From avri  Tue Jan  7 07:34:25 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 00:34:25 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Request for extension of time for IGO-INGO
 Issue Report on Curative Rights Protection
In-Reply-To: <CEF040C8.4492%mary.wong@icann.org>
References: <CEF040C8.4492%mary.wong@icann.org>
Message-ID: <52CB91E1.2040706@acm.org>

hi,

i have no objection to this.

does anyone object?

avri



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[council] Request for extension of time for IGO-INGO Issue
Report on Curative Rights Protection
Date: 	Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:15:20 -0800
From: 	Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
To: 	council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>



Dear Councilors,

We trust that you enjoyed a merry and festive holiday break, and extend
a warm welcome back to you for the Council activities for 2014!

As you will recall, the Council approved all the consensus
recommendations made by the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group at the Council
meeting in Buenos Aires on 20 November 2013. One of these
recommendations was for an Issue Report relating to possible
modifications to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the
Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) process in order to enable protected IGOs
and INGOs to access and utilize these curative rights protection mechanisms.

Staff has been engaged in preparing the Preliminary Issue Report, as
requested; however, due to the holiday break and the need for internal
coordination of several questions posed by the issue under
consideration, we find that we cannot complete the full report within
the 45 calendar day requirement specified in the GNSO PDP Manual. As a
result, I hereby write to request an extension of the time period. My
expectation is that staff will be able to complete and publish the full
Preliminary Issue Report before the end of January 2014 for public
comment, following which a Final Issue Report will be prepared and
submitted to the GNSO Council for your review and action.

Please let me know if there are any objections to the requested
extension. Thank you.

Cheers
Mary

Mary Wong
Senior Policy Director
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
Email: mary.wong at icann.org

* One World. One Internet. *





From dave  Tue Jan  7 08:01:35 2014
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 14:01:35 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Request for extension of time for
	IGO-INGO Issue Report on Curative Rights Protection
In-Reply-To: <52CB91E1.2040706@acm.org>
References: <CEF040C8.4492%mary.wong@icann.org> <52CB91E1.2040706@acm.org>
Message-ID: <A953B97F-6FC7-46B9-BA6E-D80623C2FA4D@difference.com.au>

I have no objection.

On 7 Jan 2014, at 1:34 pm, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> hi,
> 
> i have no objection to this.
> 
> does anyone object?
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	[council] Request for extension of time for IGO-INGO Issue
> Report on Curative Rights Protection
> Date: 	Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:15:20 -0800
> From: 	Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> To: 	council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Councilors,
> 
> We trust that you enjoyed a merry and festive holiday break, and extend
> a warm welcome back to you for the Council activities for 2014!
> 
> As you will recall, the Council approved all the consensus
> recommendations made by the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group at the Council
> meeting in Buenos Aires on 20 November 2013. One of these
> recommendations was for an Issue Report relating to possible
> modifications to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the
> Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) process in order to enable protected IGOs
> and INGOs to access and utilize these curative rights protection mechanisms.
> 
> Staff has been engaged in preparing the Preliminary Issue Report, as
> requested; however, due to the holiday break and the need for internal
> coordination of several questions posed by the issue under
> consideration, we find that we cannot complete the full report within
> the 45 calendar day requirement specified in the GNSO PDP Manual. As a
> result, I hereby write to request an extension of the time period. My
> expectation is that staff will be able to complete and publish the full
> Preliminary Issue Report before the end of January 2014 for public
> comment, following which a Final Issue Report will be prepared and
> submitted to the GNSO Council for your review and action.
> 
> Please let me know if there are any objections to the requested
> extension. Thank you.
> 
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
> 
> * One World. One Internet. *
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140107/98394c43/attachment.sig>


From aelsadr  Tue Jan  7 12:42:22 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 11:42:22 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Request for extension of time for
	IGO-INGO Issue Report on Curative Rights Protection
In-Reply-To: <52CB91E1.2040706@acm.org>
References: <CEF040C8.4492%mary.wong@icann.org> <52CB91E1.2040706@acm.org>
Message-ID: <A0E9B80D-27A9-4658-B3E1-33708AD33534@egyptig.org>

I have no objection either. 

Amr

Sent from mobile

> On Jan 7, 2014, at 6:34 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> hi,
> 
> i have no objection to this.
> 
> does anyone object?
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:    [council] Request for extension of time for IGO-INGO Issue
> Report on Curative Rights Protection
> Date:    Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:15:20 -0800
> From:    Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> To:    council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Councilors,
> 
> We trust that you enjoyed a merry and festive holiday break, and extend
> a warm welcome back to you for the Council activities for 2014!
> 
> As you will recall, the Council approved all the consensus
> recommendations made by the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group at the Council
> meeting in Buenos Aires on 20 November 2013. One of these
> recommendations was for an Issue Report relating to possible
> modifications to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the
> Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) process in order to enable protected IGOs
> and INGOs to access and utilize these curative rights protection mechanisms.
> 
> Staff has been engaged in preparing the Preliminary Issue Report, as
> requested; however, due to the holiday break and the need for internal
> coordination of several questions posed by the issue under
> consideration, we find that we cannot complete the full report within
> the 45 calendar day requirement specified in the GNSO PDP Manual. As a
> result, I hereby write to request an extension of the time period. My
> expectation is that staff will be able to complete and publish the full
> Preliminary Issue Report before the end of January 2014 for public
> comment, following which a Final Issue Report will be prepared and
> submitted to the GNSO Council for your review and action.
> 
> Please let me know if there are any objections to the requested
> extension. Thank you.
> 
> Cheers
> Mary
> 
> Mary Wong
> Senior Policy Director
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> Email: mary.wong at icann.org
> 
> * One World. One Internet. *
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From mllemineur  Tue Jan  7 18:17:04 2014
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2014 10:17:04 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Request for extension of time for
 IGO-INGO Issue Report on Curative Rights Protection
In-Reply-To: <A0E9B80D-27A9-4658-B3E1-33708AD33534@egyptig.org>
References: <CEF040C8.4492%mary.wong@icann.org> <52CB91E1.2040706@acm.org>
	<A0E9B80D-27A9-4658-B3E1-33708AD33534@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqG2E--yJGpn4ff-YfRcFNp26MjKbYHmSi6X5pVzhEm6sw@mail.gmail.com>

No objection either.

best
mll


On Tue, Jan 7, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> I have no objection either.
>
> Amr
>
> Sent from mobile
>
> > On Jan 7, 2014, at 6:34 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> >
> > hi,
> >
> > i have no objection to this.
> >
> > does anyone object?
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject:    [council] Request for extension of time for IGO-INGO Issue
> > Report on Curative Rights Protection
> > Date:    Mon, 6 Jan 2014 08:15:20 -0800
> > From:    Mary Wong <mary.wong at icann.org>
> > To:    council at gnso.icann.org <council at gnso.icann.org>
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Councilors,
> >
> > We trust that you enjoyed a merry and festive holiday break, and extend
> > a warm welcome back to you for the Council activities for 2014!
> >
> > As you will recall, the Council approved all the consensus
> > recommendations made by the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group at the Council
> > meeting in Buenos Aires on 20 November 2013. One of these
> > recommendations was for an Issue Report relating to possible
> > modifications to the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the
> > Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) process in order to enable protected IGOs
> > and INGOs to access and utilize these curative rights protection
> mechanisms.
> >
> > Staff has been engaged in preparing the Preliminary Issue Report, as
> > requested; however, due to the holiday break and the need for internal
> > coordination of several questions posed by the issue under
> > consideration, we find that we cannot complete the full report within
> > the 45 calendar day requirement specified in the GNSO PDP Manual. As a
> > result, I hereby write to request an extension of the time period. My
> > expectation is that staff will be able to complete and publish the full
> > Preliminary Issue Report before the end of January 2014 for public
> > comment, following which a Final Issue Report will be prepared and
> > submitted to the GNSO Council for your review and action.
> >
> > Please let me know if there are any objections to the requested
> > extension. Thank you.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Mary
> >
> > Mary Wong
> > Senior Policy Director
> > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> > Telephone: +1 603 574 4892
> > Email: mary.wong at icann.org
> >
> > * One World. One Internet. *
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20140107/4a79397a/attachment.html>


From mllemineur  Wed Jan  8 18:55:12 2014
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2014 10:55:12 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call by 08 Jan 2014
 on Resubmitting a Motion
In-Reply-To: <CANFk9VUmByReTwdf2_o_rL_EHGeB+8GFON7nfOH5dneP2SRyNA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <DBD9F335EA4A684FA2640EEE94EEF272197BE649@USPDCMAIL002P.reedsmith.com>
	<CED628DC.19E46%julie.hedlund@icann.org>
	<CAD3sNqG_a_qqFOfKCirsbpoRp49hsm5UEDr8qL7tj1bABvWKEA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANFk9VUmByReTwdf2_o_rL_EHGeB+8GFON7nfOH5dneP2SRyNA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqGpYKiKS-85mRv1b71o6y0SG8=3JhXcgcjH_k8fO9dvxQ@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Cintra,

My response below in between the lines in blue. Looking forward to
additional inputs from the rest of the EC.

best,
mll


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Cintra Sooknanan <cintra.sooknanan at gmail.com
> wrote:

> Dear Marie-laure,
>
> I am in the process of reviewing the documents, thank you for forwarding.
>
> With regard to your question on consensus I believe that if NPOC has
> appointed a liaison or primary representative then this person should given
> flexibility to deal and respond to procedural/operational matters relating
> to that role/WG.AGREED
>



