
> 
> avri
> 
>> Please start with nominations.  I will close them at: Wednesday 2359 EST
>> People should also accept their nomination by then.
>> 
>> And say something about why you want to do it and maybe even an idea about how you will do it, if you want to.
>> 
>> No rules about making a stmt, but it might be nice.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140205/8d2e1ea9/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Feb  5 18:46:29 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 17:46:29 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC Chair nominations.
In-Reply-To: <52F261A3.7010508@acm.org>
References: <52F261A3.7010508@acm.org>
Message-ID: <42BBD799-1911-4774-A66E-2DA633AD3137@egyptig.org>

Hello All,

I would like to nominate Maria Farell for the role of Chair of the NCSG-PC.

Thanks.

Amr

On Feb 5, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> 
> Hi,
> 
> This is planned as the last day for nominations.
> 
> If I have noticed everything we have:
> 
> 1 nomination - Rudi Vansnick
> 0 acceptances
> 
> Note: if we have only one accepting nominee, we can just revert from Alt-simple procedure to Simple procedure.  I propose holding a secret vote even if we have just one.  I would add a 'none of the above' if we have only one candidate - not that i expect it would be used, but just to allow a choice.
> 
> avri
> 
>> Please start with nominations.  I will close them at: Wednesday 2359 EST
>> People should also accept their nomination by then.
>> 
>> And say something about why you want to do it and maybe even an idea about how you will do it, if you want to.
>> 
>> No rules about making a stmt, but it might be nice.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From maria.farrell  Wed Feb  5 19:22:58 2014
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 17:22:58 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC Chair nominations.
In-Reply-To: <42BBD799-1911-4774-A66E-2DA633AD3137@egyptig.org>
References: <52F261A3.7010508@acm.org>
	<42BBD799-1911-4774-A66E-2DA633AD3137@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdDJm+xY=NntUNckR_KohHgMDT5Od22ioR-ae+RXHUSTOQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

Thanks, Amr. Happy to confirm I accept the nomination.

All the best, Maria


On 5 February 2014 16:46, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> I would like to nominate Maria Farell for the role of Chair of the NCSG-PC.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Feb 5, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is planned as the last day for nominations.
> >
> > If I have noticed everything we have:
> >
> > 1 nomination - Rudi Vansnick
> > 0 acceptances
> >
> > Note: if we have only one accepting nominee, we can just revert from
> Alt-simple procedure to Simple procedure.  I propose holding a secret vote
> even if we have just one.  I would add a 'none of the above' if we have
> only one candidate - not that i expect it would be used, but just to allow
> a choice.
> >
> > avri
> >
> >> Please start with nominations.  I will close them at: Wednesday 2359 EST
> >> People should also accept their nomination by then.
> >>
> >> And say something about why you want to do it and maybe even an idea
> about how you will do it, if you want to.
> >>
> >> No rules about making a stmt, but it might be nice.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20140205/c596ec93/attachment.html>


From avri  Wed Feb  5 20:22:04 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 13:22:04 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC Chair nominations - update
In-Reply-To: <52F261A3.7010508@acm.org>
References: <52F261A3.7010508@acm.org>
Message-ID: <52F2814C.8060202@acm.org>


2 candidates
both accepted

Rudi and Maria

Nominations open until midnight tonight EST

avri

On 05-Feb-14 11:06, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This is planned as the last day for nominations.
>
> If I have noticed everything we have:
>
> 1 nomination - Rudi Vansnick
> 0 acceptances
>
> Note: if we have only one accepting nominee, we can just revert from
> Alt-simple procedure to Simple procedure.  I propose holding a secret
> vote even if we have just one.  I would add a 'none of the above' if we
> have only one candidate - not that i expect it would be used, but just
> to allow a choice.
>
> avri
>
>> Please start with nominations.  I will close them at: Wednesday 2359 EST
>> People should also accept their nomination by then.
>>
>> And say something about why you want to do it and maybe even an idea
>> about how you will do it, if you want to.
>>
>> No rules about making a stmt, but it might be nice.
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>



From wjdrake  Wed Feb  5 20:27:47 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 19:27:47 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC Chair nominations.
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdDJm+xY=NntUNckR_KohHgMDT5Od22ioR-ae+RXHUSTOQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52F261A3.7010508@acm.org>
	<42BBD799-1911-4774-A66E-2DA633AD3137@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdDJm+xY=NntUNckR_KohHgMDT5Od22ioR-ae+RXHUSTOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7C64CD13-2967-4E1F-AFDD-19143A2B590A@gmail.com>

Woo hoo, candidates we have?!

On Feb 5, 2014, at 6:22 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> Thanks, Amr. Happy to confirm I accept the nomination.
> 
> All the best, Maria
> 
> 
> On 5 February 2014 16:46, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> Hello All,
> 
> I would like to nominate Maria Farell for the role of Chair of the NCSG-PC.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Feb 5, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is planned as the last day for nominations.
> >
> > If I have noticed everything we have:
> >
> > 1 nomination - Rudi Vansnick
> > 0 acceptances
> >
> > Note: if we have only one accepting nominee, we can just revert from Alt-simple procedure to Simple procedure.  I propose holding a secret vote even if we have just one.  I would add a 'none of the above' if we have only one candidate - not that i expect it would be used, but just to allow a choice.
> >
> > avri
> >
> >> Please start with nominations.  I will close them at: Wednesday 2359 EST
> >> People should also accept their nomination by then.
> >>
> >> And say something about why you want to do it and maybe even an idea about how you will do it, if you want to.
> >>
> >> No rules about making a stmt, but it might be nice.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

***********************************************
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/20140205/e5376ac1/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Wed Feb  5 23:25:32 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 16:25:32 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive
	Strings
In-Reply-To: <001a01cf2289$03baee40$0b30cac0$@rnapartners.com>
References: <001a01cf2289$03baee40$0b30cac0$@rnapartners.com>
Message-ID: <52F2AC4C.5080402@acm.org>

forwarded with permission

avri


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive Strings
Date: 	Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:43:21 -0500
From: 	Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>
To: 	<maria.farrell at gmail.com>, "'David Cake'" <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>,
<avri at acm.org>
CC: 	<robin at ipjustice.org>, "Olivier Crepin-Leblond " <ocl at gih.com>



Dear Maria,

Dear Avri,

Dear David,

Robin recently advised me that she is no longer on the NCSG Policy
Committee and that, in fact, the three of you are leading that effort.
For this reason I am contacting you today.

For the past several months, Marilyn Cade, Phil Corwin and I have been
briefing ICANN thought leaders and AC/C leadership teams about the
Policy Advisory Board (PAB) model that we have proposed to the
Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the ICANN Board NGPC.   As you
know the GAC Beijing Communique
<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2> 

raised issues about a large number of applications for strings that are
associated with regulated industries.  The PAB model offers a path to
move many of these off of the sidetrack they are currently on back into
the path of delegation through the establishment of balanced and
globally representative bodies that will ensure such new gTLDs act ?
first and foremost ? in the public interest. For further background and
the full detail on the PAB model, here is a link to my November 2013
post on
CircleID:http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131104_policy_advisory_boards_cornerstone_pics_public_interest_commitment/.

We would be most grateful to have NCUC consider joining with us in
supporting this initiative to ensure that applicant PICS are indeed
established, as requested by the GAC. _Our last chance is now_.  The GAC
Buenos Aires Communique calls on the NGPC to provide ?/a briefing on
whether the Board considers that the existing PICS/ /(including 3c)
fully implements this advice.?/

We feel that adopting an approach such as the Policy Advisory Board
offers several benefits, and a path to address the concerns raised in
the GAC advice.

1.Policy Advisory Boards (PAB) as a PICS enforcement model:

?Mechanism for implementation of GAC safeguard advice for protecting
public interest

?Ensures separation of registry technical management and PAB-guided
policy for those new gTLDs related to sensitive industries and professions.

??One size does not fit all? ? the PAB proposed model is f_lexible  and
while it does not propose required participation_ of any specific
regulator, self-regulatory agency, or civil society entity, it is
intended to provide an open and balanced advisory body to all bona fide
parties

?PAB can address registrant eligibility criteria, registry policies, and
other relevant matters relating to safeguards implementation

?Represented groups can include accrediting organizations; experts &
advocates; safety/consumer coalitions & organizations; ?Internet
freedom? & human rights groups; Internet commerce experts; national &
global law enforcement entities

?In the case of managing government interests, including regulatory
entities, to participate on PABs, the TLD operator should propose an
approach to address engagement, either as members, or as observers, on
how interested governments to determine which would be the initial PAB
participants and which will rotate in each year

?2. PABs provide an extra layer of support for ICANN compliance due to
their intrinsic and inclusive nature:

?The PAB model meets the NGPC call for registries to provide a ?clear
pathway? for creation of a working relationship with relevant industry
regulatory or self-regulatory bodies

?Broadened pathway accommodates participation of relevant consumer
advocacy and other civil society groups

?Ensures that representatives of consumer end-users of goods and
services offered by registrants in regulated industry/profession gTLDs
also have appropriate input in framing registry policies

The PAB is consistent with new gTLD program goals of promoting
innovation and competition in a manner that benefits global Internet
user community, while also respecting that certain string applications
are associated with public interest responsibilities.  We present it as
a framework or model, which has the flexibility to be adapted to a
particular industry sector.

This past week, Marilyn, Olivier, Alan, Evan and I sent a follow on
letter to the NGPC Chair to further the cause
(https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en). 

We have been privately informed by a leading member of the GAC that
certain members of the NGPC view: /??the PAB model positively and that
it can certainly contribute to close a number of loopholes or gaps in
the current safeguards??/.

Yesterday, I received the attached letter from Christine Willett, so it
is clear that the fight for the public interest over the interests of
the ?New gTLD Customer Service? division of ICANN (as her email
remarkably was received from) is on.

Irrespective of the timing of Willett?s letter, we had been planning to
reach out to enroll you in this important initiative this week.  Now,
more than ever, it is evident that the NGPC and ICANN CEO are driven by
a desire to get to market with the new gLTDs and that they have no
desire to see public interest commitments holding things up.  However,
ICANN has to have a public interest accountability aspect or it has no
legitimacy.  We need to rapidly build broad community support if the
public interest is to prevail over portfolio gTLD applicant interests.

We welcome hearing your thoughts on this at your earliest convenience.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Kind regards,

RA

*Ron Andruff*

*RNA Partners*

*www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Letter_from_Willett_to_Andruff_et_al.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 478623 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140205/a0df5819/attachment-0001.obj>


From wendy  Thu Feb  6 00:02:40 2014
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:02:40 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Policy Advisory Board Model for
 Regulated/Sensitive Strings
In-Reply-To: <52F2AC4C.5080402@acm.org>
References: <001a01cf2289$03baee40$0b30cac0$@rnapartners.com>
	<52F2AC4C.5080402@acm.org>
Message-ID: <52F2B500.2020500@seltzer.com>

Disinclined to support.  "Balanced"?

--Wendy

On 02/05/2014 04:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> forwarded with permission
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:     Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive Strings
> Date:     Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:43:21 -0500
> From:     Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>
> To:     <maria.farrell at gmail.com>, "'David Cake'" <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>,
> <avri at acm.org>
> CC:     <robin at ipjustice.org>, "Olivier Crepin-Leblond " <ocl at gih.com>
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Maria,
> 
> Dear Avri,
> 
> Dear David,
> 
> Robin recently advised me that she is no longer on the NCSG Policy
> Committee and that, in fact, the three of you are leading that effort.
> For this reason I am contacting you today.
> 
> For the past several months, Marilyn Cade, Phil Corwin and I have been
> briefing ICANN thought leaders and AC/C leadership teams about the
> Policy Advisory Board (PAB) model that we have proposed to the
> Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the ICANN Board NGPC.   As you
> know the GAC Beijing Communique
> <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2>
> 
> raised issues about a large number of applications for strings that are
> associated with regulated industries.  The PAB model offers a path to
> move many of these off of the sidetrack they are currently on back into
> the path of delegation through the establishment of balanced and
> globally representative bodies that will ensure such new gTLDs act ?
> first and foremost ? in the public interest. For further background and
> the full detail on the PAB model, here is a link to my November 2013
> post on
> CircleID:http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131104_policy_advisory_boards_cornerstone_pics_public_interest_commitment/.
> 
> 
> We would be most grateful to have NCUC consider joining with us in
> supporting this initiative to ensure that applicant PICS are indeed
> established, as requested by the GAC. _Our last chance is now_.  The GAC
> Buenos Aires Communique calls on the NGPC to provide ?/a briefing on
> whether the Board considers that the existing PICS/ /(including 3c)
> fully implements this advice.?/
> 
> We feel that adopting an approach such as the Policy Advisory Board
> offers several benefits, and a path to address the concerns raised in
> the GAC advice.
> 
> 1.Policy Advisory Boards (PAB) as a PICS enforcement model:
> 
> ?Mechanism for implementation of GAC safeguard advice for protecting
> public interest
> 
> ?Ensures separation of registry technical management and PAB-guided
> policy for those new gTLDs related to sensitive industries and professions.
> 
> ??One size does not fit all? ? the PAB proposed model is f_lexible  and
> while it does not propose required participation_ of any specific
> regulator, self-regulatory agency, or civil society entity, it is
> intended to provide an open and balanced advisory body to all bona fide
> parties
> 
> ?PAB can address registrant eligibility criteria, registry policies, and
> other relevant matters relating to safeguards implementation
> 
> ?Represented groups can include accrediting organizations; experts &
> advocates; safety/consumer coalitions & organizations; ?Internet
> freedom? & human rights groups; Internet commerce experts; national &
> global law enforcement entities
> 
> ?In the case of managing government interests, including regulatory
> entities, to participate on PABs, the TLD operator should propose an
> approach to address engagement, either as members, or as observers, on
> how interested governments to determine which would be the initial PAB
> participants and which will rotate in each year
> 
> ?2. PABs provide an extra layer of support for ICANN compliance due to
> their intrinsic and inclusive nature:
> 
> ?The PAB model meets the NGPC call for registries to provide a ?clear
> pathway? for creation of a working relationship with relevant industry
> regulatory or self-regulatory bodies
> 
> ?Broadened pathway accommodates participation of relevant consumer
> advocacy and other civil society groups
> 
> ?Ensures that representatives of consumer end-users of goods and
> services offered by registrants in regulated industry/profession gTLDs
> also have appropriate input in framing registry policies
> 
> The PAB is consistent with new gTLD program goals of promoting
> innovation and competition in a manner that benefits global Internet
> user community, while also respecting that certain string applications
> are associated with public interest responsibilities.  We present it as
> a framework or model, which has the flexibility to be adapted to a
> particular industry sector.
> 
> This past week, Marilyn, Olivier, Alan, Evan and I sent a follow on
> letter to the NGPC Chair to further the cause
> (https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en).
> 
> We have been privately informed by a leading member of the GAC that
> certain members of the NGPC view: /??the PAB model positively and that
> it can certainly contribute to close a number of loopholes or gaps in
> the current safeguards??/.
> 
> Yesterday, I received the attached letter from Christine Willett, so it
> is clear that the fight for the public interest over the interests of
> the ?New gTLD Customer Service? division of ICANN (as her email
> remarkably was received from) is on.
> 
> Irrespective of the timing of Willett?s letter, we had been planning to
> reach out to enroll you in this important initiative this week.  Now,
> more than ever, it is evident that the NGPC and ICANN CEO are driven by
> a desire to get to market with the new gLTDs and that they have no
> desire to see public interest commitments holding things up.  However,
> ICANN has to have a public interest accountability aspect or it has no
> legitimacy.  We need to rapidly build broad community support if the
> public interest is to prevail over portfolio gTLD applicant interests.
> 
> We welcome hearing your thoughts on this at your earliest convenience.
> 
> Thank you in advance for your consideration.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> RA
> 
> *Ron Andruff*
> 
> *RNA Partners*
> 
> *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 stephanie.perrin  Thu Feb  6 03:06:36 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 20:06:36 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Policy Advisory Board Model for
	Regulated/Sensitive Strings
In-Reply-To: <52F2B500.2020500@seltzer.com>
References: <001a01cf2289$03baee40$0b30cac0$@rnapartners.com>
	<52F2AC4C.5080402@acm.org> <52F2B500.2020500@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <30E49D3A-4D18-438D-953B-DF5F810B3BBA@mail.utoronto.ca>

where I come from, balanced means a matrix with fixed numbers, eg. 25% civil society, 25% academia and unions etc. 25% business 25% govt.  However that does not seem to be the definition at ICANN?.
It could work but what is the alternative??
cheers Steph
PS who is WIllett?
On Feb 5, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:

> Disinclined to support.  "Balanced"?
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> On 02/05/2014 04:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> forwarded with permission
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject:     Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive Strings
>> Date:     Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:43:21 -0500
>> From:     Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>
>> To:     <maria.farrell at gmail.com>, "'David Cake'" <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>,
>> <avri at acm.org>
>> CC:     <robin at ipjustice.org>, "Olivier Crepin-Leblond " <ocl at gih.com>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Maria,
>> 
>> Dear Avri,
>> 
>> Dear David,
>> 
>> Robin recently advised me that she is no longer on the NCSG Policy
>> Committee and that, in fact, the three of you are leading that effort.
>> For this reason I am contacting you today.
>> 
>> For the past several months, Marilyn Cade, Phil Corwin and I have been
>> briefing ICANN thought leaders and AC/C leadership teams about the
>> Policy Advisory Board (PAB) model that we have proposed to the
>> Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the ICANN Board NGPC.   As you
>> know the GAC Beijing Communique
>> <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2>
>> 
>> raised issues about a large number of applications for strings that are
>> associated with regulated industries.  The PAB model offers a path to
>> move many of these off of the sidetrack they are currently on back into
>> the path of delegation through the establishment of balanced and
>> globally representative bodies that will ensure such new gTLDs act ?
>> first and foremost ? in the public interest. For further background and
>> the full detail on the PAB model, here is a link to my November 2013
>> post on
>> CircleID:http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131104_policy_advisory_boards_cornerstone_pics_public_interest_commitment/.
>> 
>> 
>> We would be most grateful to have NCUC consider joining with us in
>> supporting this initiative to ensure that applicant PICS are indeed
>> established, as requested by the GAC. _Our last chance is now_.  The GAC
>> Buenos Aires Communique calls on the NGPC to provide ?/a briefing on
>> whether the Board considers that the existing PICS/ /(including 3c)
>> fully implements this advice.?/
>> 
>> We feel that adopting an approach such as the Policy Advisory Board
>> offers several benefits, and a path to address the concerns raised in
>> the GAC advice.
>> 
>> 1.Policy Advisory Boards (PAB) as a PICS enforcement model:
>> 
>> ?Mechanism for implementation of GAC safeguard advice for protecting
>> public interest
>> 
>> ?Ensures separation of registry technical management and PAB-guided
>> policy for those new gTLDs related to sensitive industries and professions.
>> 
>> ??One size does not fit all? ? the PAB proposed model is f_lexible  and
>> while it does not propose required participation_ of any specific
>> regulator, self-regulatory agency, or civil society entity, it is
>> intended to provide an open and balanced advisory body to all bona fide
>> parties
>> 
>> ?PAB can address registrant eligibility criteria, registry policies, and
>> other relevant matters relating to safeguards implementation
>> 
>> ?Represented groups can include accrediting organizations; experts &
>> advocates; safety/consumer coalitions & organizations; ?Internet
>> freedom? & human rights groups; Internet commerce experts; national &
>> global law enforcement entities
>> 
>> ?In the case of managing government interests, including regulatory
>> entities, to participate on PABs, the TLD operator should propose an
>> approach to address engagement, either as members, or as observers, on
>> how interested governments to determine which would be the initial PAB
>> participants and which will rotate in each year
>> 
>> ?2. PABs provide an extra layer of support for ICANN compliance due to
>> their intrinsic and inclusive nature:
>> 
>> ?The PAB model meets the NGPC call for registries to provide a ?clear
>> pathway? for creation of a working relationship with relevant industry
>> regulatory or self-regulatory bodies
>> 
>> ?Broadened pathway accommodates participation of relevant consumer
>> advocacy and other civil society groups
>> 
>> ?Ensures that representatives of consumer end-users of goods and
>> services offered by registrants in regulated industry/profession gTLDs
>> also have appropriate input in framing registry policies
>> 
>> The PAB is consistent with new gTLD program goals of promoting
>> innovation and competition in a manner that benefits global Internet
>> user community, while also respecting that certain string applications
>> are associated with public interest responsibilities.  We present it as
>> a framework or model, which has the flexibility to be adapted to a
>> particular industry sector.
>> 
>> This past week, Marilyn, Olivier, Alan, Evan and I sent a follow on
>> letter to the NGPC Chair to further the cause
>> (https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en).
>> 
>> We have been privately informed by a leading member of the GAC that
>> certain members of the NGPC view: /??the PAB model positively and that
>> it can certainly contribute to close a number of loopholes or gaps in
>> the current safeguards??/.
>> 
>> Yesterday, I received the attached letter from Christine Willett, so it
>> is clear that the fight for the public interest over the interests of
>> the ?New gTLD Customer Service? division of ICANN (as her email
>> remarkably was received from) is on.
>> 
>> Irrespective of the timing of Willett?s letter, we had been planning to
>> reach out to enroll you in this important initiative this week.  Now,
>> more than ever, it is evident that the NGPC and ICANN CEO are driven by
>> a desire to get to market with the new gLTDs and that they have no
>> desire to see public interest commitments holding things up.  However,
>> ICANN has to have a public interest accountability aspect or it has no
>> legitimacy.  We need to rapidly build broad community support if the
>> public interest is to prevail over portfolio gTLD applicant interests.
>> 
>> We welcome hearing your thoughts on this at your earliest convenience.
>> 
>> Thank you in advance for your consideration.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> RA
>> 
>> *Ron Andruff*
>> 
>> *RNA Partners*
>> 
>> *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Thu Feb  6 03:22:38 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 20:22:38 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Policy Advisory Board Model for
 Regulated/Sensitive Strings
In-Reply-To: <30E49D3A-4D18-438D-953B-DF5F810B3BBA@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <001a01cf2289$03baee40$0b30cac0$@rnapartners.com>
	<52F2AC4C.5080402@acm.org> <52F2B500.2020500@seltzer.com>
	<30E49D3A-4D18-438D-953B-DF5F810B3BBA@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <52F2E3DE.7010900@acm.org>



On 05-Feb-14 20:06, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> PS who is WIllett?


new gtld director

http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff



From avri  Thu Feb  6 03:23:53 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 20:23:53 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Policy Advisory Board Model for
 Regulated/Sensitive Strings
In-Reply-To: <52F2E3DE.7010900@acm.org>
References: <001a01cf2289$03baee40$0b30cac0$@rnapartners.com>
	<52F2AC4C.5080402@acm.org> <52F2B500.2020500@seltzer.com>
	<30E49D3A-4D18-438D-953B-DF5F810B3BBA@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<52F2E3DE.7010900@acm.org>
Message-ID: <52F2E429.70201@acm.org>


sorry VP gTLD operations

other one was where she started.

On 05-Feb-14 20:22, Avri Doria wrote:
>
>
> On 05-Feb-14 20:06, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> PS who is WIllett?
>
>
> new gtld director
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/about/staff



From stephanie.perrin  Thu Feb  6 03:30:49 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 20:30:49 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Policy Advisory Board Model for
	Regulated/Sensitive Strings
In-Reply-To: <30E49D3A-4D18-438D-953B-DF5F810B3BBA@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <001a01cf2289$03baee40$0b30cac0$@rnapartners.com>
	<52F2AC4C.5080402@acm.org> <52F2B500.2020500@seltzer.com>
	<30E49D3A-4D18-438D-953B-DF5F810B3BBA@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <5F639190-9387-4C9F-B5B8-F0A3B8BA3028@mail.utoronto.ca>

there are certainly going to be problems, and I cannot imagine how GAC thinks they will be resolved.  What do the registrars think?  I wonder if they have thought of some kind of mandatory association for registrants in strings for regulated industries (the illegal pharma thing is starting to get up my nose, based on experience at the p/p meetings. )
If it is left to dominant players alone, I doubt it will end well?.
cheers SP
On Feb 5, 2014, at 8:06 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> where I come from, balanced means a matrix with fixed numbers, eg. 25% civil society, 25% academia and unions etc. 25% business 25% govt.  However that does not seem to be the definition at ICANN?.
> It could work but what is the alternative??
> cheers Steph
> PS who is WIllett?
> On Feb 5, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:
> 
>> Disinclined to support.  "Balanced"?
>> 
>> --Wendy
>> 
>> On 02/05/2014 04:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> forwarded with permission
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject:     Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive Strings
>>> Date:     Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:43:21 -0500
>>> From:     Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>
>>> To:     <maria.farrell at gmail.com>, "'David Cake'" <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>,
>>> <avri at acm.org>
>>> CC:     <robin at ipjustice.org>, "Olivier Crepin-Leblond " <ocl at gih.com>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear Maria,
>>> 
>>> Dear Avri,
>>> 
>>> Dear David,
>>> 
>>> Robin recently advised me that she is no longer on the NCSG Policy
>>> Committee and that, in fact, the three of you are leading that effort.
>>> For this reason I am contacting you today.
>>> 
>>> For the past several months, Marilyn Cade, Phil Corwin and I have been
>>> briefing ICANN thought leaders and AC/C leadership teams about the
>>> Policy Advisory Board (PAB) model that we have proposed to the
>>> Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the ICANN Board NGPC.   As you
>>> know the GAC Beijing Communique
>>> <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2>
>>> 
>>> raised issues about a large number of applications for strings that are
>>> associated with regulated industries.  The PAB model offers a path to
>>> move many of these off of the sidetrack they are currently on back into
>>> the path of delegation through the establishment of balanced and
>>> globally representative bodies that will ensure such new gTLDs act ?
>>> first and foremost ? in the public interest. For further background and
>>> the full detail on the PAB model, here is a link to my November 2013
>>> post on
>>> CircleID:http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131104_policy_advisory_boards_cornerstone_pics_public_interest_commitment/.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> We would be most grateful to have NCUC consider joining with us in
>>> supporting this initiative to ensure that applicant PICS are indeed
>>> established, as requested by the GAC. _Our last chance is now_.  The GAC
>>> Buenos Aires Communique calls on the NGPC to provide ?/a briefing on
>>> whether the Board considers that the existing PICS/ /(including 3c)
>>> fully implements this advice.?/
>>> 
>>> We feel that adopting an approach such as the Policy Advisory Board
>>> offers several benefits, and a path to address the concerns raised in
>>> the GAC advice.
>>> 
>>> 1.Policy Advisory Boards (PAB) as a PICS enforcement model:
>>> 
>>> ?Mechanism for implementation of GAC safeguard advice for protecting
>>> public interest
>>> 
>>> ?Ensures separation of registry technical management and PAB-guided
>>> policy for those new gTLDs related to sensitive industries and professions.
>>> 
>>> ??One size does not fit all? ? the PAB proposed model is f_lexible  and
>>> while it does not propose required participation_ of any specific
>>> regulator, self-regulatory agency, or civil society entity, it is
>>> intended to provide an open and balanced advisory body to all bona fide
>>> parties
>>> 
>>> ?PAB can address registrant eligibility criteria, registry policies, and
>>> other relevant matters relating to safeguards implementation
>>> 
>>> ?Represented groups can include accrediting organizations; experts &
>>> advocates; safety/consumer coalitions & organizations; ?Internet
>>> freedom? & human rights groups; Internet commerce experts; national &
>>> global law enforcement entities
>>> 
>>> ?In the case of managing government interests, including regulatory
>>> entities, to participate on PABs, the TLD operator should propose an
>>> approach to address engagement, either as members, or as observers, on
>>> how interested governments to determine which would be the initial PAB
>>> participants and which will rotate in each year
>>> 
>>> ?2. PABs provide an extra layer of support for ICANN compliance due to
>>> their intrinsic and inclusive nature:
>>> 
>>> ?The PAB model meets the NGPC call for registries to provide a ?clear
>>> pathway? for creation of a working relationship with relevant industry
>>> regulatory or self-regulatory bodies
>>> 
>>> ?Broadened pathway accommodates participation of relevant consumer
>>> advocacy and other civil society groups
>>> 
>>> ?Ensures that representatives of consumer end-users of goods and
>>> services offered by registrants in regulated industry/profession gTLDs
>>> also have appropriate input in framing registry policies
>>> 
>>> The PAB is consistent with new gTLD program goals of promoting
>>> innovation and competition in a manner that benefits global Internet
>>> user community, while also respecting that certain string applications
>>> are associated with public interest responsibilities.  We present it as
>>> a framework or model, which has the flexibility to be adapted to a
>>> particular industry sector.
>>> 
>>> This past week, Marilyn, Olivier, Alan, Evan and I sent a follow on
>>> letter to the NGPC Chair to further the cause
>>> (https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en).
>>> 
>>> We have been privately informed by a leading member of the GAC that
>>> certain members of the NGPC view: /??the PAB model positively and that
>>> it can certainly contribute to close a number of loopholes or gaps in
>>> the current safeguards??/.
>>> 
>>> Yesterday, I received the attached letter from Christine Willett, so it
>>> is clear that the fight for the public interest over the interests of
>>> the ?New gTLD Customer Service? division of ICANN (as her email
>>> remarkably was received from) is on.
>>> 
>>> Irrespective of the timing of Willett?s letter, we had been planning to
>>> reach out to enroll you in this important initiative this week.  Now,
>>> more than ever, it is evident that the NGPC and ICANN CEO are driven by
>>> a desire to get to market with the new gLTDs and that they have no
>>> desire to see public interest commitments holding things up.  However,
>>> ICANN has to have a public interest accountability aspect or it has no
>>> legitimacy.  We need to rapidly build broad community support if the
>>> public interest is to prevail over portfolio gTLD applicant interests.
>>> 
>>> We welcome hearing your thoughts on this at your earliest convenience.
>>> 
>>> Thank you in advance for your consideration.
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> 
>>> RA
>>> 
>>> *Ron Andruff*
>>> 
>>> *RNA Partners*
>>> 
>>> *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
>> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
>> Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
>> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
>> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
>> https://www.torproject.org/
>> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From mailer  Thu Feb  6 07:04:54 2014
From: mailer (avri doria via Doodle)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 06:04:54 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [PC-NCSG] For Chair of the NCSG-PC
Message-ID: <1677802499.541313.1391663094785.POLL_INVITECONTACT_PARTICIPANT_INVITATION.doodle@worker2>

Hi there,

avri doria (avri at acm.org) invites you to participate in the Doodle
poll "For Chair of the NCSG-PC".

avri doria says:
Members: Please vote for one.
  Most votes is Chair PC-NCSG
  Second
is Alternate-Chair PC-NCSG
  
  Observers do not have a vote and if
the do vote, their vote will be ignored.

Participate now
https://doodle.com/yazauuu4csfgv8zw?tmail=poll_invitecontact_participant_invitation&tlink=pollbtn

What is Doodle? Doodle is a web service that helps avri doria to find
a suitable date for meeting with a group of people. Learn more about
how Doodle works.
(https://doodle.com/main.html?tlink=checkOutLink&tmail=poll_invitecontact_participant_invitation)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You have received this e-mail because "avri doria" has invited you to
participate in the Doodle poll "For Chair of the NCSG-PC."

----

Doodle AG, Werdstrasse 21, 8021 Z?rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140206/10fbed05/attachment.html>


From wjdrake  Thu Feb  6 10:03:30 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 09:03:30 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive
	Strings
In-Reply-To: <52F2AC4C.5080402@acm.org>
References: <001a01cf2289$03baee40$0b30cac0$@rnapartners.com>
	<52F2AC4C.5080402@acm.org>
Message-ID: <39E3F476-0936-46C9-9D5B-85C67F88C2FB@gmail.com>

Hi

Interesting outreach.  What do we make of the motivations and potential impact?

Personally, not being a libertarian, I?m inclined to the think that there should be an effort to make PICS work, with assessments, before we just throw our hands up.  Whether the PAB the single best solution is another matter.

Would be interested in hearing from others.

Bill

On Feb 5, 2014, at 10:25 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> forwarded with permission
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive Strings
> Date: 	Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:43:21 -0500
> From: 	Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>
> To: 	<maria.farrell at gmail.com>, "'David Cake'" <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>,
> <avri at acm.org>
> CC: 	<robin at ipjustice.org>, "Olivier Crepin-Leblond " <ocl at gih.com>
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Maria,
> 
> Dear Avri,
> 
> Dear David,
> 
> Robin recently advised me that she is no longer on the NCSG Policy
> Committee and that, in fact, the three of you are leading that effort.
> For this reason I am contacting you today.
> 
> For the past several months, Marilyn Cade, Phil Corwin and I have been
> briefing ICANN thought leaders and AC/C leadership teams about the
> Policy Advisory Board (PAB) model that we have proposed to the
> Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the ICANN Board NGPC.   As you
> know the GAC Beijing Communique
> <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2> 
> raised issues about a large number of applications for strings that are
> associated with regulated industries.  The PAB model offers a path to
> move many of these off of the sidetrack they are currently on back into
> the path of delegation through the establishment of balanced and
> globally representative bodies that will ensure such new gTLDs act ?
> first and foremost ? in the public interest. For further background and
> the full detail on the PAB model, here is a link to my November 2013
> post on
> CircleID:http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131104_policy_advisory_boards_cornerstone_pics_public_interest_commitment/.
> 
> We would be most grateful to have NCUC consider joining with us in
> supporting this initiative to ensure that applicant PICS are indeed
> established, as requested by the GAC. _Our last chance is now_.  The GAC
> Buenos Aires Communique calls on the NGPC to provide ?/a briefing on
> whether the Board considers that the existing PICS/ /(including 3c)
> fully implements this advice.?/
> 
> We feel that adopting an approach such as the Policy Advisory Board
> offers several benefits, and a path to address the concerns raised in
> the GAC advice.
> 
> 1.Policy Advisory Boards (PAB) as a PICS enforcement model:
> 
> ?Mechanism for implementation of GAC safeguard advice for protecting
> public interest
> 
> ?Ensures separation of registry technical management and PAB-guided
> policy for those new gTLDs related to sensitive industries and professions.
> 
> ??One size does not fit all? ? the PAB proposed model is f_lexible  and
> while it does not propose required participation_ of any specific
> regulator, self-regulatory agency, or civil society entity, it is
> intended to provide an open and balanced advisory body to all bona fide
> parties
> 
> ?PAB can address registrant eligibility criteria, registry policies, and
> other relevant matters relating to safeguards implementation
> 
> ?Represented groups can include accrediting organizations; experts &
> advocates; safety/consumer coalitions & organizations; ?Internet
> freedom? & human rights groups; Internet commerce experts; national &
> global law enforcement entities
> 
> ?In the case of managing government interests, including regulatory
> entities, to participate on PABs, the TLD operator should propose an
> approach to address engagement, either as members, or as observers, on
> how interested governments to determine which would be the initial PAB
> participants and which will rotate in each year
> 
> ?2. PABs provide an extra layer of support for ICANN compliance due to
> their intrinsic and inclusive nature:
> 
> ?The PAB model meets the NGPC call for registries to provide a ?clear
> pathway? for creation of a working relationship with relevant industry
> regulatory or self-regulatory bodies
> 
> ?Broadened pathway accommodates participation of relevant consumer
> advocacy and other civil society groups
> 
> ?Ensures that representatives of consumer end-users of goods and
> services offered by registrants in regulated industry/profession gTLDs
> also have appropriate input in framing registry policies
> 
> The PAB is consistent with new gTLD program goals of promoting
> innovation and competition in a manner that benefits global Internet
> user community, while also respecting that certain string applications
> are associated with public interest responsibilities.  We present it as
> a framework or model, which has the flexibility to be adapted to a
> particular industry sector.
> 
> This past week, Marilyn, Olivier, Alan, Evan and I sent a follow on
> letter to the NGPC Chair to further the cause
> (https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en). 
> We have been privately informed by a leading member of the GAC that
> certain members of the NGPC view: /??the PAB model positively and that
> it can certainly contribute to close a number of loopholes or gaps in
> the current safeguards??/.
> 
> Yesterday, I received the attached letter from Christine Willett, so it
> is clear that the fight for the public interest over the interests of
> the ?New gTLD Customer Service? division of ICANN (as her email
> remarkably was received from) is on.
> 
> Irrespective of the timing of Willett?s letter, we had been planning to
> reach out to enroll you in this important initiative this week.  Now,
> more than ever, it is evident that the NGPC and ICANN CEO are driven by
> a desire to get to market with the new gLTDs and that they have no
> desire to see public interest commitments holding things up.  However,
> ICANN has to have a public interest accountability aspect or it has no
> legitimacy.  We need to rapidly build broad community support if the
> public interest is to prevail over portfolio gTLD applicant interests.
> 
> We welcome hearing your thoughts on this at your earliest convenience.
> 
> Thank you in advance for your consideration.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> RA
> 
> *Ron Andruff*
> 
> *RNA Partners*
> 
> *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
> 
> 
> 
> <Letter_from_Willett_to_Andruff_et_al.pdf>_______________________________________________
> 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
***********************************************




From aelsadr  Thu Feb  6 12:48:50 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:48:50 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive
	Strings
In-Reply-To: <39E3F476-0936-46C9-9D5B-85C67F88C2FB@gmail.com>
References: <001a01cf2289$03baee40$0b30cac0$@rnapartners.com>
	<52F2AC4C.5080402@acm.org>
	<39E3F476-0936-46C9-9D5B-85C67F88C2FB@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <33C86E61-88E3-4839-A71F-36C17A971346@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I?m not as familiar with this topic as I probably need to be to give a well informed opinion, so here is my not-so-well informed one. This is a lot to take in, so please help me out if I?ve made mistaken assumptions.