> In the case of drafting and policy issues then this should be taken to the
> Excom or policy committee as relevant. If the matter relates to drafting or
> policy issues that affect the running and charter of the NCSG and NPOC then
> I believe this should be taken to the NPOC Voice list for discussion.
> AGREED ALSO. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SCI DO MOSTLY DEAL WITH PROCEDURAL
> MATTERS. ANYHOW, IN CASE THERE IS A MATTER DEALT WITH THAT SHOULD AFFECT
> OUR CHARTER WE COULD AGREE TO TAKE IT TO OUR MEMBERSHIP. IS THERE ANY
> OBJECTIONS TO THIS?
>
> I do believe that in all cases there should be periodic updates on the
> Policy Committee and NPOC Calls as required. AGREED
>
> Looking forward to other thoughts on this matter as it is important for us
> to determine how we can effectively operate given the current fluid IG
> environment. ANY ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS FROM THE REST OF THE EC ?
>
> Regards
>
> Cintra Sooknanan
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:58 PM, marie-laure Lemineur <
> mllemineur at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> The email below refers to a specific issue we are dealing with in the
>> Standing Committee on Improvements Implementation also known as SCI.  At
>> this stage we, members of the SCI, are suppose to approve the final version
>> of the language of  the operating procedure about the resubmission of a
>> GNSO motion.
>>
>> I just have asked the SCI Chair during our earlier call if there was a
>>  standard procedure when the SCI members have to approve a particular
>> language, on  how  each constituency and SG rep should consult its
>> respective members in order to be able to approve what the SCI works on and
>> proposes? In summary, the answer I received has been that each community
>> organizes itself as it pleases and in accordance with it charter.
>>
>> I believe we never has the opportunity to discuss this internally as a
>> constituency, thus this would be a good moment to do so and to officially
>> establish an NPOC  mechanism or a rule regarding how, each time the NPOC
>> representative  in the SCI will be asked to agree upon a reformed
>> procedural GNSO rule,  he or she should be consulting back NPOC membership
>>  for approval ?
>>
>> Thus, what do you think should be the proper mechanism ? Do you reckon it
>> should be taken to the EC, to the policy committee or to our full
>> membership for approval?   And then, once send for approval, if there is no
>> objection or no response (silence),  shall it be interpreted as approved ?
>>
>> I would appreciate your ideas, opinion and comments so that we can take a
>> decision.
>>
>> Additionally, while we decide upon which mechanism we prefer to use, we
>> also need to approve the language of the text I am forwarding and that all
>> SCI members are required to approve it by January 8th at the latest,
>> otherwise it will be  presumed to have been be accepted by full consensus.
>>
>> Please also bear in mind that the SCI deals with procedural key issues
>> within the GNSO. To provide a clearer idea about the SCI work, to those who
>> are not familiar with its mandate, the kind of items we are working on at
>> the moment are  the procedure for re-submitting a motion as illustrated
>> below, the establishment of a waiver mechanism for the GNSO Chair to be
>> able to  waive procedural rules, a procedure for Councilors to be able to
>> use the electronic voting, etc.  To those of  you who wish to have more
>> information about the SCI,  please click on
>>
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosci/Home
>>
>>
>> Thank you very much,
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Marie-laure
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund at icann.org>
>> Date: Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:22 PM
>> Subject: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call by 08 Jan 2014 on
>> Resubmitting a Motion
>> To: "gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org" <gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>
>>
>>
>> Dear SCI members,
>>
>> Note that per the SCI Charter, "Unless otherwise determined by the SCI
>> members, committee decisions will be made by ?full consensus? process as
>> described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (see section 3.6)."  Thus,
>> as agreed at the SCI meeting today, staff is requesting a consensus call on
>> the language provided by Greg Shatan concerning changes to the GNSO Council
>> Operating Procedures on resubmitting a motion.  Please see the attached
>> redlined and clean versions of the language.  Please review this language
>> in your Constituencies and Stakeholder Groups if you have not already done
>> so.
>>
>> *If there are no objections or changes to the language received by
>> Wednesday, 08 January 2014, the language will be presumed to be accepted by
>> full consensus.*
>>
>> If the language is approved the next step will be for staff to prepare a
>> redlined version of the GNSO Council Operating Procedures that will be put
>> out for public comment for 21 days.  However, as noted on today's call this
>> may be combined with changes to the GNSO Working Group Guidelines relating
>> to the working group self-assessment survey (as being prepared by Ken Bour).
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Julie
>>
>> Julie Hedlund, Policy Director
>>
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140108/d4d66e3e/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Jan 15 00:07:09 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 23:07:09 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [liaison6c] Public Comment Period: New gTLD Auction
	Rules
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmO9Lbh+pHdp7Om54OTkSSscdrf_6aM9=ysZxs9KXHhww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F65FE8635@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<CAH5sThmO9Lbh+pHdp7Om54OTkSSscdrf_6aM9=ysZxs9KXHhww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3941220C-9D9F-4418-8FCC-3B2A2293CF94@egyptig.org>

Just a heads up that the public comment period for this topic closes tomorrow, then the reply period starts.

Thanks.

Amr

On Dec 17, 2013, at 2:32 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I think another public comment to handle if we have interest on the topic.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
> Date: 2013/12/17
> Subject: [liaison6c] Public Comment Period: New gTLD Auction Rules
> To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> 
>  
> 
> http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-17dec13-en.htm
> 
> New gTLD Auction Rules
> 
> Comment / Reply Periods (*)
> 
> Comment Open Date: 17 December 2013
> 
> Comment Close Date: 14 January 2014 - 23:59 UTC
> 
> Reply Open Date: 15 January 2014
> 
> Reply Close Date: 4 February 2014 - 23:59 UTC
> 
> Important Information Links
> 
> Public Comment Announcement
> 
> To Submit Your Comments (Forum)
> 
> View Comments Submitted
> 
> Brief Overview
> 
> Originating Organization: 
> 
> Global Domains Division
> 
> Categories/Tags: 
> 
> New gTLD Auctions
> Purpose (Brief): 
> 
> To gather community input regarding the detailed rules and processes for Auctions to resolve string contention sets in the New gTLD Program.
> 
> Current Status: 
> 
> The Auction Rules (version 2013.12.12) have been updated since the publication of the Preliminary Auction Rules on 1 Nov 2013 based on community feedback, including feedback received in Webinars and sessions at the ICANN 48 meeting in Buenos Aires. Additionally the Bidder?s Agreement, Bidder forms, and a Draft Auction Schedule have been published for community input.
> 
> Next Steps: 
> 
> Based on public comment feedback, a final set of Auction Rules and Bidder?s Agreement will be published and New gTLD Auctions to resolve string contention sets will be implemented and executed per the rules.
> 
> Staff Contact: 
> 
> Russ Weinstein
> 
> Email Staff Contact
> 
> Detailed Information
> 
> Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: 
> 
> ICANN is pleased to announce the publication of an updated version (2013.12.12) of the Auction Rules, the Bidder Agreement, the Bidder Forms, and a Draft Auction Schedule for community review. The Auction Rules have been updated since the initial release of the Preliminary Auction Rules on 1 Nov 2013 based on feedback received including during the Auctions Webinar on 7 November 2013 and the ICANN 48 Meeting in Buenos Aires. The documents being published for comment are:
> 
> ?        Auction Rules version 2013.12.12 ? provides a detailed insight into all facets of the Auctions program, including eligibility, scheduling considerations, preparation procedures, deposits, bidding limits, bidding procedures, the conclusion of auctions, payments and refunds. This version of the Auction Rules only addresses Contention Sets with direct contention relationships; an update or addendum will be published at later time to address Contention Sets with both direct and indirect contention relationships.
> 
> ?        Bidder Forms ? allows an applicant to designate itself or another entity to act as the bidder on its behalf. These forms will be used by ICANN and Power Auctions (the Auction Manager) to perform due diligence, set up a bank subaccount and a user account on the Auction Site. The bidder forms must be completed for each application participating in an Auction.
> 
> ?        Bidder Agreement ? an agreement between the Applicant and/or Bidder and Power Auctions, detailing the roles and responsibilities of each of these parties in the Auction process. The Bidder Agreement must be executed at least one time for each Applicant, and if an applicant utilizes a Designated Bidder, the agreement must be executed for each unique configuration of Applicant and Designated Bidder.
> 
> ?        Draft Auction Schedule ? Using the preliminary contention sets which do not include the effect any objection determinations may have, a Draft Auction Schedule has been created. This schedule utilizes the scheduling criteria defined in the Auction Rules but, due to the dynamic nature of application status, does not take into account the eligibility requirements for a contention set to be sent to Auction by ICANN as defined in the Applicant Guide Book and the Auction Rules. Should contention sets either resolve prior to their scheduled Auction or not yet be eligible for an Auction, ICANN will adjust the schedule in attempt to maintain approximately 20 contention sets per Auction.
> 
> ICANN intends to publish a Master Escrow agreement between ICANN, Power Auctions and the Escrow Provider for informational purposes prior to the conclusion of the public comment period. It is not envisioned that Bidders will execute an agreement with the Escrow Provider; rather the Bidder's Agreement will create a relationship where the Bidder will be a third party beneficiary to the Escrow Agreement. The Escrow provider will establish accounts by Bidder to securely hold deposits, issue refunds to Bidders based on the Auction Results, and collect winning fees on behalf of ICANN.
> 
> All feedback will be taken into account, but community feedback on the following topics will be especially helpful.
> 
> The pace and schedule of auctions to resolve all outstanding contention sets
> The duration of auction rounds and recesses between rounds
> The effects of the Name Collision issues on the eligibility for auction of a contention set
> With the input from the community in this public comment period, ICANN will complete and publish the Auction Rules, Bidder's Agreement, Bidder Forms and move forward to administer Auctions to resolve string contention sets on the new gTLD program.
> 
> Section II: Background: 
> 
> Section 4.3 of the Applicant Guidebook describes auctions as the last resort method to resolve string contention sets. This section provides for an Ascending Clock Auction methodology and provides an overview of the process and simplified illustrations of the execution of a contention set auction. On 1 November 2013, a preliminary version of the Auction rules was published. The Auction Rules were published as preliminary because there were several aspects related to scheduling that would benefit from community feedback prior to finalization and execution of the Auction program. The Auction Rules have since been updated to provide more details of the Auction processes and procedures as well as to incorporate community feedback received since the initial publication.
> 
> Section III: Document and Resource Links: 
> 
> Applicant Guide Book section 4.3 [PDF, 429 KB]
> 
> New gTLD Auction Rules 2013.12.12 [PDF, 323 KB]
> 
> New gTLD Auction Rules_1Nov13 [PDF, 235 KB] (Preliminary)
> 
> Redline of Auction Rules 2013.12.12 to 2013.11.01 [PDF, 352 KB] (Comparison of current version to preliminary)
> 
> Draft Auction Schedule 2013.12.16 [PDF, 308 KB]
> 
> New gTLD Auction Bidder Agreement [PDF, 171 KB]
> 
> New gTLD Auction Bidder Forms [PDF, 241 KB]
> 
> 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
> 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140114/750cb348/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Jan 15 20:03:33 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 19:03:33 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [liaison6c] Public Comment Period: New gTLD Auction
	Rules
In-Reply-To: <7E83F556-8BB8-4E89-8930-73ADF596AE65@icloud.com>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F65FE8635@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<CAH5sThmO9Lbh+pHdp7Om54OTkSSscdrf_6aM9=ysZxs9KXHhww@mail.gmail.com>
	<3941220C-9D9F-4418-8FCC-3B2A2293CF94@egyptig.org>
	<7E83F556-8BB8-4E89-8930-73ADF596AE65@icloud.com>
Message-ID: <863B14A4-CFD9-4242-9A44-B51E43E25EE5@egyptig.org>

Hi Bill,

On Jan 15, 2014, at 9:21 AM, WILLIAM DRAKE <williamjdrake at icloud.com> wrote:

> Hi Amr
> 
> If we could reboot a NCUC policy committee we?d have the vehicle through which to respond to thing like this,

I couldn?t agree more. An NCUC policy committee will also streamline feedback to GNSO WGs when they ask for input from constituencies on WG charter questions, which is a regular request sent out early on in the work process of both PDP and non-PDP WGs.

> and it seemed some members had a keen interest in. But as I?ve floated that idea repeatedly without getting any uptake, the only recourse at present is the NCSG PC, which you?re on.  :-)  I assume NCUC would endorse anything sensible that could b work out there.

I?ve taken a brief look at the background documents, and will try to bring something back to the NCSG and NCUC lists. However, if I?m not mistaken, the discussion that was taking place here a few weeks ago was focused more on what would be done with the revenues collected as a result of the auctions. This public comment period is concerned with the actual auction and bidding process and rules, not how revenues will be spent. I?m not sure where or when the discussion on the latter topic will take place, but I?ll try to do some digging on that too.

> I?m hopeful at least that in the next few days we will have new reps for that to replace last years? folks.

Good luck with that. Looking forward to it.

Thanks.

Amr


From avri  Thu Jan 16 19:02:21 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:02:21 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] FW: Request for input from the GNSO Policy &
 Implementation Working Group
In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E492B7CAD@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E492B7CAD@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Message-ID: <52D8109D.9020805@acm.org>

Hi,

This is a request from the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group.

Comments have been extend to Jan 31.

In addition to this list, I have put this issue in a conversational 
framework that Brendan has been suggesting we look at. So I have added 
this issue to that tool and it can be found at: 
https://ncsg.adhocracy.de/proposal/10481-Policy__Implementaton.html
(you probably need to do register with the tool)

While my preference is for a statement at the NCSG level, of course 
answers from the 2 constituencies will be very useful to the P&IWG as well.

If sufficient material can be gathered between the mail list and the 
tool, I will write up a statement that can be reviewed for rough 
consensus in NCSG Policy Committee.

avri
member P&I WG

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[gnso-policyimpl-wg] FW: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] FW: Request
for input from the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group
Date: 	Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:00:14 +0000
From: 	Gomes, Chuck <cgomes at verisign.com>
To: 	gnso-policyimpl-wg at icann.org <gnso-policyimpl-wg at icann.org>



I would like to request assistance from all WG members who represent a
GNSO SG or Constituency to do what you can to encourage your respective
groups to responds to the request for input that J. Scott and I
requested several months ago.  The attached letter was originally sent
to Jonathan Robinson as GNSO Council Chair and to other SO/AC leaders on
September 20, 2013 but the P&I WG has not yet received any response
except from the ALAC.  We originally asked for responses by 31 October
2013  but later extended it to 31 January 2014.

Anything you can do to facilitate responses by the end of this month
would be greatly appreciated.  I plan to do what I can in the case of
the RySG.

Chuck

*From:*Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
*Sent:* Thursday, December 05, 2013 3:23 AM
*To:* Gomes, Chuck
*Cc:* gnso-policyimpl-chairs (gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org)
*Subject:* Re: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] FW: Request for input from the
GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group

Attached is the letter we sent to the other SO/ACs. These went out on 20
September. I double checked and the letter did go to Jonathan as the
GNSO Council Chair, but from the comments received from WG members, it
looks like it was not forwarded to the SG/C Chairs. If you agree, we can
send it to them today. Would 17 January be a reasonable deadline for input?

Thanks for confirming.

Best regards,

Marika

*From: *<Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes at verisign.com
<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>>
*Date: *Wednesday 4 December 2013 23:20
*To: *Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org
<mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>>
*Cc: *"gnso-policyimpl-chairs (gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org>)"
<gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org <mailto:gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org>>
*Subject: *RE: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] FW: Request for input from the
GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group

Thanks Marika. I missed that.  I can?t seem to find the letter we sent
to the other SOs and ACs.  Would you please send it to this list?

Chuck

*From:*Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings at icann.org]
*Sent:* Wednesday, December 04, 2013 5:17 PM
*To:* Gomes, Chuck
*Cc:* gnso-policyimpl-chairs (gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org
<mailto:gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org>)
*Subject:* Re: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] FW: Request for input from the
GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group

It says '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 any input the GAC may have on any or all of these issues
by 30 November'. But to fair, in the letter to the ALAC we said 31
October ;-)




Marika


On 4 dec. 2013, at 23:13, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com
<mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>> wrote:

     Here?s the letter to the GAC that was sent on 18 Oct.  It doesn?t
     look like we gave a requested reply date.

     Chuck

     *From:*owner-gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org
     <mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org>
     [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Glen
     de Saint G?ry
     *Sent:* Friday, October 18, 2013 1:09 PM
     *To:* heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca <mailto:heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca>
     *Cc:* Olof Nordling; gnso-policyimpl-chairs
     (gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org
     <mailto:gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org>)
     (gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org
     <mailto:gnso-policyimpl-chairs at icann.org>)
     *Subject:* [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] Request for input from the GNSO
     Policy & Implementation Working Group

     Dear Heather:

     We are the Chairs of the newly constituted Policy & Implementation
     Working Group.  This Working Group (P&I 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.

      From the onset of this process, the WG would like to gain input
     from the GAC to support 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 any input the
     GAC may have on any or all of these issues by 30 November.

      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?
      2. What guidance do other ICANN core values provide that relate
         indirectly to policy development and policy implementation?
      3. ?Questions for Discussion? contained in the Policy and
         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? or
             ?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?

      5. 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 variations of policy and what consequences
             should attach to each variation?
          3. What happens if you change those consequences?

      6. 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 variations?
          2. How is the ?policy? and ?implementation? issue reviewed and
             approved?
          3. What happens if reviewing bodies come to a deadlock?

      7. 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 or in support of your efforts to respond to the above,
     if you would like to set up a teleconference in advance of the ICANN
     meeting in Buenos Aires or an in-person meeting in Buenos Aires, the
     Working Group would welcome such an approach as well.

     We are very happy to report that two GAC participants have joined
     the WG in their personal capacities:  Olga Cavalli and Carlos Raul
     Guttierez.  To the extent that these WG members might be willing to
     do so, we are open to the possibility of exploring whether it might
     be possible for either or both of them to serve in an informal and
     unofficial liaison capacity to facilitate communications between the
     GAC and WG.  If you would like to discuss this further, please let
     us know.

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

     Finally, we want to acknowledge receipt of a suggestion from Suzanne
     Radell that this WG might be an opportunity to experiment with a new
     approach for GAC/GNSO collaboration.  As chairs of the P&I WG, we
     are very open to this idea and we have referred it to the GNSO
     Council chair for further consideration.

     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 <mailto:cgomes at verisign.com>)

     J. Scott Evans (jscottevans at outlook.com
     <mailto:jscottevans at outlook.com>)



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PI AC  SO Letter - Final 20 September 2013.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 31232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140116/60121ae1/attachment-0001.doc>


From avri  Fri Jan 17 08:45:40 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 01:45:40 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Policy & Implementation defintions Fwd: [] For your
 review - proposed working definitions
In-Reply-To: <CEFDD846.2D3F5%marika.konings@icann.org>
References: <CEFDD846.2D3F5%marika.konings@icann.org>
Message-ID: <52D8D194.6040707@acm.org>


Proposed definitions in the Policy and Implementation WG.

Viewpoints?

avri


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[gnso-policyimpl-wg] For your review - proposed working
definitions
Date: 	Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:41:20 -0800
From: 	Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
To: 	gnso-policyimpl-wg at icann.org <gnso-policyimpl-wg at icann.org>



Dear All,

On behalf of the working definitions sub-team, please find attached the
proposed P&I working definitions for your review and consideration.
Please feel free to share any feedback you may have with the mailing
list in advance of next week's WG meeting.

Thanks,

Marika


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Draft definitions - FINAL - 16 January 2013.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 92160 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140117/4ae20bb6/attachment-0001.doc>


From avri  Sat Jan 18 17:39:33 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 10:39:33 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of Whois
 Study - timely
In-Reply-To: <52DA65ED-A879-46F4-9D2F-6AC0047F7753@egyptig.org>
References: <52DA65ED-A879-46F4-9D2F-6AC0047F7753@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <52DAA035.3050103@acm.org>


Any chance we can endorse this as well in the few hours left?

I would just send a last minute note endorsing the NCUC statement once 
it was made, assuming it is made.  i think i can still call myself 
alternate chair.  Or the NCSg chair can send the note.

"The NCSG-PC endorse the reply statement submitted by the NCUC url-here."



At this point I would need to hear at least one voice from each of the 
constituencies with no objections to feel free to do this.

avri


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of Whois Study -
timely
Date: 	Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:31:38 +0100
From: 	Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
To: 	William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
CC: 	NCUC EC <ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org>, "ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org"
<ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>



Hi Bill and all,

I have gone through the study as well as attended the webinar with the
researchers who performed it and find that Kathy?s comments are spot on.
The statistical significance she (and the report) mention were found to
be with a 95% confidence rate, which is the standard accepted confidence
of an accurate study based on quantitative analysis.

I am happy to endorse this statement and am grateful to Kathy for taking
the time to draft it.

Thanks Kathy.