I?ve tried to go through Ron?s letter to Cherine, the PICS in the Registry Agreement and the two GAC communiques coming out of Beijing and BA (I had gone through those before because of my personal interest in opinions regarding health-related new gTLD applications). The one thing that stands out to me, and made particularly clear in Ron?s letter, is that the GAC, ALAC and MC are very much in favour of regulatory authorities of different industries becoming involved in helping ICANN (via the PAB) reach conclusions on wether or not new gTLD applications meet subjective public interest criteria, or not. I say subjective, because it seems clear in the GAC communiqu? coming out of Beijing, that the GAC doesn?t see the PICS listed in the Registry Agreement to fulfil their own minimum standards of public interest. If these standards are left to or influenced by individual national regulators, then the recommendations may possibly have nothing to do with actual public interest?, even in its broadest definitions. Government-run sector regulators (in my personal experience) are politically motivated, and sometimes even dangerously corrupt.

ALAC have previously left me with the impression that they follow a principle of advocating for law enforcement and the Business Constituency has its traditional interests. This makes their affinity to team up with the GAC on this understandable, but I see no reason why we should view this proposal of a Policy Advisory Board to be advantageous to non-commercial domain name holders?, especially considering the proposed membership.

My take is let the BC make the case for the BC?s concerns, let ALAC make their own case, and if sector regulators have issues with public interest violation in the new gTLD program, then the GAC can take up those causes if it chooses to. There are already established procedures to raise objections based on public interest issues of new gTLD applications, and those have already seem to have been used. Is this whole issue about that the results of these procedures have not satisfied these folks?

I have been trying to establish an opinion on the objections to the applications for the gTLD .health. I?ve seen complaints on this by the GAC, ALAC, the World Health Organization and the International Medical Informatics Association - all based on the so-called ?public interest?. None of them have impressed me.

Finally?, is this really about domain names, or is what these folks are really trying to achieve is regulation of Web-content using domain names?? If this is true, then do we want to go down that road with them?? If this is really about PICS not working, then I have no objection to finding ways to make it work, but this proposal has just rubbed me the wrong way. I am more than willing to being corrected in my assumptions. Like I said, this is all new to me.

Thanks.

Amr

On Feb 6, 2014, at 9:03 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Interesting outreach.  What do we make of the motivations and potential impact?
> 
> Personally, not being a libertarian, I?m inclined to the think that there should be an effort to make PICS work, with assessments, before we just throw our hands up.  Whether the PAB the single best solution is another matter.
> 
> Would be interested in hearing from others.
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Feb 5, 2014, at 10:25 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
>> forwarded with permission
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: 	Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive Strings
>> Date: 	Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:43:21 -0500
>> From: 	Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>
>> To: 	<maria.farrell at gmail.com>, "'David Cake'" <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>,
>> <avri at acm.org>
>> CC: 	<robin at ipjustice.org>, "Olivier Crepin-Leblond " <ocl at gih.com>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Maria,
>> 
>> Dear Avri,
>> 
>> Dear David,
>> 
>> Robin recently advised me that she is no longer on the NCSG Policy
>> Committee and that, in fact, the three of you are leading that effort.
>> For this reason I am contacting you today.
>> 
>> For the past several months, Marilyn Cade, Phil Corwin and I have been
>> briefing ICANN thought leaders and AC/C leadership teams about the
>> Policy Advisory Board (PAB) model that we have proposed to the
>> Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the ICANN Board NGPC.   As you
>> know the GAC Beijing Communique
>> <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2> 
>> raised issues about a large number of applications for strings that are
>> associated with regulated industries.  The PAB model offers a path to
>> move many of these off of the sidetrack they are currently on back into
>> the path of delegation through the establishment of balanced and
>> globally representative bodies that will ensure such new gTLDs act ?
>> first and foremost ? in the public interest. For further background and
>> the full detail on the PAB model, here is a link to my November 2013
>> post on
>> CircleID:http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131104_policy_advisory_boards_cornerstone_pics_public_interest_commitment/.
>> 
>> We would be most grateful to have NCUC consider joining with us in
>> supporting this initiative to ensure that applicant PICS are indeed
>> established, as requested by the GAC. _Our last chance is now_.  The GAC
>> Buenos Aires Communique calls on the NGPC to provide ?/a briefing on
>> whether the Board considers that the existing PICS/ /(including 3c)
>> fully implements this advice.?/
>> 
>> We feel that adopting an approach such as the Policy Advisory Board
>> offers several benefits, and a path to address the concerns raised in
>> the GAC advice.
>> 
>> 1.Policy Advisory Boards (PAB) as a PICS enforcement model:
>> 
>> ?Mechanism for implementation of GAC safeguard advice for protecting
>> public interest
>> 
>> ?Ensures separation of registry technical management and PAB-guided
>> policy for those new gTLDs related to sensitive industries and professions.
>> 
>> ??One size does not fit all? ? the PAB proposed model is f_lexible  and
>> while it does not propose required participation_ of any specific
>> regulator, self-regulatory agency, or civil society entity, it is
>> intended to provide an open and balanced advisory body to all bona fide
>> parties
>> 
>> ?PAB can address registrant eligibility criteria, registry policies, and
>> other relevant matters relating to safeguards implementation
>> 
>> ?Represented groups can include accrediting organizations; experts &
>> advocates; safety/consumer coalitions & organizations; ?Internet
>> freedom? & human rights groups; Internet commerce experts; national &
>> global law enforcement entities
>> 
>> ?In the case of managing government interests, including regulatory
>> entities, to participate on PABs, the TLD operator should propose an
>> approach to address engagement, either as members, or as observers, on
>> how interested governments to determine which would be the initial PAB
>> participants and which will rotate in each year
>> 
>> ?2. PABs provide an extra layer of support for ICANN compliance due to
>> their intrinsic and inclusive nature:
>> 
>> ?The PAB model meets the NGPC call for registries to provide a ?clear
>> pathway? for creation of a working relationship with relevant industry
>> regulatory or self-regulatory bodies
>> 
>> ?Broadened pathway accommodates participation of relevant consumer
>> advocacy and other civil society groups
>> 
>> ?Ensures that representatives of consumer end-users of goods and
>> services offered by registrants in regulated industry/profession gTLDs
>> also have appropriate input in framing registry policies
>> 
>> The PAB is consistent with new gTLD program goals of promoting
>> innovation and competition in a manner that benefits global Internet
>> user community, while also respecting that certain string applications
>> are associated with public interest responsibilities.  We present it as
>> a framework or model, which has the flexibility to be adapted to a
>> particular industry sector.
>> 
>> This past week, Marilyn, Olivier, Alan, Evan and I sent a follow on
>> letter to the NGPC Chair to further the cause
>> (https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en). 
>> We have been privately informed by a leading member of the GAC that
>> certain members of the NGPC view: /??the PAB model positively and that
>> it can certainly contribute to close a number of loopholes or gaps in
>> the current safeguards??/.
>> 
>> Yesterday, I received the attached letter from Christine Willett, so it
>> is clear that the fight for the public interest over the interests of
>> the ?New gTLD Customer Service? division of ICANN (as her email
>> remarkably was received from) is on.
>> 
>> Irrespective of the timing of Willett?s letter, we had been planning to
>> reach out to enroll you in this important initiative this week.  Now,
>> more than ever, it is evident that the NGPC and ICANN CEO are driven by
>> a desire to get to market with the new gLTDs and that they have no
>> desire to see public interest commitments holding things up.  However,
>> ICANN has to have a public interest accountability aspect or it has no
>> legitimacy.  We need to rapidly build broad community support if the
>> public interest is to prevail over portfolio gTLD applicant interests.
>> 
>> We welcome hearing your thoughts on this at your earliest convenience.
>> 
>> Thank you in advance for your consideration.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> RA
>> 
>> *Ron Andruff*
>> 
>> *RNA Partners*
>> 
>> *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> <Letter_from_Willett_to_Andruff_et_al.pdf>_______________________________________________
>> 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
> ***********************************************
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140206/b081cea7/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Feb  6 16:13:05 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 23:13:05 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] WHOIS Privacy Proxy Services Questionnaire (Available
 Until 28 February 2014)
Message-ID: <CAH5sThn1QDUVQ+VSm6nA94fJhR3_b1o3O5i47kykq=y3ef10pA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

we have here an important questionnaire to respond about the Whois privacy
proxy services.  Stephanie Perrin, a NCSG member, is involved in the Expert
Working Group and she will probably explain here the context and the
expectations from the questionnaire.
we have until 28th February to respond.

Best Regards,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
Date: 2014-02-06
Subject: [Soac-infoalert] WHOIS Privacy Proxy Services Questionnaire
(Available Until 28 February 2014)
To: "soac-infoalert at icann.org" <soac-infoalert at icann.org>






https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-05feb14-en.htm
WHOIS Privacy Proxy Services Questionnaire (Available Until 28 February
2014)

5 February 2014

The Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services (EWG) is seeking
information from Privacy and Proxy (P/P) Service Providers on existing
practices to inform its deliberations as it develops recommendations on
best practices for the proposed Next Generation Registration Directory
Service (RDS) to replace today's Whois system. The Questionnaire will be
used to understand current P/P Provider practices and will be made
available until 28 February 2014.

Questionnaire attributes:

   - Questionnaire Availability Date: 31 January 2014
   - Questionnaire Address:
   https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Privacy_and_Proxy_Services_Survey
   - Questionnaire Close Date: *28 February 2014, 23:59 UTC*
   - Questionnaire Language: English only

All questions can be downloaded in PDF
form<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/45744698/PP_EWG_Survey.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1391125472409&api=v2>[PDF,
281 KB] for offline review, with answers submitted either via email
to PP-EWG-Survey at icann.org or submitting answers online.

The EWG greatly appreciates any insights on this topic from those P/P
Providers interested in sharing information about their current practices.
The individual responses will be used only to understand current P/P
Provider practices and will not be published by the EWG, unless the P/P
Provider requests that its individual response be disclosed. The EWG plans
to publish a summary of anonymized, aggregated results for ICANN community
use in considering future policy recommendations, and will be shared with
the GNSO PDP Working Group on Privacy/Proxy Service Accreditation Issues.
Background

In December 2012, ICANN announced the creation of an Expert Working Group
(EWG) on next-generation gTLD Registration Directory Services, as a first
step in fulfilling the ICANN Board's directive to help redefine the purpose
and provision of gTLD registration data. The EWG's findings are expected to
serve as a foundation to help the GNSO create a new global policy for the
provision of gTLD registration data.

A significant milestone was reached on 24 June
2013<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-24jun13-en.htm>with
the publication
<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-24jun13-en.htm>of
the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory
Services<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services>(EWG)'s
Initial Report and FAQs, opening a consultation period with the
ICANN community. The Initial
Report<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-report-24jun13-en.pdf>[PDF,
1.70 MB] enumerated the users, purposes, data elements, recommended
principles and features, and proposed model to guide the development of a
next generation Registration Directory Service (RDS) to replace WHOIS.

Prior to the ICANN Meeting in Buenos Aires, the EWG published its Status
Update Report<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/status-update-11nov13-en.pdf>[PDF,
2.26 MB] to highlight the EWG's thinking on these and many other key
issues. It also provides a great deal more detail on the analysis that lay
behind the Initial
Report<https://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/initial-report-24jun13-en.pdf>[PDF,
1.70 MB].

The EWG is currently in its research and information gathering phase. This
Questionnaire is one of several research efforts that the EWG is currently
undertaking to ensure that its final recommendations are supported by facts
and informed by current practices.
What's Next?

The EWG expects to complete its recommendations in 2014, informed by
Community feedback and in-depth analysis of selected areas, including the
responses to this Questionnaire. The EWG plans to reconvene in March 2014
to derive fact-based recommendations after carefully examining the results
of its research, and expects to deliver its final report to the ICANN Board
by June 2014.
Questions

If questions arise about the Questionnaire or the online tool, please
contact Margie Milam at PP-EWG-Survey at icann.org.





Glen de Saint G?ry

GNSO Secretariat

gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org

http://gnso.icann.org



_______________________________________________
soac-infoalert mailing list
soac-infoalert at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140206/1e71d1d1/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Feb  6 16:25:55 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 23:25:55 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [AfrICANN-discuss] Invitation to Join the GNSO-SSR |
 A GNSO Sponsored Security, Stability, Resiliency (SSR) Mailing List
In-Reply-To: <CF1795B0.1C3B%yaovi.atohoun@icann.org>
References: <CF1795B0.1C3B%yaovi.atohoun@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnau_jWTZPhgUeSMBR+bwpw_+-Z4PWqGaUgp0YAqTVMnA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

that is interesting setting for GNSO WG, can our councillors brief about
the context? good to involve the community of SSAC recommendations review.
I think that is the first WG without confall.

Best Regards,

Rafik

---------- Message transf?r? ----------
De : Yaovi Atohoun <yaovi.atohoun at icann.org>
Date : 5 f?vrier 2014 15:17
Objet : [AfrICANN-discuss] Invitation to Join the GNSO-SSR | A GNSO
Sponsored Security, Stability, Resiliency (SSR) Mailing List
? : AfrICANN list <africann at afrinic.net>


Dear all (Lire fran?ais plus bas,

The group:

   - Will do its work via an email list ? no teleconferences are planned
   - Is open to all members of the ICANN community ? all AC's and SO's,
   staff, Board, etc.
   - Will require that all participants submit or update their
GNSOStatement of
Interest<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=14713457>before
they are subscribed to the list
   - Will maintain open public email archives ? and thus will not discuss
   private or confidential information
   - Will be convened by Mikey O'Connor until somebody gets tired of him
   and offers to take over
   - To join the mailing list please *RSVP* gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org

More information at
http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04feb14-en.htm

Thanks

===========
Bonjour ? tous,

Cette annonce est un appel ? se joindre ? un groupe de travail sponsoris?
par le GNSO

   - Les discussions au sein de ce groupe de travail se feront ? travers un
   liste de diffusion
   - Le groupe est ouvert ? tous les membres de la communaut? ICANN
   - Chaque participant doit soumettre  ou mettre ? jour sa d?claration
   d'int?r?t  GNSO Statement of
Interest<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=14713457>
   avant de s'inscrire
   - Il y aura une archive ouvert  des discussions (pas donc de discussion
   priv?e ou d'information confidentielle)
   - Le groupe sera coordonn? par Mikey O'Connor jusqu'au moment o?
   quelqu'un voudrait place sa place
   - Pour joindre le groupe envoyer un mail ?
   gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org


Plus de d?tail sur l'annonce ? l'adresse
http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04feb14-en.htm


Merci

-
Yaovi Atohoun
Stakeholder Engagement and Operations  Manager ? Africa
ICANN ?  www.icann.org
Mobile : +229 66015649 / 97891228
Skype : yaovi.atohoun.icann


_______________________________________________
AfrICANN mailing list
AfrICANN at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140206/f82cb4d5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5080 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140206/f82cb4d5/attachment-0001.p7s>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Feb  6 16:50:08 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 23:50:08 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive
	Strings
In-Reply-To: <33C86E61-88E3-4839-A71F-36C17A971346@egyptig.org>
References: <001a01cf2289$03baee40$0b30cac0$@rnapartners.com>
	<52F2AC4C.5080402@acm.org>
	<39E3F476-0936-46C9-9D5B-85C67F88C2FB@gmail.com>
	<33C86E61-88E3-4839-A71F-36C17A971346@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkZMO8aciivV2krqPc99HjX8-JY+jXA2rHn-KnTK5cTUA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

I don't recall that we supported PIC when it comes first time in Beijing
with the GAC communique. so this policy body will be a community-based
oversight structure to follow the compliance of registry? it is surprising
to see mention of civil society, users, human rights etc unusual coming
from BC.

like Amr, I recall that when PIC were mentioned, the perception was that is
a way to do content policy through new gTLD. we cannot support that without
clear commitment for respect of HR and other legal framework otherwise we
may end up cautioning censorship! what are the safeguard against public
interest on its fuzzy definition to be conflated with morality and public
order?
finally, as usual the balance and representation matter

Best,

Rafik
2014-02-06 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi,
>
> I?m not as familiar with this topic as I probably need to be to give a
> well informed opinion, so here is my not-so-well informed one. This is a
> lot to take in, so please help me out if I?ve made mistaken assumptions.
>
> I?ve tried to go through Ron?s letter to Cherine, the PICS in the Registry
> Agreement and the two GAC communiques coming out of Beijing and BA (I had
> gone through those before because of my personal interest in opinions
> regarding health-related new gTLD applications). The one thing that stands
> out to me, and made particularly clear in Ron?s letter, is that the GAC,
> ALAC and MC are very much in favour of regulatory authorities of different
> industries becoming involved in helping ICANN (via the PAB) reach
> conclusions on wether or not new gTLD applications meet *subjective*public interest criteria, or not. I say subjective, because it seems clear
> in the GAC communiqu? coming out of Beijing, that the GAC doesn?t see the
> PICS listed in the Registry Agreement to fulfil their own minimum standards
> of public interest. If these standards are left to or influenced by
> individual national regulators, then the recommendations may possibly have
> nothing to do with actual public interest?, even in its broadest
> definitions. Government-run sector regulators (in my personal experience)
> are politically motivated, and sometimes even dangerously corrupt.
>
> ALAC have previously left me with the impression that they follow a
> principle of advocating for law enforcement and the Business Constituency
> has its traditional interests. This makes their affinity to team up with
> the GAC on this understandable, but I see no reason why we should view this
> proposal of a Policy Advisory Board to be advantageous to non-commercial
> domain name holders?, especially considering the proposed membership.
>
> My take is let the BC make the case for the BC?s concerns, let ALAC make
> their own case, and if sector regulators have issues with public interest
> violation in the new gTLD program, then the GAC can take up those causes if
> it chooses to. There are already established procedures to raise objections
> based on public interest issues of new gTLD applications, and those have
> already seem to have been used. Is this whole issue about that the results
> of these procedures have not satisfied these folks?
>
> I have been trying to establish an opinion on the objections to the
> applications for the gTLD .health. I?ve seen complaints on this by the GAC,
> ALAC, the World Health Organization and the International Medical
> Informatics Association - all based on the so-called ?public interest?.
> None of them have impressed me.
>
> Finally?, is this really about domain names, or is what these folks are
> really trying to achieve is regulation of Web-content using domain names??
> If this is true, then do we want to go down that road with them?? If this
> is really about PICS not working, then I have no objection to finding ways
> to make it work, but this proposal has just rubbed me the wrong way. I am
> more than willing to being corrected in my assumptions. Like I said, this
> is all new to me.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Feb 6, 2014, at 9:03 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Interesting outreach.  What do we make of the motivations and potential
> impact?
>
> Personally, not being a libertarian, I?m inclined to the think that there
> should be an effort to make PICS work, with assessments, before we just
> throw our hands up.  Whether the PAB the single best solution is another
> matter.
>
> Would be interested in hearing from others.
>
> Bill
>
> On Feb 5, 2014, at 10:25 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>
> forwarded with permission
>
> avri
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive Strings
> Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:43:21 -0500
> From: Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>
> To: <maria.farrell at gmail.com>, "'David Cake'" <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>,
> <avri at acm.org>
> CC: <robin at ipjustice.org>, "Olivier Crepin-Leblond " <ocl at gih.com>
>
>
>
> Dear Maria,
>
> Dear Avri,
>
> Dear David,
>
> Robin recently advised me that she is no longer on the NCSG Policy
> Committee and that, in fact, the three of you are leading that effort.
> For this reason I am contacting you today.
>
> For the past several months, Marilyn Cade, Phil Corwin and I have been
> briefing ICANN thought leaders and AC/C leadership teams about the
> Policy Advisory Board (PAB) model that we have proposed to the
> Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the ICANN Board NGPC.   As you
> know the GAC Beijing Communique
> <
> https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2>
>
> raised issues about a large number of applications for strings that are
> associated with regulated industries.  The PAB model offers a path to
> move many of these off of the sidetrack they are currently on back into
> the path of delegation through the establishment of balanced and
> globally representative bodies that will ensure such new gTLDs act ?
> first and foremost ? in the public interest. For further background and
> the full detail on the PAB model, here is a link to my November 2013
> post on
> CircleID:http://
> www.circleid.com/posts/20131104_policy_advisory_boards_cornerstone_pics_public_interest_commitment/
> .
>
> We would be most grateful to have NCUC consider joining with us in
> supporting this initiative to ensure that applicant PICS are indeed
> established, as requested by the GAC. _Our last chance is now_.  The GAC
> Buenos Aires Communique calls on the NGPC to provide ?/a briefing on
> whether the Board considers that the existing PICS/ /(including 3c)
> fully implements this advice.?/
>
> We feel that adopting an approach such as the Policy Advisory Board
> offers several benefits, and a path to address the concerns raised in
> the GAC advice.
>
> 1.Policy Advisory Boards (PAB) as a PICS enforcement model:
>
> ?Mechanism for implementation of GAC safeguard advice for protecting
> public interest
>
> ?Ensures separation of registry technical management and PAB-guided
> policy for those new gTLDs related to sensitive industries and professions.
>
> ??One size does not fit all? ? the PAB proposed model is f_lexible  and
> while it does not propose required participation_ of any specific
> regulator, self-regulatory agency, or civil society entity, it is
> intended to provide an open and balanced advisory body to all bona fide
> parties
>
> ?PAB can address registrant eligibility criteria, registry policies, and
> other relevant matters relating to safeguards implementation
>
> ?Represented groups can include accrediting organizations; experts &
> advocates; safety/consumer coalitions & organizations; ?Internet
> freedom? & human rights groups; Internet commerce experts; national &
> global law enforcement entities
>
> ?In the case of managing government interests, including regulatory
> entities, to participate on PABs, the TLD operator should propose an
> approach to address engagement, either as members, or as observers, on
> how interested governments to determine which would be the initial PAB
> participants and which will rotate in each year
>
> ?2. PABs provide an extra layer of support for ICANN compliance due to
> their intrinsic and inclusive nature:
>
> ?The PAB model meets the NGPC call for registries to provide a ?clear
> pathway? for creation of a working relationship with relevant industry
> regulatory or self-regulatory bodies
>
> ?Broadened pathway accommodates participation of relevant consumer
> advocacy and other civil society groups
>
> ?Ensures that representatives of consumer end-users of goods and
> services offered by registrants in regulated industry/profession gTLDs
> also have appropriate input in framing registry policies
>
> The PAB is consistent with new gTLD program goals of promoting
> innovation and competition in a manner that benefits global Internet
> user community, while also respecting that certain string applications
> are associated with public interest responsibilities.  We present it as
> a framework or model, which has the flexibility to be adapted to a
> particular industry sector.
>
> This past week, Marilyn, Olivier, Alan, Evan and I sent a follow on
> letter to the NGPC Chair to further the cause
> (
> https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en).
>
> We have been privately informed by a leading member of the GAC that
> certain members of the NGPC view: /??the PAB model positively and that
> it can certainly contribute to close a number of loopholes or gaps in
> the current safeguards??/.
>
> Yesterday, I received the attached letter from Christine Willett, so it
> is clear that the fight for the public interest over the interests of
> the ?New gTLD Customer Service? division of ICANN (as her email
> remarkably was received from) is on.
>
> Irrespective of the timing of Willett?s letter, we had been planning to
> reach out to enroll you in this important initiative this week.  Now,
> more than ever, it is evident that the NGPC and ICANN CEO are driven by
> a desire to get to market with the new gLTDs and that they have no
> desire to see public interest commitments holding things up.  However,
> ICANN has to have a public interest accountability aspect or it has no
> legitimacy.  We need to rapidly build broad community support if the
> public interest is to prevail over portfolio gTLD applicant interests.
>
> We welcome hearing your thoughts on this at your earliest convenience.
>
> Thank you in advance for your consideration.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> RA
>
> *Ron Andruff*
>
> *RNA Partners*
>
> *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
>
>
>
>
> <Letter_from_Willett_to_Andruff_et_al.pdf>_______________________________________________
> 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
> ***********************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140206/03c172df/attachment-0001.html>


From dave  Thu Feb  6 03:35:21 2014
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 09:35:21 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Policy Advisory Board Model for
	Regulated/Sensitive Strings
In-Reply-To: <52F2B500.2020500@seltzer.com>
References: <001a01cf2289$03baee40$0b30cac0$@rnapartners.com>
	<52F2AC4C.5080402@acm.org> <52F2B500.2020500@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <217D56E8-0C01-4F32-8DCF-29C1C481B06A@difference.com.au>

I'm inclined to support. It will be unbalanced if we don't participate, for sure. But the PAB model looks to me to be one of the few suggestions that might make PICS actually have some meaningful public interest component, rather than just being a tick-list commitment of promising to do what the GAC (or those lobbying the GAC) said. 

And by being involved in the debate we can work to ensure that the PICS system has meaningful participation from regulators, policy experts, etc. 

David


On 6 Feb 2014, at 6:02 am, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:

> Disinclined to support.  "Balanced"?
> 
> --Wendy
> 
> On 02/05/2014 04:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> forwarded with permission
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject:     Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive Strings
>> Date:     Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:43:21 -0500
>> From:     Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>
>> To:     <maria.farrell at gmail.com>, "'David Cake'" <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>,
>> <avri at acm.org>
>> CC:     <robin at ipjustice.org>, "Olivier Crepin-Leblond " <ocl at gih.com>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Maria,
>> 
>> Dear Avri,
>> 
>> Dear David,
>> 
>> Robin recently advised me that she is no longer on the NCSG Policy
>> Committee and that, in fact, the three of you are leading that effort.
>> For this reason I am contacting you today.
>> 
>> For the past several months, Marilyn Cade, Phil Corwin and I have been
>> briefing ICANN thought leaders and AC/C leadership teams about the
>> Policy Advisory Board (PAB) model that we have proposed to the
>> Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the ICANN Board NGPC.   As you
>> know the GAC Beijing Communique
>> <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2>
>> 
>> raised issues about a large number of applications for strings that are
>> associated with regulated industries.  The PAB model offers a path to
>> move many of these off of the sidetrack they are currently on back into
>> the path of delegation through the establishment of balanced and
>> globally representative bodies that will ensure such new gTLDs act ?
>> first and foremost ? in the public interest. For further background and
>> the full detail on the PAB model, here is a link to my November 2013
>> post on
>> CircleID:http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131104_policy_advisory_boards_cornerstone_pics_public_interest_commitment/.
>> 
>> 
>> We would be most grateful to have NCUC consider joining with us in
>> supporting this initiative to ensure that applicant PICS are indeed
>> established, as requested by the GAC. _Our last chance is now_.  The GAC
>> Buenos Aires Communique calls on the NGPC to provide ?/a briefing on
>> whether the Board considers that the existing PICS/ /(including 3c)
>> fully implements this advice.?/
>> 
>> We feel that adopting an approach such as the Policy Advisory Board
>> offers several benefits, and a path to address the concerns raised in
>> the GAC advice.
>> 
>> 1.Policy Advisory Boards (PAB) as a PICS enforcement model:
>> 
>> ?Mechanism for implementation of GAC safeguard advice for protecting
>> public interest
>> 
>> ?Ensures separation of registry technical management and PAB-guided
>> policy for those new gTLDs related to sensitive industries and professions.
>> 
>> ??One size does not fit all? ? the PAB proposed model is f_lexible  and
>> while it does not propose required participation_ of any specific
>> regulator, self-regulatory agency, or civil society entity, it is
>> intended to provide an open and balanced advisory body to all bona fide
>> parties
>> 
>> ?PAB can address registrant eligibility criteria, registry policies, and
>> other relevant matters relating to safeguards implementation
>> 
>> ?Represented groups can include accrediting organizations; experts &
>> advocates; safety/consumer coalitions & organizations; ?Internet
>> freedom? & human rights groups; Internet commerce experts; national &
>> global law enforcement entities
>> 
>> ?In the case of managing government interests, including regulatory
>> entities, to participate on PABs, the TLD operator should propose an
>> approach to address engagement, either as members, or as observers, on
>> how interested governments to determine which would be the initial PAB
>> participants and which will rotate in each year
>> 
>> ?2. PABs provide an extra layer of support for ICANN compliance due to
>> their intrinsic and inclusive nature:
>> 
>> ?The PAB model meets the NGPC call for registries to provide a ?clear
>> pathway? for creation of a working relationship with relevant industry
>> regulatory or self-regulatory bodies
>> 
>> ?Broadened pathway accommodates participation of relevant consumer
>> advocacy and other civil society groups
>> 
>> ?Ensures that representatives of consumer end-users of goods and
>> services offered by registrants in regulated industry/profession gTLDs
>> also have appropriate input in framing registry policies
>> 
>> The PAB is consistent with new gTLD program goals of promoting
>> innovation and competition in a manner that benefits global Internet
>> user community, while also respecting that certain string applications
>> are associated with public interest responsibilities.  We present it as
>> a framework or model, which has the flexibility to be adapted to a
>> particular industry sector.
>> 
>> This past week, Marilyn, Olivier, Alan, Evan and I sent a follow on
>> letter to the NGPC Chair to further the cause
>> (https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en).
>> 
>> We have been privately informed by a leading member of the GAC that
>> certain members of the NGPC view: /??the PAB model positively and that
>> it can certainly contribute to close a number of loopholes or gaps in
>> the current safeguards??/.
>> 
>> Yesterday, I received the attached letter from Christine Willett, so it
>> is clear that the fight for the public interest over the interests of
>> the ?New gTLD Customer Service? division of ICANN (as her email
>> remarkably was received from) is on.
>> 
>> Irrespective of the timing of Willett?s letter, we had been planning to
>> reach out to enroll you in this important initiative this week.  Now,
>> more than ever, it is evident that the NGPC and ICANN CEO are driven by
>> a desire to get to market with the new gLTDs and that they have no
>> desire to see public interest commitments holding things up.  However,
>> ICANN has to have a public interest accountability aspect or it has no
>> legitimacy.  We need to rapidly build broad community support if the
>> public interest is to prevail over portfolio gTLD applicant interests.
>> 
>> We welcome hearing your thoughts on this at your earliest convenience.
>> 
>> Thank you in advance for your consideration.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> RA
>> 
>> *Ron Andruff*
>> 
>> *RNA Partners*
>> 
>> *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- 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/20140206/39afcd21/attachment.sig>


From wendy  Thu Feb  6 17:26:56 2014
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 10:26:56 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Policy Advisory Board Model for
 Regulated/Sensitive Strings
In-Reply-To: <217D56E8-0C01-4F32-8DCF-29C1C481B06A@difference.com.au>
References: <001a01cf2289$03baee40$0b30cac0$@rnapartners.com>
	<52F2AC4C.5080402@acm.org> <52F2B500.2020500@seltzer.com>
	<217D56E8-0C01-4F32-8DCF-29C1C481B06A@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <52F3A9C0.8070403@seltzer.com>

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

Personally, I oppose PICS for pulling ICANN into the
content-regluation business. I don't think ICANN should be building up
even further apparatus to do so.

- --Wendy

On 02/05/2014 08:35 PM, David Cake wrote:
> I'm inclined to support. It will be unbalanced if we don't
> participate, for sure. But the PAB model looks to me to be one of
> the few suggestions that might make PICS actually have some
> meaningful public interest component, rather than just being a
> tick-list commitment of promising to do what the GAC (or those
> lobbying the GAC) said.
> 
> And by being involved in the debate we can work to ensure that the
> PICS system has meaningful participation from regulators, policy
> experts, etc.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> On 6 Feb 2014, at 6:02 am, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Disinclined to support.  "Balanced"?
>> 
>> --Wendy
>> 
>> On 02/05/2014 04:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>> forwarded with permission
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject:     Policy Advisory
>>> Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive Strings Date:     Wed, 5
>>> Feb 2014 10:43:21 -0500 From:     Ron Andruff
>>> <randruff at rnapartners.com> To:     <maria.farrell at gmail.com>,
>>> "'David Cake'" <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>, <avri at acm.org> CC:
>>> <robin at ipjustice.org>, "Olivier Crepin-Leblond " <ocl at gih.com>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear Maria,
>>> 
>>> Dear Avri,
>>> 
>>> Dear David,
>>> 
>>> Robin recently advised me that she is no longer on the NCSG
>>> Policy Committee and that, in fact, the three of you are
>>> leading that effort. For this reason I am contacting you
>>> today.
>>> 
>>> For the past several months, Marilyn Cade, Phil Corwin and I
>>> have been briefing ICANN thought leaders and AC/C leadership
>>> teams about the Policy Advisory Board (PAB) model that we have
>>> proposed to the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the
>>> ICANN Board NGPC.   As you know the GAC Beijing Communique 
>>> <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
raised issues about a large number of applications for strings that are
>>> associated with regulated industries.  The PAB model offers a
>>> path to move many of these off of the sidetrack they are
>>> currently on back into the path of delegation through the
>>> establishment of balanced and globally representative bodies
>>> that will ensure such new gTLDs act ? first and foremost ? in
>>> the public interest. For further background and the full detail
>>> on the PAB model, here is a link to my November 2013 post on 
>>> CircleID:http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131104_policy_advisory_boards_cornerstone_pics_public_interest_commitment/.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
We would be most grateful to have NCUC consider joining with us in
>>> supporting this initiative to ensure that applicant PICS are
>>> indeed established, as requested by the GAC. _Our last chance
>>> is now_.  The GAC Buenos Aires Communique calls on the NGPC to
>>> provide ?/a briefing on whether the Board considers that the
>>> existing PICS/ /(including 3c) fully implements this advice.?/
>>> 
>>> We feel that adopting an approach such as the Policy Advisory
>>> Board offers several benefits, and a path to address the
>>> concerns raised in the GAC advice.
>>> 
>>> 1.Policy Advisory Boards (PAB) as a PICS enforcement model:
>>> 
>>> ?Mechanism for implementation of GAC safeguard advice for
>>> protecting public interest
>>> 
>>> ?Ensures separation of registry technical management and
>>> PAB-guided policy for those new gTLDs related to sensitive
>>> industries and professions.
>>> 
>>> ??One size does not fit all? ? the PAB proposed model is
>>> f_lexible  and while it does not propose required
>>> participation_ of any specific regulator, self-regulatory
>>> agency, or civil society entity, it is intended to provide an
>>> open and balanced advisory body to all bona fide parties
>>> 
>>> ?PAB can address registrant eligibility criteria, registry
>>> policies, and other relevant matters relating to safeguards
>>> implementation
>>> 
>>> ?Represented groups can include accrediting organizations;
>>> experts & advocates; safety/consumer coalitions &
>>> organizations; ?Internet freedom? & human rights groups;
>>> Internet commerce experts; national & global law enforcement
>>> entities
>>> 
>>> ?In the case of managing government interests, including
>>> regulatory entities, to participate on PABs, the TLD operator
>>> should propose an approach to address engagement, either as
>>> members, or as observers, on how interested governments to
>>> determine which would be the initial PAB participants and which
>>> will rotate in each year
>>> 
>>> ?2. PABs provide an extra layer of support for ICANN compliance
>>> due to their intrinsic and inclusive nature:
>>> 
>>> ?The PAB model meets the NGPC call for registries to provide a
>>> ?clear pathway? for creation of a working relationship with
>>> relevant industry regulatory or self-regulatory bodies
>>> 
>>> ?Broadened pathway accommodates participation of relevant
>>> consumer advocacy and other civil society groups
>>> 
>>> ?Ensures that representatives of consumer end-users of goods
>>> and services offered by registrants in regulated
>>> industry/profession gTLDs also have appropriate input in
>>> framing registry policies
>>> 
>>> The PAB is consistent with new gTLD program goals of promoting 
>>> innovation and competition in a manner that benefits global
>>> Internet user community, while also respecting that certain
>>> string applications are associated with public interest
>>> responsibilities.  We present it as a framework or model, which
>>> has the flexibility to be adapted to a particular industry
>>> sector.
>>> 
>>> This past week, Marilyn, Olivier, Alan, Evan and I sent a
>>> follow on letter to the NGPC Chair to further the cause 
>>> (https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en).
>>>
>>>
>>> 
We have been privately informed by a leading member of the GAC that
>>> certain members of the NGPC view: /??the PAB model positively
>>> and that it can certainly contribute to close a number of
>>> loopholes or gaps in the current safeguards??/.
>>> 
>>> Yesterday, I received the attached letter from Christine
>>> Willett, so it is clear that the fight for the public interest
>>> over the interests of the ?New gTLD Customer Service? division
>>> of ICANN (as her email remarkably was received from) is on.
>>> 
>>> Irrespective of the timing of Willett?s letter, we had been
>>> planning to reach out to enroll you in this important
>>> initiative this week.  Now, more than ever, it is evident that
>>> the NGPC and ICANN CEO are driven by a desire to get to market
>>> with the new gLTDs and that they have no desire to see public
>>> interest commitments holding things up.  However, ICANN has to
>>> have a public interest accountability aspect or it has no 
>>> legitimacy.  We need to rapidly build broad community support
>>> if the public interest is to prevail over portfolio gTLD
>>> applicant interests.
>>> 
>>> We welcome hearing your thoughts on this at your earliest
>>> convenience.
>>> 
>>> Thank you in advance for your consideration.
>>> 
>>> Kind regards,
>>> 
>>> RA
>>> 
>>> *Ron Andruff*
>>> 
>>> *RNA Partners*
>>> 
>>> *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org 
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy
>> Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center
>> for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow,
>> Yale Law School Information Society Project 
>> http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ 
>> https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org 
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 


- -- 
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/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlLzqb0ACgkQuuui10VsrVGrtQCeNVLUyU9Y5FZkKi6a7seGFjjM
DP8An2g1VU/Z3Gd12ZW21H5k9w8+W9D3
=jir+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



From wjdrake  Thu Feb  6 17:50:04 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 16:50:04 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive
	Strings
In-Reply-To: <52F3A9C0.8070403@seltzer.com>
References: <001a01cf2289$03baee40$0b30cac0$@rnapartners.com>
	<52F2AC4C.5080402@acm.org> <52F2B500.2020500@seltzer.com>
	<217D56E8-0C01-4F32-8DCF-29C1C481B06A@difference.com.au>
	<52F3A9C0.8070403@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <35F6B589-D622-400F-BBC7-144A6D38F009@gmail.com>

But aren?t we already in the content-regluation business?   The GAC is not going away and the scope and randomness of its interventions will increase.  So do we stand on principle off on the side and get ignored, or do we get into the game, be a recognized part of the process they have to deal with, and use the opportunity to advance our perspective, try to shape the thing to mitigate bad calls, and maybe even get something useful included at times?  I see the arguments on both sides, but on the whole lean toward David?s view.

That is, if we can actually muster the bandwidth to do anything.  If instead we?re likely to take a position we won?t follow up on, then blissful isolation may be more realistic.

Best

Bill

On Feb 6, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Personally, I oppose PICS for pulling ICANN into the
> content-regluation business. I don't think ICANN should be building up
> even further apparatus to do so.
> 
> - --Wendy
> 
> On 02/05/2014 08:35 PM, David Cake wrote:
>> I'm inclined to support. It will be unbalanced if we don't
>> participate, for sure. But the PAB model looks to me to be one of
>> the few suggestions that might make PICS actually have some
>> meaningful public interest component, rather than just being a
>> tick-list commitment of promising to do what the GAC (or those
>> lobbying the GAC) said.
>> 
>> And by being involved in the debate we can work to ensure that the
>> PICS system has meaningful participation from regulators, policy
>> experts, etc.
>> 
>> David
>> 
>> 
>> On 6 Feb 2014, at 6:02 am, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Disinclined to support.  "Balanced"?
>>> 
>>> --Wendy
>>> 
>>> On 02/05/2014 04:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>> forwarded with permission
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject:     Policy Advisory
>>>> Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive Strings Date:     Wed, 5
>>>> Feb 2014 10:43:21 -0500 From:     Ron Andruff
>>>> <randruff at rnapartners.com> To:     <maria.farrell at gmail.com>,
>>>> "'David Cake'" <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>, <avri at acm.org> CC:
>>>> <robin at ipjustice.org>, "Olivier Crepin-Leblond " <ocl at gih.com>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Maria,
>>>> 
>>>> Dear Avri,
>>>> 
>>>> Dear David,
>>>> 
>>>> Robin recently advised me that she is no longer on the NCSG
>>>> Policy Committee and that, in fact, the three of you are
>>>> leading that effort. For this reason I am contacting you
>>>> today.
>>>> 
>>>> For the past several months, Marilyn Cade, Phil Corwin and I
>>>> have been briefing ICANN thought leaders and AC/C leadership
>>>> teams about the Policy Advisory Board (PAB) model that we have
>>>> proposed to the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the
>>>> ICANN Board NGPC.   As you know the GAC Beijing Communique 
>>>> <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
> raised issues about a large number of applications for strings that are
>>>> associated with regulated industries.  The PAB model offers a
>>>> path to move many of these off of the sidetrack they are
>>>> currently on back into the path of delegation through the
>>>> establishment of balanced and globally representative bodies
>>>> that will ensure such new gTLDs act ? first and foremost ? in
>>>> the public interest. For further background and the full detail
>>>> on the PAB model, here is a link to my November 2013 post on 
>>>> CircleID:http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131104_policy_advisory_boards_cornerstone_pics_public_interest_commitment/.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
> We would be most grateful to have NCUC consider joining with us in
>>>> supporting this initiative to ensure that applicant PICS are
>>>> indeed established, as requested by the GAC. _Our last chance
>>>> is now_.  The GAC Buenos Aires Communique calls on the NGPC to
>>>> provide ?/a briefing on whether the Board considers that the
>>>> existing PICS/ /(including 3c) fully implements this advice.?/
>>>> 
>>>> We feel that adopting an approach such as the Policy Advisory
>>>> Board offers several benefits, and a path to address the
>>>> concerns raised in the GAC advice.
>>>> 
>>>> 1.Policy Advisory Boards (PAB) as a PICS enforcement model:
>>>> 
>>>> ?Mechanism for implementation of GAC safeguard advice for
>>>> protecting public interest
>>>> 
>>>> ?Ensures separation of registry technical management and
>>>> PAB-guided policy for those new gTLDs related to sensitive
>>>> industries and professions.
>>>> 
>>>> ??One size does not fit all? ? the PAB proposed model is
>>>> f_lexible  and while it does not propose required
>>>> participation_ of any specific regulator, self-regulatory
>>>> agency, or civil society entity, it is intended to provide an
>>>> open and balanced advisory body to all bona fide parties
>>>> 
>>>> ?PAB can address registrant eligibility criteria, registry
>>>> policies, and other relevant matters relating to safeguards
>>>> implementation
>>>> 
>>>> ?Represented groups can include accrediting organizations;
>>>> experts & advocates; safety/consumer coalitions &
>>>> organizations; ?Internet freedom? & human rights groups;
>>>> Internet commerce experts; national & global law enforcement
>>>> entities
>>>> 
>>>> ?In the case of managing government interests, including
>>>> regulatory entities, to participate on PABs, the TLD operator
>>>> should propose an approach to address engagement, either as
>>>> members, or as observers, on how interested governments to
>>>> determine which would be the initial PAB participants and which
>>>> will rotate in each year
>>>> 
>>>> ?2. PABs provide an extra layer of support for ICANN compliance
>>>> due to their intrinsic and inclusive nature:
>>>> 
>>>> ?The PAB model meets the NGPC call for registries to provide a
>>>> ?clear pathway? for creation of a working relationship with
>>>> relevant industry regulatory or self-regulatory bodies
>>>> 
>>>> ?Broadened pathway accommodates participation of relevant
>>>> consumer advocacy and other civil society groups
>>>> 
>>>> ?Ensures that representatives of consumer end-users of goods
>>>> and services offered by registrants in regulated
>>>> industry/profession gTLDs also have appropriate input in
>>>> framing registry policies
>>>> 
>>>> The PAB is consistent with new gTLD program goals of promoting 
>>>> innovation and competition in a manner that benefits global
>>>> Internet user community, while also respecting that certain
>>>> string applications are associated with public interest
>>>> responsibilities.  We present it as a framework or model, which
>>>> has the flexibility to be adapted to a particular industry
>>>> sector.
>>>> 
>>>> This past week, Marilyn, Olivier, Alan, Evan and I sent a
>>>> follow on letter to the NGPC Chair to further the cause 
>>>> (https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en).
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
> We have been privately informed by a leading member of the GAC that
>>>> certain members of the NGPC view: /??the PAB model positively
>>>> and that it can certainly contribute to close a number of
>>>> loopholes or gaps in the current safeguards??/.
>>>> 
>>>> Yesterday, I received the attached letter from Christine
>>>> Willett, so it is clear that the fight for the public interest
>>>> over the interests of the ?New gTLD Customer Service? division
>>>> of ICANN (as her email remarkably was received from) is on.
>>>> 
>>>> Irrespective of the timing of Willett?s letter, we had been
>>>> planning to reach out to enroll you in this important
>>>> initiative this week.  Now, more than ever, it is evident that
>>>> the NGPC and ICANN CEO are driven by a desire to get to market
>>>> with the new gLTDs and that they have no desire to see public
>>>> interest commitments holding things up.  However, ICANN has to
>>>> have a public interest accountability aspect or it has no 
>>>> legitimacy.  We need to rapidly build broad community support
>>>> if the public interest is to prevail over portfolio gTLD
>>>> applicant interests.
>>>> 
>>>> We welcome hearing your thoughts on this at your earliest
>>>> convenience.
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you in advance for your consideration.
>>>> 
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>> 
>>>> RA
>>>> 
>>>> *Ron Andruff*
>>>> 
>>>> *RNA Partners*
>>>> 
>>>> *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>>>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org 
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy
>>> Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center
>>> for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow,
>>> Yale Law School Information Society Project 
>>> http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ 
>>> https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org 
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> 
> - -- 
> 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/
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAlLzqb0ACgkQuuui10VsrVGrtQCeNVLUyU9Y5FZkKi6a7seGFjjM
> DP8An2g1VU/Z3Gd12ZW21H5k9w8+W9D3
> =jir+
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
***********************************************




From bkuerbis  Thu Feb  6 18:04:26 2014
From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 11:04:26 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive
	Strings
In-Reply-To: <33C86E61-88E3-4839-A71F-36C17A971346@egyptig.org>
References: <001a01cf2289$03baee40$0b30cac0$@rnapartners.com>
	<52F2AC4C.5080402@acm.org>
	<39E3F476-0936-46C9-9D5B-85C67F88C2FB@gmail.com>
	<33C86E61-88E3-4839-A71F-36C17A971346@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CANwsP3D=NunAMzu3ggxyO75nkbDj-E0=gKycG+io6u-_UODhKQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Amr, I tend to agree with your analysis. You raise very valid
concerns and nail it with your observation that there are "established
procedures to raise objections based on public interest issues of new
gTLD applications, and those have
already seem to have been used".

Having a "public interest," for that matter any interest, is a valid
position for an actor(s) to take. However, if we want govt agencies,
trade associations, etc. involved in ICANN's PDP (including, arguably,
the allocation process for new gTLDs), then they need to participate
in the defined process. Not establish some separate, easily
controlled, ex post process whereby they can take another bite at the
apple.  As configured, the PAB proposal appears to be just that.


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


On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:48 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I?m not as familiar with this topic as I probably need to be to give a well
> informed opinion, so here is my not-so-well informed one. This is a lot to
> take in, so please help me out if I?ve made mistaken assumptions.
>
> I?ve tried to go through Ron?s letter to Cherine, the PICS in the Registry
> Agreement and the two GAC communiques coming out of Beijing and BA (I had
> gone through those before because of my personal interest in opinions
> regarding health-related new gTLD applications). The one thing that stands
> out to me, and made particularly clear in Ron?s letter, is that the GAC,
> ALAC and MC are very much in favour of regulatory authorities of different
> industries becoming involved in helping ICANN (via the PAB) reach
> conclusions on wether or not new gTLD applications meet subjective public
> interest criteria, or not. I say subjective, because it seems clear in the
> GAC communiqu? coming out of Beijing, that the GAC doesn?t see the PICS
> listed in the Registry Agreement to fulfil their own minimum standards of
> public interest. If these standards are left to or influenced by individual
> national regulators, then the recommendations may possibly have nothing to
> do with actual public interest?, even in its broadest definitions.
> Government-run sector regulators (in my personal experience) are politically
> motivated, and sometimes even dangerously corrupt.
>
> ALAC have previously left me with the impression that they follow a
> principle of advocating for law enforcement and the Business Constituency
> has its traditional interests. This makes their affinity to team up with the
> GAC on this understandable, but I see no reason why we should view this
> proposal of a Policy Advisory Board to be advantageous to non-commercial
> domain name holders?, especially considering the proposed membership.
>
> My take is let the BC make the case for the BC?s concerns, let ALAC make
> their own case, and if sector regulators have issues with public interest
> violation in the new gTLD program, then the GAC can take up those causes if
> it chooses to. There are already established procedures to raise objections
> based on public interest issues of new gTLD applications, and those have
> already seem to have been used. Is this whole issue about that the results
> of these procedures have not satisfied these folks?
>


Bingo.



> I have been trying to establish an opinion on the objections to the
> applications for the gTLD .health. I?ve seen complaints on this by the GAC,
> ALAC, the World Health Organization and the International Medical
> Informatics Association - all based on the so-called ?public interest?. None
> of them have impressed me.
>
> Finally?, is this really about domain names, or is what these folks are
> really trying to achieve is regulation of Web-content using domain names??
> If this is true, then do we want to go down that road with them?? If this is
> really about PICS not working, then I have no objection to finding ways to
> make it work, but this proposal has just rubbed me the wrong way. I am more
> than willing to being corrected in my assumptions. Like I said, this is all
> new to me.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Feb 6, 2014, at 9:03 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Interesting outreach.  What do we make of the motivations and potential
> impact?
>
> Personally, not being a libertarian, I?m inclined to the think that there
> should be an effort to make PICS work, with assessments, before we just
> throw our hands up.  Whether the PAB the single best solution is another
> matter.
>
> Would be interested in hearing from others.
>
> Bill
>
> On Feb 5, 2014, at 10:25 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>
> forwarded with permission
>
> avri
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive Strings
> Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:43:21 -0500
> From: Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>
> To: <maria.farrell at gmail.com>, "'David Cake'" <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>,
> <avri at acm.org>
> CC: <robin at ipjustice.org>, "Olivier Crepin-Leblond " <ocl at gih.com>
>
>
>
> Dear Maria,
>
> Dear Avri,
>
> Dear David,
>
> Robin recently advised me that she is no longer on the NCSG Policy
> Committee and that, in fact, the three of you are leading that effort.
> For this reason I am contacting you today.
>
> For the past several months, Marilyn Cade, Phil Corwin and I have been
> briefing ICANN thought leaders and AC/C leadership teams about the
> Policy Advisory Board (PAB) model that we have proposed to the
> Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the ICANN Board NGPC.   As you
> know the GAC Beijing Communique
> <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2>
> raised issues about a large number of applications for strings that are
> associated with regulated industries.  The PAB model offers a path to
> move many of these off of the sidetrack they are currently on back into
> the path of delegation through the establishment of balanced and
> globally representative bodies that will ensure such new gTLDs act ?
> first and foremost ? in the public interest. For further background and
> the full detail on the PAB model, here is a link to my November 2013
> post on
> CircleID:http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131104_policy_advisory_boards_cornerstone_pics_public_interest_commitment/.
>
> We would be most grateful to have NCUC consider joining with us in
> supporting this initiative to ensure that applicant PICS are indeed
> established, as requested by the GAC. _Our last chance is now_.  The GAC
> Buenos Aires Communique calls on the NGPC to provide ?/a briefing on
> whether the Board considers that the existing PICS/ /(including 3c)
> fully implements this advice.?/
>
> We feel that adopting an approach such as the Policy Advisory Board
> offers several benefits, and a path to address the concerns raised in
> the GAC advice.
>
> 1.Policy Advisory Boards (PAB) as a PICS enforcement model:
>
> ?Mechanism for implementation of GAC safeguard advice for protecting
> public interest
>
> ?Ensures separation of registry technical management and PAB-guided
> policy for those new gTLDs related to sensitive industries and professions.
>
> ??One size does not fit all? ? the PAB proposed model is f_lexible  and
> while it does not propose required participation_ of any specific
> regulator, self-regulatory agency, or civil society entity, it is
> intended to provide an open and balanced advisory body to all bona fide
> parties
>
> ?PAB can address registrant eligibility criteria, registry policies, and
> other relevant matters relating to safeguards implementation
>
> ?Represented groups can include accrediting organizations; experts &
> advocates; safety/consumer coalitions & organizations; ?Internet
> freedom? & human rights groups; Internet commerce experts; national &
> global law enforcement entities
>
> ?In the case of managing government interests, including regulatory
> entities, to participate on PABs, the TLD operator should propose an
> approach to address engagement, either as members, or as observers, on
> how interested governments to determine which would be the initial PAB
> participants and which will rotate in each year
>
> ?2. PABs provide an extra layer of support for ICANN compliance due to
> their intrinsic and inclusive nature:
>
> ?The PAB model meets the NGPC call for registries to provide a ?clear
> pathway? for creation of a working relationship with relevant industry
> regulatory or self-regulatory bodies
>
> ?Broadened pathway accommodates participation of relevant consumer
> advocacy and other civil society groups
>
> ?Ensures that representatives of consumer end-users of goods and
> services offered by registrants in regulated industry/profession gTLDs
> also have appropriate input in framing registry policies
>
> The PAB is consistent with new gTLD program goals of promoting
> innovation and competition in a manner that benefits global Internet
> user community, while also respecting that certain string applications
> are associated with public interest responsibilities.  We present it as
> a framework or model, which has the flexibility to be adapted to a
> particular industry sector.
>
> This past week, Marilyn, Olivier, Alan, Evan and I sent a follow on
> letter to the NGPC Chair to further the cause
> (https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en).
> We have been privately informed by a leading member of the GAC that
> certain members of the NGPC view: /??the PAB model positively and that
> it can certainly contribute to close a number of loopholes or gaps in
> the current safeguards??/.
>
> Yesterday, I received the attached letter from Christine Willett, so it
> is clear that the fight for the public interest over the interests of
> the ?New gTLD Customer Service? division of ICANN (as her email
> remarkably was received from) is on.
>
> Irrespective of the timing of Willett?s letter, we had been planning to
> reach out to enroll you in this important initiative this week.  Now,
> more than ever, it is evident that the NGPC and ICANN CEO are driven by
> a desire to get to market with the new gLTDs and that they have no
> desire to see public interest commitments holding things up.  However,
> ICANN has to have a public interest accountability aspect or it has no
> legitimacy.  We need to rapidly build broad community support if the
> public interest is to prevail over portfolio gTLD applicant interests.
>
> We welcome hearing your thoughts on this at your earliest convenience.
>
> Thank you in advance for your consideration.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> RA
>
> *Ron Andruff*
>
> *RNA Partners*
>
> *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
>
>
>
> <Letter_from_Willett_to_Andruff_et_al.pdf>_______________________________________________
> 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
> ***********************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



From aelsadr  Thu Feb  6 18:19:19 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 17:19:19 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [AfrICANN-discuss] Invitation to Join the
	GNSO-SSR | A GNSO Sponsored Security, Stability,
	Resiliency (SSR) Mailing List
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnau_jWTZPhgUeSMBR+bwpw_+-Z4PWqGaUgp0YAqTVMnA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CF1795B0.1C3B%yaovi.atohoun@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThnau_jWTZPhgUeSMBR+bwpw_+-Z4PWqGaUgp0YAqTVMnA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A859BC41-07E4-4125-A34B-9C1BF5B11D6B@egyptig.org>

Hi Rafik,

This isn't actually a WG. It's just a mailing list for folks interested in SSR to hang out and chat. :)

Thanks. 

Amr

Sent from mobile

> On Feb 6, 2014, at 3:25 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> that is interesting setting for GNSO WG, can our councillors brief about the context? good to involve the community of SSAC recommendations review.
> I think that is the first WG without confall.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> ---------- Message transf?r? ----------
> De : Yaovi Atohoun <yaovi.atohoun at icann.org>
> Date : 5 f?vrier 2014 15:17
> Objet : [AfrICANN-discuss] Invitation to Join the GNSO-SSR | A GNSO Sponsored Security, Stability, Resiliency (SSR) Mailing List
> ? : AfrICANN list <africann at afrinic.net>
> 
> 
> Dear all (Lire fran?ais plus bas,
> 
> The group:
> 
> Will do its work via an email list ? no teleconferences are planned
> Is open to all members of the ICANN community ? all AC's and SO's, staff, Board, etc.
> Will require that all participants submit or update their GNSO Statement of Interest before they are subscribed to the list
> Will maintain open public email archives ? and thus will not discuss private or confidential information
> Will be convened by Mikey O'Connor until somebody gets tired of him and offers to take over
> To join the mailing list please RSVP gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> More information at http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04feb14-en.htm
> 
> Thanks
> 
> ===========
> Bonjour ? tous,
> 
> Cette annonce est un appel ? se joindre ? un groupe de travail sponsoris? par le GNSO
> Les discussions au sein de ce groupe de travail se feront ? travers un liste de diffusion
> Le groupe est ouvert ? tous les membres de la communaut? ICANN 
> Chaque participant doit soumettre  ou mettre ? jour sa d?claration d'int?r?t  GNSO Statement of Interest  avant de s'inscrire
> Il y aura une archive ouvert  des discussions (pas donc de discussion priv?e ou d'information confidentielle)
> Le groupe sera coordonn? par Mikey O'Connor jusqu'au moment o? quelqu'un voudrait place sa place
> Pour joindre le groupe envoyer un mail ?  gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> 
> Plus de d?tail sur l'annonce ? l'adresse http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04feb14-en.htm 
> 
> 
> Merci
> 
> -
> Yaovi Atohoun
> Stakeholder Engagement and Operations  Manager ? Africa
> ICANN ?  www.icann.org 
> Mobile : +229 66015649 / 97891228
> Skype : yaovi.atohoun.icann
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AfrICANN mailing list
> AfrICANN at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann
> 
> 
> <smime.p7s>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140206/f84cd328/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Feb  6 18:31:49 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 01:31:49 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [AfrICANN-discuss] Invitation to Join the
 GNSO-SSR | A GNSO Sponsored Security, Stability,
 Resiliency (SSR) Mailing List
In-Reply-To: <A859BC41-07E4-4125-A34B-9C1BF5B11D6B@egyptig.org>
References: <CF1795B0.1C3B%yaovi.atohoun@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThnau_jWTZPhgUeSMBR+bwpw_+-Z4PWqGaUgp0YAqTVMnA@mail.gmail.com>
	<A859BC41-07E4-4125-A34B-9C1BF5B11D6B@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkz_3U5xShmmM6x7kT5X+wJfFR09RPP3eCUWkuc2s5MZg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,
The announcement says "open group" and it asks people for SOI

Rafik
On Feb 7, 2014 1:21 AM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi Rafik,
>
> This isn't actually a WG. It's just a mailing list for folks interested in
> SSR to hang out and chat. :)
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> Sent from mobile
>
> On Feb 6, 2014, at 3:25 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> that is interesting setting for GNSO WG, can our councillors brief about
> the context? good to involve the community of SSAC recommendations review.
> I think that is the first WG without confall.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Message transf?r? ----------
> De : Yaovi Atohoun <yaovi.atohoun at icann.org>
> Date : 5 f?vrier 2014 15:17
> Objet : [AfrICANN-discuss] Invitation to Join the GNSO-SSR | A GNSO
> Sponsored Security, Stability, Resiliency (SSR) Mailing List
> ? : AfrICANN list <africann at afrinic.net>
>
>
> Dear all (Lire fran?ais plus bas,
>
> The group:
>
>    - Will do its work via an email list ? no teleconferences are planned
>    - Is open to all members of the ICANN community ? all AC's and SO's,
>    staff, Board, etc.
>    - Will require that all participants submit or update their GNSOStatement of Interest<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=14713457>before they are subscribed to the list
>    - Will maintain open public email archives ? and thus will not discuss
>    private or confidential information
>    - Will be convened by Mikey O'Connor until somebody gets tired of him
>    and offers to take over
>    - To join the mailing list please *RSVP*
>    gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>
> More information at
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04feb14-en.htm
>
> Thanks
>
> ===========
> Bonjour ? tous,
>
> Cette annonce est un appel ? se joindre ? un groupe de travail sponsoris?
> par le GNSO
>
>    - Les discussions au sein de ce groupe de travail se feront ? travers
>    un liste de diffusion
>    - Le groupe est ouvert ? tous les membres de la communaut? ICANN
>    - Chaque participant doit soumettre  ou mettre ? jour sa d?claration
>    d'int?r?t  GNSO Statement of Interest<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=14713457>
>    avant de s'inscrire
>    - Il y aura une archive ouvert  des discussions (pas donc de
>    discussion priv?e ou d'information confidentielle)
>    - Le groupe sera coordonn? par Mikey O'Connor jusqu'au moment o?
>    quelqu'un voudrait place sa place
>    - Pour joindre le groupe envoyer un mail ?
>    gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>
>
> Plus de d?tail sur l'annonce ? l'adresse
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04feb14-en.htm
>
>
> Merci
>
> -
> Yaovi Atohoun
> Stakeholder Engagement and Operations  Manager ? Africa
> ICANN ?  www.icann.org
> Mobile : +229 66015649 / 97891228
> Skype : yaovi.atohoun.icann
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AfrICANN mailing list
> AfrICANN at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann
>
>
> <smime.p7s>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140207/ccb227fe/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Thu Feb  6 20:59:27 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 13:59:27 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] What do you think a NCSG PC [alternate]-chair should do?
Message-ID: <52F3DB8F.8090304@acm.org>

Hi,

So having been alternate chair, for a little over a year now, I am 
curious, what do our two candidates think the jobs entail?

On voting, I will close it Monday morning EST as announced.  Since this 
is a doodle poll, I believe you can all vote and revote as often as you 
like (if for example the response to the question moves you and you have 
already voted).

And fair warning to both of you - for you are the chair/alt-chair as 
soon as the voting ends - as soon as I announce, I will consider my time 
as alt-chair over and be able to put the memory of all the things I did 
not get done behind me.

Cheers,

avri



From aelsadr  Thu Feb  6 23:13:39 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 22:13:39 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive
	Strings
In-Reply-To: <35F6B589-D622-400F-BBC7-144A6D38F009@gmail.com>
References: <001a01cf2289$03baee40$0b30cac0$@rnapartners.com>
	<52F2AC4C.5080402@acm.org> <52F2B500.2020500@seltzer.com>
	<217D56E8-0C01-4F32-8DCF-29C1C481B06A@difference.com.au>
	<52F3A9C0.8070403@seltzer.com>
	<35F6B589-D622-400F-BBC7-144A6D38F009@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <76391891-0BB6-430F-8A93-C3186A34C6B3@egyptig.org>

Hi Bill,

On Feb 6, 2014, at 4:50 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> But aren?t we already in the content-regluation business?

Not sure I understand where this is coming from. Are we??

> The GAC is not going away and the scope and randomness of its interventions will increase.  So do we stand on principle off on the side and get ignored, or do we get into the game, be a recognized part of the process they have to deal with, and use the opportunity to advance our perspective, try to shape the thing to mitigate bad calls, and maybe even get something useful included at times?  I see the arguments on both sides, but on the whole lean toward David?s view.

Of course, both you and David make very valid points regarding being involved if only for the sole purpose of mitigating the risks. However, being willing to participate if/when the PAB is established and supporting its creation in principle are two separate issues.

Thanks.

Amr

> That is, if we can actually muster the bandwidth to do anything.  If instead we?re likely to take a position we won?t follow up on, then blissful isolation may be more realistic.
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Feb 6, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:
> 
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>> 
>> Personally, I oppose PICS for pulling ICANN into the
>> content-regluation business. I don't think ICANN should be building up
>> even further apparatus to do so.
>> 
>> - --Wendy
>> 
>> On 02/05/2014 08:35 PM, David Cake wrote:
>>> I'm inclined to support. It will be unbalanced if we don't
>>> participate, for sure. But the PAB model looks to me to be one of
>>> the few suggestions that might make PICS actually have some
>>> meaningful public interest component, rather than just being a
>>> tick-list commitment of promising to do what the GAC (or those
>>> lobbying the GAC) said.
>>> 
>>> And by being involved in the debate we can work to ensure that the
>>> PICS system has meaningful participation from regulators, policy
>>> experts, etc.
>>> 
>>> David
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 6 Feb 2014, at 6:02 am, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Disinclined to support.  "Balanced"?
>>>> 
>>>> --Wendy
>>>> 
>>>> On 02/05/2014 04:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>>> forwarded with permission
>>>>> 
>>>>> avri
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject:     Policy Advisory
>>>>> Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive Strings Date:     Wed, 5
>>>>> Feb 2014 10:43:21 -0500 From:     Ron Andruff
>>>>> <randruff at rnapartners.com> To:     <maria.farrell at gmail.com>,
>>>>> "'David Cake'" <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>, <avri at acm.org> CC:
>>>>> <robin at ipjustice.org>, "Olivier Crepin-Leblond " <ocl at gih.com>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear Maria,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear Avri,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Dear David,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Robin recently advised me that she is no longer on the NCSG
>>>>> Policy Committee and that, in fact, the three of you are
>>>>> leading that effort. For this reason I am contacting you
>>>>> today.
>>>>> 
>>>>> For the past several months, Marilyn Cade, Phil Corwin and I
>>>>> have been briefing ICANN thought leaders and AC/C leadership
>>>>> teams about the Policy Advisory Board (PAB) model that we have
>>>>> proposed to the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the
>>>>> ICANN Board NGPC.   As you know the GAC Beijing Communique 
>>>>> <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2>
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> raised issues about a large number of applications for strings that are
>>>>> associated with regulated industries.  The PAB model offers a
>>>>> path to move many of these off of the sidetrack they are
>>>>> currently on back into the path of delegation through the
>>>>> establishment of balanced and globally representative bodies
>>>>> that will ensure such new gTLDs act ? first and foremost ? in
>>>>> the public interest. For further background and the full detail
>>>>> on the PAB model, here is a link to my November 2013 post on 
>>>>> CircleID:http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131104_policy_advisory_boards_cornerstone_pics_public_interest_commitment/.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> We would be most grateful to have NCUC consider joining with us in
>>>>> supporting this initiative to ensure that applicant PICS are
>>>>> indeed established, as requested by the GAC. _Our last chance
>>>>> is now_.  The GAC Buenos Aires Communique calls on the NGPC to
>>>>> provide ?/a briefing on whether the Board considers that the
>>>>> existing PICS/ /(including 3c) fully implements this advice.?/
>>>>> 
>>>>> We feel that adopting an approach such as the Policy Advisory
>>>>> Board offers several benefits, and a path to address the
>>>>> concerns raised in the GAC advice.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1.Policy Advisory Boards (PAB) as a PICS enforcement model:
>>>>> 
>>>>> ?Mechanism for implementation of GAC safeguard advice for
>>>>> protecting public interest
>>>>> 
>>>>> ?Ensures separation of registry technical management and
>>>>> PAB-guided policy for those new gTLDs related to sensitive
>>>>> industries and professions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> ??One size does not fit all? ? the PAB proposed model is
>>>>> f_lexible  and while it does not propose required
>>>>> participation_ of any specific regulator, self-regulatory
>>>>> agency, or civil society entity, it is intended to provide an
>>>>> open and balanced advisory body to all bona fide parties
>>>>> 
>>>>> ?PAB can address registrant eligibility criteria, registry
>>>>> policies, and other relevant matters relating to safeguards
>>>>> implementation
>>>>> 
>>>>> ?Represented groups can include accrediting organizations;
>>>>> experts & advocates; safety/consumer coalitions &
>>>>> organizations; ?Internet freedom? & human rights groups;
>>>>> Internet commerce experts; national & global law enforcement
>>>>> entities
>>>>> 
>>>>> ?In the case of managing government interests, including
>>>>> regulatory entities, to participate on PABs, the TLD operator
>>>>> should propose an approach to address engagement, either as
>>>>> members, or as observers, on how interested governments to
>>>>> determine which would be the initial PAB participants and which
>>>>> will rotate in each year
>>>>> 
>>>>> ?2. PABs provide an extra layer of support for ICANN compliance
>>>>> due to their intrinsic and inclusive nature:
>>>>> 
>>>>> ?The PAB model meets the NGPC call for registries to provide a
>>>>> ?clear pathway? for creation of a working relationship with
>>>>> relevant industry regulatory or self-regulatory bodies
>>>>> 
>>>>> ?Broadened pathway accommodates participation of relevant
>>>>> consumer advocacy and other civil society groups
>>>>> 
>>>>> ?Ensures that representatives of consumer end-users of goods
>>>>> and services offered by registrants in regulated
>>>>> industry/profession gTLDs also have appropriate input in
>>>>> framing registry policies
>>>>> 
>>>>> The PAB is consistent with new gTLD program goals of promoting 
>>>>> innovation and competition in a manner that benefits global
>>>>> Internet user community, while also respecting that certain
>>>>> string applications are associated with public interest
>>>>> responsibilities.  We present it as a framework or model, which
>>>>> has the flexibility to be adapted to a particular industry
>>>>> sector.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This past week, Marilyn, Olivier, Alan, Evan and I sent a
>>>>> follow on letter to the NGPC Chair to further the cause 
>>>>> (https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en).
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>> We have been privately informed by a leading member of the GAC that
>>>>> certain members of the NGPC view: /??the PAB model positively
>>>>> and that it can certainly contribute to close a number of
>>>>> loopholes or gaps in the current safeguards??/.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yesterday, I received the attached letter from Christine
>>>>> Willett, so it is clear that the fight for the public interest
>>>>> over the interests of the ?New gTLD Customer Service? division
>>>>> of ICANN (as her email remarkably was received from) is on.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Irrespective of the timing of Willett?s letter, we had been
>>>>> planning to reach out to enroll you in this important
>>>>> initiative this week.  Now, more than ever, it is evident that
>>>>> the NGPC and ICANN CEO are driven by a desire to get to market
>>>>> with the new gLTDs and that they have no desire to see public
>>>>> interest commitments holding things up.  However, ICANN has to
>>>>> have a public interest accountability aspect or it has no 
>>>>> legitimacy.  We need to rapidly build broad community support
>>>>> if the public interest is to prevail over portfolio gTLD
>>>>> applicant interests.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We welcome hearing your thoughts on this at your earliest
>>>>> convenience.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thank you in advance for your consideration.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> RA
>>>>> 
>>>>> *Ron Andruff*
>>>>> 
>>>>> *RNA Partners*
>>>>> 
>>>>> *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>>>>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org 
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy
>>>> Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center
>>>> for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow,
>>>> Yale Law School Information Society Project 
>>>> http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/ 
>>>> https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>>>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org 
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - -- 
>> 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/
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
>> 
>> iEYEARECAAYFAlLzqb0ACgkQuuui10VsrVGrtQCeNVLUyU9Y5FZkKi6a7seGFjjM
>> DP8An2g1VU/Z3Gd12ZW21H5k9w8+W9D3
>> =jir+
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> ***********************************************
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From dave  Fri Feb  7 03:43:57 2014
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 09:43:57 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [AfrICANN-discuss] Invitation to Join the GNSO-SSR |
	A GNSO Sponsored Security, Stability, Resiliency (SSR) Mailing List
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnau_jWTZPhgUeSMBR+bwpw_+-Z4PWqGaUgp0YAqTVMnA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CF1795B0.1C3B%yaovi.atohoun@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThnau_jWTZPhgUeSMBR+bwpw_+-Z4PWqGaUgp0YAqTVMnA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4257AB24-80DF-407D-826B-BAFB1CBA7D0E@difference.com.au>

The initial impetus for this list was to discuss the relevance of SSAC advisories to GNSO work, but obviously its role has broadened a bit. 
This list is specifically to discuss the relevance of SSR issues to the GNSOs work (both the council and the broader GNSO community) - so this isn't a list for all SSR issues, but those specific to gTLDs and the GNSOs role generally. 

It isn't a working group or group that is intended to produce any focussed outcomes, rather a place GNSO participants with an interest in SSR issues to hang out and talk and discuss possible GNSO responses. 