Amr

On Jan 18, 2014, at 2:57 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
<mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:

> Hi Folks
>
> As Kathy has indicated, the timeline on this is rather short, 11:59pm
> UTC today, and she?s asking that it be approved as a NCUC statement in
> the (probably likely) event it can?t be at the NCSG level in time.
>  The challenge here is that, per previous, we have not for some time
> had the NCUC policy committee called for in our dated bylaws to
> approve constituency-level statements. So the way we?ve done such
> things in recent years is pretty much rough consensus after hearing
> from as many folks as possible in the time frame?certainly elected
> (EC) or appointed (NCSG PC) representatives, and regular members as
> well.  Admittedly, this is not quite a satisfactory approach given
> that NCUC is now much bigger and more diverse when that model set it,
> but in lieu of a formal PC a broader and virtual PC is what we have to
> work with at the moment.
>
> So, it?d be really helpful if we could hear back either way from
> whoever?s online and can get their head around this in the next few hours.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Jan 16, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com
> <mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>> I need your help. There is an amazing study done by two researchers
>> (a PhD and an almost-PhD) at Carnegie Melon University.  They tested
>> the hypothesis of whether "public access to WHOIS data leads to a
>> measurable degree of misuse of certain kinds of gTLD domain name
>> Registrant identity and contact information."  They did both a
>> descriptive study (surveys of law enforcement and privacy people,
>> registrants and registrars) and an experimental study (registering
>> domain names with no other traceable source and seeing how much spam,
>> and unsolicited phone calls and emails they received).
>>
>> They found what we have been telling ICANN for years: "there is a
>> statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misue affecting
>> Registrants' email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>> published in Whois."
>>
>> Great and let's tell them so! I've drafted some comments that not
>> only support the findings (and review the great effort dedicated to
>> the study), but also draw on abuse cases we have discussed and shared
>> from the NCUC over many years, including political persecution,
>> chilling effects, anti-competitive activity, and stalking.
>>
>> Since these are Reply Comments, it is traditional to not only share
>> your own views, but comment on those of others.  Our views are, in
>> many way, close to those of ALAC on this issue. ALAC's comments note
>> that the Study's results "align with individual experience of
>> At-Large constituents" and also research ALAC has done.  So the
>> noncommercial and individual registrant groups are aligned on this
>> issue - and that is key.
>>
>> Below and attached please find the draft comments. Please feel free
>> to send me edits with Track Changes (if you use the attached file).
>> To avoid a flood on the list, feel free to share small edits with me
>> privately.  Big edits and changes are probably up for discussion.
>> DEADLINE: SATURDAY (but I am judging my son's debate team, so
>> tomorrow if possible).
>>
>> Best and tx,
>> Kathy
>>
>> *[DRAFT] Comments of the Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN*
>> *Study on Whois Misuse*
>> *Due: January 18, 2014*
>>
>> The Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN submits this document
>> in response to the call for public comments on the*/Study on Whois
>> Misuse/*posted on the ICANN website. We respectfully submit that this
>> Study is a very important one for ICANN and for the GNSO policy work
>> ahead.
>>
>> We note that the study seems thorough and professionally done. Its
>> named researchers were Dr. Nicolas Christin and Nektarios Leontiadis.
>> Dr. Christin received his PhD in Computer Science from the University
>> of Virginia, and is an Assistant Research Professor of Electrical and
>> Computer Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University.Nektarios
>> Leontiadis is a PhD candidate at Carnegie Mellon University, in the
>> department of Engineering and Public Policy, with research focused on
>> the economic modeling of online crime. Both are affiliated with
>> CMU?s/CyLab/security lab.
>>
>> This study stayed close and tight to the Terms of Reference set out
>> for it --terms set and designed by members of the GNSO and approved
>> by the GNSO Council.
>>
>> The key question of the study was:/Does public access to
>> WHOIS-published data lead to a measurable degree of misuse?/The
>> answer was an unequivocal yes:
>>
>> The main finding of the descriptive study is that there is
>> a*statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misuse affecting
>> Registrants? email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>> published in WHOIS*when registering domains in these gTLDs.*Overall,
>> we find that 44% of Registrants experience one or more of these types
>> of WHOIS misuse.*[Emphasis added, WHOIS Misuse Study, p. 6]
>>
>> We appreciate the extensive efforts the CMU team undertook to test
>> the hypothesis it was given by ICANN and the GNSO.First, it conducted
>> a descriptive study reaching out to Experts, Registrants and
>> Registries/Registrars. Specifically, the team surveyed a ?diverse
>> group of experts in the fields of security and privacy affiliated
>> with research institutes, academia, law enforcement agencies,
>> Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and national data protection
>> commissioners.? [Study, p. 13]
>>
>> The team surveyed Registrants for a ?better understanding of their
>> direct experiences with Whois misuse? and found that 43.9% reported
>> ?some kind of misuse of their WHOIS information,? including/postal
>> address misuse, email address misuse/and/phone number misuse/tied to
>> the Whois data, as well as/Identity theft, unauthorized intrusion to
>> servers/and/blackmail/to which publicly-published Whois data may have
>> been a contributing factor.
>>
>> Then the team surveyed Registrars and Registries about Whois
>> harvesting attacks, and the deployment and effectiveness of WHOIS
>> anti-harvesting techniques.
>>
>> Second and perhaps most interestingly, the CMU team conducted its own
>> experimental study in which they registered a set of domain names in
>> the top five gTLDs through a representative set of Registrars, with
>> unique Registrant identities. Over the course of six months, they
>> tracked emails, voicemails and postal mail received by the
>> registrants of these experimental domain names. The purpose of the
>> study was to eliminate ?any extraneous variables,? e.g. the
>> publication of a postal address in both the Whois and an outside
>> directory.
>>
>> The conclusions of the study are Striking ? and answer questions
>> floating in the GNSO for over a decade./Yes, there is abuse of
>> publicly-published Whois data. Yes, that abuse is statistically
>> significant./We share again the main finding of the Study for
>> additional review in this comment period:
>>
>> The main finding of the descriptive study is that there is a
>> statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misuse affecting
>> Registrants? email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>> published in WHOIS when registering domains in these gTLDs.Overall,
>> we find that 44% of Registrants experience one or more of these types
>> of WHOIS misuse.[Emphasis added, WHOIS Misuse Study, p. 6]
>>
>> We thank CMU for the extensive efforts it devoted to this study, and
>> the extra efforts made and extra time spent to expand studies to
>> include more experts from Latin America and overall go above and
>> beyond the requirements for arounded and complete study.
>>
>> _Reply to Other Commenters:_
>>
>> *ALAC Comments:*
>> ALAC published the following comment in their comments: ?We note the
>> study has returned findings that align with individual experience of
>> At-Large constituents plus the evidence of widespread occurrence has
>> validated similar research undertaken by At-Large connected researchers.?
>>
>> We note that NCUC, too, has directly experienced deeply concerning
>> misuses of WHOIS data. In particular, attorneys in NCUC have directly
>> experienced and directly worked with clients who have experienced:
>>
>> -Stalking, for which the Whois was the only published source for the
>> location of an online, home-based business by which an ex-spouse
>> found his wife and stalked her.
>> -Political persecution, by which Whois data was used not only to
>> track dissenters (some located in the US and protected by the First
>> Amendment), but also their families located in the countries about
>> whose corruption the websites were devoted (and who were not
>> similarly protected);
>> -Chilling effects, by which Whois data was used to track down and
>> intimidate or silence those who have a different political, religious
>> or moral view;
>>
>> -Anticompetitive activity ? by which competitors used Whois data to
>> track down entrepreneurs and small businesses owners and seek to
>> intimidate them to set businesses plans and services aside.
>>
>> We further share with ALAC the deep concern that ?WHOIS misuse is
>> factual and widespread, as the evidence from 44% of sampled
>> registrants across the several domains attest.?We further agree that
>> thisposes a ?continued threat? to the ?security and confidence in the
>> use of the Internet, [and] the public interest demands measures to
>> address and abate its impact.?ALAC
>> Comments,http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-whois-misuse-27nov13/msg00006.html
>>
>> We have the evidence, and measures must now be taken to protect
>> Registrants, and the speech, work, expression, hobbies, research,
>> business, education and communication they conduct using their domain
>> names.
>>
>> Respectfully submitted,
>>
>> [if approved]
>>
>> NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY
>>
>> <NCUC DRAFT Comments - Misuse of Whois
>> Study.docx>_______________________________________________
>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>
> ***********************************************
> 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 <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss



-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Ncuc-discuss mailing list
Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss



From aelsadr  Sat Jan 18 18:01:17 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:01:17 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of
	Whois Study - timely
In-Reply-To: <52DAA035.3050103@acm.org>
References: <52DA65ED-A879-46F4-9D2F-6AC0047F7753@egyptig.org>
	<52DAA035.3050103@acm.org>
Message-ID: <EB419682-D230-4069-97D5-B7EC50F4CDE7@egyptig.org>

Has the NCUC-EC made its final appointments to the NCSG-PC? In any case, I second Avri?s request for support of this statement by this committee. I apologise for the short notice, and I feel I have some responsibility to bear on this. Until very recently, I was mistakenly under the impression that we had another week to submit this statement.

Thanks.

Amr


On Jan 18, 2014, at 4:39 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> 
> Any chance we can endorse this as well in the few hours left?
> 
> I would just send a last minute note endorsing the NCUC statement once it was made, assuming it is made.  i think i can still call myself alternate chair.  Or the NCSg chair can send the note.
> 
> "The NCSG-PC endorse the reply statement submitted by the NCUC url-here."
> 
> 
> 
> At this point I would need to hear at least one voice from each of the constituencies with no objections to feel free to do this.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of Whois Study -
> timely
> Date: 	Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:31:38 +0100
> From: 	Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> To: 	William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
> CC: 	NCUC EC <ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org>, "ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org"
> <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Bill and all,
> 
> I have gone through the study as well as attended the webinar with the
> researchers who performed it and find that Kathy?s comments are spot on.
> The statistical significance she (and the report) mention were found to
> be with a 95% confidence rate, which is the standard accepted confidence
> of an accurate study based on quantitative analysis.
> 
> I am happy to endorse this statement and am grateful to Kathy for taking
> the time to draft it.
> 
> Thanks Kathy.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Jan 18, 2014, at 2:57 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Folks
>> 
>> As Kathy has indicated, the timeline on this is rather short, 11:59pm
>> UTC today, and she?s asking that it be approved as a NCUC statement in
>> the (probably likely) event it can?t be at the NCSG level in time.
>> The challenge here is that, per previous, we have not for some time
>> had the NCUC policy committee called for in our dated bylaws to
>> approve constituency-level statements. So the way we?ve done such
>> things in recent years is pretty much rough consensus after hearing
>> from as many folks as possible in the time frame?certainly elected
>> (EC) or appointed (NCSG PC) representatives, and regular members as
>> well.  Admittedly, this is not quite a satisfactory approach given
>> that NCUC is now much bigger and more diverse when that model set it,
>> but in lieu of a formal PC a broader and virtual PC is what we have to
>> work with at the moment.
>> 
>> So, it?d be really helpful if we could hear back either way from
>> whoever?s online and can get their head around this in the next few hours.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 16, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com
>> <mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi All,
>>> I need your help. There is an amazing study done by two researchers
>>> (a PhD and an almost-PhD) at Carnegie Melon University.  They tested
>>> the hypothesis of whether "public access to WHOIS data leads to a
>>> measurable degree of misuse of certain kinds of gTLD domain name
>>> Registrant identity and contact information."  They did both a
>>> descriptive study (surveys of law enforcement and privacy people,
>>> registrants and registrars) and an experimental study (registering
>>> domain names with no other traceable source and seeing how much spam,
>>> and unsolicited phone calls and emails they received).
>>> 
>>> They found what we have been telling ICANN for years: "there is a
>>> statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misue affecting
>>> Registrants' email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>>> published in Whois."
>>> 
>>> Great and let's tell them so! I've drafted some comments that not
>>> only support the findings (and review the great effort dedicated to
>>> the study), but also draw on abuse cases we have discussed and shared
>>> from the NCUC over many years, including political persecution,
>>> chilling effects, anti-competitive activity, and stalking.
>>> 
>>> Since these are Reply Comments, it is traditional to not only share
>>> your own views, but comment on those of others.  Our views are, in
>>> many way, close to those of ALAC on this issue. ALAC's comments note
>>> that the Study's results "align with individual experience of
>>> At-Large constituents" and also research ALAC has done.  So the
>>> noncommercial and individual registrant groups are aligned on this
>>> issue - and that is key.
>>> 
>>> Below and attached please find the draft comments. Please feel free
>>> to send me edits with Track Changes (if you use the attached file).
>>> To avoid a flood on the list, feel free to share small edits with me
>>> privately.  Big edits and changes are probably up for discussion.
>>> DEADLINE: SATURDAY (but I am judging my son's debate team, so
>>> tomorrow if possible).
>>> 
>>> Best and tx,
>>> Kathy
>>> 
>>> *[DRAFT] Comments of the Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN*
>>> *Study on Whois Misuse*
>>> *Due: January 18, 2014*
>>> 
>>> The Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN submits this document
>>> in response to the call for public comments on the*/Study on Whois
>>> Misuse/*posted on the ICANN website. We respectfully submit that this
>>> Study is a very important one for ICANN and for the GNSO policy work
>>> ahead.
>>> 
>>> We note that the study seems thorough and professionally done. Its
>>> named researchers were Dr. Nicolas Christin and Nektarios Leontiadis.
>>> Dr. Christin received his PhD in Computer Science from the University
>>> of Virginia, and is an Assistant Research Professor of Electrical and
>>> Computer Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University.Nektarios
>>> Leontiadis is a PhD candidate at Carnegie Mellon University, in the
>>> department of Engineering and Public Policy, with research focused on
>>> the economic modeling of online crime. Both are affiliated with
>>> CMU?s/CyLab/security lab.
>>> 
>>> This study stayed close and tight to the Terms of Reference set out
>>> for it --terms set and designed by members of the GNSO and approved
>>> by the GNSO Council.
>>> 
>>> The key question of the study was:/Does public access to
>>> WHOIS-published data lead to a measurable degree of misuse?/The
>>> answer was an unequivocal yes:
>>> 
>>> The main finding of the descriptive study is that there is
>>> a*statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misuse affecting
>>> Registrants? email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>>> published in WHOIS*when registering domains in these gTLDs.*Overall,
>>> we find that 44% of Registrants experience one or more of these types
>>> of WHOIS misuse.*[Emphasis added, WHOIS Misuse Study, p. 6]
>>> 
>>> We appreciate the extensive efforts the CMU team undertook to test
>>> the hypothesis it was given by ICANN and the GNSO.First, it conducted
>>> a descriptive study reaching out to Experts, Registrants and
>>> Registries/Registrars. Specifically, the team surveyed a ?diverse
>>> group of experts in the fields of security and privacy affiliated
>>> with research institutes, academia, law enforcement agencies,
>>> Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and national data protection
>>> commissioners.? [Study, p. 13]
>>> 
>>> The team surveyed Registrants for a ?better understanding of their
>>> direct experiences with Whois misuse? and found that 43.9% reported
>>> ?some kind of misuse of their WHOIS information,? including/postal
>>> address misuse, email address misuse/and/phone number misuse/tied to
>>> the Whois data, as well as/Identity theft, unauthorized intrusion to
>>> servers/and/blackmail/to which publicly-published Whois data may have
>>> been a contributing factor.
>>> 
>>> Then the team surveyed Registrars and Registries about Whois
>>> harvesting attacks, and the deployment and effectiveness of WHOIS
>>> anti-harvesting techniques.
>>> 
>>> Second and perhaps most interestingly, the CMU team conducted its own
>>> experimental study in which they registered a set of domain names in
>>> the top five gTLDs through a representative set of Registrars, with
>>> unique Registrant identities. Over the course of six months, they
>>> tracked emails, voicemails and postal mail received by the
>>> registrants of these experimental domain names. The purpose of the
>>> study was to eliminate ?any extraneous variables,? e.g. the
>>> publication of a postal address in both the Whois and an outside
>>> directory.
>>> 
>>> The conclusions of the study are Striking ? and answer questions
>>> floating in the GNSO for over a decade./Yes, there is abuse of
>>> publicly-published Whois data. Yes, that abuse is statistically
>>> significant./We share again the main finding of the Study for
>>> additional review in this comment period:
>>> 
>>> The main finding of the descriptive study is that there is a
>>> statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misuse affecting
>>> Registrants? email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>>> published in WHOIS when registering domains in these gTLDs.Overall,
>>> we find that 44% of Registrants experience one or more of these types
>>> of WHOIS misuse.[Emphasis added, WHOIS Misuse Study, p. 6]
>>> 
>>> We thank CMU for the extensive efforts it devoted to this study, and
>>> the extra efforts made and extra time spent to expand studies to
>>> include more experts from Latin America and overall go above and
>>> beyond the requirements for arounded and complete study.
>>> 
>>> _Reply to Other Commenters:_
>>> 
>>> *ALAC Comments:*
>>> ALAC published the following comment in their comments: ?We note the
>>> study has returned findings that align with individual experience of
>>> At-Large constituents plus the evidence of widespread occurrence has
>>> validated similar research undertaken by At-Large connected researchers.?
>>> 
>>> We note that NCUC, too, has directly experienced deeply concerning
>>> misuses of WHOIS data. In particular, attorneys in NCUC have directly
>>> experienced and directly worked with clients who have experienced:
>>> 
>>> -Stalking, for which the Whois was the only published source for the
>>> location of an online, home-based business by which an ex-spouse
>>> found his wife and stalked her.
>>> -Political persecution, by which Whois data was used not only to
>>> track dissenters (some located in the US and protected by the First
>>> Amendment), but also their families located in the countries about
>>> whose corruption the websites were devoted (and who were not
>>> similarly protected);
>>> -Chilling effects, by which Whois data was used to track down and
>>> intimidate or silence those who have a different political, religious
>>> or moral view;
>>> 
>>> -Anticompetitive activity ? by which competitors used Whois data to
>>> track down entrepreneurs and small businesses owners and seek to
>>> intimidate them to set businesses plans and services aside.
>>> 
>>> We further share with ALAC the deep concern that ?WHOIS misuse is
>>> factual and widespread, as the evidence from 44% of sampled
>>> registrants across the several domains attest.?We further agree that
>>> thisposes a ?continued threat? to the ?security and confidence in the
>>> use of the Internet, [and] the public interest demands measures to
>>> address and abate its impact.?ALAC
>>> Comments,http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-whois-misuse-27nov13/msg00006.html
>>> 
>>> We have the evidence, and measures must now be taken to protect
>>> Registrants, and the speech, work, expression, hobbies, research,
>>> business, education and communication they conduct using their domain
>>> names.
>>> 
>>> Respectfully submitted,
>>> 
>>> [if approved]
>>> 
>>> NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY
>>> 
>>> <NCUC DRAFT Comments - Misuse of Whois
>>> Study.docx>_______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>> 
>> ***********************************************
>> 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 <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> 
> 
> 
> <Attached Message Part.txt>_______________________________________________
> 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/20140118/2edffb44/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCUC DRAFT Comments - Misuse of Whois Study.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 16547 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140118/2edffb44/attachment-0001.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140118/2edffb44/attachment-0003.html>


From avri  Sat Jan 18 18:11:51 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 11:11:51 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of
 Whois Study - timely
In-Reply-To: <EB419682-D230-4069-97D5-B7EC50F4CDE7@egyptig.org>
References: <52DA65ED-A879-46F4-9D2F-6AC0047F7753@egyptig.org>
	<52DAA035.3050103@acm.org>
	<EB419682-D230-4069-97D5-B7EC50F4CDE7@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <52DAA7C7.3040808@acm.org>

Hi,

No, they haven't as far as i know.  I was one of the 2013 NCUC 
appointees, and may still be until repaced. Nuno is listed as the 
remaining NCUC, he replaced Mary when she went into the staff.  So it 
would be good to hear from him

For NPOC, it would be good to have Marie Laure or Rudy to agree.  Not 
enough time to do a timed call at this point.