I think it is a good initiative, and I think anyone in the NCSG with an interest in this area should consider being involved. 
Regards

David

On 6 Feb 2014, at 10:25 pm, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> that is interesting setting for GNSO WG, can our councillors brief about the context? good to involve the community of SSAC recommendations review.
> I think that is the first WG without confall.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> ---------- Message transf?r? ----------
> De : Yaovi Atohoun <yaovi.atohoun at icann.org>
> Date : 5 f?vrier 2014 15:17
> Objet : [AfrICANN-discuss] Invitation to Join the GNSO-SSR | A GNSO Sponsored Security, Stability, Resiliency (SSR) Mailing List
> ? : AfrICANN list <africann at afrinic.net>
> 
> 
> Dear all (Lire fran?ais plus bas,
> 
> The group:
> 
> Will do its work via an email list ? no teleconferences are planned
> Is open to all members of the ICANN community ? all AC's and SO's, staff, Board, etc.
> Will require that all participants submit or update their GNSO Statement of Interest before they are subscribed to the list
> Will maintain open public email archives ? and thus will not discuss private or confidential information
> Will be convened by Mikey O'Connor until somebody gets tired of him and offers to take over
> To join the mailing list please RSVP gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> More information at http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04feb14-en.htm
> 
> Thanks
> 
> ===========
> Bonjour ? tous,
> 
> Cette annonce est un appel ? se joindre ? un groupe de travail sponsoris? par le GNSO
> Les discussions au sein de ce groupe de travail se feront ? travers un liste de diffusion
> Le groupe est ouvert ? tous les membres de la communaut? ICANN 
> Chaque participant doit soumettre  ou mettre ? jour sa d?claration d'int?r?t  GNSO Statement of Interest  avant de s'inscrire
> Il y aura une archive ouvert  des discussions (pas donc de discussion priv?e ou d'information confidentielle)
> Le groupe sera coordonn? par Mikey O'Connor jusqu'au moment o? quelqu'un voudrait place sa place
> Pour joindre le groupe envoyer un mail ?  gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> 
> Plus de d?tail sur l'annonce ? l'adresse http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04feb14-en.htm 
> 
> 
> Merci
> 
> -
> Yaovi Atohoun
> Stakeholder Engagement and Operations  Manager ? Africa
> ICANN ?  www.icann.org 
> Mobile : +229 66015649 / 97891228
> Skype : yaovi.atohoun.icann
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AfrICANN mailing list
> AfrICANN at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann
> 
> 
> <smime.p7s>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140207/639bdc35/attachment.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/20140207/639bdc35/attachment.sig>


From stephanie.perrin  Fri Feb  7 05:29:20 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 22:29:20 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [AfrICANN-discuss] Invitation to Join the GNSO-SSR |
	A GNSO Sponsored Security, Stability, Resiliency (SSR) Mailing List
In-Reply-To: <4257AB24-80DF-407D-826B-BAFB1CBA7D0E@difference.com.au>
References: <CF1795B0.1C3B%yaovi.atohoun@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThnau_jWTZPhgUeSMBR+bwpw_+-Z4PWqGaUgp0YAqTVMnA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4257AB24-80DF-407D-826B-BAFB1CBA7D0E@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <1C6F682D-DD08-44B7-B59E-B71C69B2AC9C@mail.utoronto.ca>

Thanks for the background....since it looks like I could get away with lurking, I will sign up.  Cannot take on more responsibility, but eager to learn.  
cheers Stephanie
On 2014-02-06, at 8:43 PM, David Cake wrote:

> The initial impetus for this list was to discuss the relevance of SSAC advisories to GNSO work, but obviously its role has broadened a bit. 
> This list is specifically to discuss the relevance of SSR issues to the GNSOs work (both the council and the broader GNSO community) - so this isn't a list for all SSR issues, but those specific to gTLDs and the GNSOs role generally. 
> 
> It isn't a working group or group that is intended to produce any focussed outcomes, rather a place GNSO participants with an interest in SSR issues to hang out and talk and discuss possible GNSO responses. 
> 
> I think it is a good initiative, and I think anyone in the NCSG with an interest in this area should consider being involved. 
> Regards
> 
> David
> 
> On 6 Feb 2014, at 10:25 pm, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> that is interesting setting for GNSO WG, can our councillors brief about the context? good to involve the community of SSAC recommendations review.
>> I think that is the first WG without confall.
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> ---------- Message transf?r? ----------
>> De : Yaovi Atohoun <yaovi.atohoun at icann.org>
>> Date : 5 f?vrier 2014 15:17
>> Objet : [AfrICANN-discuss] Invitation to Join the GNSO-SSR | A GNSO Sponsored Security, Stability, Resiliency (SSR) Mailing List
>> ? : AfrICANN list <africann at afrinic.net>
>> 
>> 
>> Dear all (Lire fran?ais plus bas,
>> 
>> The group:
>> 
>> Will do its work via an email list ? no teleconferences are planned
>> Is open to all members of the ICANN community ? all AC's and SO's, staff, Board, etc.
>> Will require that all participants submit or update their GNSO Statement of Interest before they are subscribed to the list
>> Will maintain open public email archives ? and thus will not discuss private or confidential information
>> Will be convened by Mikey O'Connor until somebody gets tired of him and offers to take over
>> To join the mailing list please RSVP gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>> More information at http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04feb14-en.htm
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> ===========
>> Bonjour ? tous,
>> 
>> Cette annonce est un appel ? se joindre ? un groupe de travail sponsoris? par le GNSO
>> Les discussions au sein de ce groupe de travail se feront ? travers un liste de diffusion
>> Le groupe est ouvert ? tous les membres de la communaut? ICANN 
>> Chaque participant doit soumettre  ou mettre ? jour sa d?claration d'int?r?t  GNSO Statement of Interest  avant de s'inscrire
>> Il y aura une archive ouvert  des discussions (pas donc de discussion priv?e ou d'information confidentielle)
>> Le groupe sera coordonn? par Mikey O'Connor jusqu'au moment o? quelqu'un voudrait place sa place
>> Pour joindre le groupe envoyer un mail ?  gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>> 
>> Plus de d?tail sur l'annonce ? l'adresse http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04feb14-en.htm 
>> 
>> 
>> Merci
>> 
>> -
>> Yaovi Atohoun
>> Stakeholder Engagement and Operations  Manager ? Africa
>> ICANN ?  www.icann.org 
>> Mobile : +229 66015649 / 97891228
>> Skype : yaovi.atohoun.icann
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> AfrICANN mailing list
>> AfrICANN at afrinic.net
>> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann
>> 
>> 
>> <smime.p7s>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140206/67b2702f/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Fri Feb  7 14:33:17 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 21:33:17 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [AfrICANN-discuss] Invitation to Join the GNSO-SSR |
 A GNSO Sponsored Security, Stability, Resiliency (SSR) Mailing List
In-Reply-To: <1C6F682D-DD08-44B7-B59E-B71C69B2AC9C@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CF1795B0.1C3B%yaovi.atohoun@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThnau_jWTZPhgUeSMBR+bwpw_+-Z4PWqGaUgp0YAqTVMnA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4257AB24-80DF-407D-826B-BAFB1CBA7D0E@difference.com.au>
	<1C6F682D-DD08-44B7-B59E-B71C69B2AC9C@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=ds7-2-DNWTiNwEBJM5Ly-GTTsy+D_FKsYBHKu7f0y+w@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks David, for strange reasons I didn't receive your reply.
it is good that GNSO council is trying new things and initiating new
experiences, if it possible to get SSAC recommendations in consideration at
early stage, it will be great.

Rafik


2014-02-07 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:

> Thanks for the background....since it looks like I could get away with
> lurking, I will sign up.  Cannot take on more responsibility, but eager to
> learn.
> cheers Stephanie
> On 2014-02-06, at 8:43 PM, David Cake wrote:
>
> The initial impetus for this list was to discuss the relevance of SSAC
> advisories to GNSO work, but obviously its role has broadened a bit.
> This list is specifically to discuss the relevance of SSR issues to the
> GNSOs work (both the council and the broader GNSO community) - so this
> isn't a list for all SSR issues, but those specific to gTLDs and the GNSOs
> role generally.
>
> It isn't a working group or group that is intended to produce any focussed
> outcomes, rather a place GNSO participants with an interest in SSR issues
> to hang out and talk and discuss possible GNSO responses.
>
> I think it is a good initiative, and I think anyone in the NCSG with an
> interest in this area should consider being involved.
> Regards
>
> David
>
> On 6 Feb 2014, at 10:25 pm, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> that is interesting setting for GNSO WG, can our councillors brief about
> the context? good to involve the community of SSAC recommendations review.
> I think that is the first WG without confall.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Message transf?r? ----------
> De : Yaovi Atohoun <yaovi.atohoun at icann.org>
> Date : 5 f?vrier 2014 15:17
> Objet : [AfrICANN-discuss] Invitation to Join the GNSO-SSR | A GNSO
> Sponsored Security, Stability, Resiliency (SSR) Mailing List
> ? : AfrICANN list <africann at afrinic.net>
>
>
> Dear all (Lire fran?ais plus bas,
>
> The group:
>
>    - Will do its work via an email list ? no teleconferences are planned
>    - Is open to all members of the ICANN community ? all AC's and SO's,
>    staff, Board, etc.
>    - Will require that all participants submit or update their GNSOStatement of Interest<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=14713457>before they are subscribed to the list
>    - Will maintain open public email archives ? and thus will not discuss
>    private or confidential information
>    - Will be convened by Mikey O'Connor until somebody gets tired of him
>    and offers to take over
>    - To join the mailing list please *RSVP*
>    gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>
> More information at
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04feb14-en.htm
>
> Thanks
>
> ===========
> Bonjour ? tous,
>
> Cette annonce est un appel ? se joindre ? un groupe de travail sponsoris?
> par le GNSO
>
>    - Les discussions au sein de ce groupe de travail se feront ? travers
>    un liste de diffusion
>    - Le groupe est ouvert ? tous les membres de la communaut? ICANN
>    - Chaque participant doit soumettre  ou mettre ? jour sa d?claration
>    d'int?r?t  GNSO Statement of Interest<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=14713457>
>    avant de s'inscrire
>    - Il y aura une archive ouvert  des discussions (pas donc de
>    discussion priv?e ou d'information confidentielle)
>    - Le groupe sera coordonn? par Mikey O'Connor jusqu'au moment o?
>    quelqu'un voudrait place sa place
>    - Pour joindre le groupe envoyer un mail ?
>    gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
>
>
> Plus de d?tail sur l'annonce ? l'adresse
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-04feb14-en.htm
>
>
> Merci
>
> -
> Yaovi Atohoun
> Stakeholder Engagement and Operations  Manager ? Africa
> ICANN ?  www.icann.org
> Mobile : +229 66015649 / 97891228
> Skype : yaovi.atohoun.icann
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AfrICANN mailing list
> AfrICANN at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann
>
>
> <smime.p7s>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140207/96960c0f/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Fri Feb  7 15:11:55 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 22:11:55 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive
	Strings
In-Reply-To: <76391891-0BB6-430F-8A93-C3186A34C6B3@egyptig.org>
References: <001a01cf2289$03baee40$0b30cac0$@rnapartners.com>
	<52F2AC4C.5080402@acm.org> <52F2B500.2020500@seltzer.com>
	<217D56E8-0C01-4F32-8DCF-29C1C481B06A@difference.com.au>
	<52F3A9C0.8070403@seltzer.com>
	<35F6B589-D622-400F-BBC7-144A6D38F009@gmail.com>
	<76391891-0BB6-430F-8A93-C3186A34C6B3@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnOb6BJXQ2nsLtHTL6dphipxGhMhKtQY1pcDyF8cLG6Dg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I think we have mixed reactions to the proposal and we are asked to join
late the game where the triumvirate is already in place and if we become
involved, we will vouch the initiative
 .
I guess that we need to know more details and in particular about
safeguards and what governance model will be implemented. what are the
mechanisms for appealing, accountability, transparency?it won't be easy to
change and will take some time for negotiations if we want to go into that
path.
the risk that structure will do de facto content policy is real and
definitely against our principles.

Best,

Rafik

2014-02-07 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi Bill,
>
> On Feb 6, 2014, at 4:50 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But aren?t we already in the content-regluation business?
>
> Not sure I understand where this is coming from. Are we??
>
> > The GAC is not going away and the scope and randomness of its
> interventions will increase.  So do we stand on principle off on the side
> and get ignored, or do we get into the game, be a recognized part of the
> process they have to deal with, and use the opportunity to advance our
> perspective, try to shape the thing to mitigate bad calls, and maybe even
> get something useful included at times?  I see the arguments on both sides,
> but on the whole lean toward David?s view.
>
> Of course, both you and David make very valid points regarding being
> involved if only for the sole purpose of mitigating the risks. However,
> being willing to participate if/when the PAB is established and supporting
> its creation in principle are two separate issues.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> > That is, if we can actually muster the bandwidth to do anything.  If
> instead we?re likely to take a position we won?t follow up on, then
> blissful isolation may be more realistic.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > On Feb 6, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:
> >
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> Personally, I oppose PICS for pulling ICANN into the
> >> content-regluation business. I don't think ICANN should be building up
> >> even further apparatus to do so.
> >>
> >> - --Wendy
> >>
> >> On 02/05/2014 08:35 PM, David Cake wrote:
> >>> I'm inclined to support. It will be unbalanced if we don't
> >>> participate, for sure. But the PAB model looks to me to be one of
> >>> the few suggestions that might make PICS actually have some
> >>> meaningful public interest component, rather than just being a
> >>> tick-list commitment of promising to do what the GAC (or those
> >>> lobbying the GAC) said.
> >>>
> >>> And by being involved in the debate we can work to ensure that the
> >>> PICS system has meaningful participation from regulators, policy
> >>> experts, etc.
> >>>
> >>> David
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 6 Feb 2014, at 6:02 am, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Disinclined to support.  "Balanced"?
> >>>>
> >>>> --Wendy
> >>>>
> >>>> On 02/05/2014 04:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> >>>>> forwarded with permission
> >>>>>
> >>>>> avri
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject:     Policy Advisory
> >>>>> Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive Strings Date:     Wed, 5
> >>>>> Feb 2014 10:43:21 -0500 From:     Ron Andruff
> >>>>> <randruff at rnapartners.com> To:     <maria.farrell at gmail.com>,
> >>>>> "'David Cake'" <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>, <avri at acm.org> CC:
> >>>>> <robin at ipjustice.org>, "Olivier Crepin-Leblond " <ocl at gih.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dear Maria,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dear Avri,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dear David,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Robin recently advised me that she is no longer on the NCSG
> >>>>> Policy Committee and that, in fact, the three of you are
> >>>>> leading that effort. For this reason I am contacting you
> >>>>> today.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For the past several months, Marilyn Cade, Phil Corwin and I
> >>>>> have been briefing ICANN thought leaders and AC/C leadership
> >>>>> teams about the Policy Advisory Board (PAB) model that we have
> >>>>> proposed to the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the
> >>>>> ICANN Board NGPC.   As you know the GAC Beijing Communique
> >>>>> <
> https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >> raised issues about a large number of applications for strings that are
> >>>>> associated with regulated industries.  The PAB model offers a
> >>>>> path to move many of these off of the sidetrack they are
> >>>>> currently on back into the path of delegation through the
> >>>>> establishment of balanced and globally representative bodies
> >>>>> that will ensure such new gTLDs act ? first and foremost ? in
> >>>>> the public interest. For further background and the full detail
> >>>>> on the PAB model, here is a link to my November 2013 post on
> >>>>> CircleID:
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131104_policy_advisory_boards_cornerstone_pics_public_interest_commitment/
> .
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >> We would be most grateful to have NCUC consider joining with us in
> >>>>> supporting this initiative to ensure that applicant PICS are
> >>>>> indeed established, as requested by the GAC. _Our last chance
> >>>>> is now_.  The GAC Buenos Aires Communique calls on the NGPC to
> >>>>> provide ?/a briefing on whether the Board considers that the
> >>>>> existing PICS/ /(including 3c) fully implements this advice.?/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We feel that adopting an approach such as the Policy Advisory
> >>>>> Board offers several benefits, and a path to address the
> >>>>> concerns raised in the GAC advice.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1.Policy Advisory Boards (PAB) as a PICS enforcement model:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ?Mechanism for implementation of GAC safeguard advice for
> >>>>> protecting public interest
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ?Ensures separation of registry technical management and
> >>>>> PAB-guided policy for those new gTLDs related to sensitive
> >>>>> industries and professions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ??One size does not fit all? ? the PAB proposed model is
> >>>>> f_lexible  and while it does not propose required
> >>>>> participation_ of any specific regulator, self-regulatory
> >>>>> agency, or civil society entity, it is intended to provide an
> >>>>> open and balanced advisory body to all bona fide parties
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ?PAB can address registrant eligibility criteria, registry
> >>>>> policies, and other relevant matters relating to safeguards
> >>>>> implementation
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ?Represented groups can include accrediting organizations;
> >>>>> experts & advocates; safety/consumer coalitions &
> >>>>> organizations; ?Internet freedom? & human rights groups;
> >>>>> Internet commerce experts; national & global law enforcement
> >>>>> entities
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ?In the case of managing government interests, including
> >>>>> regulatory entities, to participate on PABs, the TLD operator
> >>>>> should propose an approach to address engagement, either as
> >>>>> members, or as observers, on how interested governments to
> >>>>> determine which would be the initial PAB participants and which
> >>>>> will rotate in each year
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ?2. PABs provide an extra layer of support for ICANN compliance
> >>>>> due to their intrinsic and inclusive nature:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ?The PAB model meets the NGPC call for registries to provide a
> >>>>> ?clear pathway? for creation of a working relationship with
> >>>>> relevant industry regulatory or self-regulatory bodies
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ?Broadened pathway accommodates participation of relevant
> >>>>> consumer advocacy and other civil society groups
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ?Ensures that representatives of consumer end-users of goods
> >>>>> and services offered by registrants in regulated
> >>>>> industry/profession gTLDs also have appropriate input in
> >>>>> framing registry policies
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The PAB is consistent with new gTLD program goals of promoting
> >>>>> innovation and competition in a manner that benefits global
> >>>>> Internet user community, while also respecting that certain
> >>>>> string applications are associated with public interest
> >>>>> responsibilities.  We present it as a framework or model, which
> >>>>> has the flexibility to be adapted to a particular industry
> >>>>> sector.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This past week, Marilyn, Olivier, Alan, Evan and I sent a
> >>>>> follow on letter to the NGPC Chair to further the cause
> >>>>> (
> https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en
> ).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >> We have been privately informed by a leading member of the GAC that
> >>>>> certain members of the NGPC view: /??the PAB model positively
> >>>>> and that it can certainly contribute to close a number of
> >>>>> loopholes or gaps in the current safeguards??/.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yesterday, I received the attached letter from Christine
> >>>>> Willett, so it is clear that the fight for the public interest
> >>>>> over the interests of the ?New gTLD Customer Service? division
> >>>>> of ICANN (as her email remarkably was received from) is on.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Irrespective of the timing of Willett?s letter, we had been
> >>>>> planning to reach out to enroll you in this important
> >>>>> initiative this week.  Now, more than ever, it is evident that
> >>>>> the NGPC and ICANN CEO are driven by a desire to get to market
> >>>>> with the new gLTDs and that they have no desire to see public
> >>>>> interest commitments holding things up.  However, ICANN has to
> >>>>> have a public interest accountability aspect or it has no
> >>>>> legitimacy.  We need to rapidly build broad community support
> >>>>> if the public interest is to prevail over portfolio gTLD
> >>>>> applicant interests.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We welcome hearing your thoughts on this at your earliest
> >>>>> convenience.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you in advance for your consideration.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Kind regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> RA
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *Ron Andruff*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *RNA Partners*
> >>>>>
> >>>>> *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
> >>>>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613 Policy
> >>>> Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Fellow, Berkman Center
> >>>> for Internet & Society at Harvard University Visiting Fellow,
> >>>> Yale Law School Information Society Project
> >>>> http://wendy.seltzer.org/ https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> >>>> https://www.torproject.org/ http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
> >>>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> - --
> >> 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/
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux)
> >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
> >>
> >> iEYEARECAAYFAlLzqb0ACgkQuuui10VsrVGrtQCeNVLUyU9Y5FZkKi6a7seGFjjM
> >> DP8An2g1VU/Z3Gd12ZW21H5k9w8+W9D3
> >> =jir+
> >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> > ***********************************************
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20140207/2836de72/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Sat Feb  8 01:23:02 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:23:02 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: RE: Follow Up: Policy Advisory Board Model for
 Regulated/Sensitive Strings
In-Reply-To: <016001cf2450$9b93ebe0$d2bbc3a0$@rnapartners.com>
References: <016001cf2450$9b93ebe0$d2bbc3a0$@rnapartners.com>
Message-ID: <52F56AD6.6060605@acm.org>


Further fodder for thought.

(btw, as someone with a conflict of interest on the whole string 
contention issue due to a part time contract, I am not contributing to 
the discussion. at least not as long as i am playing atl-chair.)

avri


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	RE: Follow Up: Policy Advisory Board Model for
Regulated/Sensitive Strings
Date: 	Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:04:38 -0500
From: 	Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>
To: 	'Avri Doria' <avri at acm.org>, <maria.farrell at gmail.com>, 'David
Cake' <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>
CC: 	<robin at ipjustice.org>, "'Olivier Crepin-Leblond'" <ocl at gih.com>



Dear all,

ICANN is moving at speeds I have not experienced before, quite
literally.  Christine Willett?s response to our letter to Cherine has
been posted here:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/willett-to-andruff-et-al-04feb14-en.pdf

This morning, on a call with the ALAC leadership, we discussed our
response to Willett?s letter and a going-forward strategy that we would
like to share with the NCUC policy committee.

Below, please find the first draft of the key issues we have identified
as critical in the discussions with the NGPC, the GAC, and
constituencies/SOs regarding the Policy Advisory Board model:

?_Regulated industries and professions have inherent public interest and
consumer protection concerns_that are recognized by local, state,
federal, and in some cases, international government agreements. They
are unique from other industries and professions in that regard.  In the
world of the Internet these same regulated industries and professions
have the same inherent public interests/consumer protection issues, yet
ICANN is turning a blind eye to ensuring that appropriate safeguards are
included in the new gTLD program.

?The public interest concerns that civil society, consumer activists,
and governments share call for appropriate measures to protect the
public. _ICANN is solely positioned to meet these regulated
industry/profession cross-border responsibilities_. Failure of ICANN to
require strong and enforceable restrictions on registrant eligibility
and other such policies in new gTLDs associated with regulated
industries (that assure bona fide products and services and inhibit
anti-competitive practices) will shift the burden of addressing these
concerns from ICANN registries to national consumer protection and
competition authorities. This will have severe consequences. _ICANN
cannot ignore its responsibility and knowingly place such burdens on
governments_ in an era of constrained public resources, particularly
when such problems can be mitigated through ICANN ensuring responsible
actions are undertaken by regulated industry TLD registry operators.
Creating a Policy Advisory Board approach with accountability will
require only modest cost and administrative burdens on regulated
industry registries, which have complete control of their domain pricing.

?The _PICS that have been submitted in response to the GAC?s call for
them, remain, for the most part, wholly inadequate_, as illustrated by
those filed by the leading ?portfolio? applicant. [example]  ICANN?s
legitimacy, measured through its accountability and whether it is
fulfilling its public interest responsibility, is under attack; _ICANN
cannot lead a credible defense of the multistakeholder model when ? at
the same time ? it roundly ignores the concerns of key stakeholder
groups, including governments_, as expressed via the GAC.  ICANN?s
reputation and credibility will be irreparably harmed if it fails to
address appropriate safeguards such as the PAB model and the result is
mass registration of regulated sector domains by entities engaging in
fraudulent, deceptive, or malicious practices.

?This issue is _NOT about anti-commercialism_; rather it is about
creating certain limits for regulated industry new gTLD applicants
focused on protecting the public impact. While no one wants to see any
delays in the continued roll out of new gTLDs, _ICANN must work together
with the community toward establishing adequate safeguards for regulated
industry gTLDs - this must be the overriding principle_ if ICANN is to
maintain its rightful place as chief steward of the Internet.
Commercial interests cannot be allowed to trump public interests and
consumer protections.

I?d be grateful to get your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.

Thanks for your consideration.

Kind regards,

RA

*Ron Andruff*

*RNA Partners*

*www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *

*From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 5, 2014 11:01
*To:* Ron Andruff; maria.farrell at gmail.com; 'David Cake'
*Cc:* robin at ipjustice.org; Olivier Crepin-Leblond
*Subject:* Re: Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive Strings

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your note.

Quick question, any objection to my forwarding this to the full policy
committee?

avri
Alt Chair NCSG-PC for another week.

On 05-Feb-14 10:43, Ron Andruff wrote:

     Dear Maria,

     Dear Avri,

     Dear David,

     Robin recently advised me that she is no longer on the NCSG Policy
     Committee and that, in fact, the three of you are leading that
     effort.  For this reason I am contacting you today.

     For the past several months, Marilyn Cade, Phil Corwin and I have
     been briefing ICANN thought leaders and AC/C leadership teams about
     the Policy Advisory Board (PAB) model that we have proposed to the
     Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the ICANN Board NGPC.   As
     you know the GAC Beijing Communique
 
<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2>
     raised issues about a large number of applications for strings that
     are associated with regulated industries.  The PAB model offers a
     path to move many of these off of the sidetrack they are currently
     on back into the path of delegation through the establishment of
     balanced and globally representative bodies that will ensure such
     new gTLDs act ? first and foremost ? in the public interest. For
     further background and the full detail on the PAB model, here is a
     link to my November 2013 post on
 
CircleID:http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131104_policy_advisory_boards_cornerstone_pics_public_interest_commitment/.

     We would be most grateful to have NCUC consider joining with us in
     supporting this initiative to ensure that applicant PICS are indeed
     established, as requested by the GAC. _Our last chance is now_.  The
     GAC Buenos Aires Communique calls on the NGPC to provide ?/a
     briefing on whether the Board considers that the existing PICS/
     /(including 3c) fully implements this advice.?/

     We feel that adopting an approach such as the Policy Advisory Board
     offers several benefits, and a path to address the concerns raised
     in the GAC advice.

     1.Policy Advisory Boards (PAB) as a PICS enforcement model:

     ?Mechanism for implementation of GAC safeguard advice for protecting
     public interest

     ?Ensures separation of registry technical management and PAB-guided
     policy for those new gTLDs related to sensitive industries and
     professions.

     ??One size does not fit all? ? the PAB proposed model is f_lexible
     and while it does not propose required participation_ of any
     specific regulator, self-regulatory agency, or civil society entity,
     it is intended to provide an open and balanced advisory body to all
     bona fide parties

     ?PAB can address registrant eligibility criteria, registry policies,
     and other relevant matters relating to safeguards implementation

     ?Represented groups can include accrediting organizations; experts &
     advocates; safety/consumer coalitions & organizations; ?Internet
     freedom? & human rights groups; Internet commerce experts; national
     & global law enforcement entities

     ?In the case of managing government interests, including regulatory
     entities, to participate on PABs, the TLD operator should propose an
     approach to address engagement, either as members, or as observers,
     on how interested governments to determine which would be the
     initial PAB participants and which will rotate in each year

     ? 2. PABs provide an extra layer of support for ICANN compliance due
     to their intrinsic and inclusive nature:

     ?The PAB model meets the NGPC call for registries to provide a
     ?clear pathway? for creation of a working relationship with relevant
     industry regulatory or self-regulatory bodies

     ?Broadened pathway accommodates participation of relevant consumer
     advocacy and other civil society groups

     ?Ensures that representatives of consumer end-users of goods and
     services offered by registrants in regulated industry/profession
     gTLDs also have appropriate input in framing registry policies

     The PAB is consistent with new gTLD program goals of promoting
     innovation and competition in a manner that benefits global Internet
     user community, while also respecting that certain string
     applications are associated with public interest responsibilities.
     We present it as a framework or model, which has the flexibility to
     be adapted to a particular industry sector.

     This past week, Marilyn, Olivier, Alan, Evan and I sent a follow on
     letter to the NGPC Chair to further the cause
 
(https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en). 

     We have been privately informed by a leading member of the GAC that
     certain members of the NGPC view: /??the PAB model positively and
     that it can certainly contribute to close a number of loopholes or
     gaps in the current safeguards??/.

     Yesterday, I received the attached letter from Christine Willett, so
     it is clear that the fight for the public interest over the
     interests of the ?New gTLD Customer Service? division of ICANN (as
     her email remarkably was received from) is on.

     Irrespective of the timing of Willett?s letter, we had been planning
     to reach out to enroll you in this important initiative this week.
     Now, more than ever, it is evident that the NGPC and ICANN CEO are
     driven by a desire to get to market with the new gLTDs and that they
     have no desire to see public interest commitments holding things up.
       However, ICANN has to have a public interest accountability aspect
     or it has no legitimacy.  We need to rapidly build broad community
     support if the public interest is to prevail over portfolio gTLD
     applicant interests.

     We welcome hearing your thoughts on this at your earliest convenience.

     Thank you in advance for your consideration.

     Kind regards,

     RA

     *Ron Andruff*

     *RNA Partners*

     *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *






From stephanie.perrin  Sat Feb  8 02:21:14 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 19:21:14 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: RE: Follow Up: Policy Advisory Board Model for
	Regulated/Sensitive Strings
In-Reply-To: <52F56AD6.6060605@acm.org>
References: <016001cf2450$9b93ebe0$d2bbc3a0$@rnapartners.com>
	<52F56AD6.6060605@acm.org>
Message-ID: <27B2BC11-C0E9-4B1C-9B2B-726377936F08@mail.utoronto.ca>

Thanks.  I find myself wanting more data on this. Here are my thoughts. 
1.  I am inclined to agree with Bill.  I think it is be there or be square.
2.  I also agree with Wendy, it is a serious incursion into discussion of content.  But we jumped off that bridge a while ago, when they opened up all these gtlds right?  It is time to swim ashore, as it were. 
3.  You want a fixed fair number of reps if you go for it, plus funding.  No way I am volunteering to figure out policy stuff for companies making a zillion dollars off these registrations, and paying for the privilege out of my meagre pension.  Just sayin. 
4.  You want to control the process for selecting Civil Society reps or you don't know who is there.  
5.  Bandwidth is a big issue.  and dealing in these kind of fora usually calls for extreme toughness, in my experience.  But you have been at ICANN for years and you know that.  problem is, because of 2, whoever is on this committee will have to keep the lines very clear, and drag government into doing its regulatory chores. 
6.  My sense is you (we) should ask for a conference call to get more info, lets not get railroaded.  But I think it could be helpful.  
I am happy to reach out and ask for 6, and for all the briefing material we might not have seen yet, if you agree. 
cheers steph
On 2014-02-07, at 6:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> 
> Further fodder for thought.
> 
> (btw, as someone with a conflict of interest on the whole string contention issue due to a part time contract, I am not contributing to the discussion. at least not as long as i am playing atl-chair.)
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	RE: Follow Up: Policy Advisory Board Model for
> Regulated/Sensitive Strings
> Date: 	Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:04:38 -0500
> From: 	Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>
> To: 	'Avri Doria' <avri at acm.org>, <maria.farrell at gmail.com>, 'David
> Cake' <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>
> CC: 	<robin at ipjustice.org>, "'Olivier Crepin-Leblond'" <ocl at gih.com>
> 
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> ICANN is moving at speeds I have not experienced before, quite
> literally.  Christine Willett?s response to our letter to Cherine has
> been posted here:
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/willett-to-andruff-et-al-04feb14-en.pdf
> 
> This morning, on a call with the ALAC leadership, we discussed our
> response to Willett?s letter and a going-forward strategy that we would
> like to share with the NCUC policy committee.
> 
> Below, please find the first draft of the key issues we have identified
> as critical in the discussions with the NGPC, the GAC, and
> constituencies/SOs regarding the Policy Advisory Board model:
> 
> ?_Regulated industries and professions have inherent public interest and
> consumer protection concerns_that are recognized by local, state,
> federal, and in some cases, international government agreements. They
> are unique from other industries and professions in that regard.  In the
> world of the Internet these same regulated industries and professions
> have the same inherent public interests/consumer protection issues, yet
> ICANN is turning a blind eye to ensuring that appropriate safeguards are
> included in the new gTLD program.
> 
> ?The public interest concerns that civil society, consumer activists,
> and governments share call for appropriate measures to protect the
> public. _ICANN is solely positioned to meet these regulated
> industry/profession cross-border responsibilities_. Failure of ICANN to
> require strong and enforceable restrictions on registrant eligibility
> and other such policies in new gTLDs associated with regulated
> industries (that assure bona fide products and services and inhibit
> anti-competitive practices) will shift the burden of addressing these
> concerns from ICANN registries to national consumer protection and
> competition authorities. This will have severe consequences. _ICANN
> cannot ignore its responsibility and knowingly place such burdens on
> governments_ in an era of constrained public resources, particularly
> when such problems can be mitigated through ICANN ensuring responsible
> actions are undertaken by regulated industry TLD registry operators.
> Creating a Policy Advisory Board approach with accountability will
> require only modest cost and administrative burdens on regulated
> industry registries, which have complete control of their domain pricing.
> 
> ?The _PICS that have been submitted in response to the GAC?s call for
> them, remain, for the most part, wholly inadequate_, as illustrated by
> those filed by the leading ?portfolio? applicant. [example]  ICANN?s
> legitimacy, measured through its accountability and whether it is
> fulfilling its public interest responsibility, is under attack; _ICANN
> cannot lead a credible defense of the multistakeholder model when ? at
> the same time ? it roundly ignores the concerns of key stakeholder
> groups, including governments_, as expressed via the GAC.  ICANN?s
> reputation and credibility will be irreparably harmed if it fails to
> address appropriate safeguards such as the PAB model and the result is
> mass registration of regulated sector domains by entities engaging in
> fraudulent, deceptive, or malicious practices.
> 
> ?This issue is _NOT about anti-commercialism_; rather it is about
> creating certain limits for regulated industry new gTLD applicants
> focused on protecting the public impact. While no one wants to see any
> delays in the continued roll out of new gTLDs, _ICANN must work together
> with the community toward establishing adequate safeguards for regulated
> industry gTLDs - this must be the overriding principle_ if ICANN is to
> maintain its rightful place as chief steward of the Internet.
> Commercial interests cannot be allowed to trump public interests and
> consumer protections.
> 
> I?d be grateful to get your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.
> 
> Thanks for your consideration.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> RA
> 
> *Ron Andruff*
> 
> *RNA Partners*
> 
> *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
> 
> *From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 5, 2014 11:01
> *To:* Ron Andruff; maria.farrell at gmail.com; 'David Cake'
> *Cc:* robin at ipjustice.org; Olivier Crepin-Leblond
> *Subject:* Re: Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive Strings
> 
> Hi Ron,
> 
> Thanks for your note.
> 
> Quick question, any objection to my forwarding this to the full policy
> committee?
> 
> avri
> Alt Chair NCSG-PC for another week.
> 
> On 05-Feb-14 10:43, Ron Andruff wrote:
> 
>    Dear Maria,
> 
>    Dear Avri,
> 
>    Dear David,
> 
>    Robin recently advised me that she is no longer on the NCSG Policy
>    Committee and that, in fact, the three of you are leading that
>    effort.  For this reason I am contacting you today.
> 
>    For the past several months, Marilyn Cade, Phil Corwin and I have
>    been briefing ICANN thought leaders and AC/C leadership teams about
>    the Policy Advisory Board (PAB) model that we have proposed to the
>    Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the ICANN Board NGPC.   As
>    you know the GAC Beijing Communique
> <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2>
>    raised issues about a large number of applications for strings that
>    are associated with regulated industries.  The PAB model offers a
>    path to move many of these off of the sidetrack they are currently
>    on back into the path of delegation through the establishment of
>    balanced and globally representative bodies that will ensure such
>    new gTLDs act ? first and foremost ? in the public interest. For
>    further background and the full detail on the PAB model, here is a
>    link to my November 2013 post on
> CircleID:http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131104_policy_advisory_boards_cornerstone_pics_public_interest_commitment/.
> 
>    We would be most grateful to have NCUC consider joining with us in
>    supporting this initiative to ensure that applicant PICS are indeed
>    established, as requested by the GAC. _Our last chance is now_.  The
>    GAC Buenos Aires Communique calls on the NGPC to provide ?/a
>    briefing on whether the Board considers that the existing PICS/
>    /(including 3c) fully implements this advice.?/
> 
>    We feel that adopting an approach such as the Policy Advisory Board
>    offers several benefits, and a path to address the concerns raised
>    in the GAC advice.
> 
>    1.Policy Advisory Boards (PAB) as a PICS enforcement model:
> 
>    ?Mechanism for implementation of GAC safeguard advice for protecting
>    public interest
> 
>    ?Ensures separation of registry technical management and PAB-guided
>    policy for those new gTLDs related to sensitive industries and
>    professions.
> 
>    ??One size does not fit all? ? the PAB proposed model is f_lexible
>    and while it does not propose required participation_ of any
>    specific regulator, self-regulatory agency, or civil society entity,
>    it is intended to provide an open and balanced advisory body to all
>    bona fide parties
> 
>    ?PAB can address registrant eligibility criteria, registry policies,
>    and other relevant matters relating to safeguards implementation
> 
>    ?Represented groups can include accrediting organizations; experts &
>    advocates; safety/consumer coalitions & organizations; ?Internet
>    freedom? & human rights groups; Internet commerce experts; national
>    & global law enforcement entities
> 
>    ?In the case of managing government interests, including regulatory
>    entities, to participate on PABs, the TLD operator should propose an
>    approach to address engagement, either as members, or as observers,
>    on how interested governments to determine which would be the
>    initial PAB participants and which will rotate in each year
> 
>    ? 2. PABs provide an extra layer of support for ICANN compliance due
>    to their intrinsic and inclusive nature:
> 
>    ?The PAB model meets the NGPC call for registries to provide a
>    ?clear pathway? for creation of a working relationship with relevant
>    industry regulatory or self-regulatory bodies
> 
>    ?Broadened pathway accommodates participation of relevant consumer
>    advocacy and other civil society groups
> 
>    ?Ensures that representatives of consumer end-users of goods and
>    services offered by registrants in regulated industry/profession
>    gTLDs also have appropriate input in framing registry policies
> 
>    The PAB is consistent with new gTLD program goals of promoting
>    innovation and competition in a manner that benefits global Internet
>    user community, while also respecting that certain string
>    applications are associated with public interest responsibilities.
>    We present it as a framework or model, which has the flexibility to
>    be adapted to a particular industry sector.
> 
>    This past week, Marilyn, Olivier, Alan, Evan and I sent a follow on
>    letter to the NGPC Chair to further the cause
> (https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en). 
>    We have been privately informed by a leading member of the GAC that
>    certain members of the NGPC view: /??the PAB model positively and
>    that it can certainly contribute to close a number of loopholes or
>    gaps in the current safeguards??/.
> 
>    Yesterday, I received the attached letter from Christine Willett, so
>    it is clear that the fight for the public interest over the
>    interests of the ?New gTLD Customer Service? division of ICANN (as
>    her email remarkably was received from) is on.
> 
>    Irrespective of the timing of Willett?s letter, we had been planning
>    to reach out to enroll you in this important initiative this week.
>    Now, more than ever, it is evident that the NGPC and ICANN CEO are
>    driven by a desire to get to market with the new gLTDs and that they
>    have no desire to see public interest commitments holding things up.
>      However, ICANN has to have a public interest accountability aspect
>    or it has no legitimacy.  We need to rapidly build broad community
>    support if the public interest is to prevail over portfolio gTLD
>    applicant interests.
> 
>    We welcome hearing your thoughts on this at your earliest convenience.
> 
>    Thank you in advance for your consideration.
> 
>    Kind regards,
> 
>    RA
> 
>    *Ron Andruff*
> 
>    *RNA Partners*
> 
>    *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From rafik.dammak  Sat Feb  8 05:51:20 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 12:51:20 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: RE: Follow Up: Policy Advisory Board Model for
 Regulated/Sensitive Strings
In-Reply-To: <27B2BC11-C0E9-4B1C-9B2B-726377936F08@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <016001cf2450$9b93ebe0$d2bbc3a0$@rnapartners.com>
	<52F56AD6.6060605@acm.org>
	<27B2BC11-C0E9-4B1C-9B2B-726377936F08@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkimgc6PUU=sddF+2s6VnPgh3ZbyiypAURqbvxxjBjzdg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Stephanie,

That was my request too, we need more info, Ron messages are plenty of
warning about ICANN reputation, regulation etc but no specific details or
clear structure, governance model, representation. This policy body  also
give to local or national industry regulators (diverse in many aspect) such
power that will goes beyond their borders.
a confcall looks good proposal for me.