avri


On 18-Jan-14 11:01, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Has the NCUC-EC made its final appointments to the NCSG-PC? In any case,
> I second Avri?s request for support of this statement by this committee.
> I apologise for the short notice, and I feel I have some responsibility
> to bear on this. Until very recently, I was mistakenly under the
> impression that we had another week to submit this statement.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2014, at 4:39 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>>
>> Any chance we can endorse this as well in the few hours left?
>>
>> I would just send a last minute note endorsing the NCUC statement once
>> it was made, assuming it is made.  i think i can still call myself
>> alternate chair.  Or the NCSg chair can send the note.
>>
>> "The NCSG-PC endorse the reply statement submitted by the NCUC url-here."
>>
>>
>>
>> At this point I would need to hear at least one voice from each of the
>> constituencies with no objections to feel free to do this.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject:Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of Whois Study -
>> timely
>> Date:Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:31:38 +0100
>> From:Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
>> To:William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>
>> CC:NCUC EC <ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org>>,
>> "ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>"
>> <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Bill and all,
>>
>> I have gone through the study as well as attended the webinar with the
>> researchers who performed it and find that Kathy?s comments are spot on.
>> The statistical significance she (and the report) mention were found to
>> be with a 95% confidence rate, which is the standard accepted confidence
>> of an accurate study based on quantitative analysis.
>>
>> I am happy to endorse this statement and am grateful to Kathy for taking
>> the time to draft it.
>>
>> Thanks Kathy.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2014, at 2:57 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>
>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Folks
>>>
>>> As Kathy has indicated, the timeline on this is rather short, 11:59pm
>>> UTC today, and she?s asking that it be approved as a NCUC statement in
>>> the (probably likely) event it can?t be at the NCSG level in time.
>>> The challenge here is that, per previous, we have not for some time
>>> had the NCUC policy committee called for in our dated bylaws to
>>> approve constituency-level statements. So the way we?ve done such
>>> things in recent years is pretty much rough consensus after hearing
>>> from as many folks as possible in the time frame?certainly elected
>>> (EC) or appointed (NCSG PC) representatives, and regular members as
>>> well.  Admittedly, this is not quite a satisfactory approach given
>>> that NCUC is now much bigger and more diverse when that model set it,
>>> but in lieu of a formal PC a broader and virtual PC is what we have to
>>> work with at the moment.
>>>
>>> So, it?d be really helpful if we could hear back either way from
>>> whoever?s online and can get their head around this in the next few
>>> hours.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 16, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com
>>> <mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com>
>>> <mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> I need your help. There is an amazing study done by two researchers
>>>> (a PhD and an almost-PhD) at Carnegie Melon University.  They tested
>>>> the hypothesis of whether "public access to WHOIS data leads to a
>>>> measurable degree of misuse of certain kinds of gTLD domain name
>>>> Registrant identity and contact information."  They did both a
>>>> descriptive study (surveys of law enforcement and privacy people,
>>>> registrants and registrars) and an experimental study (registering
>>>> domain names with no other traceable source and seeing how much spam,
>>>> and unsolicited phone calls and emails they received).
>>>>
>>>> They found what we have been telling ICANN for years: "there is a
>>>> statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misue affecting
>>>> Registrants' email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>>>> published in Whois."
>>>>
>>>> Great and let's tell them so! I've drafted some comments that not
>>>> only support the findings (and review the great effort dedicated to
>>>> the study), but also draw on abuse cases we have discussed and shared
>>>> from the NCUC over many years, including political persecution,
>>>> chilling effects, anti-competitive activity, and stalking.
>>>>
>>>> Since these are Reply Comments, it is traditional to not only share
>>>> your own views, but comment on those of others.  Our views are, in
>>>> many way, close to those of ALAC on this issue. ALAC's comments note
>>>> that the Study's results "align with individual experience of
>>>> At-Large constituents" and also research ALAC has done.  So the
>>>> noncommercial and individual registrant groups are aligned on this
>>>> issue - and that is key.
>>>>
>>>> Below and attached please find the draft comments. Please feel free
>>>> to send me edits with Track Changes (if you use the attached file).
>>>> To avoid a flood on the list, feel free to share small edits with me
>>>> privately.  Big edits and changes are probably up for discussion.
>>>> DEADLINE: SATURDAY (but I am judging my son's debate team, so
>>>> tomorrow if possible).
>>>>
>>>> Best and tx,
>>>> Kathy
>>>>
>>>> *[DRAFT] Comments of the Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN*
>>>> *Study on Whois Misuse*
>>>> *Due: January 18, 2014*
>>>>
>>>> The Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN submits this document
>>>> in response to the call for public comments on the*/Study on Whois
>>>> Misuse/*posted on the ICANN website. We respectfully submit that this
>>>> Study is a very important one for ICANN and for the GNSO policy work
>>>> ahead.
>>>>
>>>> We note that the study seems thorough and professionally done. Its
>>>> named researchers were Dr. Nicolas Christin and Nektarios Leontiadis.
>>>> Dr. Christin received his PhD in Computer Science from the University
>>>> of Virginia, and is an Assistant Research Professor of Electrical and
>>>> Computer Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University.Nektarios
>>>> Leontiadis is a PhD candidate at Carnegie Mellon University, in the
>>>> department of Engineering and Public Policy, with research focused on
>>>> the economic modeling of online crime. Both are affiliated with
>>>> CMU?s/CyLab/security lab.
>>>>
>>>> This study stayed close and tight to the Terms of Reference set out
>>>> for it --terms set and designed by members of the GNSO and approved
>>>> by the GNSO Council.
>>>>
>>>> The key question of the study was:/Does public access to
>>>> WHOIS-published data lead to a measurable degree of misuse?/The
>>>> answer was an unequivocal yes:
>>>>
>>>> The main finding of the descriptive study is that there is
>>>> a*statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misuse affecting
>>>> Registrants? email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>>>> published in WHOIS*when registering domains in these gTLDs.*Overall,
>>>> we find that 44% of Registrants experience one or more of these types
>>>> of WHOIS misuse.*[Emphasis added, WHOIS Misuse Study, p. 6]
>>>>
>>>> We appreciate the extensive efforts the CMU team undertook to test
>>>> the hypothesis it was given by ICANN and the GNSO.First, it conducted
>>>> a descriptive study reaching out to Experts, Registrants and
>>>> Registries/Registrars. Specifically, the team surveyed a ?diverse
>>>> group of experts in the fields of security and privacy affiliated
>>>> with research institutes, academia, law enforcement agencies,
>>>> Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and national data protection
>>>> commissioners.? [Study, p. 13]
>>>>
>>>> The team surveyed Registrants for a ?better understanding of their
>>>> direct experiences with Whois misuse? and found that 43.9% reported
>>>> ?some kind of misuse of their WHOIS information,? including/postal
>>>> address misuse, email address misuse/and/phone number misuse/tied to
>>>> the Whois data, as well as/Identity theft, unauthorized intrusion to
>>>> servers/and/blackmail/to which publicly-published Whois data may have
>>>> been a contributing factor.
>>>>
>>>> Then the team surveyed Registrars and Registries about Whois
>>>> harvesting attacks, and the deployment and effectiveness of WHOIS
>>>> anti-harvesting techniques.
>>>>
>>>> Second and perhaps most interestingly, the CMU team conducted its own
>>>> experimental study in which they registered a set of domain names in
>>>> the top five gTLDs through a representative set of Registrars, with
>>>> unique Registrant identities. Over the course of six months, they
>>>> tracked emails, voicemails and postal mail received by the
>>>> registrants of these experimental domain names. The purpose of the
>>>> study was to eliminate ?any extraneous variables,? e.g. the
>>>> publication of a postal address in both the Whois and an outside
>>>> directory.
>>>>
>>>> The conclusions of the study are Striking ? and answer questions
>>>> floating in the GNSO for over a decade./Yes, there is abuse of
>>>> publicly-published Whois data. Yes, that abuse is statistically
>>>> significant./We share again the main finding of the Study for
>>>> additional review in this comment period:
>>>>
>>>> The main finding of the descriptive study is that there is a
>>>> statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misuse affecting
>>>> Registrants? email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>>>> published in WHOIS when registering domains in these gTLDs.Overall,
>>>> we find that 44% of Registrants experience one or more of these types
>>>> of WHOIS misuse.[Emphasis added, WHOIS Misuse Study, p. 6]
>>>>
>>>> We thank CMU for the extensive efforts it devoted to this study, and
>>>> the extra efforts made and extra time spent to expand studies to
>>>> include more experts from Latin America and overall go above and
>>>> beyond the requirements for arounded and complete study.
>>>>
>>>> _Reply to Other Commenters:_
>>>>
>>>> *ALAC Comments:*
>>>> ALAC published the following comment in their comments: ?We note the
>>>> study has returned findings that align with individual experience of
>>>> At-Large constituents plus the evidence of widespread occurrence has
>>>> validated similar research undertaken by At-Large connected
>>>> researchers.?
>>>>
>>>> We note that NCUC, too, has directly experienced deeply concerning
>>>> misuses of WHOIS data. In particular, attorneys in NCUC have directly
>>>> experienced and directly worked with clients who have experienced:
>>>>
>>>> -Stalking, for which the Whois was the only published source for the
>>>> location of an online, home-based business by which an ex-spouse
>>>> found his wife and stalked her.
>>>> -Political persecution, by which Whois data was used not only to
>>>> track dissenters (some located in the US and protected by the First
>>>> Amendment), but also their families located in the countries about
>>>> whose corruption the websites were devoted (and who were not
>>>> similarly protected);
>>>> -Chilling effects, by which Whois data was used to track down and
>>>> intimidate or silence those who have a different political, religious
>>>> or moral view;
>>>>
>>>> -Anticompetitive activity ? by which competitors used Whois data to
>>>> track down entrepreneurs and small businesses owners and seek to
>>>> intimidate them to set businesses plans and services aside.
>>>>
>>>> We further share with ALAC the deep concern that ?WHOIS misuse is
>>>> factual and widespread, as the evidence from 44% of sampled
>>>> registrants across the several domains attest.?We further agree that
>>>> thisposes a ?continued threat? to the ?security and confidence in the
>>>> use of the Internet, [and] the public interest demands measures to
>>>> address and abate its impact.?ALAC
>>>> Comments,http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-whois-misuse-27nov13/msg00006.html
>>>>
>>>> We have the evidence, and measures must now be taken to protect
>>>> Registrants, and the speech, work, expression, hobbies, research,
>>>> business, education and communication they conduct using their domain
>>>> names.
>>>>
>>>> Respectfully submitted,
>>>>
>>>> [if approved]
>>>>
>>>> NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY
>>>>
>>>> <NCUC DRAFT Comments - Misuse of Whois
>>>> Study.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>
>>> ***********************************************
>>> 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/><http://www.ncuc.org/>
>>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch><mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
>>> wjdrake at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com><mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>>> www.williamdrake.org
>>> <http://www.williamdrake.org/><http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>>> ***********************************************
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> <Attached Message Part.txt>_______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



From avri  Sat Jan 18 18:25:23 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 11:25:23 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of
 Whois Study - timely
In-Reply-To: <52DAA7C7.3040808@acm.org>
References: <52DA65ED-A879-46F4-9D2F-6AC0047F7753@egyptig.org>	<52DAA035.3050103@acm.org>	<EB419682-D230-4069-97D5-B7EC50F4CDE7@egyptig.org>
	<52DAA7C7.3040808@acm.org>
Message-ID: <52DAAAF3.3040102@acm.org>

Note on not having enough time for a proper call.

This was only brought up on the NCUC list.  While I check the NCSG lists 
every few hours, in the most infrequent  case, I tend to check the NCUC 
discuss list every few days as I don't expect to see it as the policy 
discussion list and I have to prioritize things I am committed to do, 
over those where I have no responsibilities.

I am sure I ought to check the NCUC list more often.

avri


On 18-Jan-14 11:11, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> No, they haven't as far as i know.  I was one of the 2013 NCUC
> appointees, and may still be until repaced. Nuno is listed as the
> remaining NCUC, he replaced Mary when she went into the staff.  So it
> would be good to hear from him
>
> For NPOC, it would be good to have Marie Laure or Rudy to agree.  Not
> enough time to do a timed call at this point.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 18-Jan-14 11:01, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Has the NCUC-EC made its final appointments to the NCSG-PC? In any case,
>> I second Avri?s request for support of this statement by this committee.
>> I apologise for the short notice, and I feel I have some responsibility
>> to bear on this. Until very recently, I was mistakenly under the
>> impression that we had another week to submit this statement.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2014, at 4:39 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Any chance we can endorse this as well in the few hours left?
>>>
>>> I would just send a last minute note endorsing the NCUC statement once
>>> it was made, assuming it is made.  i think i can still call myself
>>> alternate chair.  Or the NCSg chair can send the note.
>>>
>>> "The NCSG-PC endorse the reply statement submitted by the NCUC
>>> url-here."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At this point I would need to hear at least one voice from each of the
>>> constituencies with no objections to feel free to do this.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject:Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of Whois Study -
>>> timely
>>> Date:Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:31:38 +0100
>>> From:Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
>>> To:William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>
>>> CC:NCUC EC <ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org>>,
>>> "ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>"
>>> <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Bill and all,
>>>
>>> I have gone through the study as well as attended the webinar with the
>>> researchers who performed it and find that Kathy?s comments are spot on.
>>> The statistical significance she (and the report) mention were found to
>>> be with a 95% confidence rate, which is the standard accepted confidence
>>> of an accurate study based on quantitative analysis.
>>>
>>> I am happy to endorse this statement and am grateful to Kathy for taking
>>> the time to draft it.
>>>
>>> Thanks Kathy.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Jan 18, 2014, at 2:57 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>
>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Folks
>>>>
>>>> As Kathy has indicated, the timeline on this is rather short, 11:59pm
>>>> UTC today, and she?s asking that it be approved as a NCUC statement in
>>>> the (probably likely) event it can?t be at the NCSG level in time.
>>>> The challenge here is that, per previous, we have not for some time
>>>> had the NCUC policy committee called for in our dated bylaws to
>>>> approve constituency-level statements. So the way we?ve done such
>>>> things in recent years is pretty much rough consensus after hearing
>>>> from as many folks as possible in the time frame?certainly elected
>>>> (EC) or appointed (NCSG PC) representatives, and regular members as
>>>> well.  Admittedly, this is not quite a satisfactory approach given
>>>> that NCUC is now much bigger and more diverse when that model set it,
>>>> but in lieu of a formal PC a broader and virtual PC is what we have to
>>>> work with at the moment.
>>>>
>>>> So, it?d be really helpful if we could hear back either way from
>>>> whoever?s online and can get their head around this in the next few
>>>> hours.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 16, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com
>>>> <mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com>
>>>> <mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>> I need your help. There is an amazing study done by two researchers
>>>>> (a PhD and an almost-PhD) at Carnegie Melon University.  They tested
>>>>> the hypothesis of whether "public access to WHOIS data leads to a
>>>>> measurable degree of misuse of certain kinds of gTLD domain name
>>>>> Registrant identity and contact information."  They did both a
>>>>> descriptive study (surveys of law enforcement and privacy people,
>>>>> registrants and registrars) and an experimental study (registering
>>>>> domain names with no other traceable source and seeing how much spam,
>>>>> and unsolicited phone calls and emails they received).
>>>>>
>>>>> They found what we have been telling ICANN for years: "there is a
>>>>> statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misue affecting
>>>>> Registrants' email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>>>>> published in Whois."
>>>>>
>>>>> Great and let's tell them so! I've drafted some comments that not
>>>>> only support the findings (and review the great effort dedicated to
>>>>> the study), but also draw on abuse cases we have discussed and shared
>>>>> from the NCUC over many years, including political persecution,
>>>>> chilling effects, anti-competitive activity, and stalking.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since these are Reply Comments, it is traditional to not only share
>>>>> your own views, but comment on those of others.  Our views are, in
>>>>> many way, close to those of ALAC on this issue. ALAC's comments note
>>>>> that the Study's results "align with individual experience of
>>>>> At-Large constituents" and also research ALAC has done.  So the
>>>>> noncommercial and individual registrant groups are aligned on this
>>>>> issue - and that is key.
>>>>>
>>>>> Below and attached please find the draft comments. Please feel free
>>>>> to send me edits with Track Changes (if you use the attached file).
>>>>> To avoid a flood on the list, feel free to share small edits with me
>>>>> privately.  Big edits and changes are probably up for discussion.
>>>>> DEADLINE: SATURDAY (but I am judging my son's debate team, so
>>>>> tomorrow if possible).
>>>>>
>>>>> Best and tx,
>>>>> Kathy
>>>>>
>>>>> *[DRAFT] Comments of the Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN*
>>>>> *Study on Whois Misuse*
>>>>> *Due: January 18, 2014*
>>>>>
>>>>> The Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN submits this document
>>>>> in response to the call for public comments on the*/Study on Whois
>>>>> Misuse/*posted on the ICANN website. We respectfully submit that this
>>>>> Study is a very important one for ICANN and for the GNSO policy work
>>>>> ahead.
>>>>>
>>>>> We note that the study seems thorough and professionally done. Its
>>>>> named researchers were Dr. Nicolas Christin and Nektarios Leontiadis.
>>>>> Dr. Christin received his PhD in Computer Science from the University
>>>>> of Virginia, and is an Assistant Research Professor of Electrical and
>>>>> Computer Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University.Nektarios
>>>>> Leontiadis is a PhD candidate at Carnegie Mellon University, in the
>>>>> department of Engineering and Public Policy, with research focused on
>>>>> the economic modeling of online crime. Both are affiliated with
>>>>> CMU?s/CyLab/security lab.
>>>>>
>>>>> This study stayed close and tight to the Terms of Reference set out
>>>>> for it --terms set and designed by members of the GNSO and approved
>>>>> by the GNSO Council.
>>>>>
>>>>> The key question of the study was:/Does public access to
>>>>> WHOIS-published data lead to a measurable degree of misuse?/The
>>>>> answer was an unequivocal yes:
>>>>>
>>>>> The main finding of the descriptive study is that there is
>>>>> a*statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misuse affecting
>>>>> Registrants? email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>>>>> published in WHOIS*when registering domains in these gTLDs.*Overall,
>>>>> we find that 44% of Registrants experience one or more of these types
>>>>> of WHOIS misuse.*[Emphasis added, WHOIS Misuse Study, p. 6]
>>>>>
>>>>> We appreciate the extensive efforts the CMU team undertook to test
>>>>> the hypothesis it was given by ICANN and the GNSO.First, it conducted
>>>>> a descriptive study reaching out to Experts, Registrants and
>>>>> Registries/Registrars. Specifically, the team surveyed a ?diverse
>>>>> group of experts in the fields of security and privacy affiliated
>>>>> with research institutes, academia, law enforcement agencies,
>>>>> Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and national data protection
>>>>> commissioners.? [Study, p. 13]
>>>>>
>>>>> The team surveyed Registrants for a ?better understanding of their
>>>>> direct experiences with Whois misuse? and found that 43.9% reported
>>>>> ?some kind of misuse of their WHOIS information,? including/postal
>>>>> address misuse, email address misuse/and/phone number misuse/tied to
>>>>> the Whois data, as well as/Identity theft, unauthorized intrusion to
>>>>> servers/and/blackmail/to which publicly-published Whois data may have
>>>>> been a contributing factor.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the team surveyed Registrars and Registries about Whois
>>>>> harvesting attacks, and the deployment and effectiveness of WHOIS
>>>>> anti-harvesting techniques.
>>>>>
>>>>> Second and perhaps most interestingly, the CMU team conducted its own
>>>>> experimental study in which they registered a set of domain names in
>>>>> the top five gTLDs through a representative set of Registrars, with
>>>>> unique Registrant identities. Over the course of six months, they
>>>>> tracked emails, voicemails and postal mail received by the
>>>>> registrants of these experimental domain names. The purpose of the
>>>>> study was to eliminate ?any extraneous variables,? e.g. the
>>>>> publication of a postal address in both the Whois and an outside
>>>>> directory.
>>>>>
>>>>> The conclusions of the study are Striking ? and answer questions
>>>>> floating in the GNSO for over a decade./Yes, there is abuse of
>>>>> publicly-published Whois data. Yes, that abuse is statistically
>>>>> significant./We share again the main finding of the Study for
>>>>> additional review in this comment period:
>>>>>
>>>>> The main finding of the descriptive study is that there is a
>>>>> statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misuse affecting
>>>>> Registrants? email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>>>>> published in WHOIS when registering domains in these gTLDs.Overall,
>>>>> we find that 44% of Registrants experience one or more of these types
>>>>> of WHOIS misuse.[Emphasis added, WHOIS Misuse Study, p. 6]
>>>>>
>>>>> We thank CMU for the extensive efforts it devoted to this study, and
>>>>> the extra efforts made and extra time spent to expand studies to
>>>>> include more experts from Latin America and overall go above and
>>>>> beyond the requirements for arounded and complete study.
>>>>>
>>>>> _Reply to Other Commenters:_
>>>>>
>>>>> *ALAC Comments:*
>>>>> ALAC published the following comment in their comments: ?We note the
>>>>> study has returned findings that align with individual experience of
>>>>> At-Large constituents plus the evidence of widespread occurrence has
>>>>> validated similar research undertaken by At-Large connected
>>>>> researchers.?
>>>>>
>>>>> We note that NCUC, too, has directly experienced deeply concerning
>>>>> misuses of WHOIS data. In particular, attorneys in NCUC have directly
>>>>> experienced and directly worked with clients who have experienced:
>>>>>
>>>>> -Stalking, for which the Whois was the only published source for the
>>>>> location of an online, home-based business by which an ex-spouse
>>>>> found his wife and stalked her.
>>>>> -Political persecution, by which Whois data was used not only to
>>>>> track dissenters (some located in the US and protected by the First
>>>>> Amendment), but also their families located in the countries about
>>>>> whose corruption the websites were devoted (and who were not
>>>>> similarly protected);
>>>>> -Chilling effects, by which Whois data was used to track down and
>>>>> intimidate or silence those who have a different political, religious
>>>>> or moral view;
>>>>>
>>>>> -Anticompetitive activity ? by which competitors used Whois data to
>>>>> track down entrepreneurs and small businesses owners and seek to
>>>>> intimidate them to set businesses plans and services aside.
>>>>>
>>>>> We further share with ALAC the deep concern that ?WHOIS misuse is
>>>>> factual and widespread, as the evidence from 44% of sampled
>>>>> registrants across the several domains attest.?We further agree that
>>>>> thisposes a ?continued threat? to the ?security and confidence in the
>>>>> use of the Internet, [and] the public interest demands measures to
>>>>> address and abate its impact.?ALAC
>>>>> Comments,http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-whois-misuse-27nov13/msg00006.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We have the evidence, and measures must now be taken to protect
>>>>> Registrants, and the speech, work, expression, hobbies, research,
>>>>> business, education and communication they conduct using their domain
>>>>> names.
>>>>>
>>>>> Respectfully submitted,
>>>>>
>>>>> [if approved]
>>>>>
>>>>> NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY
>>>>>
>>>>> <NCUC DRAFT Comments - Misuse of Whois
>>>>> Study.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>>
>>>> ***********************************************
>>>> 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/><http://www.ncuc.org/>
>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>>>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch><mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
>>>> wjdrake at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com><mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>>>> www.williamdrake.org
>>>> <http://www.williamdrake.org/><http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>>>> ***********************************************
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <Attached Message
>>> Part.txt>_______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>