Best,

Rafik


2014-02-08 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:

> Thanks.  I find myself wanting more data on this. Here are my thoughts.
> 1.  I am inclined to agree with Bill.  I think it is be there or be square.
> 2.  I also agree with Wendy, it is a serious incursion into discussion of
> content.  But we jumped off that bridge a while ago, when they opened up
> all these gtlds right?  It is time to swim ashore, as it were.
> 3.  You want a fixed fair number of reps if you go for it, plus funding.
>  No way I am volunteering to figure out policy stuff for companies making a
> zillion dollars off these registrations, and paying for the privilege out
> of my meagre pension.  Just sayin.
> 4.  You want to control the process for selecting Civil Society reps or
> you don't know who is there.
> 5.  Bandwidth is a big issue.  and dealing in these kind of fora usually
> calls for extreme toughness, in my experience.  But you have been at ICANN
> for years and you know that.  problem is, because of 2, whoever is on this
> committee will have to keep the lines very clear, and drag government into
> doing its regulatory chores.
> 6.  My sense is you (we) should ask for a conference call to get more
> info, lets not get railroaded.  But I think it could be helpful.
> I am happy to reach out and ask for 6, and for all the briefing material
> we might not have seen yet, if you agree.
> cheers steph
> On 2014-02-07, at 6:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> >
> > Further fodder for thought.
> >
> > (btw, as someone with a conflict of interest on the whole string
> contention issue due to a part time contract, I am not contributing to the
> discussion. at least not as long as i am playing atl-chair.)
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject:      RE: Follow Up: Policy Advisory Board Model for
> > Regulated/Sensitive Strings
> > Date:         Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:04:38 -0500
> > From:         Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>
> > To:   'Avri Doria' <avri at acm.org>, <maria.farrell at gmail.com>, 'David
> > Cake' <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>
> > CC:   <robin at ipjustice.org>, "'Olivier Crepin-Leblond'" <ocl at gih.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > ICANN is moving at speeds I have not experienced before, quite
> > literally.  Christine Willett?s response to our letter to Cherine has
> > been posted here:
> >
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/willett-to-andruff-et-al-04feb14-en.pdf
> >
> > This morning, on a call with the ALAC leadership, we discussed our
> > response to Willett?s letter and a going-forward strategy that we would
> > like to share with the NCUC policy committee.
> >
> > Below, please find the first draft of the key issues we have identified
> > as critical in the discussions with the NGPC, the GAC, and
> > constituencies/SOs regarding the Policy Advisory Board model:
> >
> > ?_Regulated industries and professions have inherent public interest and
> > consumer protection concerns_that are recognized by local, state,
> > federal, and in some cases, international government agreements. They
> > are unique from other industries and professions in that regard.  In the
> > world of the Internet these same regulated industries and professions
> > have the same inherent public interests/consumer protection issues, yet
> > ICANN is turning a blind eye to ensuring that appropriate safeguards are
> > included in the new gTLD program.
> >
> > ?The public interest concerns that civil society, consumer activists,
> > and governments share call for appropriate measures to protect the
> > public. _ICANN is solely positioned to meet these regulated
> > industry/profession cross-border responsibilities_. Failure of ICANN to
> > require strong and enforceable restrictions on registrant eligibility
> > and other such policies in new gTLDs associated with regulated
> > industries (that assure bona fide products and services and inhibit
> > anti-competitive practices) will shift the burden of addressing these
> > concerns from ICANN registries to national consumer protection and
> > competition authorities. This will have severe consequences. _ICANN
> > cannot ignore its responsibility and knowingly place such burdens on
> > governments_ in an era of constrained public resources, particularly
> > when such problems can be mitigated through ICANN ensuring responsible
> > actions are undertaken by regulated industry TLD registry operators.
> > Creating a Policy Advisory Board approach with accountability will
> > require only modest cost and administrative burdens on regulated
> > industry registries, which have complete control of their domain pricing.
> >
> > ?The _PICS that have been submitted in response to the GAC?s call for
> > them, remain, for the most part, wholly inadequate_, as illustrated by
> > those filed by the leading ?portfolio? applicant. [example]  ICANN?s
> > legitimacy, measured through its accountability and whether it is
> > fulfilling its public interest responsibility, is under attack; _ICANN
> > cannot lead a credible defense of the multistakeholder model when ? at
> > the same time ? it roundly ignores the concerns of key stakeholder
> > groups, including governments_, as expressed via the GAC.  ICANN?s
> > reputation and credibility will be irreparably harmed if it fails to
> > address appropriate safeguards such as the PAB model and the result is
> > mass registration of regulated sector domains by entities engaging in
> > fraudulent, deceptive, or malicious practices.
> >
> > ?This issue is _NOT about anti-commercialism_; rather it is about
> > creating certain limits for regulated industry new gTLD applicants
> > focused on protecting the public impact. While no one wants to see any
> > delays in the continued roll out of new gTLDs, _ICANN must work together
> > with the community toward establishing adequate safeguards for regulated
> > industry gTLDs - this must be the overriding principle_ if ICANN is to
> > maintain its rightful place as chief steward of the Internet.
> > Commercial interests cannot be allowed to trump public interests and
> > consumer protections.
> >
> > I?d be grateful to get your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.
> >
> > Thanks for your consideration.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > RA
> >
> > *Ron Andruff*
> >
> > *RNA Partners*
> >
> > *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
> >
> > *From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 5, 2014 11:01
> > *To:* Ron Andruff; maria.farrell at gmail.com; 'David Cake'
> > *Cc:* robin at ipjustice.org; Olivier Crepin-Leblond
> > *Subject:* Re: Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive
> Strings
> >
> > Hi Ron,
> >
> > Thanks for your note.
> >
> > Quick question, any objection to my forwarding this to the full policy
> > committee?
> >
> > avri
> > Alt Chair NCSG-PC for another week.
> >
> > On 05-Feb-14 10:43, Ron Andruff wrote:
> >
> >    Dear Maria,
> >
> >    Dear Avri,
> >
> >    Dear David,
> >
> >    Robin recently advised me that she is no longer on the NCSG Policy
> >    Committee and that, in fact, the three of you are leading that
> >    effort.  For this reason I am contacting you today.
> >
> >    For the past several months, Marilyn Cade, Phil Corwin and I have
> >    been briefing ICANN thought leaders and AC/C leadership teams about
> >    the Policy Advisory Board (PAB) model that we have proposed to the
> >    Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the ICANN Board NGPC.   As
> >    you know the GAC Beijing Communique
> > <
> https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2
> >
> >    raised issues about a large number of applications for strings that
> >    are associated with regulated industries.  The PAB model offers a
> >    path to move many of these off of the sidetrack they are currently
> >    on back into the path of delegation through the establishment of
> >    balanced and globally representative bodies that will ensure such
> >    new gTLDs act ? first and foremost ? in the public interest. For
> >    further background and the full detail on the PAB model, here is a
> >    link to my November 2013 post on
> > CircleID:
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131104_policy_advisory_boards_cornerstone_pics_public_interest_commitment/
> .
> >
> >    We would be most grateful to have NCUC consider joining with us in
> >    supporting this initiative to ensure that applicant PICS are indeed
> >    established, as requested by the GAC. _Our last chance is now_.  The
> >    GAC Buenos Aires Communique calls on the NGPC to provide ?/a
> >    briefing on whether the Board considers that the existing PICS/
> >    /(including 3c) fully implements this advice.?/
> >
> >    We feel that adopting an approach such as the Policy Advisory Board
> >    offers several benefits, and a path to address the concerns raised
> >    in the GAC advice.
> >
> >    1.Policy Advisory Boards (PAB) as a PICS enforcement model:
> >
> >    ?Mechanism for implementation of GAC safeguard advice for protecting
> >    public interest
> >
> >    ?Ensures separation of registry technical management and PAB-guided
> >    policy for those new gTLDs related to sensitive industries and
> >    professions.
> >
> >    ??One size does not fit all? ? the PAB proposed model is f_lexible
> >    and while it does not propose required participation_ of any
> >    specific regulator, self-regulatory agency, or civil society entity,
> >    it is intended to provide an open and balanced advisory body to all
> >    bona fide parties
> >
> >    ?PAB can address registrant eligibility criteria, registry policies,
> >    and other relevant matters relating to safeguards implementation
> >
> >    ?Represented groups can include accrediting organizations; experts &
> >    advocates; safety/consumer coalitions & organizations; ?Internet
> >    freedom? & human rights groups; Internet commerce experts; national
> >    & global law enforcement entities
> >
> >    ?In the case of managing government interests, including regulatory
> >    entities, to participate on PABs, the TLD operator should propose an
> >    approach to address engagement, either as members, or as observers,
> >    on how interested governments to determine which would be the
> >    initial PAB participants and which will rotate in each year
> >
> >    ? 2. PABs provide an extra layer of support for ICANN compliance due
> >    to their intrinsic and inclusive nature:
> >
> >    ?The PAB model meets the NGPC call for registries to provide a
> >    ?clear pathway? for creation of a working relationship with relevant
> >    industry regulatory or self-regulatory bodies
> >
> >    ?Broadened pathway accommodates participation of relevant consumer
> >    advocacy and other civil society groups
> >
> >    ?Ensures that representatives of consumer end-users of goods and
> >    services offered by registrants in regulated industry/profession
> >    gTLDs also have appropriate input in framing registry policies
> >
> >    The PAB is consistent with new gTLD program goals of promoting
> >    innovation and competition in a manner that benefits global Internet
> >    user community, while also respecting that certain string
> >    applications are associated with public interest responsibilities.
> >    We present it as a framework or model, which has the flexibility to
> >    be adapted to a particular industry sector.
> >
> >    This past week, Marilyn, Olivier, Alan, Evan and I sent a follow on
> >    letter to the NGPC Chair to further the cause
> > (
> https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en
> ).
> >    We have been privately informed by a leading member of the GAC that
> >    certain members of the NGPC view: /??the PAB model positively and
> >    that it can certainly contribute to close a number of loopholes or
> >    gaps in the current safeguards??/.
> >
> >    Yesterday, I received the attached letter from Christine Willett, so
> >    it is clear that the fight for the public interest over the
> >    interests of the ?New gTLD Customer Service? division of ICANN (as
> >    her email remarkably was received from) is on.
> >
> >    Irrespective of the timing of Willett?s letter, we had been planning
> >    to reach out to enroll you in this important initiative this week.
> >    Now, more than ever, it is evident that the NGPC and ICANN CEO are
> >    driven by a desire to get to market with the new gLTDs and that they
> >    have no desire to see public interest commitments holding things up.
> >      However, ICANN has to have a public interest accountability aspect
> >    or it has no legitimacy.  We need to rapidly build broad community
> >    support if the public interest is to prevail over portfolio gTLD
> >    applicant interests.
> >
> >    We welcome hearing your thoughts on this at your earliest convenience.
> >
> >    Thank you in advance for your consideration.
> >
> >    Kind regards,
> >
> >    RA
> >
> >    *Ron Andruff*
> >
> >    *RNA Partners*
> >
> >    *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140208/b88d2092/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Sat Feb  8 06:38:06 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 23:38:06 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] voting reminder
Message-ID: <52F5B4AE.6060600@acm.org>

Hi,

Friday is over, for the most part.

The weekend is short.

Voting is now.

https://doodle.com/yazauuu4csfgv8zw?tmail=poll_invitecontact_participant_invitation&tlink=pollbtn

avri



From stephanie.perrin  Sat Feb  8 18:10:15 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 11:10:15 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: RE: Follow Up: Policy Advisory Board Model for
	Regulated/Sensitive Strings
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkimgc6PUU=sddF+2s6VnPgh3ZbyiypAURqbvxxjBjzdg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <016001cf2450$9b93ebe0$d2bbc3a0$@rnapartners.com>
	<52F56AD6.6060605@acm.org>
	<27B2BC11-C0E9-4B1C-9B2B-726377936F08@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<CAH5sThkimgc6PUU=sddF+2s6VnPgh3ZbyiypAURqbvxxjBjzdg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01550E56-CA06-431F-8EBD-7F6871FB6E68@mail.utoronto.ca>

Agreed, but I hate the letter more.  Who is "ICANN" when she says they have decided another comment period is not necessary.  Is that the Board, or staff?  How is the other system going to work?
Why not respond to Ron and get more data?
cheers SP
On 2014-02-07, at 10:51 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote:

> Hi Stephanie,
> 
> That was my request too, we need more info, Ron messages are plenty of warning about ICANN reputation, regulation etc but no specific details or clear structure, governance model, representation. This policy body  also give to local or national industry regulators (diverse in many aspect) such power that will goes beyond their borders.
> a confcall looks good proposal for me.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 
> 2014-02-08 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:
> Thanks.  I find myself wanting more data on this. Here are my thoughts.
> 1.  I am inclined to agree with Bill.  I think it is be there or be square.
> 2.  I also agree with Wendy, it is a serious incursion into discussion of content.  But we jumped off that bridge a while ago, when they opened up all these gtlds right?  It is time to swim ashore, as it were.
> 3.  You want a fixed fair number of reps if you go for it, plus funding.  No way I am volunteering to figure out policy stuff for companies making a zillion dollars off these registrations, and paying for the privilege out of my meagre pension.  Just sayin.
> 4.  You want to control the process for selecting Civil Society reps or you don't know who is there.
> 5.  Bandwidth is a big issue.  and dealing in these kind of fora usually calls for extreme toughness, in my experience.  But you have been at ICANN for years and you know that.  problem is, because of 2, whoever is on this committee will have to keep the lines very clear, and drag government into doing its regulatory chores.
> 6.  My sense is you (we) should ask for a conference call to get more info, lets not get railroaded.  But I think it could be helpful.
> I am happy to reach out and ask for 6, and for all the briefing material we might not have seen yet, if you agree.
> cheers steph
> On 2014-02-07, at 6:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> >
> > Further fodder for thought.
> >
> > (btw, as someone with a conflict of interest on the whole string contention issue due to a part time contract, I am not contributing to the discussion. at least not as long as i am playing atl-chair.)
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject:      RE: Follow Up: Policy Advisory Board Model for
> > Regulated/Sensitive Strings
> > Date:         Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:04:38 -0500
> > From:         Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>
> > To:   'Avri Doria' <avri at acm.org>, <maria.farrell at gmail.com>, 'David
> > Cake' <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>
> > CC:   <robin at ipjustice.org>, "'Olivier Crepin-Leblond'" <ocl at gih.com>
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > ICANN is moving at speeds I have not experienced before, quite
> > literally.  Christine Willett?s response to our letter to Cherine has
> > been posted here:
> > http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/willett-to-andruff-et-al-04feb14-en.pdf
> >
> > This morning, on a call with the ALAC leadership, we discussed our
> > response to Willett?s letter and a going-forward strategy that we would
> > like to share with the NCUC policy committee.
> >
> > Below, please find the first draft of the key issues we have identified
> > as critical in the discussions with the NGPC, the GAC, and
> > constituencies/SOs regarding the Policy Advisory Board model:
> >
> > ?_Regulated industries and professions have inherent public interest and
> > consumer protection concerns_that are recognized by local, state,
> > federal, and in some cases, international government agreements. They
> > are unique from other industries and professions in that regard.  In the
> > world of the Internet these same regulated industries and professions
> > have the same inherent public interests/consumer protection issues, yet
> > ICANN is turning a blind eye to ensuring that appropriate safeguards are
> > included in the new gTLD program.
> >
> > ?The public interest concerns that civil society, consumer activists,
> > and governments share call for appropriate measures to protect the
> > public. _ICANN is solely positioned to meet these regulated
> > industry/profession cross-border responsibilities_. Failure of ICANN to
> > require strong and enforceable restrictions on registrant eligibility
> > and other such policies in new gTLDs associated with regulated
> > industries (that assure bona fide products and services and inhibit
> > anti-competitive practices) will shift the burden of addressing these
> > concerns from ICANN registries to national consumer protection and
> > competition authorities. This will have severe consequences. _ICANN
> > cannot ignore its responsibility and knowingly place such burdens on
> > governments_ in an era of constrained public resources, particularly
> > when such problems can be mitigated through ICANN ensuring responsible
> > actions are undertaken by regulated industry TLD registry operators.
> > Creating a Policy Advisory Board approach with accountability will
> > require only modest cost and administrative burdens on regulated
> > industry registries, which have complete control of their domain pricing.
> >
> > ?The _PICS that have been submitted in response to the GAC?s call for
> > them, remain, for the most part, wholly inadequate_, as illustrated by
> > those filed by the leading ?portfolio? applicant. [example]  ICANN?s
> > legitimacy, measured through its accountability and whether it is
> > fulfilling its public interest responsibility, is under attack; _ICANN
> > cannot lead a credible defense of the multistakeholder model when ? at
> > the same time ? it roundly ignores the concerns of key stakeholder
> > groups, including governments_, as expressed via the GAC.  ICANN?s
> > reputation and credibility will be irreparably harmed if it fails to
> > address appropriate safeguards such as the PAB model and the result is
> > mass registration of regulated sector domains by entities engaging in
> > fraudulent, deceptive, or malicious practices.
> >
> > ?This issue is _NOT about anti-commercialism_; rather it is about
> > creating certain limits for regulated industry new gTLD applicants
> > focused on protecting the public impact. While no one wants to see any
> > delays in the continued roll out of new gTLDs, _ICANN must work together
> > with the community toward establishing adequate safeguards for regulated
> > industry gTLDs - this must be the overriding principle_ if ICANN is to
> > maintain its rightful place as chief steward of the Internet.
> > Commercial interests cannot be allowed to trump public interests and
> > consumer protections.
> >
> > I?d be grateful to get your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.
> >
> > Thanks for your consideration.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > RA
> >
> > *Ron Andruff*
> >
> > *RNA Partners*
> >
> > *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
> >
> > *From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 5, 2014 11:01
> > *To:* Ron Andruff; maria.farrell at gmail.com; 'David Cake'
> > *Cc:* robin at ipjustice.org; Olivier Crepin-Leblond
> > *Subject:* Re: Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive Strings
> >
> > Hi Ron,
> >
> > Thanks for your note.
> >
> > Quick question, any objection to my forwarding this to the full policy
> > committee?
> >
> > avri
> > Alt Chair NCSG-PC for another week.
> >
> > On 05-Feb-14 10:43, Ron Andruff wrote:
> >
> >    Dear Maria,
> >
> >    Dear Avri,
> >
> >    Dear David,
> >
> >    Robin recently advised me that she is no longer on the NCSG Policy
> >    Committee and that, in fact, the three of you are leading that
> >    effort.  For this reason I am contacting you today.
> >
> >    For the past several months, Marilyn Cade, Phil Corwin and I have
> >    been briefing ICANN thought leaders and AC/C leadership teams about
> >    the Policy Advisory Board (PAB) model that we have proposed to the
> >    Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the ICANN Board NGPC.   As
> >    you know the GAC Beijing Communique
> > <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2>
> >    raised issues about a large number of applications for strings that
> >    are associated with regulated industries.  The PAB model offers a
> >    path to move many of these off of the sidetrack they are currently
> >    on back into the path of delegation through the establishment of
> >    balanced and globally representative bodies that will ensure such
> >    new gTLDs act ? first and foremost ? in the public interest. For
> >    further background and the full detail on the PAB model, here is a
> >    link to my November 2013 post on
> > CircleID:http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131104_policy_advisory_boards_cornerstone_pics_public_interest_commitment/.
> >
> >    We would be most grateful to have NCUC consider joining with us in
> >    supporting this initiative to ensure that applicant PICS are indeed
> >    established, as requested by the GAC. _Our last chance is now_.  The
> >    GAC Buenos Aires Communique calls on the NGPC to provide ?/a
> >    briefing on whether the Board considers that the existing PICS/
> >    /(including 3c) fully implements this advice.?/
> >
> >    We feel that adopting an approach such as the Policy Advisory Board
> >    offers several benefits, and a path to address the concerns raised
> >    in the GAC advice.
> >
> >    1.Policy Advisory Boards (PAB) as a PICS enforcement model:
> >
> >    ?Mechanism for implementation of GAC safeguard advice for protecting
> >    public interest
> >
> >    ?Ensures separation of registry technical management and PAB-guided
> >    policy for those new gTLDs related to sensitive industries and
> >    professions.
> >
> >    ??One size does not fit all? ? the PAB proposed model is f_lexible
> >    and while it does not propose required participation_ of any
> >    specific regulator, self-regulatory agency, or civil society entity,
> >    it is intended to provide an open and balanced advisory body to all
> >    bona fide parties
> >
> >    ?PAB can address registrant eligibility criteria, registry policies,
> >    and other relevant matters relating to safeguards implementation
> >
> >    ?Represented groups can include accrediting organizations; experts &
> >    advocates; safety/consumer coalitions & organizations; ?Internet
> >    freedom? & human rights groups; Internet commerce experts; national
> >    & global law enforcement entities
> >
> >    ?In the case of managing government interests, including regulatory
> >    entities, to participate on PABs, the TLD operator should propose an
> >    approach to address engagement, either as members, or as observers,
> >    on how interested governments to determine which would be the
> >    initial PAB participants and which will rotate in each year
> >
> >    ? 2. PABs provide an extra layer of support for ICANN compliance due
> >    to their intrinsic and inclusive nature:
> >
> >    ?The PAB model meets the NGPC call for registries to provide a
> >    ?clear pathway? for creation of a working relationship with relevant
> >    industry regulatory or self-regulatory bodies
> >
> >    ?Broadened pathway accommodates participation of relevant consumer
> >    advocacy and other civil society groups
> >
> >    ?Ensures that representatives of consumer end-users of goods and
> >    services offered by registrants in regulated industry/profession
> >    gTLDs also have appropriate input in framing registry policies
> >
> >    The PAB is consistent with new gTLD program goals of promoting
> >    innovation and competition in a manner that benefits global Internet
> >    user community, while also respecting that certain string
> >    applications are associated with public interest responsibilities.
> >    We present it as a framework or model, which has the flexibility to
> >    be adapted to a particular industry sector.
> >
> >    This past week, Marilyn, Olivier, Alan, Evan and I sent a follow on
> >    letter to the NGPC Chair to further the cause
> > (https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en).
> >    We have been privately informed by a leading member of the GAC that
> >    certain members of the NGPC view: /??the PAB model positively and
> >    that it can certainly contribute to close a number of loopholes or
> >    gaps in the current safeguards??/.
> >
> >    Yesterday, I received the attached letter from Christine Willett, so
> >    it is clear that the fight for the public interest over the
> >    interests of the ?New gTLD Customer Service? division of ICANN (as
> >    her email remarkably was received from) is on.
> >
> >    Irrespective of the timing of Willett?s letter, we had been planning
> >    to reach out to enroll you in this important initiative this week.
> >    Now, more than ever, it is evident that the NGPC and ICANN CEO are
> >    driven by a desire to get to market with the new gLTDs and that they
> >    have no desire to see public interest commitments holding things up.
> >      However, ICANN has to have a public interest accountability aspect
> >    or it has no legitimacy.  We need to rapidly build broad community
> >    support if the public interest is to prevail over portfolio gTLD
> >    applicant interests.
> >
> >    We welcome hearing your thoughts on this at your earliest convenience.
> >
> >    Thank you in advance for your consideration.
> >
> >    Kind regards,
> >
> >    RA
> >
> >    *Ron Andruff*
> >
> >    *RNA Partners*
> >
> >    *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140208/2fbb6cf5/attachment-0001.html>


From dave  Mon Feb 10 06:59:06 2014
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 12:59:06 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Follow Up: Policy Advisory Board Model for
	Regulated/Sensitive Strings
In-Reply-To: <27B2BC11-C0E9-4B1C-9B2B-726377936F08@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <016001cf2450$9b93ebe0$d2bbc3a0$@rnapartners.com>
	<52F56AD6.6060605@acm.org>
	<27B2BC11-C0E9-4B1C-9B2B-726377936F08@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <B6D23F42-AE4D-4710-848F-99AF2605F1DE@difference.com.au>


On 8 Feb 2014, at 8:21 am, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA> wrote:

> Thanks.  I find myself wanting more data on this. Here are my thoughts. 
> 1.  I am inclined to agree with Bill.  I think it is be there or be square.

	I think so. This debate it happening. The GAC are talking nonsense, and the commercial interests are doing whatever is the quickest route to approval of their gTLDs. 

> 2.  I also agree with Wendy, it is a serious incursion into discussion of content.  But we jumped off that bridge a while ago, when they opened up all these gtlds right?  It is time to swim ashore, as it were. 

	Absolutely. Once the PIC issue came in, content is there. And we need to drag the whole issue back into the realm of sense. 

> 3.  You want a fixed fair number of reps if you go for it, plus funding.  No way I am volunteering to figure out policy stuff for companies making a zillion dollars off these registrations, and paying for the privilege out of my meagre pension.  Just sayin. 

	Yes. Once PABs become common, they should be paying for it. 
	
> 4.  You want to control the process for selecting Civil Society reps or you don't know who is there.  

	I don't think that we necessarily need to have any say on who sits on a specific PAB (they are, after all, essentially there to support private commercial new gTLD projects), but we there should be mechanisms to ensure that civil society representatives are genuine. 

	David

> 5.  Bandwidth is a big issue.  and dealing in these kind of fora usually calls for extreme toughness, in my experience.  But you have been at ICANN for years and you know that.  problem is, because of 2, whoever is on this committee will have to keep the lines very clear, and drag government into doing its regulatory chores. 
> 6.  My sense is you (we) should ask for a conference call to get more info, lets not get railroaded.  But I think it could be helpful.  
> I am happy to reach out and ask for 6, and for all the briefing material we might not have seen yet, if you agree. 
> cheers steph
> On 2014-02-07, at 6:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Further fodder for thought.
>> 
>> (btw, as someone with a conflict of interest on the whole string contention issue due to a part time contract, I am not contributing to the discussion. at least not as long as i am playing atl-chair.)
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: 	RE: Follow Up: Policy Advisory Board Model for
>> Regulated/Sensitive Strings
>> Date: 	Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:04:38 -0500
>> From: 	Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>
>> To: 	'Avri Doria' <avri at acm.org>, <maria.farrell at gmail.com>, 'David
>> Cake' <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>
>> CC: 	<robin at ipjustice.org>, "'Olivier Crepin-Leblond'" <ocl at gih.com>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> ICANN is moving at speeds I have not experienced before, quite
>> literally.  Christine Willett?s response to our letter to Cherine has
>> been posted here:
>> http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/willett-to-andruff-et-al-04feb14-en.pdf
>> 
>> This morning, on a call with the ALAC leadership, we discussed our
>> response to Willett?s letter and a going-forward strategy that we would
>> like to share with the NCUC policy committee.
>> 
>> Below, please find the first draft of the key issues we have identified
>> as critical in the discussions with the NGPC, the GAC, and
>> constituencies/SOs regarding the Policy Advisory Board model:
>> 
>> ?_Regulated industries and professions have inherent public interest and
>> consumer protection concerns_that are recognized by local, state,
>> federal, and in some cases, international government agreements. They
>> are unique from other industries and professions in that regard.  In the
>> world of the Internet these same regulated industries and professions
>> have the same inherent public interests/consumer protection issues, yet
>> ICANN is turning a blind eye to ensuring that appropriate safeguards are
>> included in the new gTLD program.
>> 
>> ?The public interest concerns that civil society, consumer activists,
>> and governments share call for appropriate measures to protect the
>> public. _ICANN is solely positioned to meet these regulated
>> industry/profession cross-border responsibilities_. Failure of ICANN to
>> require strong and enforceable restrictions on registrant eligibility
>> and other such policies in new gTLDs associated with regulated
>> industries (that assure bona fide products and services and inhibit
>> anti-competitive practices) will shift the burden of addressing these
>> concerns from ICANN registries to national consumer protection and
>> competition authorities. This will have severe consequences. _ICANN
>> cannot ignore its responsibility and knowingly place such burdens on
>> governments_ in an era of constrained public resources, particularly
>> when such problems can be mitigated through ICANN ensuring responsible
>> actions are undertaken by regulated industry TLD registry operators.
>> Creating a Policy Advisory Board approach with accountability will
>> require only modest cost and administrative burdens on regulated
>> industry registries, which have complete control of their domain pricing.
>> 
>> ?The _PICS that have been submitted in response to the GAC?s call for
>> them, remain, for the most part, wholly inadequate_, as illustrated by
>> those filed by the leading ?portfolio? applicant. [example]  ICANN?s
>> legitimacy, measured through its accountability and whether it is
>> fulfilling its public interest responsibility, is under attack; _ICANN
>> cannot lead a credible defense of the multistakeholder model when ? at
>> the same time ? it roundly ignores the concerns of key stakeholder
>> groups, including governments_, as expressed via the GAC.  ICANN?s
>> reputation and credibility will be irreparably harmed if it fails to
>> address appropriate safeguards such as the PAB model and the result is
>> mass registration of regulated sector domains by entities engaging in
>> fraudulent, deceptive, or malicious practices.
>> 
>> ?This issue is _NOT about anti-commercialism_; rather it is about
>> creating certain limits for regulated industry new gTLD applicants
>> focused on protecting the public impact. While no one wants to see any
>> delays in the continued roll out of new gTLDs, _ICANN must work together
>> with the community toward establishing adequate safeguards for regulated
>> industry gTLDs - this must be the overriding principle_ if ICANN is to
>> maintain its rightful place as chief steward of the Internet.
>> Commercial interests cannot be allowed to trump public interests and
>> consumer protections.
>> 
>> I?d be grateful to get your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.
>> 
>> Thanks for your consideration.
>> 
>> Kind regards,
>> 
>> RA
>> 
>> *Ron Andruff*
>> 
>> *RNA Partners*
>> 
>> *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
>> 
>> *From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 5, 2014 11:01
>> *To:* Ron Andruff; maria.farrell at gmail.com; 'David Cake'
>> *Cc:* robin at ipjustice.org; Olivier Crepin-Leblond
>> *Subject:* Re: Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive Strings
>> 
>> Hi Ron,
>> 
>> Thanks for your note.
>> 
>> Quick question, any objection to my forwarding this to the full policy
>> committee?
>> 
>> avri
>> Alt Chair NCSG-PC for another week.
>> 
>> On 05-Feb-14 10:43, Ron Andruff wrote:
>> 
>>   Dear Maria,
>> 
>>   Dear Avri,
>> 
>>   Dear David,
>> 
>>   Robin recently advised me that she is no longer on the NCSG Policy
>>   Committee and that, in fact, the three of you are leading that
>>   effort.  For this reason I am contacting you today.
>> 
>>   For the past several months, Marilyn Cade, Phil Corwin and I have
>>   been briefing ICANN thought leaders and AC/C leadership teams about
>>   the Policy Advisory Board (PAB) model that we have proposed to the
>>   Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the ICANN Board NGPC.   As
>>   you know the GAC Beijing Communique
>> <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2>
>>   raised issues about a large number of applications for strings that
>>   are associated with regulated industries.  The PAB model offers a
>>   path to move many of these off of the sidetrack they are currently
>>   on back into the path of delegation through the establishment of
>>   balanced and globally representative bodies that will ensure such
>>   new gTLDs act ? first and foremost ? in the public interest. For
>>   further background and the full detail on the PAB model, here is a
>>   link to my November 2013 post on
>> CircleID:http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131104_policy_advisory_boards_cornerstone_pics_public_interest_commitment/.
>> 
>>   We would be most grateful to have NCUC consider joining with us in
>>   supporting this initiative to ensure that applicant PICS are indeed
>>   established, as requested by the GAC. _Our last chance is now_.  The
>>   GAC Buenos Aires Communique calls on the NGPC to provide ?/a
>>   briefing on whether the Board considers that the existing PICS/
>>   /(including 3c) fully implements this advice.?/
>> 
>>   We feel that adopting an approach such as the Policy Advisory Board
>>   offers several benefits, and a path to address the concerns raised
>>   in the GAC advice.
>> 
>>   1.Policy Advisory Boards (PAB) as a PICS enforcement model:
>> 
>>   ?Mechanism for implementation of GAC safeguard advice for protecting
>>   public interest
>> 
>>   ?Ensures separation of registry technical management and PAB-guided
>>   policy for those new gTLDs related to sensitive industries and
>>   professions.
>> 
>>   ??One size does not fit all? ? the PAB proposed model is f_lexible
>>   and while it does not propose required participation_ of any
>>   specific regulator, self-regulatory agency, or civil society entity,
>>   it is intended to provide an open and balanced advisory body to all
>>   bona fide parties
>> 
>>   ?PAB can address registrant eligibility criteria, registry policies,
>>   and other relevant matters relating to safeguards implementation
>> 
>>   ?Represented groups can include accrediting organizations; experts &
>>   advocates; safety/consumer coalitions & organizations; ?Internet
>>   freedom? & human rights groups; Internet commerce experts; national
>>   & global law enforcement entities
>> 
>>   ?In the case of managing government interests, including regulatory
>>   entities, to participate on PABs, the TLD operator should propose an
>>   approach to address engagement, either as members, or as observers,
>>   on how interested governments to determine which would be the
>>   initial PAB participants and which will rotate in each year
>> 
>>   ? 2. PABs provide an extra layer of support for ICANN compliance due
>>   to their intrinsic and inclusive nature:
>> 
>>   ?The PAB model meets the NGPC call for registries to provide a
>>   ?clear pathway? for creation of a working relationship with relevant
>>   industry regulatory or self-regulatory bodies
>> 
>>   ?Broadened pathway accommodates participation of relevant consumer
>>   advocacy and other civil society groups
>> 
>>   ?Ensures that representatives of consumer end-users of goods and
>>   services offered by registrants in regulated industry/profession
>>   gTLDs also have appropriate input in framing registry policies
>> 
>>   The PAB is consistent with new gTLD program goals of promoting
>>   innovation and competition in a manner that benefits global Internet
>>   user community, while also respecting that certain string
>>   applications are associated with public interest responsibilities.
>>   We present it as a framework or model, which has the flexibility to
>>   be adapted to a particular industry sector.
>> 
>>   This past week, Marilyn, Olivier, Alan, Evan and I sent a follow on
>>   letter to the NGPC Chair to further the cause
>> (https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en). 
>>   We have been privately informed by a leading member of the GAC that
>>   certain members of the NGPC view: /??the PAB model positively and
>>   that it can certainly contribute to close a number of loopholes or
>>   gaps in the current safeguards??/.
>> 
>>   Yesterday, I received the attached letter from Christine Willett, so
>>   it is clear that the fight for the public interest over the
>>   interests of the ?New gTLD Customer Service? division of ICANN (as
>>   her email remarkably was received from) is on.
>> 
>>   Irrespective of the timing of Willett?s letter, we had been planning
>>   to reach out to enroll you in this important initiative this week.
>>   Now, more than ever, it is evident that the NGPC and ICANN CEO are
>>   driven by a desire to get to market with the new gLTDs and that they
>>   have no desire to see public interest commitments holding things up.
>>     However, ICANN has to have a public interest accountability aspect
>>   or it has no legitimacy.  We need to rapidly build broad community
>>   support if the public interest is to prevail over portfolio gTLD
>>   applicant interests.
>> 
>>   We welcome hearing your thoughts on this at your earliest convenience.
>> 
>>   Thank you in advance for your consideration.
>> 
>>   Kind regards,
>> 
>>   RA
>> 
>>   *Ron Andruff*
>> 
>>   *RNA Partners*
>> 
>>   *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Mon Feb 10 16:30:47 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:30:47 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Chair selection results
Message-ID: <52F8E297.3020107@acm.org>


To Maria as Chair and
to Rudi as Alternate-chair

I have closed the poll.

11 people voted.  10 of them put their names in.  One did not, but the 
vote was taken right after I asked someone to vote.   Actually this 
happened twice, but one person did edit their entry to put their name in.

One person voted no preference.

Counting all 11 votes:

Most popular option: Maria Farrell

	Rudi Vansnick 	Maria Farrell
	4 	              6

Counting just 10 named votes:

Most popular option: Maria Farrell

	Rudi Vansnick 	Maria Farrell
	4 	              5


With this note of record and congratulations
I hand the floor over to the new chair and alt-char.

avri
alt-chair 2013



From mailer  Mon Feb 10 16:34:05 2014
From: mailer (avri doria via Doodle)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:34:05 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [PC-NCSG] For Chair of the NCSG-PC
Message-ID: <840567560.58214.1392042845579.POLL_INVITECONTACT_PARTICIPANT_FINALPICK.doodle@worker2>

Hi there,

avri doria has chosen the following final option in the poll ?For
Chair of the NCSG-PC?:

Maria Farrell 


avri doria says:
{actually it was you all that selected.  Not me, but that is the way
doodle wrtes it.)

Go to poll
https://doodle.com/yazauuu4csfgv8zw?tmail=poll_invitecontact_participant_finalpick&tlink=pollbtn

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You have received this e-mail because "avri doria" has invited you to
participate in the Doodle poll "For Chair of the NCSG-PC."

----

Doodle AG, Werdstrasse 21, 8021 Z?rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140210/6ef64076/attachment-0001.html>


From mllemineur  Mon Feb 10 16:37:32 2014
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 08:37:32 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Chair selection results
In-Reply-To: <52F8E297.3020107@acm.org>
References: <52F8E297.3020107@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqHTz3imFx6Lmr9HBGTst66cqfW1=MUAVgV8wqtaQi8Y_g@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Avri,

Many thanks for taking care of the process. To Maria and Rudi
congratulations !!! I am sure they will make an excellent team !

Best,

Marie-laure


On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
> To Maria as Chair and
> to Rudi as Alternate-chair
>
> I have closed the poll.
>
> 11 people voted.  10 of them put their names in.  One did not, but the
> vote was taken right after I asked someone to vote.   Actually this
> happened twice, but one person did edit their entry to put their name in.
>
> One person voted no preference.
>
> Counting all 11 votes:
>
> Most popular option: Maria Farrell
>
>         Rudi Vansnick   Maria Farrell
>         4                     6
>
> Counting just 10 named votes:
>
> Most popular option: Maria Farrell
>
>         Rudi Vansnick   Maria Farrell
>         4                     5
>
>
> With this note of record and congratulations
> I hand the floor over to the new chair and alt-char.
>
> avri
> alt-chair 2013
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140210/006bad12/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Mon Feb 10 16:49:12 2014
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 12:49:12 -0200
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Chair selection results
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqHTz3imFx6Lmr9HBGTst66cqfW1=MUAVgV8wqtaQi8Y_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52F8E297.3020107@acm.org>
	<CAD3sNqHTz3imFx6Lmr9HBGTst66cqfW1=MUAVgV8wqtaQi8Y_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK33YgO+P=xYHnmNh2SktVv_wndKuCM+YufSyDveQ9d_RQ@mail.gmail.com>

Excellent. Congratulations to both.
And thank you very much, Avri.
Mar?lia


On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:37 PM, marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Dear Avri,
>
> Many thanks for taking care of the process. To Maria and Rudi
> congratulations !!! I am sure they will make an excellent team !
>
> Best,
>
> Marie-laure
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> To Maria as Chair and
>> to Rudi as Alternate-chair
>>
>> I have closed the poll.
>>
>> 11 people voted.  10 of them put their names in.  One did not, but the
>> vote was taken right after I asked someone to vote.   Actually this
>> happened twice, but one person did edit their entry to put their name in.
>>
>> One person voted no preference.
>>
>> Counting all 11 votes:
>>
>> Most popular option: Maria Farrell
>>
>>         Rudi Vansnick   Maria Farrell
>>         4                     6
>>
>> Counting just 10 named votes:
>>
>> Most popular option: Maria Farrell
>>
>>         Rudi Vansnick   Maria Farrell
>>         4                     5
>>
>>
>> With this note of record and congratulations
>> I hand the floor over to the new chair and alt-char.
>>
>> avri
>> alt-chair 2013
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


-- 
*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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140210/018632d3/attachment.html>


From maria.farrell  Mon Feb 10 17:11:14 2014
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:11:14 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Chair selection results
In-Reply-To: <CACpVkK33YgO+P=xYHnmNh2SktVv_wndKuCM+YufSyDveQ9d_RQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52F8E297.3020107@acm.org>
	<CAD3sNqHTz3imFx6Lmr9HBGTst66cqfW1=MUAVgV8wqtaQi8Y_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpVkK33YgO+P=xYHnmNh2SktVv_wndKuCM+YufSyDveQ9d_RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdBdgW9shfiuH5iWkSrJoZNEmS20S5rau_bzWu=Rj_j=TA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

Thanks a million for running this.

And my thanks to everyone who voted.

Rudi - looking forward to working with you! (Shall we organise a skype chat
to start coordinating?)

All the best, Maria




On 10 February 2014 14:49, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:

> Excellent. Congratulations to both.
> And thank you very much, Avri.
> Mar?lia
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 12:37 PM, marie-laure Lemineur <
> mllemineur at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Avri,
>>
>> Many thanks for taking care of the process. To Maria and Rudi
>> congratulations !!! I am sure they will make an excellent team !
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Marie-laure
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 8:30 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> To Maria as Chair and
>>> to Rudi as Alternate-chair
>>>
>>> I have closed the poll.
>>>
>>> 11 people voted.  10 of them put their names in.  One did not, but the
>>> vote was taken right after I asked someone to vote.   Actually this
>>> happened twice, but one person did edit their entry to put their name in.
>>>
>>> One person voted no preference.
>>>
>>> Counting all 11 votes:
>>>
>>> Most popular option: Maria Farrell
>>>
>>>         Rudi Vansnick   Maria Farrell
>>>         4                     6
>>>
>>> Counting just 10 named votes:
>>>
>>> Most popular option: Maria Farrell
>>>
>>>         Rudi Vansnick   Maria Farrell
>>>         4                     5
>>>
>>>
>>> With this note of record and congratulations
>>> I hand the floor over to the new chair and alt-char.
>>>
>>> avri
>>> alt-chair 2013
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140210/e8dd34c9/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Feb 11 13:37:15 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 20:37:15 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] Proposed Modifications to GNSO Operating
 Procedures to Address Resubmission of Motions and Working Group Self
 Assessment
In-Reply-To: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F69624F47@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F69624F47@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkP3_wavVDVX01tqqH75u0yRGTj7r8rB6z7i4Jpgf1GAQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

a way to welcome new chair and alt-chair with some topic for public comment
:) in addition to those in backlog like ATRT.

I think that the first step is to list all open public comment period
statement and having some prioritisation, then having volunteer for each
topic to follow-up/drafting/editing. we should use the confluence space for
that purpose

Best Regards,

Rafik
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
Date: 2014-02-11 20:23 GMT+09:00
Subject: [liaison6c] Proposed Modifications to GNSO Operating Procedures to
Address Resubmission of Motions and Working Group Self Assessment
To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>




https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10feb14-en.htm
Proposed Modifications to GNSO Operating Procedures to Address Resubmission
of Motions and Working Group Self Assessment

Comment / Reply Periods (*)

Comment Open Date: 10 February 2014

Comment Close Date: 3 March 2014 - 23:59 UTC

Reply Open Date: 4 March 2014

Reply Close Date: 1 April 2014 - 23:59 UTC

Important Information Links

Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10feb14-en.htm>

To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<comments-gnso-op-procedures-10feb14 at icann.org>

View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-op-procedures-10feb14/>

Brief Overview

Originating Organization:

Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)

Categories/Tags:

   - Policy Processes
   - Reviews/Improvements

Purpose (Brief):

The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Standing Committee on
Improvements Implementation (SCI) is recommending a modification of: (1)
the GNSO Operating Procedures to Resubmission of Motions; and (2) the GNSO
Working Group (WG) Guidelines to Add a WG Self Assessment Mechanism.

Current Status:

As required by the ICANN Bylaws, a public comment forum is hereby initiated
on the proposed changes prior to GNSO Council consideration.

Next Steps:

Following the closing of the public comment forum, the SCI will review the
comments received; revise its recommendations, if deemed appropriate, and;
submit these to the GNSO Council for approval.

Staff Contact:

Julie Hedlund

Email Staff Contact<Policy-staff at icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Proposed%20Modifications%20to%20GNSO%20Operating%20Procedures%20to%20Address%20Resubmission%20of%20Motions%20and%20Working%20Group%20Self%20Assessment%20public%20comment%20period>

Detailed Information

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose:

The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) was established
by the GNSO Council on 7 April 2011 as a standing committee of the GNSO,
responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of the
GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines. As part of its
charter, the SCI is tasked to consider requests concerning issues related
to the GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group
Guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group
chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion. This public comment
forum is being opened in relation to two proposed changes to the GNSO
Operating Procedures being recommended by the SCI.

The current GNSO Operating Procedures do not contain a specific provision
on the possibility of resubmitting a motion for voting by the GNSO Council.
In addition, the current GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which form Annex I
of the GNSO Operating Procedures, do not contain a mechanism for WGs to
self-assess their work. As a result, the GNSO Council requested that the
SCI consider whether there should be a modification to the GNSO Council
Operating Procedures to address the issue of the resubmission of a motion.
In addition, the GNSO Council asked the SCI to develop a survey that WGs
could use to perform a self-assessment once their work is complete.

Accordingly, the SCI developed procedures to be inserted in Section 4.3
(Motions and Votes) of the GNSO Operating Procedures that provide for the
resubmission of a motion to the GNSO Council for consideration at a
subsequent meeting of the Council, if three criteria are followed: 1)
providing of an explanation for the resubmission; 2) timely publication of
the resubmitted motion, and 3) seconding of the resubmitted motion by a
Councilor from each of the two GNSO Houses. The proposed new procedures
also include limitations and exceptions for the resubmission of a motion
concerning the timing of its submission, disallowing any material changes
to the original motion, and clarifying that a previously-submitted motion
not voted upon by the GNSO Council is considered a new motion (and not
resubmitted) if it is brought before the GNSO Council again.  Please see
the redlined version of Section 4.3 of the GNSO Operating
Procedures<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-voting-redline-10feb14-en.pdf>[PDF,
148 KB].

In addition, the SCI developed and tested a WG self-assessment
questionnaire, as a result of which the SCI is recommending that procedures
for administering the self-assessment be added as a new Section 7.0 to the
GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which form Annex I of the GNSO Operating
Procedures. In the self-assessment questionnaire WG members are asked a
series of questions about the WG processes and outputs. ICANN staff is
required to monitor responses to the questionnaire, close the questionnaire
when all WG members have completed it, and provide a summary of responses
to the WG Chair. Please see the redlined version of Annex I to the GNSO
Operating Procedures<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-guidelines-redline-10feb14-en.pdf>[PDF,
242 KB].

As required by the ICANN Bylaws, the SCI is requesting community input on
these proposed modifications to the GNSO Operating Procedures.

Section II: Background:

The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) was established
by the GNSO Council on 7 April 2011 as a standing committee of the GNSO,
responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of the
GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines. As part of its
charter, the SCI is tasked to consider requests concerning issues related
to the GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group
Guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group
chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion. The SCI operates on
the basis of the GNSO WG Guidelines, and its recommendations are made based
on Full Consensus of the SCI on the proposals under consideration. Each
GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency appoints a representative to the
SCI. Other members of the SCI include a Nominating Committee appointee and
an observer from any GNSO constituency-in-formation (if any). The SCI may
also appoint observers from other ICANN Supporting Organizations and
Advisory Committee. For further information about the SCI and its
activities, please see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/Home.

Section III: Document and Resource Links:

Current version of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures ? see GNSO
Operating Procedures v2.7 (13 June
2013)<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf>[PDF,
556 KB].

Section IV: Additional Information:

Not applicable
------------------------------

(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed
to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or
decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.





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/20140211/ed214f86/attachment.html>


From avri  Thu Feb 13 18:28:15 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 11:28:15 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Non Contracted Parties House Election
 Procedures 2011
In-Reply-To: <B6C3FCC2-C537-49B5-BEE4-49ED00CA7238@uzh.ch>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F69625082@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<B6C3FCC2-C537-49B5-BEE4-49ED00CA7238@uzh.ch>
Message-ID: <52FCF29F.8050802@acm.org>

Hi,

Just checking:

Are you suggesting that each of NCUC and NPOC pick someone and then we 
have a NCSG primary for its pick?

Not that I am recommending it, might be interesting though.

What we do not have is a process for picking a candidate.  Last time, I 
talk to bunch of people and put myself forward - no one objected (seeing 
how i did, perhaps they should have - strategically I mean)

In any case I think this is the sort of thing that NCSG EC/PC had better 
figure out quickly.

In any case, I plan to put my self forward again for the NCSG/NCUC 
consideration for a rematch - I won the first ballot, he the second, who 
would win the third?

Though perhaps we could find a better strategic choice. We need a 
candidate who can get some of the CSG votes, otherwise we don't stand a 
chance. Also while a candidate can sometimes count on SG support in the 
first round of an election, it is very hard to hold all of the SG votes 
in a second round.  I think this is a general rule of such rounds of 
voting.  In that case the one with the stronger unifying force tends to 
be persuasive.

avri


On 13-Feb-14 06:14, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> Among the many things we need to do is decide who we would like to
> represent the non contracted house party on the ICANN board.  The
> current occupant is Bill Graham, who was elected by the business folks
> with NomCom participant support (we?d proposed Avri).  I expect Bill
> will stand for reelection.
>
> Bill
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> *From: *Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org <mailto:Glen at icann.org>>
>> *Subject: **RE: Non Contracted Parties House Election Procedures 2011*
>> *Date: *February 13, 2014 at 10:15:21 AM GMT+1
>> *To: *"Rosette, Kristina" <krosette at cov.com
>> <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, "tony holmes (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com
>> <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>)" <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com
>> <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>, "elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com
>> <mailto:elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>" <elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com
>> <mailto:elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>>, Rafik Dammak
>> <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, William
>> Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>,
>> "marie-laure Lemineur (mllemineur at gmail.com
>> <mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>)" <mllemineur at gmail.com
>> <mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>>, "Reed, Daniel A (dan-reed at uiowa.edu
>> <mailto:dan-reed at uiowa.edu>)" <dan-reed at uiowa.edu
>> <mailto:dan-reed at uiowa.edu>>
>> *Cc: *Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org
>> <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>, Erika Randall
>> <erika.randall at icann.org <mailto:erika.randall at icann.org>>, David
>> Olive <david.olive at icann.org <mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>
>>
>> Dear Kristina,
>> Per ICANN?s Counsel, Erika Randall whom I asked to confirm the date of
>> the written notice, she confirmed as follows:
>> >Yes, you will need to give a written notice to the ICANN Secretary by
>> April 16, 2014 of the person selected for Board Seat 14. (This is the
>> date six months prior to the ICANN Annual General Meeting >scheduled
>> to be held in Los Angeles on October 16, 2014).
>>
>> Please advise what timelines  the Non Contracted Parties House
>> suggests for the process.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Glen
>> *De :*Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette at cov.com]
>> *Envoy? :*mercredi 12 f?vrier 2014 21:23
>> *? :*Glen de Saint G?ry; tony holmes(tonyarholmes at btinternet.com
>> <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>);elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com
>> <mailto:elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>; Rafik Dammak; William Drake;
>> marie-laure Lemineur (mllemineur at gmail.com
>> <mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>); Reed, Daniel A (dan-reed at uiowa.edu
>> <mailto:dan-reed at uiowa.edu>)
>> *Cc :*Marika Konings; Erika Randall; David Olive
>> *Objet :*RE: Non Contracted Parties House Election Procedures 2011
>> With apologies as I suspect I may not be taking everything into
>> account, am I correct in thinking that the Call for Nominations (under
>> the GNSO Operating Procedures) opens in May because Bill?s term ends
>> in October?  And, if so, we need to have the House procedures
>> finalized by the end of April (which means we have some time)?
>> K
>> *From:*Glen de Saint G?ry [mailto:Glen at icann.org]
>> *Sent:*Wednesday, February 12, 2014 8:26 AM
>> *To:*Rosette, Kristina; tony holmes (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com
>> <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>);elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com
>> <mailto:elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>; Rafik Dammak; William Drake;
>> marie-laure Lemineur (mllemineur at gmail.com
>> <mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>); Reed, Daniel A (dan-reed at uiowa.edu
>> <mailto:dan-reed at uiowa.edu>)
>> *Cc:*Marika Konings; Erika Randall; David Olive; Glen de Saint G?ry
>> *Subject:*Non Contracted Parties House Election Procedures 2011
>> To : Non Contracted Parties House
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> In preparation for the Non Contracted Parties House Election for Board
>> Seat 14, it has come to our notice that the attached 2011 Election
>> Procedures were not posted in accordance with theGNSO Operating
>> Procedures
>> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf>. Would
>> you please be so kind as to confirm these voting procedures so that
>> they can be included as required under theGNSO Operating Procedures.
>> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf>
>>
>> Election procedures are defined in theGNSO Operating Procedures
>> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf>.
>> 2.4 Board Seat Elections
>> 2.4.3 Detailed Election Procedures
>>
>> Each House is responsible for establishing its own internal procedures
>> for nominations,
>> interviews, voting, and candidate selection; however, those processes
>> must be documented
>> and forwarded to the GNSO Council for inclusion as ANNEXES to the GNSO
>> Operating
>> Procedures. If a House subsequently elects to alter its procedures,
>> such amendments must be
>> submitted to the GNSO Council before becoming effective so that the
>> procedures accurately
>> reflect the actual processes and activities performed by each House in
>> selecting its candidate.
>> Thank you for your urgent attention to this.
>> 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/>
>
> ***********************************************
> 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>
> ***********************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>



From avri  Fri Feb 14 19:45:08 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 12:45:08 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Feb 28th Council meeting
Message-ID: <52FE5624.5000502@acm.org>

Hi,

The 28th is going to be the last day of the WGEC meeting.  The GNSO 
Council meeting falls smack in the middle of the day.

It is foolish for me to expect to make it.

If Maria is willing to take it, I would like my proxy passed on to her 
for the meeting.

thanks

avri



From maria.farrell  Fri Feb 14 20:37:57 2014
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 18:37:57 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Feb 28th Council meeting
In-Reply-To: <52FE5624.5000502@acm.org>
References: <52FE5624.5000502@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdC-508mmsY2X-LQUBeipdAdZTfyrxTxYkm2JZ=mxcO-zQ@mail.gmail.com>

RIghto, Avri.

Happy to do it.

Maria



On 14 February 2014 17:45, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The 28th is going to be the last day of the WGEC meeting.  The GNSO
> Council meeting falls smack in the middle of the day.
>
> It is foolish for me to expect to make it.
>
> If Maria is willing to take it, I would like my proxy passed on to her for
> the meeting.
>
> thanks
>
> avri
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140214/e7dac018/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Sun Feb 16 15:06:00 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 22:06:00 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Feb 28th Council meeting
In-Reply-To: <52FE5624.5000502@acm.org>
References: <52FE5624.5000502@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkL=1xboNkabcRAvgzKraAFGgXiY2+0JmoCfzAc9EJzmg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

Thanks for informing beforehand, I will submit the vote proxy request.

Best Regards,

Rafik


2014-02-15 2:45 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

> Hi,
>
> The 28th is going to be the last day of the WGEC meeting.  The GNSO
> Council meeting falls smack in the middle of the day.
>
> It is foolish for me to expect to make it.
>
> If Maria is willing to take it, I would like my proxy passed on to her for
> the meeting.
>
> thanks
>
> avri
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140216/0c86a485/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Sun Feb 16 15:11:00 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 22:11:00 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] Qualified Launch Program for New gTLD
	Registries
In-Reply-To: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F69625181@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F6962517F@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F69625181@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThk_L67WLE8aCLHe2g+koUCk93DgSz6iq_Z++9Om1KmSHw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

new public comment open, do we have in NCSG any opinion about this topic?

Best Regards,

Rafik
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
Date: 2014-02-15 3:11 GMT+09:00
Subject: [liaison6c] Qualified Launch Program for New gTLD Registries
To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>




https://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/qlp-addendum-13feb14-en.htm
Qualified Launch Program for New gTLD Registries

Comment / Reply Periods (*)

Comment Open Date: 13 February 2014

Comment Close Date: 28 February 2014 - 23:59 UTC

Reply Open Date: 1 March 2014

Reply Close Date: 15 March 2014 - 23:59 UTC

Important Information Links

Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-13feb14-en.htm>

To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <comments-qlp-addendum-13feb14 at icann.org>

View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-qlp-addendum-13feb14/>

Brief Overview

Originating Organization:

ICANN

Categories/Tags:

   - Contracted Party Agreements
   - Intellectual Property
   - Top-Level Domains

Purpose (Brief):

As contemplated by the Trademark Clearinghouse Rights Protection Mechanism
Requirements, a Qualified Launch Program may be developed. A draft of
the Qualified
Launch Program Addendum<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/rpm-requirements-qlp-addendum-13feb14-en.pdf>[PDF,
84 KB] (the "QLP Addendum") is being posted for comment to give the
community an opportunity to review and provide feedback.

Current Status:

The draft QLP Addendum reflects ICANN's review and analysis regarding the
feasibility of and implementation mechanics for a Qualified Launch Program
as well as its potential impact on intellectual property rights. The
Addendum is being posted to allow stakeholders to review and comment on the
QLP Addendum.

The public comment period is on an accelerated timeline to enable follow-up
consideration so that if the QLP is adopted, as many new TLD operators as
possible can take advantage of it.

Next Steps:

Public comment will be analyzed and taken into account by ICANN. If
approved by ICANN following this process, the QLP Addendum will be
automatically incorporated into the TMCH Requirements without any further
action of ICANN or any Registry Operator. All Registry Operators will
thereafter be permitted to have a Qualified Launch Program in accordance
with the terms of the approved QLP Addendum, and will not need to seek
ICANN's approval to implement the Qualified Launch Program.

Staff Contact:

Karen Lentz

Email Staff Contact<karen.lentz at icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Qualified%20Launch%20Program%20for%20New%20gTLD%20Registries%20public%20comment%20period>

Detailed Information

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose:

Section 3.2 of Specification 5 of the gTLD Registry Agreement allows a
Registry Operator to register up to 100 domain names to itself. Section
4.5.1 of the Trademark Clearinghouse Rights Protection Mechanism
Requirements (the "TMCH Requirements") contemplated the possibility,
subject to ICANN's further review and analysis, that Registry Operators
could offer a "Qualified Launch Program" in which they could register these
domain names to third parties for the purposes of promoting their TLDs.

The Qualified Launch Program is intended to provide a mechanism for
Registry Operators to register a limited number of names to third parties
to promote their TLDs prior to the Sunrise period, while maintaining
safeguards against intellectual property infringement. The draft is being
published for comment to gather additional input from interested
stakeholders.

Section II: Background:

Having conducted a review and analysis regarding the feasibility of and
implementation mechanics for a Qualified Launch Program as well as its
potential impact on intellectual property rights, ICANN has developed the
attached QLP Addendum.

If approved, the QLP Addendum will allow a Registry Operator to register
some or all of the 100 domain names referenced in Section 3.2 of
Specification 5 to third parties prior to the Sunrise Period for the TLD
under certain conditions. Under the proposed QLP Addendum, if a domain name
under a Qualified Launch Program does not match a label registered in the
Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH), the domain name may be registered in a
Qualified Launch Program to any third party. On the other hand, if the
domain name does match a label in the TMCH, the domain name may only be
registered to a Sunrise-Eligible Rights Holder (as defined in the TMCH
Requirements) in the Qualified Launch Program. In the case of geographic
TLDs, names may also be registered to public authorities under the
Qualified Launch Program, subject to certain requirements. Each domain name
registered in a Qualified Launch Program will reduce the number of domain
names available to a Registry Operator under Section 3.2 of Specification 5.

Section III: Document and Resource Links:

   - TMCH Requirements<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/trademark-clearinghouse/rpm-requirements-30sep13-en.pdf>[PDF,
167 KB]
   - Registry Agreement<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/agreement-approved-02jul13-en.pdf>[PDF,
2.15 MB]

Section IV: Additional Information:

N/A
------------------------------

(*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed
to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or
decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.





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/20140216/8b3388b2/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Sun Feb 16 15:14:34 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 22:14:34 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Non Contracted Parties House Election Procedures 2011
In-Reply-To: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F69624FF6@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F69624FF6@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkmpJFDsgbJ8-J09Z_hRce9-WdDj_JruV06U6PZ12-uHg@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

we have this election to handle and to discuss with CSG counterpart about
the process for nomination and election. we need to have elected board
member by 16th April, we have 2 months to handle this process.

Best Regards,

Rafik
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
Date: 2014-02-12 22:26 GMT+09:00
Subject: Non Contracted Parties House Election Procedures 2011
To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette at cov.com>, "tony holmes (
tonyarholmes at btinternet.com)" <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "
elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com" <elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>, Rafik Dammak <
rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>, "marie-laure
Lemineur (mllemineur at gmail.com)" <mllemineur at gmail.com>, "Reed, Daniel A (
dan-reed at uiowa.edu)" <dan-reed at uiowa.edu>
Cc: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>, Erika Randall <
erika.randall at icann.org>, David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>, Glen de
Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>


To : Non Contracted Parties House

Dear All,

In preparation for the Non Contracted Parties House Election for Board Seat
14, it has come to our notice that the attached 2011 Election Procedures
were not posted in accordance with the GNSO Operating
Procedures<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf>.
Would you please be so kind as to confirm these voting procedures so that
they can be included as required under the GNSO Operating
Procedures.<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf>

Election procedures are defined in the GNSO Operating
Procedures<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf>
.
2.4 Board Seat Elections
2.4.3 Detailed Election Procedures

Each House is responsible for establishing its own internal procedures for
nominations,

interviews, voting, and candidate selection; however, those processes must
be documented

and forwarded to the GNSO Council for inclusion as ANNEXES to the GNSO
Operating

Procedures. If a House subsequently elects to alter its procedures, such
amendments must be

submitted to the GNSO Council before becoming effective so that the
procedures accurately

reflect the actual processes and activities performed by each House in
selecting its candidate.



Thank you for your urgent attention to this.

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/20140216/25ae15c1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Non Contracted Parties House Election Procedure for Board Seat 14.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 29184 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140216/25ae15c1/attachment-0001.doc>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Feb 18 15:07:11 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 22:07:11 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: REMINDER from GNSO Policy & Implementation WG :
 Request for input (NCUC)
In-Reply-To: <CAE0gvYACCy6PvqEzQax1kTKPwRPUYnmZyAypK0ST0r3AF3XnYQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAE0gvYACCy6PvqEzQax1kTKPwRPUYnmZyAypK0ST0r3AF3XnYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=gJ3_RSwCgRZpXgquQ5Pw-S=hovqJu2QTs37mWsGiL3w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

is there any plan to respond to P&I WG questions. the WG co-chairs are
sending request through Olivier who is also NCSG member.
I think that Amr and Stephanie are WG members, can you please help for this?

Best Regards,

Rafik
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Olivier Kouami <olivierkouami at gmail.com>
Date: 2014-02-18 16:02 GMT+09:00
Subject: REMINDER from GNSO Policy & Implementation WG : Request for input
(NCUC)
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, William Drake <
william.drake at uzh.ch>
Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org" <gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org>


Dear Rafik,

I wanted to take the opportunity to follow up with you concerning the
request for input that your group received a while back from the Policy &
Implementation Working Group (see below). The WG would be interested to
know whether your group plans to submit a response, if so, when you
estimate it will be sent.


The P & I WG would also like to let you know that responses to just a few
of the questions that are of special interest to your group would be
welcome as are general statements of any concerns regarding the issues
related to policy and implementation that are of particular interest to
your group.


Please kindly note that additional opportunities for feedback are expected
to occur later on in the process, for example with the publication of the
Initial Report for public comment.

Best regards

For the P&I WG,
Olevie KOUAMI
co-Vice Chair

=======================================
Message to the NCUC

From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
Date: Friday 6 December 2013 11:35
To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, William Drake <
william.drake at uzh.ch>

Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org" <gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org>, "
gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] Policy & Implementation - Request for
Input





Dear SG/Constituency Chair:



We are the Chairs of the newly constituted Policy & Implementation Working
Group.  This Working Group (WG) has been tasked with providing the GNSO
Council with a set of recommendations on the following issues:

   - A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy implementation
   related discussions, taking into account existing GNSO procedures;
   - A process for developing gTLD policy, perhaps in the form of ?Policy
   Guidance,? including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use such
   a process (for a process developing something other than ?Consensus
   Policy?) instead of the GNSO Policy Development Process;
   - A framework for implementation related discussions associated with
   GNSO Policy recommendations;
   - Criteria to be used to determine when an action should be addressed by
   a policy process and when it should be considered implementation; and
   - Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams, as defined
   in the PDP Manual, are expected to function and operate.



As part of the effort, the WG wants to reach out at the beginning of our
efforts to the various GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies as we
have already done to other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees
to gain input to assist us in our efforts.  In this regard, we would ask
for your organization to consider the following questions which are set out
in the WG?s Charter and provide us with your input on any of these issues
by 31 January 2014.



   1. What guidance do the ICANN core values (Bylaws Article 1, Sec. 2)
   directly provide with regard to policy development work and policy
   implementation efforts? (e.g., multi-stakeholder participation).
   2.  What guidance do other ICANN core values provide that relate
   indirectly to policy development and policy implementation?  (e.g.,
   effective and timely process).
   3. ?Questions for Discussion? contained in the Policy versus
   Implementation Draft Framework prepared by ICANN staff.  (See,
   http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/policy-implementation-31jan13-en.htm
   ).
   4. What lessons can be learned from past experience?


   1. What are the consequences of action being considered ?policy? vs.
      ?implementation??
      2. Does it matter if something is ?policy? or ?implementation??  If
      so, why?
      3. Under what circumstances, if any, should the GNSO Council make
      recommendations or state positions to the Board on matters of policy and
      implementation as a representative of the GNSO as a whole?
      4. How do we avoid the current morass of outcome-derived labeling
      (i.e., I will call this ?policy? because I want certain consequences or
      ?handling instructions? to be attached to it?)
      5. Can we answer these questions so the definitions of ?policy? and
      ?implementation? matter less, if at all?


   1. What options are available for policy (?Consensus Policy? or other)
   and implementation efforts and what are the criteria for determining which
   should be used?


   1. Are ?policy? and ?implementation? on a spectrum rather than binary?
      2. What are the ?flavors? of policy and what consequences should
      attach to each ?flavor?
      3. What happens if you change those consequences?


   1. Who determines the choice of whether something is ?policy? or
   ?implementation??


   1. How is policy set/recommended/adopted and do different paths lead to
      different ?flavors??
      2. How is the ?policy? versus ?implementation? issue reviewed and
      approved?
      3. What happens if reviewing bodies come to a deadlock?


   1. What is the process by which this identification, analysis, review
   and approval work is done?


   1. How are ?policy and implementation? issues first identified (before,
      during and after implementation)?
      2. What is the role of the GNSO in implementation?
      3. In order to maintain the multi-stakeholder process, once policy
      moves to implementation, how should the community be involved in
a way that
      is meaningful and effective?
      4. Should policy staff be involved through the implementation process
      to facilitate continuity of the multi-stakeholder process that already
      occurred?



Alternatively, if you would prefer to set up an exchange of views by
teleconference, the Working Group would welcome such an approach as well.



Finally, we would like to remind you that the WG is open to the full
community and we welcome any additional members from your organization that
my wish to participate in this work. To review the current membership,
please see https://community.icann.org/x/81V-Ag.



Thank you in advance for your consideration.  Please do not hesitate to
reach out to either of us if you have any questions or if you require any
additional information.



Kind regards.



Chuck Gomes (cgomes at verisign.com)

J. Scott Evans (jscottevans at outlook.com)
-- 
Ol?vi? (Olivier) A. A. KOUAMI
Membre de ISoc (www.isog.org) & du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net)
DG Ets GIDA-OKTETS & CEO de INTIC4DEV (http://www.intic4dev.org)
PC Vice Chair for Francophone Africa ICANN-NCSG/NPOC (http://www.npoc.org/)
SG de ESTETIC  (http://www.estetic.tg)
Po Box : 851 - T?l.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 928 512 41 / (228) 224 999 25
Skype : olevie1 Facebook : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lom? ? Togo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140218/29317468/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Feb 18 15:38:16 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 14:38:16 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] REMINDER from GNSO Policy & Implementation WG :
	Request for input (NCUC)
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=gJ3_RSwCgRZpXgquQ5Pw-S=hovqJu2QTs37mWsGiL3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAE0gvYACCy6PvqEzQax1kTKPwRPUYnmZyAypK0ST0r3AF3XnYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=gJ3_RSwCgRZpXgquQ5Pw-S=hovqJu2QTs37mWsGiL3w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F933C04E-E9CB-4D67-9AD6-56DEC9885990@egyptig.org>

Hi Rafik,

Yeah?, I had been trying to come up with what could pass as an NCSG statement, but have been having trouble doing so. To be honest, when I joined this working group, I did so out of concern that radical changes would be made to the bottom-up pdp. I?m not personally aware of any changes that I am in favour of regarding the GNSO Operating Procedures, the GNSO WG Operating Guidelines or Annex A of the by-laws (except for maybe some changes/clarifications on WG consensus levels that is a topic that will be tackled soon by the SCI). These are the principle rules/regs being looked at.

If anyone else has input on these, I?d be grateful. So far, I?ve been active on the first two sub-teams of this WG?, and by saying active?, I mean trying to be helpful in steering the future of the course of this WG within the confines of its charter.

Perhaps we should take this to the full NCSG list?? ?, and btw?, so far only two comments have come in; one from ALAC and one from the Registries.

Thanks.

Amr

PS: Avri and David are also on this WG, and as indicated below, Olivier is part of the WG leadership team.

On Feb 18, 2014, at 2:07 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> is there any plan to respond to P&I WG questions. the WG co-chairs are sending request through Olivier who is also NCSG member.
> I think that Amr and Stephanie are WG members, can you please help for this?
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Rafik
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Olivier Kouami <olivierkouami at gmail.com>
> Date: 2014-02-18 16:02 GMT+09:00
> Subject: REMINDER from GNSO Policy & Implementation WG : Request for input (NCUC)
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org" <gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org>
> 
> 
> Dear Rafik,
> I wanted to take the opportunity to follow up with you concerning the request for input that your group received a while back from the Policy & Implementation Working Group (see below). The WG would be interested to know whether your group plans to submit a response, if so, when you estimate it will be sent.
> 
> The P & I WG would also like to let you know that responses to just a few of the questions that are of special interest to your group would be welcome as are general statements of any concerns regarding the issues related to policy and implementation that are of particular interest to your group.
> 
> Please kindly note that additional opportunities for feedback are expected to occur later on in the process, for example with the publication of the Initial Report for public comment.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> For the P&I WG,
> Olevie KOUAMI
> co-Vice Chair
> 
> =======================================
> Message to the NCUC
> 
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: Friday 6 December 2013 11:35
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
> 
> 
> Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org" <gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] Policy & Implementation - Request for Input
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Dear SG/Constituency Chair:
> 
>  
> 
> We are the Chairs of the newly constituted Policy & Implementation Working Group.  This Working Group (WG) has been tasked with providing the GNSO Council with a set of recommendations on the following issues:
> 
> A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy implementation related discussions, taking into account existing GNSO procedures;
> A process for developing gTLD policy, perhaps in the form of ?Policy Guidance,? including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use such a process (for a process developing something other than ?Consensus Policy?) instead of the GNSO Policy Development Process;
> A framework for implementation related discussions associated with GNSO Policy recommendations;
> Criteria to be used to determine when an action should be addressed by a policy process and when it should be considered implementation; and
> Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams, as defined in the PDP Manual, are expected to function and operate.
>  
> 
> As part of the effort, the WG wants to reach out at the beginning of our efforts to the various GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies as we have already done to other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to gain input to assist us in our efforts.  In this regard, we would ask for your organization to consider the following questions which are set out in the WG?s Charter and provide us with your input on any of these issues by 31 January 2014.
> 
>  
> 
> What guidance do the ICANN core values (Bylaws Article 1, Sec. 2) directly provide with regard to policy development work and policy implementation efforts? (e.g., multi-stakeholder participation).
>  What guidance do other ICANN core values provide that relate indirectly to policy development and policy implementation?  (e.g., effective and timely process).
> ?Questions for Discussion? contained in the Policy versus Implementation Draft Framework prepared by ICANN staff.  (See, http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/policy-implementation-31jan13-en.htm).
> What lessons can be learned from past experience?
> What are the consequences of action being considered ?policy? vs. 
> ?implementation??
> Does it matter if something is ?policy? or ?implementation??  If so, why?
> Under what circumstances, if any, should the GNSO Council make recommendations or state positions to the Board on matters of policy and implementation as a representative of the GNSO as a whole?
> How do we avoid the current morass of outcome-derived labeling (i.e., I will call this ?policy? because I want certain consequences or ?handling instructions? to be attached to it?)
> Can we answer these questions so the definitions of ?policy? and ?implementation? matter less, if at all?
> What options are available for policy (?Consensus Policy? or other) and implementation efforts and what are the criteria for determining which should be used?
> Are ?policy? and ?implementation? on a spectrum rather than binary?
> What are the ?flavors? of policy and what consequences should attach to each ?flavor?
> What happens if you change those consequences?
> Who determines the choice of whether something is ?policy? or ?implementation??
> How is policy set/recommended/adopted and do different paths lead to different ?flavors??
> How is the ?policy? versus ?implementation? issue reviewed and approved?
> What happens if reviewing bodies come to a deadlock?
> What is the process by which this identification, analysis, review and approval work is done?
> How are ?policy and implementation? issues first identified (before, during and after implementation)?
> What is the role of the GNSO in implementation?
> In order to maintain the multi-stakeholder process, once policy moves to implementation, how should the community be involved in a way that is meaningful and effective?
> Should policy staff be involved through the implementation process to facilitate continuity of the multi-stakeholder process that already occurred?
>  
> 
> Alternatively, if you would prefer to set up an exchange of views by teleconference, the Working Group would welcome such an approach as well.
> 
>  
> 
> Finally, we would like to remind you that the WG is open to the full community and we welcome any additional members from your organization that my wish to participate in this work. To review the current membership, please see https://community.icann.org/x/81V-Ag.
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you in advance for your consideration.  Please do not hesitate to reach out to either of us if you have any questions or if you require any additional information.
> 
>  
> 
> Kind regards.
> 
>  
> 
> Chuck Gomes (cgomes at verisign.com)
> 
> J. Scott Evans (jscottevans at outlook.com)
> 
> -- 
> Ol?vi? (Olivier) A. A. KOUAMI
> Membre de ISoc (www.isog.org) & du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net) 
> DG Ets GIDA-OKTETS & CEO de INTIC4DEV (http://www.intic4dev.org)
> PC Vice Chair for Francophone Africa ICANN-NCSG/NPOC (http://www.npoc.org/)
> SG de ESTETIC  (http://www.estetic.tg)
> Po Box : 851 - T?l.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 928 512 41 / (228) 224 999 25
> Skype : olevie1 Facebook : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lom? ? Togo
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140218/1e783542/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Feb 19 13:58:20 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:58:20 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] REMINDER from GNSO Policy & Implementation WG :
 Request for input (NCUC)
In-Reply-To: <F933C04E-E9CB-4D67-9AD6-56DEC9885990@egyptig.org>
References: <CAE0gvYACCy6PvqEzQax1kTKPwRPUYnmZyAypK0ST0r3AF3XnYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=gJ3_RSwCgRZpXgquQ5Pw-S=hovqJu2QTs37mWsGiL3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<F933C04E-E9CB-4D67-9AD6-56DEC9885990@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=kw+k7Y9xQnRx2+SW9G92LtX4mJQT2JNnQjyh0U=Rb5Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

thanks for the brief, I wanted to share first for PC so it can be an action
item to follow-up. then we can share with membership for wide consultation.
I think that a draft statement/response can be more engaging and help to
involve our members .
but if other PC members that it should be shared now, I am open to that.
I added it to the tentative agenda for NCSG call next week.

Best Regards,

Rafik

2014-02-18 22:38 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi Rafik,
>
> Yeah?, I had been trying to come up with what could pass as an NCSG
> statement, but have been having trouble doing so. To be honest, when I
> joined this working group, I did so out of concern that radical changes
> would be made to the bottom-up pdp. I?m not personally aware of any changes
> that I am in favour of regarding the GNSO Operating Procedures, the GNSO WG
> Operating Guidelines or Annex A of the by-laws (except for maybe some
> changes/clarifications on WG consensus levels that is a topic that will be
> tackled soon by the SCI). These are the principle rules/regs being looked
> at.
>
> If anyone else has input on these, I?d be grateful. So far, I?ve been
> active on the first two sub-teams of this WG?, and by saying active?, I
> mean trying to be helpful in steering the future of the course of this WG
> within the confines of its charter.
>
> Perhaps we should take this to the full NCSG list?? ?, and btw?, so far
> only two comments have come in; one from ALAC and one from the Registries.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> PS: Avri and David are also on this WG, and as indicated below, Olivier is
> part of the WG leadership team.
>
> On Feb 18, 2014, at 2:07 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> is there any plan to respond to P&I WG questions. the WG co-chairs are
> sending request through Olivier who is also NCSG member.
> I think that Amr and Stephanie are WG members, can you please help for
> this?
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Olivier Kouami <olivierkouami at gmail.com>
> Date: 2014-02-18 16:02 GMT+09:00
> Subject: REMINDER from GNSO Policy & Implementation WG : Request for input
> (NCUC)
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, William Drake <
> william.drake at uzh.ch>
> Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org" <gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org>
>
>
> Dear Rafik,
>
> I wanted to take the opportunity to follow up with you concerning the
> request for input that your group received a while back from the Policy &
> Implementation Working Group (see below). The WG would be interested to
> know whether your group plans to submit a response, if so, when you
> estimate it will be sent.
>
>
> The P & I WG would also like to let you know that responses to just a few
> of the questions that are of special interest to your group would be
> welcome as are general statements of any concerns regarding the issues
> related to policy and implementation that are of particular interest to
> your group.
>
>
> Please kindly note that additional opportunities for feedback are expected
> to occur later on in the process, for example with the publication of the
> Initial Report for public comment.
>
> Best regards
>
> For the P&I WG,
> Olevie KOUAMI
> co-Vice Chair
>
> =======================================
> Message to the NCUC
>
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: Friday 6 December 2013 11:35
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, William Drake <
> william.drake at uzh.ch>
>
> Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org" <gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org>,
> "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
> Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] Policy & Implementation - Request for
> Input
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear SG/Constituency Chair:
>
>
>
> We are the Chairs of the newly constituted Policy & Implementation Working
> Group.  This Working Group (WG) has been tasked with providing the GNSO
> Council with a set of recommendations on the following issues:
>
>    - A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy
>    implementation related discussions, taking into account existing GNSO
>    procedures;
>    - A process for developing gTLD policy, perhaps in the form of ?Policy
>    Guidance,? including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use such
>    a process (for a process developing something other than ?Consensus
>    Policy?) instead of the GNSO Policy Development Process;
>    - A framework for implementation related discussions associated with
>    GNSO Policy recommendations;
>    - Criteria to be used to determine when an action should be addressed
>    by a policy process and when it should be considered implementation; and
>    - Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams, as defined
>    in the PDP Manual, are expected to function and operate.
>
>
>
> As part of the effort, the WG wants to reach out at the beginning of our
> efforts to the various GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies as we
> have already done to other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees
> to gain input to assist us in our efforts.  In this regard, we would ask
> for your organization to consider the following questions which are set out
> in the WG?s Charter and provide us with your input on any of these issues
> by 31 January 2014.
>
>
>
>    1. What guidance do the ICANN core values (Bylaws Article 1, Sec. 2)
>    directly provide with regard to policy development work and policy
>    implementation efforts? (e.g., multi-stakeholder participation).
>    2.  What guidance do other ICANN core values provide that relate
>    indirectly to policy development and policy implementation?  (e.g.,
>    effective and timely process).
>    3. ?Questions for Discussion? contained in the Policy versus
>    Implementation Draft Framework prepared by ICANN staff.  (See,
>    http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/policy-implementation-31jan13-en.htm
>    ).
>    4. What lessons can be learned from past experience?
>
>
>    1. What are the consequences of action being considered ?policy? vs.
>       ?implementation??
>       2. Does it matter if something is ?policy? or ?implementation??  If
>       so, why?
>       3. Under what circumstances, if any, should the GNSO Council make
>       recommendations or state positions to the Board on matters of policy and
>       implementation as a representative of the GNSO as a whole?
>       4. How do we avoid the current morass of outcome-derived labeling
>       (i.e., I will call this ?policy? because I want certain consequences or
>       ?handling instructions? to be attached to it?)
>       5. Can we answer these questions so the definitions of ?policy? and
>       ?implementation? matter less, if at all?
>
>
>    1. What options are available for policy (?Consensus Policy? or other)
>    and implementation efforts and what are the criteria for determining which
>    should be used?
>
>
>    1. Are ?policy? and ?implementation? on a spectrum rather than binary?
>       2. What are the ?flavors? of policy and what consequences should
>       attach to each ?flavor?
>       3. What happens if you change those consequences?
>
>
>    1. Who determines the choice of whether something is ?policy? or
>    ?implementation??
>
>
>    1. How is policy set/recommended/adopted and do different paths lead
>       to different ?flavors??
>       2. How is the ?policy? versus ?implementation? issue reviewed and
>       approved?
>       3. What happens if reviewing bodies come to a deadlock?
>
>
>    1. What is the process by which this identification, analysis, review
>    and approval work is done?
>
>
>    1. How are ?policy and implementation? issues first identified
>       (before, during and after implementation)?
>       2. What is the role of the GNSO in implementation?
>       3. In order to maintain the multi-stakeholder process, once policy
>       moves to implementation, how should the community be involved in a way that
>       is meaningful and effective?
>       4. Should policy staff be involved through the implementation
>       process to facilitate continuity of the multi-stakeholder process that
>       already occurred?
>
>
>
> Alternatively, if you would prefer to set up an exchange of views by
> teleconference, the Working Group would welcome such an approach as well.
>
>
>
> Finally, we would like to remind you that the WG is open to the full
> community and we welcome any additional members from your organization that
> my wish to participate in this work. To review the current membership,
> please see https://community.icann.org/x/81V-Ag.
>
>
>
> Thank you in advance for your consideration.  Please do not hesitate to
> reach out to either of us if you have any questions or if you require any
> additional information.
>
>
>
> Kind regards.
>
>
>
> Chuck Gomes (cgomes at verisign.com)
>
> J. Scott Evans (jscottevans at outlook.com)
> --
> Ol?vi? (Olivier) A. A. KOUAMI
> Membre de ISoc (www.isog.org) & du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net)
> DG Ets GIDA-OKTETS & CEO de INTIC4DEV (http://www.intic4dev.org)
> PC Vice Chair for Francophone Africa ICANN-NCSG/NPOC (http://www.npoc.org/
> )
> SG de ESTETIC  (http://www.estetic.tg)
> Po Box : 851 - T?l.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 928 512 41 / (228) 224 999
> 25
> Skype : olevie1 Facebook : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lom? ? Togo
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140219/4649e378/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Feb 19 15:14:56 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 22:14:56 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Monthly call Tuesday 25th February 2014 at 13:00 UTC
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnUn6Xw+6mwLs-1CJqgwXNfN_Gf+xGYEZhymc-=DKWqqw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Everyone,

Please book in your calendar  the  *Tuesday 25th February 2014 at 13:00 UTC
*for 2 hours monthly conference call . Everybody is encouraged to join.

We usually cover:
- the GNSO council call agenda (planned for 27th February) and discussing
its items . Councillors and NCSG members involved in related WG will give
more insight about the motions
- Updates about ongoing policies: updates from working groups, statements ,
open public comments
- Any other relevant item e.g. update regarding Singapore ICANN meeting
planning or Brazil meeting

*Why it is important to join?*

it is good opportunity, happening monthly, to catch-up with the ongoing
policies and finding opportunities to volunteer for some tasks. For
newcomers to get snapshot of activities within NCSG and GNSO and also
interacting with GNSO councillors .

We have this draft agenda below, please send me any other suggestion for
item you would like to add:

*I.    Roll-call *

 *II.   27th February GNSO Meeting Preparations*
      See: *http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-27feb14-en.htm
<http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-27feb14-en.htm>*
 A.  GNSO councillors will attend the call and brief to the membership
about the GNSO call agenda items.
 B.  Discussion Items

*III.   Update on ICANN Working Groups / Panels/ Expert groups*
 A.  Proxy and Privacy accreditation WG
 B. Accountability and Transparency Review Team: final report published
http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09jan14-en.htm :
few days to provide comment
 C. Policy and Implementation WG: questions from the WG
 D. EWG :
http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-05feb14-en.htm

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-10feb14-en.htm
 E. ICANN strategic panels
 F. Other WG/panels  :Cross-community working group on IG
* List of volunteers to lead for public statement drafting:

*IV.  Open Comment Periods *
     See:  http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment
*V.  AOB*
 A. Preparation for Singapore Meeting :
* topics for discussion with the board:
* tentative plan
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsJI0CB4QegidFY4Y0VtOUh6NmRnTW1tWXV4clFrRUE&usp=drive_web#gid=0
* NCSG participants (please add your name if you are going to attend)
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/2014+Singapore+mtg

looking forward to interact with our members next week.
If you need dial-out or you don't find your country listed below, please
send me email off-list

Best Regards,

Rafik



The NCSG Monthly call is therefore scheduled for the *Tuesday 25th February
2014 at 13:00 UTC*



*Please find the AC room and dial in details here:*



*Adobe Connect room*:
https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/?launcher=false



*Passcodes/Pin codes:*

Participant passcode: NCSG

*For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the
conference. *



*Dial in numbers:*

*Country*



*Toll Numbers*


*Freephone/Toll Free Number*

ARGENTINA





0800-777-0519

AUSTRALIA

ADELAIDE:

61-8-8121-4842

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

BRISBANE:

61-7-3102-0944

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

CANBERRA:

61-2-6100-1944

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

MELBOURNE:

61-3-9010-7713

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

PERTH:

61-8-9467-5223

1-800-657-260

AUSTRALIA

SYDNEY:

61-2-8205-8129

1-800-657-260

AUSTRIA



43-1-92-81-113

0800-005-259

BELGIUM



32-2-400-9861

0800-3-8795

BRAZIL



55-11-3958-0779

0800-7610651

CHILE





1230-020-2863

CHINA

CHINA A:

86-400-810-4789

10800-712-1670

CHINA

CHINA B:

86-400-810-4789

10800-120-1670

COLOMBIA





01800-9-156474

CROATIA





080-08-06-309

CZECH REPUBLIC



420-2-25-98-56-64

800-700-177

DENMARK



45-7014-0284

8088-8324

ESTONIA





800-011-1093

FINLAND



358-9-5424-7162

0-800-9-14610

FRANCE

LYON:

33-4-26-69-12-85

080-511-1496

FRANCE

MARSEILLE:

33-4-86-06-00-85

080-511-1496

FRANCE

PARIS:

33-1-70-70-60-72

080-511-1496

GERMANY



49-69-2222-20362

0800-664-4247

GREECE



30-80-1-100-0687

00800-12-7312

HONG KONG



852-3001-3863

800-962-856

HUNGARY



36-1-700-8856

06-800-12755

INDIA

BANGALORE:

91-80-61275204

INDIA

MUMBAI:

91-22-61501629

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

ITALY

ROME:

39-06-8751-6018

800-986-383

ITALY

TORINO:

39-011-510-0118

800-986-383

JAPAN

OSAKA:

81-6-7739-4799

0066-33-132439

JAPAN

TOKYO:

81-3-5539-5191

0066-33-132439

LATVIA





8000-3185

LUXEMBOURG



352-27-000-1364

8002-9246

MALAYSIA





1-800-81-3065

MEXICO

GUADALAJARA (JAL):

52-33-3208-7310

001-866-376-9696

MEXICO

MEXICO CITY:

52-55-5062-9110

001-866-376-9696

MEXICO

MONTERREY:

52-81-2482-0610

001-866-376-9696

NETHERLANDS



31-20-718-8588

0800-023-4378

NEW ZEALAND



64-9-970-4771

0800-447-722

NORWAY



47-21-590-062

800-15157

PANAMA





011-001-800-5072065

PERU





0800-53713

PHILIPPINES



63-2-858-3716

1800-111-42453

POLAND





00-800-1212572

PORTUGAL





8008-14052

ROMANIA



40-31-630-01-79

RUSSIA





8-10-8002-0144011

SAUDI ARABIA





800-8-110087

SINGAPORE



65-6883-9230

800-120-4663

SLOVAK REPUBLIC



421-2-322-422-25

0800-002066

SLOVENIA





0-800-81310

SOUTH AFRICA





080-09-80414

SOUTH KOREA



82-2-6744-1083

00798-14800-7352

SPAIN



34-91-414-25-33

800-300-053

SWEDEN



46-8-566-19-348

0200-884-622

SWITZERLAND



41-44-580-6398

0800-120-032

TAIWAN



886-2-2795-7379

00801-137-797

THAILAND





001-800-1206-66056

TURKEY





00-800-151-0516

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES





8000-35702370

UNITED KINGDOM

BIRMINGHAM:

44-121-210-9025

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM

GLASGOW:

44-141-202-3225

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM

LEEDS:

44-113-301-2125

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM

LONDON:

44-20-7108-6370

0808-238-6029

UNITED KINGDOM

MANCHESTER:

44-161-601-1425

0808-238-6029

URUGUAY





000-413-598-3421

USA



1-517-345-9004

866-692-5726

VENEZUELA





0800-1-00-3702
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140219/09fc0f0c/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Feb 19 16:15:10 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:15:10 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] REMINDER from GNSO Policy & Implementation WG :
	Request for input (NCUC)
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=kw+k7Y9xQnRx2+SW9G92LtX4mJQT2JNnQjyh0U=Rb5Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAE0gvYACCy6PvqEzQax1kTKPwRPUYnmZyAypK0ST0r3AF3XnYQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=gJ3_RSwCgRZpXgquQ5Pw-S=hovqJu2QTs37mWsGiL3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<F933C04E-E9CB-4D67-9AD6-56DEC9885990@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=kw+k7Y9xQnRx2+SW9G92LtX4mJQT2JNnQjyh0U=Rb5Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4EBD8699-D8AC-46DE-BAB7-985B08B62155@egyptig.org>

Hi Rafik,

On Feb 19, 2014, at 12:58 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Amr,
> 
> thanks for the brief, I wanted to share first for PC so it can be an action item to follow-up. then we can share with membership for wide consultation. I think that a draft statement/response can be more engaging and help to involve our members .

I agree. If anyone here has some thoughts on this WG, please share. I would be willing to write something up and add to it my own thoughts on the charter proposal to develop a process for "GNSO Guidance?, which is probably my primary concern on this WG.

> but if other PC members that it should be shared now, I am open to that.
> I added it to the tentative agenda for NCSG call next week.

I would also like to know what other PC members think. Any takers?

Thanks.

Amr

> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 2014-02-18 22:38 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
> Hi Rafik,
> 
> Yeah?, I had been trying to come up with what could pass as an NCSG statement, but have been having trouble doing so. To be honest, when I joined this working group, I did so out of concern that radical changes would be made to the bottom-up pdp. I?m not personally aware of any changes that I am in favour of regarding the GNSO Operating Procedures, the GNSO WG Operating Guidelines or Annex A of the by-laws (except for maybe some changes/clarifications on WG consensus levels that is a topic that will be tackled soon by the SCI). These are the principle rules/regs being looked at.
> 
> If anyone else has input on these, I?d be grateful. So far, I?ve been active on the first two sub-teams of this WG?, and by saying active?, I mean trying to be helpful in steering the future of the course of this WG within the confines of its charter.
> 
> Perhaps we should take this to the full NCSG list?? ?, and btw?, so far only two comments have come in; one from ALAC and one from the Registries.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> PS: Avri and David are also on this WG, and as indicated below, Olivier is part of the WG leadership team.
> 
> On Feb 18, 2014, at 2:07 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> is there any plan to respond to P&I WG questions. the WG co-chairs are sending request through Olivier who is also NCSG member.
>> I think that Amr and Stephanie are WG members, can you please help for this?
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Olivier Kouami <olivierkouami at gmail.com>
>> Date: 2014-02-18 16:02 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: REMINDER from GNSO Policy & Implementation WG : Request for input (NCUC)
>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>> Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org" <gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org>
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Rafik,
>> I wanted to take the opportunity to follow up with you concerning the request for input that your group received a while back from the Policy & Implementation Working Group (see below). The WG would be interested to know whether your group plans to submit a response, if so, when you estimate it will be sent.
>> 
>> The P & I WG would also like to let you know that responses to just a few of the questions that are of special interest to your group would be welcome as are general statements of any concerns regarding the issues related to policy and implementation that are of particular interest to your group.
>> 
>> Please kindly note that additional opportunities for feedback are expected to occur later on in the process, for example with the publication of the Initial Report for public comment.
>> 
>> Best regards
>> 
>> For the P&I WG,
>> Olevie KOUAMI
>> co-Vice Chair
>> 
>> =======================================
>> Message to the NCUC
>> 
>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>> Date: Friday 6 December 2013 11:35
>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>
>> 
>> 
>> Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org" <gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>
>> Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] Policy & Implementation - Request for Input
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Dear SG/Constituency Chair:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> We are the Chairs of the newly constituted Policy & Implementation Working Group.  This Working Group (WG) has been tasked with providing the GNSO Council with a set of recommendations on the following issues:
>> 
>> A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy implementation related discussions, taking into account existing GNSO procedures;
>> A process for developing gTLD policy, perhaps in the form of ?Policy Guidance,? including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use such a process (for a process developing something other than ?Consensus Policy?) instead of the GNSO Policy Development Process;
>> A framework for implementation related discussions associated with GNSO Policy recommendations;
>> Criteria to be used to determine when an action should be addressed by a policy process and when it should be considered implementation; and
>> Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams, as defined in the PDP Manual, are expected to function and operate.
>>  
>> 
>> As part of the effort, the WG wants to reach out at the beginning of our efforts to the various GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies as we have already done to other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to gain input to assist us in our efforts.  In this regard, we would ask for your organization to consider the following questions which are set out in the WG?s Charter and provide us with your input on any of these issues by 31 January 2014.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> What guidance do the ICANN core values (Bylaws Article 1, Sec. 2) directly provide with regard to policy development work and policy implementation efforts? (e.g., multi-stakeholder participation).
>>  What guidance do other ICANN core values provide that relate indirectly to policy development and policy implementation?  (e.g., effective and timely process).
>> ?Questions for Discussion? contained in the Policy versus Implementation Draft Framework prepared by ICANN staff.  (See, http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/policy-implementation-31jan13-en.htm).
>> What lessons can be learned from past experience?
>> What are the consequences of action being considered ?policy? vs. 
>> ?implementation??
>> Does it matter if something is ?policy? or ?implementation??  If so, why?
>> Under what circumstances, if any, should the GNSO Council make recommendations or state positions to the Board on matters of policy and implementation as a representative of the GNSO as a whole?
>> How do we avoid the current morass of outcome-derived labeling (i.e., I will call this ?policy? because I want certain consequences or ?handling instructions? to be attached to it?)
>> Can we answer these questions so the definitions of ?policy? and ?implementation? matter less, if at all?
>> What options are available for policy (?Consensus Policy? or other) and implementation efforts and what are the criteria for determining which should be used?
>> Are ?policy? and ?implementation? on a spectrum rather than binary?
>> What are the ?flavors? of policy and what consequences should attach to each ?flavor?
>> What happens if you change those consequences?
>> Who determines the choice of whether something is ?policy? or ?implementation??
>> How is policy set/recommended/adopted and do different paths lead to different ?flavors??
>> How is the ?policy? versus ?implementation? issue reviewed and approved?
>> What happens if reviewing bodies come to a deadlock?
>> What is the process by which this identification, analysis, review and approval work is done?
>> How are ?policy and implementation? issues first identified (before, during and after implementation)?
>> What is the role of the GNSO in implementation?
>> In order to maintain the multi-stakeholder process, once policy moves to implementation, how should the community be involved in a way that is meaningful and effective?
>> Should policy staff be involved through the implementation process to facilitate continuity of the multi-stakeholder process that already occurred?
>>  
>> 
>> Alternatively, if you would prefer to set up an exchange of views by teleconference, the Working Group would welcome such an approach as well.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Finally, we would like to remind you that the WG is open to the full community and we welcome any additional members from your organization that my wish to participate in this work. To review the current membership, please see https://community.icann.org/x/81V-Ag.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thank you in advance for your consideration.  Please do not hesitate to reach out to either of us if you have any questions or if you require any additional information.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Kind regards.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Chuck Gomes (cgomes at verisign.com)
>> 
>> J. Scott Evans (jscottevans at outlook.com)
>> 
>> -- 
>> Ol?vi? (Olivier) A. A. KOUAMI
>> Membre de ISoc (www.isog.org) & du FOSSFA (www.fossfa.net) 
>> DG Ets GIDA-OKTETS & CEO de INTIC4DEV (http://www.intic4dev.org)
>> PC Vice Chair for Francophone Africa ICANN-NCSG/NPOC (http://www.npoc.org/)
>> SG de ESTETIC  (http://www.estetic.tg)
>> Po Box : 851 - T?l.: (228) 90 98 86 50 / (228) 928 512 41 / (228) 224 999 25
>> Skype : olevie1 Facebook : @olivier.kouami.3 Twitter : #oleviek Lom? ? Togo
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140219/37d09eea/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Feb 19 17:49:30 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 16:49:30 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [liaison6c] Proposed Modifications to GNSO Operating
	Procedures to Address Resubmission of Motions and Working
	Group Self Assessment
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkP3_wavVDVX01tqqH75u0yRGTj7r8rB6z7i4Jpgf1GAQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F69624F47@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<CAH5sThkP3_wavVDVX01tqqH75u0yRGTj7r8rB6z7i4Jpgf1GAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9BCAB91E-9FA3-443E-8F50-3346B4874A41@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Apologies for the late response to this thread. I?m catching up on some old emails. I?d be happy to answer any questions on this topic?, not as an NCSG PC member, but as the NCUC rep to the SCI.

Listing of open public comment periods is another issue that I would be happy to help with as well, if deemed necessary and desirable.

Thanks.

Amr

On Feb 11, 2014, at 12:37 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> a way to welcome new chair and alt-chair with some topic for public comment :) in addition to those in backlog like ATRT.
> 
> I think that the first step is to list all open public comment period statement and having some prioritisation, then having volunteer for each topic to follow-up/drafting/editing. we should use the confluence space for that purpose
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Rafik
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: 2014-02-11 20:23 GMT+09:00
> Subject: [liaison6c] Proposed Modifications to GNSO Operating Procedures to Address Resubmission of Motions and Working Group Self Assessment
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> 
>  
> 
> https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10feb14-en.htm
> 
> Proposed Modifications to GNSO Operating Procedures to Address Resubmission of Motions and Working Group Self Assessment
> 
> Comment / Reply Periods (*)
> 
> Comment Open Date: 10 February 2014
> 
> Comment Close Date: 3 March 2014 - 23:59 UTC
> 
> Reply Open Date: 4 March 2014
> 
> Reply Close Date: 1 April 2014 - 23:59 UTC
> 
> Important Information Links
> 
> Public Comment Announcement
> 
> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)
> 
> View Comments Submitted
> 
> Brief Overview
> 
> Originating Organization: 
> 
> Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)
> 
> Categories/Tags: 
> 
> Policy Processes
> Reviews/Improvements
> Purpose (Brief): 
> 
> The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) is recommending a modification of: (1) the GNSO Operating Procedures to Resubmission of Motions; and (2) the GNSO Working Group (WG) Guidelines to Add a WG Self Assessment Mechanism.
> 
> Current Status: 
> 
> As required by the ICANN Bylaws, a public comment forum is hereby initiated on the proposed changes prior to GNSO Council consideration.
> 
> Next Steps: 
> 
> Following the closing of the public comment forum, the SCI will review the comments received; revise its recommendations, if deemed appropriate, and; submit these to the GNSO Council for approval.
> 
> Staff Contact: 
> 
> Julie Hedlund
> 
> Email Staff Contact
> 
> Detailed Information
> 
> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: 
> 
> The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) was established by the GNSO Council on 7 April 2011 as a standing committee of the GNSO, responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines. As part of its charter, the SCI is tasked to consider requests concerning issues related to the GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group Guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion. This public comment forum is being opened in relation to two proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures being recommended by the SCI.
> 
> The current GNSO Operating Procedures do not contain a specific provision on the possibility of resubmitting a motion for voting by the GNSO Council. In addition, the current GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which form Annex I of the GNSO Operating Procedures, do not contain a mechanism for WGs to self-assess their work. As a result, the GNSO Council requested that the SCI consider whether there should be a modification to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures to address the issue of the resubmission of a motion. In addition, the GNSO Council asked the SCI to develop a survey that WGs could use to perform a self-assessment once their work is complete.
> 
> Accordingly, the SCI developed procedures to be inserted in Section 4.3 (Motions and Votes) of the GNSO Operating Procedures that provide for the resubmission of a motion to the GNSO Council for consideration at a subsequent meeting of the Council, if three criteria are followed: 1) providing of an explanation for the resubmission; 2) timely publication of the resubmitted motion, and 3) seconding of the resubmitted motion by a Councilor from each of the two GNSO Houses. The proposed new procedures also include limitations and exceptions for the resubmission of a motion concerning the timing of its submission, disallowing any material changes to the original motion, and clarifying that a previously-submitted motion not voted upon by the GNSO Council is considered a new motion (and not resubmitted) if it is brought before the GNSO Council again.  Please see the redlined version of Section 4.3 of the GNSO Operating Procedures [PDF, 148 KB].
> 
> In addition, the SCI developed and tested a WG self-assessment questionnaire, as a result of which the SCI is recommending that procedures for administering the self-assessment be added as a new Section 7.0 to the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which form Annex I of the GNSO Operating Procedures. In the self-assessment questionnaire WG members are asked a series of questions about the WG processes and outputs. ICANN staff is required to monitor responses to the questionnaire, close the questionnaire when all WG members have completed it, and provide a summary of responses to the WG Chair. Please see the redlined version of Annex I to the GNSO Operating Procedures [PDF, 242 KB].
> 
> As required by the ICANN Bylaws, the SCI is requesting community input on these proposed modifications to the GNSO Operating Procedures.
> 
> Section II: Background: 
> 
> The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) was established by the GNSO Council on 7 April 2011 as a standing committee of the GNSO, responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines. As part of its charter, the SCI is tasked to consider requests concerning issues related to the GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group Guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion. The SCI operates on the basis of the GNSO WG Guidelines, and its recommendations are made based on Full Consensus of the SCI on the proposals under consideration. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency appoints a representative to the SCI. Other members of the SCI include a Nominating Committee appointee and an observer from any GNSO constituency-in-formation (if any). The SCI may also appoint observers from other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committee. For further information about the SCI and its activities, please see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/Home.
> 
> Section III: Document and Resource Links: 
> 
> Current version of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures ? see GNSO Operating Procedures v2.7 (13 June 2013) [PDF, 556 KB].
> 
> Section IV: Additional Information: 
> 
> Not applicable
> 
> (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 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/20140219/d2526df9/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Feb 19 18:13:38 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:13:38 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Feb 28th Council meeting
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdC-508mmsY2X-LQUBeipdAdZTfyrxTxYkm2JZ=mxcO-zQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52FE5624.5000502@acm.org>
	<CAC7qwdC-508mmsY2X-LQUBeipdAdZTfyrxTxYkm2JZ=mxcO-zQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1EB026E2-5F73-49D6-9AF4-3FBA930D2EB4@egyptig.org>

It seems that there will be no motions on the next Council meeting agenda. :)

Amr

On Feb 14, 2014, at 7:37 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> RIghto, Avri. 
> 
> Happy to do it.
> 
> Maria
> 
> 
> 
> On 14 February 2014 17:45, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The 28th is going to be the last day of the WGEC meeting.  The GNSO Council meeting falls smack in the middle of the day.
> 
> It is foolish for me to expect to make it.
> 
> If Maria is willing to take it, I would like my proxy passed on to her for the meeting.
> 
> thanks
> 
> avri
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140219/830310cf/attachment.html>


From mllemineur  Thu Feb 20 00:22:02 2014
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 05:22:02 +0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Monthly call Tuesday 25th February 2014 at 13:00
	UTC
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnUn6Xw+6mwLs-1CJqgwXNfN_Gf+xGYEZhymc-=DKWqqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnUn6Xw+6mwLs-1CJqgwXNfN_Gf+xGYEZhymc-=DKWqqw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqGnE85HkRxXr3h0ZJgzCpMXzOU3peaiDKpyS7weyf2ZnQ@mail.gmail.com>

All, apologies but I will be traveling on that day.

Best,

Marie-laure


On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 8:14 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello Everyone,
>
> Please book in your calendar  the  *Tuesday 25th February 2014 at 13:00
> UTC *for 2 hours monthly conference call . Everybody is encouraged to
> join.
>
> We usually cover:
> - the GNSO council call agenda (planned for 27th February) and discussing
> its items . Councillors and NCSG members involved in related WG will give
> more insight about the motions
> - Updates about ongoing policies: updates from working groups, statements
> , open public comments
> - Any other relevant item e.g. update regarding Singapore ICANN meeting
> planning or Brazil meeting
>
> *Why it is important to join?*
>
> it is good opportunity, happening monthly, to catch-up with the ongoing
> policies and finding opportunities to volunteer for some tasks. For
> newcomers to get snapshot of activities within NCSG and GNSO and also
> interacting with GNSO councillors .
>
> We have this draft agenda below, please send me any other suggestion for
> item you would like to add:
>
> *I.    Roll-call *
>
>  *II.   27th February GNSO Meeting Preparations*
>       See: *http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-27feb14-en.htm
> <http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-27feb14-en.htm>*
>  A.  GNSO councillors will attend the call and brief to the membership
> about the GNSO call agenda items.
>  B.  Discussion Items
>
> *III.   Update on ICANN Working Groups / Panels/ Expert groups*
>  A.  Proxy and Privacy accreditation WG
>  B. Accountability and Transparency Review Team: final report published
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09jan14-en.htm :
> few days to provide comment
>  C. Policy and Implementation WG: questions from the WG
>  D. EWG :
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-05feb14-en.htm
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-10feb14-en.htm
>  E. ICANN strategic panels
>  F. Other WG/panels  :Cross-community working group on IG
> * List of volunteers to lead for public statement drafting:
>
> *IV.  Open Comment Periods *
>      See:  http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment
> *V.  AOB*
>  A. Preparation for Singapore Meeting :
> * topics for discussion with the board:
> * tentative plan
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsJI0CB4QegidFY4Y0VtOUh6NmRnTW1tWXV4clFrRUE&usp=drive_web#gid=0
> * NCSG participants (please add your name if you are going to attend)
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/2014+Singapore+mtg
>
> looking forward to interact with our members next week.
> If you need dial-out or you don't find your country listed below, please
> send me email off-list
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
> The NCSG Monthly call is therefore scheduled for the *Tuesday 25th
> February 2014 at 13:00 UTC*
>
>
>
> *Please find the AC room and dial in details here:*
>
>
>
> *Adobe Connect room*:
> https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/?launcher=false
>
>
>
> *Passcodes/Pin codes:*
>
> Participant passcode: NCSG
>
> *For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the
> conference. *
>
>
>
> *Dial in numbers:*
>
> *Country*
>
>
>
> *Toll Numbers*
>
>
> *Freephone/Toll Free Number*
>
> ARGENTINA
>
>
>
>
>
> 0800-777-0519
>
> AUSTRALIA
>
> ADELAIDE:
>
> 61-8-8121-4842
>
> 1-800-657-260
>
> AUSTRALIA
>
> BRISBANE:
>
> 61-7-3102-0944
>
> 1-800-657-260
>
> AUSTRALIA
>
> CANBERRA:
>
> 61-2-6100-1944
>
> 1-800-657-260
>
> AUSTRALIA
>
> MELBOURNE:
>
> 61-3-9010-7713
>
> 1-800-657-260
>
> AUSTRALIA
>
> PERTH:
>
> 61-8-9467-5223
>
> 1-800-657-260
>
> AUSTRALIA
>
> SYDNEY:
>
> 61-2-8205-8129
>
> 1-800-657-260
>
> AUSTRIA
>
>
>
> 43-1-92-81-113
>
> 0800-005-259
>
> BELGIUM
>
>
>
> 32-2-400-9861
>
> 0800-3-8795
>
> BRAZIL
>
>
>
> 55-11-3958-0779
>
> 0800-7610651
>
> CHILE
>
>
>
>
>
> 1230-020-2863
>
> CHINA
>
> CHINA A:
>
> 86-400-810-4789
>
> 10800-712-1670
>
> CHINA
>
> CHINA B:
>
> 86-400-810-4789
>
> 10800-120-1670
>
> COLOMBIA
>
>
>
>
>
> 01800-9-156474
>
> CROATIA
>
>
>
>
>
> 080-08-06-309
>
> CZECH REPUBLIC
>
>
>
> 420-2-25-98-56-64
>
> 800-700-177
>
> DENMARK
>
>
>
> 45-7014-0284
>
> 8088-8324
>
> ESTONIA
>
>
>
>
>
> 800-011-1093
>
> FINLAND
>
>
>
> 358-9-5424-7162
>
> 0-800-9-14610
>
> FRANCE
>
> LYON:
>
> 33-4-26-69-12-85
>
> 080-511-1496
>
> FRANCE
>
> MARSEILLE:
>
> 33-4-86-06-00-85
>
> 080-511-1496
>
> FRANCE
>
> PARIS:
>
> 33-1-70-70-60-72
>
> 080-511-1496
>
> GERMANY
>
>
>
> 49-69-2222-20362
>
> 0800-664-4247
>
> GREECE
>
>
>
> 30-80-1-100-0687
>
> 00800-12-7312
>
> HONG KONG
>
>
>
> 852-3001-3863
>
> 800-962-856
>
> HUNGARY
>
>
>
> 36-1-700-8856
>
> 06-800-12755
>
> INDIA
>
> BANGALORE:
>
> 91-80-61275204
>
> INDIA
>
> MUMBAI:
>
> 91-22-61501629
>
> 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
>
> ITALY
>
> ROME:
>
> 39-06-8751-6018
>
> 800-986-383
>
> ITALY
>
> TORINO:
>
> 39-011-510-0118
>
> 800-986-383
>
> JAPAN
>
> OSAKA:
>
> 81-6-7739-4799
>
> 0066-33-132439
>
> JAPAN
>
> TOKYO:
>
> 81-3-5539-5191
>
> 0066-33-132439
>
> LATVIA
>
>
>
>
>
> 8000-3185
>
> LUXEMBOURG
>
>
>
> 352-27-000-1364
>
> 8002-9246
>
> MALAYSIA
>
>
>
>
>
> 1-800-81-3065
>
> MEXICO
>
> GUADALAJARA (JAL):
>
> 52-33-3208-7310
>
> 001-866-376-9696
>
> MEXICO
>
> MEXICO CITY:
>
> 52-55-5062-9110
>
> 001-866-376-9696
>
> MEXICO
>
> MONTERREY:
>
> 52-81-2482-0610
>
> 001-866-376-9696
>
> NETHERLANDS
>
>
>
> 31-20-718-8588
>
> 0800-023-4378
>
> NEW ZEALAND
>
>
>
> 64-9-970-4771
>
> 0800-447-722
>
> NORWAY
>
>
>
> 47-21-590-062
>
> 800-15157
>
> PANAMA
>
>
>
>
>
> 011-001-800-5072065
>
> PERU
>
>
>
>
>
> 0800-53713
>
> PHILIPPINES
>
>
>
> 63-2-858-3716
>
> 1800-111-42453
>
> POLAND
>
>
>
>
>
> 00-800-1212572
>
> PORTUGAL
>
>
>
>
>
> 8008-14052
>
> ROMANIA
>
>
>
> 40-31-630-01-79
>
> RUSSIA
>
>
>
>
>
> 8-10-8002-0144011
>
> SAUDI ARABIA
>
>
>
>
>
> 800-8-110087
>
> SINGAPORE
>
>
>
> 65-6883-9230
>
> 800-120-4663
>
> SLOVAK REPUBLIC
>
>
>
> 421-2-322-422-25
>
> 0800-002066
>
> SLOVENIA
>
>
>
>
>
> 0-800-81310
>
> SOUTH AFRICA
>
>
>
>
>
> 080-09-80414
>
> SOUTH KOREA
>
>
>
> 82-2-6744-1083
>
> 00798-14800-7352
>
> SPAIN
>
>
>
> 34-91-414-25-33
>
> 800-300-053
>
> SWEDEN
>
>
>
> 46-8-566-19-348
>
> 0200-884-622
>
> SWITZERLAND
>
>
>
> 41-44-580-6398
>
> 0800-120-032
>
> TAIWAN
>
>
>
> 886-2-2795-7379
>
> 00801-137-797
>
> THAILAND
>
>
>
>
>
> 001-800-1206-66056
>
> TURKEY
>
>
>
>
>
> 00-800-151-0516
>
> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
>
>
>
>
>
> 8000-35702370
>
> UNITED KINGDOM
>
> BIRMINGHAM:
>
> 44-121-210-9025
>
> 0808-238-6029
>
> UNITED KINGDOM
>
> GLASGOW:
>
> 44-141-202-3225
>
> 0808-238-6029
>
> UNITED KINGDOM
>
> LEEDS:
>
> 44-113-301-2125
>
> 0808-238-6029
>
> UNITED KINGDOM
>
> LONDON:
>
> 44-20-7108-6370
>
> 0808-238-6029
>
> UNITED KINGDOM
>
> MANCHESTER:
>
> 44-161-601-1425
>
> 0808-238-6029
>
> URUGUAY
>
>
>
>
>
> 000-413-598-3421
>
> USA
>
>
>
> 1-517-345-9004
>
> 866-692-5726
>
> VENEZUELA
>
>
>
>
>
> 0800-1-00-3702
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140220/2fff6e70/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Feb 20 15:28:45 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 22:28:45 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [liaison6c] Proposed Modifications to GNSO Operating
 Procedures to Address Resubmission of Motions and Working Group Self
 Assessment
In-Reply-To: <9BCAB91E-9FA3-443E-8F50-3346B4874A41@egyptig.org>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F69624F47@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<CAH5sThkP3_wavVDVX01tqqH75u0yRGTj7r8rB6z7i4Jpgf1GAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9BCAB91E-9FA3-443E-8F50-3346B4874A41@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThn-_-zXZrzaoduox4R3YKwCO6MzkXkOWO7N1TsAbp5URQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

you want to add this as agenda item for NCSG call?

Best,

Rafik


2014-02-20 0:49 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi,
>
> Apologies for the late response to this thread. I?m catching up on some
> old emails. I?d be happy to answer any questions on this topic?, not as an
> NCSG PC member, but as the NCUC rep to the SCI.
>
> Listing of open public comment periods is another issue that I would be
> happy to help with as well, if deemed necessary and desirable.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Feb 11, 2014, at 12:37 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> a way to welcome new chair and alt-chair with some topic for public
> comment :) in addition to those in backlog like ATRT.
>
> I think that the first step is to list all open public comment period
> statement and having some prioritisation, then having volunteer for each
> topic to follow-up/drafting/editing. we should use the confluence space for
> that purpose
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: 2014-02-11 20:23 GMT+09:00
> Subject: [liaison6c] Proposed Modifications to GNSO Operating Procedures
> to Address Resubmission of Motions and Working Group Self Assessment
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
>
>
> https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10feb14-en.htm
> Proposed Modifications to GNSO Operating Procedures to Address
> Resubmission of Motions and Working Group Self Assessment
>
> Comment / Reply Periods (*)
>
> Comment Open Date: 10 February 2014
>
> Comment Close Date: 3 March 2014 - 23:59 UTC
>
> Reply Open Date: 4 March 2014
>
> Reply Close Date: 1 April 2014 - 23:59 UTC
>
> Important Information Links
>
> Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10feb14-en.htm>
>
> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<comments-gnso-op-procedures-10feb14 at icann.org>
>
> View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-op-procedures-10feb14/>
>
> Brief Overview
>
> Originating Organization:
>
> Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)
>
> Categories/Tags:
>
>    - Policy Processes
>    - Reviews/Improvements
>
> Purpose (Brief):
>
> The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Standing Committee on
> Improvements Implementation (SCI) is recommending a modification of: (1)
> the GNSO Operating Procedures to Resubmission of Motions; and (2) the GNSO
> Working Group (WG) Guidelines to Add a WG Self Assessment Mechanism.
>
> Current Status:
>
> As required by the ICANN Bylaws, a public comment forum is hereby
> initiated on the proposed changes prior to GNSO Council consideration.
>
> Next Steps:
>
> Following the closing of the public comment forum, the SCI will review the
> comments received; revise its recommendations, if deemed appropriate, and;
> submit these to the GNSO Council for approval.
>
> Staff Contact:
>
> Julie Hedlund
>
> Email Staff Contact<Policy-staff at icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Proposed%20Modifications%20to%20GNSO%20Operating%20Procedures%20to%20Address%20Resubmission%20of%20Motions%20and%20Working%20Group%20Self%20Assessment%20public%20comment%20period>
>
> Detailed Information
>
> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose:
>
> The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) was
> established by the GNSO Council on 7 April 2011 as a standing committee of
> the GNSO, responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning
> of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines. As part of
> its charter, the SCI is tasked to consider requests concerning issues
> related to the GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group
> Guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group
> chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion. This public comment
> forum is being opened in relation to two proposed changes to the GNSO
> Operating Procedures being recommended by the SCI.
>
> The current GNSO Operating Procedures do not contain a specific provision
> on the possibility of resubmitting a motion for voting by the GNSO Council.
> In addition, the current GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which form Annex I
> of the GNSO Operating Procedures, do not contain a mechanism for WGs to
> self-assess their work. As a result, the GNSO Council requested that the
> SCI consider whether there should be a modification to the GNSO Council
> Operating Procedures to address the issue of the resubmission of a motion.
> In addition, the GNSO Council asked the SCI to develop a survey that WGs
> could use to perform a self-assessment once their work is complete.
>
> Accordingly, the SCI developed procedures to be inserted in Section 4.3
> (Motions and Votes) of the GNSO Operating Procedures that provide for the
> resubmission of a motion to the GNSO Council for consideration at a
> subsequent meeting of the Council, if three criteria are followed: 1)
> providing of an explanation for the resubmission; 2) timely publication of
> the resubmitted motion, and 3) seconding of the resubmitted motion by a
> Councilor from each of the two GNSO Houses. The proposed new procedures
> also include limitations and exceptions for the resubmission of a motion
> concerning the timing of its submission, disallowing any material changes
> to the original motion, and clarifying that a previously-submitted motion
> not voted upon by the GNSO Council is considered a new motion (and not
> resubmitted) if it is brought before the GNSO Council again.  Please see
> the redlined version of Section 4.3 of the GNSO Operating Procedures<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-voting-redline-10feb14-en.pdf>[PDF, 148 KB].
>
> In addition, the SCI developed and tested a WG self-assessment
> questionnaire, as a result of which the SCI is recommending that procedures
> for administering the self-assessment be added as a new Section 7.0 to the
> GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which form Annex I of the GNSO Operating
> Procedures. In the self-assessment questionnaire WG members are asked a
> series of questions about the WG processes and outputs. ICANN staff is
> required to monitor responses to the questionnaire, close the questionnaire
> when all WG members have completed it, and provide a summary of responses
> to the WG Chair. Please see the redlined version of Annex I to the GNSO
> Operating Procedures<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-guidelines-redline-10feb14-en.pdf>[PDF, 242 KB].
>
> As required by the ICANN Bylaws, the SCI is requesting community input on
> these proposed modifications to the GNSO Operating Procedures.
>
> Section II: Background:
>
> The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) was
> established by the GNSO Council on 7 April 2011 as a standing committee of
> the GNSO, responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning
> of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines. As part of
> its charter, the SCI is tasked to consider requests concerning issues
> related to the GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group
> Guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group
> chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion. The SCI operates on
> the basis of the GNSO WG Guidelines, and its recommendations are made based
> on Full Consensus of the SCI on the proposals under consideration. Each
> GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency appoints a representative to the
> SCI. Other members of the SCI include a Nominating Committee appointee and
> an observer from any GNSO constituency-in-formation (if any). The SCI may
> also appoint observers from other ICANN Supporting Organizations and
> Advisory Committee. For further information about the SCI and its
> activities, please see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/Home.
>
> Section III: Document and Resource Links:
>
> Current version of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures ? see GNSO
> Operating Procedures v2.7 (13 June 2013)<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-13jun13-en.pdf>[PDF, 556 KB].
>
> Section IV: Additional Information:
>
> Not applicable
> ------------------------------
>
> (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed
> to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or
> decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/20140220/919b7193/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Thu Feb 20 16:26:43 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 15:26:43 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [liaison6c] Proposed Modifications to GNSO Operating
	Procedures to Address Resubmission of Motions and Working
	Group Self Assessment
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThn-_-zXZrzaoduox4R3YKwCO6MzkXkOWO7N1TsAbp5URQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F69624F47@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<CAH5sThkP3_wavVDVX01tqqH75u0yRGTj7r8rB6z7i4Jpgf1GAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<9BCAB91E-9FA3-443E-8F50-3346B4874A41@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThn-_-zXZrzaoduox4R3YKwCO6MzkXkOWO7N1TsAbp5URQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1F7AB9AC-E61A-4B1D-9414-972476856140@egyptig.org>

Sure. I can give a pretty quick brief on this, and answer any questions and take notes on concerns if there are any. I don?t see it taking up too much time.

Thanks.

Amr

On Feb 20, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Hi Amr,
> 
> you want to add this as agenda item for NCSG call?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 
> 2014-02-20 0:49 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
> Hi,
> 
> Apologies for the late response to this thread. I?m catching up on some old emails. I?d be happy to answer any questions on this topic?, not as an NCSG PC member, but as the NCUC rep to the SCI.
> 
> Listing of open public comment periods is another issue that I would be happy to help with as well, if deemed necessary and desirable.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Feb 11, 2014, at 12:37 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> a way to welcome new chair and alt-chair with some topic for public comment :) in addition to those in backlog like ATRT.
>> 
>> I think that the first step is to list all open public comment period statement and having some prioritisation, then having volunteer for each topic to follow-up/drafting/editing. we should use the confluence space for that purpose
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
>> Date: 2014-02-11 20:23 GMT+09:00
>> Subject: [liaison6c] Proposed Modifications to GNSO Operating Procedures to Address Resubmission of Motions and Working Group Self Assessment
>> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10feb14-en.htm
>> 
>> Proposed Modifications to GNSO Operating Procedures to Address Resubmission of Motions and Working Group Self Assessment
>> 
>> Comment / Reply Periods (*)
>> 
>> Comment Open Date: 10 February 2014
>> 
>> Comment Close Date: 3 March 2014 - 23:59 UTC
>> 
>> Reply Open Date: 4 March 2014
>> 
>> Reply Close Date: 1 April 2014 - 23:59 UTC
>> 
>> Important Information Links
>> 
>> Public Comment Announcement
>> 
>> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)
>> 
>> View Comments Submitted
>> 
>> Brief Overview
>> 
>> Originating Organization: 
>> 
>> Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO)
>> 
>> Categories/Tags: 
>> 
>> Policy Processes
>> Reviews/Improvements
>> Purpose (Brief): 
>> 
>> The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) is recommending a modification of: (1) the GNSO Operating Procedures to Resubmission of Motions; and (2) the GNSO Working Group (WG) Guidelines to Add a WG Self Assessment Mechanism.
>> 
>> Current Status: 
>> 
>> As required by the ICANN Bylaws, a public comment forum is hereby initiated on the proposed changes prior to GNSO Council consideration.
>> 
>> Next Steps: 
>> 
>> Following the closing of the public comment forum, the SCI will review the comments received; revise its recommendations, if deemed appropriate, and; submit these to the GNSO Council for approval.
>> 
>> Staff Contact: 
>> 
>> Julie Hedlund
>> 
>> Email Staff Contact
>> 
>> Detailed Information
>> 
>> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: 
>> 
>> The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) was established by the GNSO Council on 7 April 2011 as a standing committee of the GNSO, responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines. As part of its charter, the SCI is tasked to consider requests concerning issues related to the GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group Guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion. This public comment forum is being opened in relation to two proposed changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures being recommended by the SCI.
>> 
>> The current GNSO Operating Procedures do not contain a specific provision on the possibility of resubmitting a motion for voting by the GNSO Council. In addition, the current GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which form Annex I of the GNSO Operating Procedures, do not contain a mechanism for WGs to self-assess their work. As a result, the GNSO Council requested that the SCI consider whether there should be a modification to the GNSO Council Operating Procedures to address the issue of the resubmission of a motion. In addition, the GNSO Council asked the SCI to develop a survey that WGs could use to perform a self-assessment once their work is complete.
>> 
>> Accordingly, the SCI developed procedures to be inserted in Section 4.3 (Motions and Votes) of the GNSO Operating Procedures that provide for the resubmission of a motion to the GNSO Council for consideration at a subsequent meeting of the Council, if three criteria are followed: 1) providing of an explanation for the resubmission; 2) timely publication of the resubmitted motion, and 3) seconding of the resubmitted motion by a Councilor from each of the two GNSO Houses. The proposed new procedures also include limitations and exceptions for the resubmission of a motion concerning the timing of its submission, disallowing any material changes to the original motion, and clarifying that a previously-submitted motion not voted upon by the GNSO Council is considered a new motion (and not resubmitted) if it is brought before the GNSO Council again.  Please see the redlined version of Section 4.3 of the GNSO Operating Procedures [PDF, 148 KB].
>> 
>> In addition, the SCI developed and tested a WG self-assessment questionnaire, as a result of which the SCI is recommending that procedures for administering the self-assessment be added as a new Section 7.0 to the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, which form Annex I of the GNSO Operating Procedures. In the self-assessment questionnaire WG members are asked a series of questions about the WG processes and outputs. ICANN staff is required to monitor responses to the questionnaire, close the questionnaire when all WG members have completed it, and provide a summary of responses to the WG Chair. Please see the redlined version of Annex I to the GNSO Operating Procedures [PDF, 242 KB].
>> 
>> As required by the ICANN Bylaws, the SCI is requesting community input on these proposed modifications to the GNSO Operating Procedures.
>> 
>> Section II: Background: 
>> 
>> The Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation (SCI) was established by the GNSO Council on 7 April 2011 as a standing committee of the GNSO, responsible for reviewing and assessing the effective functioning of the GNSO Operating Procedures and Working Group Guidelines. As part of its charter, the SCI is tasked to consider requests concerning issues related to the GNSO Council processes and procedures and to Working Group Guidelines that have been identified either by the GNSO Council or a group chartered by the GNSO Council as needing discussion. The SCI operates on the basis of the GNSO WG Guidelines, and its recommendations are made based on Full Consensus of the SCI on the proposals under consideration. Each GNSO Stakeholder Group and Constituency appoints a representative to the SCI. Other members of the SCI include a Nominating Committee appointee and an observer from any GNSO constituency-in-formation (if any). The SCI may also appoint observers from other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committee. For further information about the SCI and its activities, please see https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/Home.
>> 
>> Section III: Document and Resource Links: 
>> 
>> Current version of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures ? see GNSO Operating Procedures v2.7 (13 June 2013) [PDF, 556 KB].
>> 
>> Section IV: Additional Information: 
>> 
>> Not applicable
>> 
>> (*) Comments submitted after the posted Close Date/Time are not guaranteed to be considered in any final summary, analysis, reporting, or decision-making that takes place once this period lapses.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 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/20140220/26fc4ccb/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Fri Feb 21 17:21:03 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 00:21:03 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Request for input: Policy Development Process (PDP)
 on Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues.
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThm6OoOXfxqjzimuGcHKaiumy2EVJMkym7CMyXVf_KSkKA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F69624716@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<CAH5sThm6OoOXfxqjzimuGcHKaiumy2EVJMkym7CMyXVf_KSkKA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmxqK6rPw3u3h0eZyiLCc3Y7Pjgs5ZsfkyAFYS9GCPQpw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

a coming deadline to respond to the Privacy and Proxy accreditation
services WG questions.

Best,

Rafik


2014-01-24 23:13 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> Hello,
>
> NCSG is invited to provided statement Privacy and Proxy Services WG. we
> had some updates about this WG in the last NCSG call.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: 2014/1/24
> Subject: Request for input: Policy Development Process (PDP) on Privacy &
> Proxy Services Accreditation Issues.
> To: "marie-laure Lemineur (mllemineur at gmail.com)" <mllemineur at gmail.com>,
> Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch
> >
> Cc: Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>, "Don Blumenthal (dblumenthal at pir.org)"
> <dblumenthal at pir.org>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met at msk.com>, "Graeme Bunton (
> gbunton at tucows.com)" <gbunton at tucows.com>, "
> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
>
>
> Dear  Marie-Laure, Rafik and Bill,
>
>
>
> Attached is a request for input to the Privacy & Proxy Services
> Accreditation Issues PDP Working Group*. *Please submit your response at
> the latest by *FRIDAY 28 FEBRUARY 2014* to the GNSO SECRETARIAT (*gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org
> <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>*), which will forward your statement to
> the Working Group.
>
> Thank you in advance for your kind co-operation.
>
> 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/20140222/0120a08b/attachment.html>


From rudi.vansnick  Tue Feb 25 13:13:08 2014
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 12:13:08 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Monthly call Tuesday 25th February 2014 at 13:00
	UTC
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnUn6Xw+6mwLs-1CJqgwXNfN_Gf+xGYEZhymc-=DKWqqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThnUn6Xw+6mwLs-1CJqgwXNfN_Gf+xGYEZhymc-=DKWqqw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <56BE364B-BE74-4860-B5CF-C864805294E6@isoc.be>

Dear Rafik,
Dear all,

I will be on the call, but has to leave 5 minutes on top of the hour as I have other meetings (outside) scheduled.

Kind regards,

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

Op 19-feb.-2014, om 14:14 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:

> Hello Everyone,
> 
> Please book in your calendar  the  Tuesday 25th February 2014 at 13:00 UTC for 2 hours monthly conference call . Everybody is encouraged to join. 
> 
> We usually cover:
> - the GNSO council call agenda (planned for 27th February) and discussing its items . Councillors and NCSG members involved in related WG will give more insight about the motions
> - Updates about ongoing policies: updates from working groups, statements , open public comments
> - Any other relevant item e.g. update regarding Singapore ICANN meeting planning or Brazil meeting
> 
> Why it is important to join?
> 
> it is good opportunity, happening monthly, to catch-up with the ongoing policies and finding opportunities to volunteer for some tasks. For newcomers to get snapshot of activities within NCSG and GNSO and also interacting with GNSO councillors .
> 
> We have this draft agenda below, please send me any other suggestion for item you would like to add:
> 
> I.    Roll-call 
> 
> II.   27th February GNSO Meeting Preparations
>       See: http://gnso.icann.org/en/meetings/agenda-council-27feb14-en.htm
>  A.  GNSO councillors will attend the call and brief to the membership about the GNSO call agenda items.
>  B.  Discussion Items 
> 
> III.   Update on ICANN Working Groups / Panels/ Expert groups
>  A.  Proxy and Privacy accreditation WG
>  B. Accountability and Transparency Review Team: final report published 
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09jan14-en.htm : few days to provide comment
>  C. Policy and Implementation WG: questions from the WG
>  D. EWG : http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-05feb14-en.htm 
>                   http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-10feb14-en.htm  
>  E. ICANN strategic panels
>  F. Other WG/panels  :Cross-community working group on IG
> * List of volunteers to lead for public statement drafting:
> 
> IV.  Open Comment Periods 
>      See:  http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment
> V.  AOB
>  A. Preparation for Singapore Meeting :
> * topics for discussion with the board:
> * tentative plan https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsJI0CB4QegidFY4Y0VtOUh6NmRnTW1tWXV4clFrRUE&usp=drive_web#gid=0
> * NCSG participants (please add your name if you are going to attend) https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/2014+Singapore+mtg
> 
> looking forward to interact with our members next week.
> If you need dial-out or you don't find your country listed below, please send me email off-list
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Rafik
>  
> 
> The NCSG Monthly call is therefore scheduled for the Tuesday 25th February 2014 at 13:00 UTC
> 
>  
> 
> Please find the AC room and dial in details here:
> 
>  
> 
> Adobe Connect room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/?launcher=false
> 
>  
> 
> Passcodes/Pin codes:
> 
> Participant passcode: NCSG
> 
> For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference.
> 
>  
> 
> Dial in numbers:
> 
> Country
> 
>  
> 
> Toll Numbers
> 
> Freephone/
> Toll Free Number
> 
> ARGENTINA           
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 0800-777-0519
> 
> AUSTRALIA           
> 
> ADELAIDE:      
> 
> 61-8-8121-4842           
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA           
> 
> BRISBANE:      
> 
> 61-7-3102-0944           
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA           
> 
> CANBERRA:      
> 
> 61-2-6100-1944           
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA           
> 
> MELBOURNE:     
> 
> 61-3-9010-7713           
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA           
> 
> PERTH:         
> 
> 61-8-9467-5223           
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRALIA           
> 
> SYDNEY:        
> 
> 61-2-8205-8129           
> 
> 1-800-657-260
> 
> AUSTRIA             
> 
>               
> 
> 43-1-92-81-113           
> 
> 0800-005-259
> 
> BELGIUM             
> 
>               
> 
> 32-2-400-9861            
> 
> 0800-3-8795
> 
> BRAZIL              
> 
>               
> 
> 55-11-3958-0779          
> 
> 0800-7610651
> 
> CHILE               
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 1230-020-2863
> 
> CHINA               
> 
> CHINA A:       
> 
> 86-400-810-4789          
> 
> 10800-712-1670
> 
> CHINA               
> 
> CHINA B:       
> 
> 86-400-810-4789          
> 
> 10800-120-1670
> 
> COLOMBIA            
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 01800-9-156474
> 
> CROATIA             
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 080-08-06-309
> 
> CZECH REPUBLIC      
> 
>               
> 
> 420-2-25-98-56-64        
> 
> 800-700-177
> 
> DENMARK             
> 
>               
> 
> 45-7014-0284             
> 
> 8088-8324
> 
> ESTONIA             
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 800-011-1093
> 
> FINLAND             
> 
>               
> 
> 358-9-5424-7162          
> 
> 0-800-9-14610
> 
> FRANCE              
> 
> LYON:          
> 
> 33-4-26-69-12-85         
> 
> 080-511-1496
> 
> FRANCE              
> 
> MARSEILLE:     
> 
> 33-4-86-06-00-85         
> 
> 080-511-1496
> 
> FRANCE              
> 
> PARIS:         
> 
> 33-1-70-70-60-72         
> 
> 080-511-1496
> 
> GERMANY             
> 
>               
> 
> 49-69-2222-20362         
> 
> 0800-664-4247
> 
> GREECE              
> 
>               
> 
> 30-80-1-100-0687         
> 
> 00800-12-7312
> 
> HONG KONG           
> 
>               
> 
> 852-3001-3863            
> 
> 800-962-856
> 
> HUNGARY             
> 
>               
> 
> 36-1-700-8856            
> 
> 06-800-12755
> 
> INDIA               
> 
> BANGALORE:     
> 
> 91-80-61275204           
> 
> INDIA               
> 
> MUMBAI:        
> 
> 91-22-61501629           
> 
> 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
> 
> ITALY               
> 
> ROME:          
> 
> 39-06-8751-6018          
> 
> 800-986-383
> 
> ITALY               
> 
> TORINO:        
> 
> 39-011-510-0118          
> 
> 800-986-383
> 
> JAPAN               
> 
> OSAKA:         
> 
> 81-6-7739-4799           
> 
> 0066-33-132439
> 
> JAPAN               
> 
> TOKYO:         
> 
> 81-3-5539-5191           
> 
> 0066-33-132439
> 
> LATVIA              
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 8000-3185
> 
> LUXEMBOURG          
> 
>               
> 
> 352-27-000-1364          
> 
> 8002-9246
> 
> MALAYSIA            
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 1-800-81-3065
> 
> MEXICO              
> 
> GUADALAJARA (JAL):
> 
> 52-33-3208-7310          
> 
> 001-866-376-9696
> 
> MEXICO              
> 
> MEXICO CITY:   
> 
> 52-55-5062-9110          
> 
> 001-866-376-9696
> 
> MEXICO              
> 
> MONTERREY:     
> 
> 52-81-2482-0610          
> 
> 001-866-376-9696
> 
> NETHERLANDS         
> 
>               
> 
> 31-20-718-8588           
> 
> 0800-023-4378
> 
> NEW ZEALAND         
> 
>               
> 
> 64-9-970-4771            
> 
> 0800-447-722
> 
> NORWAY              
> 
>               
> 
> 47-21-590-062            
> 
> 800-15157
> 
> PANAMA              
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 011-001-800-5072065
> 
> PERU                
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 0800-53713
> 
> PHILIPPINES         
> 
>               
> 
> 63-2-858-3716            
> 
> 1800-111-42453
> 
> POLAND              
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 00-800-1212572
> 
> PORTUGAL            
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 8008-14052
> 
> ROMANIA             
> 
>               
> 
> 40-31-630-01-79          
> 
> RUSSIA              
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 8-10-8002-0144011
> 
> SAUDI ARABIA        
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 800-8-110087
> 
> SINGAPORE           
> 
>               
> 
> 65-6883-9230             
> 
> 800-120-4663
> 
> SLOVAK REPUBLIC     
> 
>               
> 
> 421-2-322-422-25         
> 
> 0800-002066
> 
> SLOVENIA            
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 0-800-81310
> 
> SOUTH AFRICA        
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 080-09-80414
> 
> SOUTH KOREA         
> 
>               
> 
> 82-2-6744-1083           
> 
> 00798-14800-7352
> 
> SPAIN               
> 
>               
> 
> 34-91-414-25-33          
> 
> 800-300-053
> 
> SWEDEN              
> 
>               
> 
> 46-8-566-19-348          
> 
> 0200-884-622
> 
> SWITZERLAND         
> 
>               
> 
> 41-44-580-6398           
> 
> 0800-120-032
> 
> TAIWAN              
> 
>               
> 
> 886-2-2795-7379          
> 
> 00801-137-797
> 
> THAILAND            
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 001-800-1206-66056
> 
> TURKEY              
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 00-800-151-0516
> 
> UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 8000-35702370
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM      
> 
> BIRMINGHAM:    
> 
> 44-121-210-9025          
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM      
> 
> GLASGOW:       
> 
> 44-141-202-3225          
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM      
> 
> LEEDS:         
> 
> 44-113-301-2125          
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM      
> 
> LONDON:        
> 
> 44-20-7108-6370          
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> UNITED KINGDOM      
> 
> MANCHESTER:    
> 
> 44-161-601-1425          
> 
> 0808-238-6029
> 
> URUGUAY             
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 000-413-598-3421
> 
> USA                 
> 
>               
> 
> 1-517-345-9004           
> 
> 866-692-5726
> 
> VENEZUELA           
> 
>               
> 
>                         
> 
> 0800-1-00-3702
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140225/bdda5544/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Thu Feb 27 23:04:54 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 22:04:54 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Submission to the Brazil meeting
In-Reply-To: <240dd16028a64ba580196bdf37c3f7dd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
References: <e1a8c618eb8d451786ab05de9e797326@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<240dd16028a64ba580196bdf37c3f7dd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <68C1E655-095E-4B09-A179-F5338D9EBCEB@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I would like to also lend my support to this statement, and hope it can be endorsed by the NCSG.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tuWn6tnQBFhXKz6FumabAHpG3zfCNx2ZBPzWNw3Ifo4/edit?usp=sharing

Thanks.

Amr

On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:00 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU> wrote:

> It seems that there were several expressions of support for this statement. I have made a few minor modifications based on suggestions from comments. Should I submit this statement on my own behalf only? Can I claim that it has support from the NCSG? Or can NCSG move forward with it on its own, and submit its own version separately?
>  
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Milton L Mueller
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 5:18 PM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Submission to the Brazil meeting
>  
> Dear fellow NCSG members:
>  
> I am involved in preparing two submissions to the Brazil meeting. One, with Brenden Kuerbis, is a detailed proposal for globalization of IANA. It is not ready yet, but watch for it.
>  
> The other is a proposed principle about stakeholder equality. That statement is ready for your viewing and comment here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tuWn6tnQBFhXKz6FumabAHpG3zfCNx2ZBPzWNw3Ifo4/edit?usp=sharing
>  
> It?s a short 2-pager, 600 words. I just want to test the waters and see how much support there is for this or whether it needs major revisions.
>  
>  
> Milton Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140227/84198bae/attachment.html>


From avri  Fri Feb 28 01:25:22 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 00:25:22 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Submission to the Brazil meeting
In-Reply-To: <68C1E655-095E-4B09-A179-F5338D9EBCEB@egyptig.org>
References: <e1a8c618eb8d451786ab05de9e797326@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>	<240dd16028a64ba580196bdf37c3f7dd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<68C1E655-095E-4B09-A179-F5338D9EBCEB@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <530FC962.3060405@acm.org>

+1

On 27-Feb-14 22:04, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to also lend my support to this statement, and hope it can
> be endorsed by the NCSG.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tuWn6tnQBFhXKz6FumabAHpG3zfCNx2ZBPzWNw3Ifo4/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:00 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU
> <mailto:mueller at SYR.EDU>> wrote:
>
>> It seems that there were several expressions of support for this
>> statement. I have made a few minor modifications based on suggestions
>> from comments. Should I submit this statement on my own behalf only?
>> Can I claim that it has support from the NCSG? Or can NCSG move
>> forward with it on its own, and submit its own version separately?
>> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU]*On Behalf
>> Of*Milton L Mueller
>> *Sent:*Wednesday, February 26, 2014 5:18 PM
>> *To:*NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>> *Subject:*[NCSG-Discuss] Submission to the Brazil meeting
>> Dear fellow NCSG members:
>> I am involved in preparing two submissions to the Brazil meeting. One,
>> with Brenden Kuerbis, is a detailed proposal for globalization of
>> IANA. It is not ready yet, but watch for it.
>> The other is a proposed principle about stakeholder equality. That
>> statement is ready for your viewing and comment here:
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tuWn6tnQBFhXKz6FumabAHpG3zfCNx2ZBPzWNw3Ifo4/edit?usp=sharing
>> It?s a short 2-pager, 600 words. I just want to test the waters and
>> see how much support there is for this or whether it needs major
>> revisions.
>> Milton Mueller
>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



From stephanie.perrin  Fri Feb 28 21:00:39 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 14:00:39 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Submission to the Brazil meeting
In-Reply-To: <530FC962.3060405@acm.org>
References: <e1a8c618eb8d451786ab05de9e797326@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<240dd16028a64ba580196bdf37c3f7dd@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<68C1E655-095E-4B09-A179-F5338D9EBCEB@egyptig.org>
	<530FC962.3060405@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CCE2D944-17C2-40E2-B880-3D154E283118@mail.utoronto.ca>

I like it a lot.  I am wondering if there is a place, anywhere, to mention that the OECD has identified corruption in government as a major issue.  i realize this is not tactful, but it is reality, and it supports the multi-stakeholder model.  And the key role of civil society (eg Transparency International) in shedding light on issues.
Stephanie
On 2014-02-27, at 6:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> +1
> 
> On 27-Feb-14 22:04, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I would like to also lend my support to this statement, and hope it can
>> be endorsed by the NCSG.
>> 
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tuWn6tnQBFhXKz6FumabAHpG3zfCNx2ZBPzWNw3Ifo4/edit?usp=sharing
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:00 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU
>> <mailto:mueller at SYR.EDU>> wrote:
>> 
>>> It seems that there were several expressions of support for this
>>> statement. I have made a few minor modifications based on suggestions
>>> from comments. Should I submit this statement on my own behalf only?
>>> Can I claim that it has support from the NCSG? Or can NCSG move
>>> forward with it on its own, and submit its own version separately?
>>> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU]*On Behalf
>>> Of*Milton L Mueller
>>> *Sent:*Wednesday, February 26, 2014 5:18 PM
>>> *To:*NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>>> *Subject:*[NCSG-Discuss] Submission to the Brazil meeting
>>> Dear fellow NCSG members:
>>> I am involved in preparing two submissions to the Brazil meeting. One,
>>> with Brenden Kuerbis, is a detailed proposal for globalization of
>>> IANA. It is not ready yet, but watch for it.
>>> The other is a proposed principle about stakeholder equality. That
>>> statement is ready for your viewing and comment here:
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tuWn6tnQBFhXKz6FumabAHpG3zfCNx2ZBPzWNw3Ifo4/edit?usp=sharing
>>> It?s a short 2-pager, 600 words. I just want to test the waters and
>>> see how much support there is for this or whether it needs major
>>> revisions.
>>> Milton Mueller
>>> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>>> http://faculty.ischool.syr.edu/mueller/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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