From wjdrake  Sat Jan 18 21:35:15 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 20:35:15 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of Whois
	Study - timely
In-Reply-To: <52DAA7C7.3040808@acm.org>
References: <52DA65ED-A879-46F4-9D2F-6AC0047F7753@egyptig.org>
	<52DAA035.3050103@acm.org>
	<EB419682-D230-4069-97D5-B7EC50F4CDE7@egyptig.org>
	<52DAA7C7.3040808@acm.org>
Message-ID: <0A3D008F-1CD6-4BA9-8972-DEBCC6337D69@gmail.com>

Hi Avri

There?s been a lot of comm on this...NCUC has been working to get a full slate of volunteers to fill all open slots.  We are almost there and will then convene an EC meeting to approve them.  So until then yes please you and Nuno are still the reps to NCSG PC.  By end of month this should be fixed.

Thanks

Bill

On Jan 18, 2014, at 5:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> No, they haven't as far as i know.  I was one of the 2013 NCUC appointees, and may still be until repaced. Nuno is listed as the remaining NCUC, he replaced Mary when she went into the staff.  So it would be good to hear from him
> 
> For NPOC, it would be good to have Marie Laure or Rudy to agree.  Not enough time to do a timed call at this point.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 18-Jan-14 11:01, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Has the NCUC-EC made its final appointments to the NCSG-PC? In any case,
>> I second Avri?s request for support of this statement by this committee.
>> I apologise for the short notice, and I feel I have some responsibility
>> to bear on this. Until very recently, I was mistakenly under the
>> impression that we had another week to submit this statement.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 18, 2014, at 4:39 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Any chance we can endorse this as well in the few hours left?
>>> 
>>> I would just send a last minute note endorsing the NCUC statement once
>>> it was made, assuming it is made.  i think i can still call myself
>>> alternate chair.  Or the NCSg chair can send the note.
>>> 
>>> "The NCSG-PC endorse the reply statement submitted by the NCUC url-here."
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> At this point I would need to hear at least one voice from each of the
>>> constituencies with no objections to feel free to do this.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject:Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of Whois Study -
>>> timely
>>> Date:Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:31:38 +0100
>>> From:Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
>>> To:William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>
>>> CC:NCUC EC <ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org>>,
>>> "ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>"
>>> <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Bill and all,
>>> 
>>> I have gone through the study as well as attended the webinar with the
>>> researchers who performed it and find that Kathy?s comments are spot on.
>>> The statistical significance she (and the report) mention were found to
>>> be with a 95% confidence rate, which is the standard accepted confidence
>>> of an accurate study based on quantitative analysis.
>>> 
>>> I am happy to endorse this statement and am grateful to Kathy for taking
>>> the time to draft it.
>>> 
>>> Thanks Kathy.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> On Jan 18, 2014, at 2:57 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>
>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Folks
>>>> 
>>>> As Kathy has indicated, the timeline on this is rather short, 11:59pm
>>>> UTC today, and she?s asking that it be approved as a NCUC statement in
>>>> the (probably likely) event it can?t be at the NCSG level in time.
>>>> The challenge here is that, per previous, we have not for some time
>>>> had the NCUC policy committee called for in our dated bylaws to
>>>> approve constituency-level statements. So the way we?ve done such
>>>> things in recent years is pretty much rough consensus after hearing
>>>> from as many folks as possible in the time frame?certainly elected
>>>> (EC) or appointed (NCSG PC) representatives, and regular members as
>>>> well.  Admittedly, this is not quite a satisfactory approach given
>>>> that NCUC is now much bigger and more diverse when that model set it,
>>>> but in lieu of a formal PC a broader and virtual PC is what we have to
>>>> work with at the moment.
>>>> 
>>>> So, it?d be really helpful if we could hear back either way from
>>>> whoever?s online and can get their head around this in the next few
>>>> hours.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> 
>>>> Bill
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 16, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com
>>>> <mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com>
>>>> <mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>> I need your help. There is an amazing study done by two researchers
>>>>> (a PhD and an almost-PhD) at Carnegie Melon University.  They tested
>>>>> the hypothesis of whether "public access to WHOIS data leads to a
>>>>> measurable degree of misuse of certain kinds of gTLD domain name
>>>>> Registrant identity and contact information."  They did both a
>>>>> descriptive study (surveys of law enforcement and privacy people,
>>>>> registrants and registrars) and an experimental study (registering
>>>>> domain names with no other traceable source and seeing how much spam,
>>>>> and unsolicited phone calls and emails they received).
>>>>> 
>>>>> They found what we have been telling ICANN for years: "there is a
>>>>> statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misue affecting
>>>>> Registrants' email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>>>>> published in Whois."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Great and let's tell them so! I've drafted some comments that not
>>>>> only support the findings (and review the great effort dedicated to
>>>>> the study), but also draw on abuse cases we have discussed and shared
>>>>> from the NCUC over many years, including political persecution,
>>>>> chilling effects, anti-competitive activity, and stalking.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Since these are Reply Comments, it is traditional to not only share
>>>>> your own views, but comment on those of others.  Our views are, in
>>>>> many way, close to those of ALAC on this issue. ALAC's comments note
>>>>> that the Study's results "align with individual experience of
>>>>> At-Large constituents" and also research ALAC has done.  So the
>>>>> noncommercial and individual registrant groups are aligned on this
>>>>> issue - and that is key.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Below and attached please find the draft comments. Please feel free
>>>>> to send me edits with Track Changes (if you use the attached file).
>>>>> To avoid a flood on the list, feel free to share small edits with me
>>>>> privately.  Big edits and changes are probably up for discussion.
>>>>> DEADLINE: SATURDAY (but I am judging my son's debate team, so
>>>>> tomorrow if possible).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best and tx,
>>>>> Kathy
>>>>> 
>>>>> *[DRAFT] Comments of the Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN*
>>>>> *Study on Whois Misuse*
>>>>> *Due: January 18, 2014*
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN submits this document
>>>>> in response to the call for public comments on the*/Study on Whois
>>>>> Misuse/*posted on the ICANN website. We respectfully submit that this
>>>>> Study is a very important one for ICANN and for the GNSO policy work
>>>>> ahead.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We note that the study seems thorough and professionally done. Its
>>>>> named researchers were Dr. Nicolas Christin and Nektarios Leontiadis.
>>>>> Dr. Christin received his PhD in Computer Science from the University
>>>>> of Virginia, and is an Assistant Research Professor of Electrical and
>>>>> Computer Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University.Nektarios
>>>>> Leontiadis is a PhD candidate at Carnegie Mellon University, in the
>>>>> department of Engineering and Public Policy, with research focused on
>>>>> the economic modeling of online crime. Both are affiliated with
>>>>> CMU?s/CyLab/security lab.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This study stayed close and tight to the Terms of Reference set out
>>>>> for it --terms set and designed by members of the GNSO and approved
>>>>> by the GNSO Council.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The key question of the study was:/Does public access to
>>>>> WHOIS-published data lead to a measurable degree of misuse?/The
>>>>> answer was an unequivocal yes:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The main finding of the descriptive study is that there is
>>>>> a*statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misuse affecting
>>>>> Registrants? email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>>>>> published in WHOIS*when registering domains in these gTLDs.*Overall,
>>>>> we find that 44% of Registrants experience one or more of these types
>>>>> of WHOIS misuse.*[Emphasis added, WHOIS Misuse Study, p. 6]
>>>>> 
>>>>> We appreciate the extensive efforts the CMU team undertook to test
>>>>> the hypothesis it was given by ICANN and the GNSO.First, it conducted
>>>>> a descriptive study reaching out to Experts, Registrants and
>>>>> Registries/Registrars. Specifically, the team surveyed a ?diverse
>>>>> group of experts in the fields of security and privacy affiliated
>>>>> with research institutes, academia, law enforcement agencies,
>>>>> Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and national data protection
>>>>> commissioners.? [Study, p. 13]
>>>>> 
>>>>> The team surveyed Registrants for a ?better understanding of their
>>>>> direct experiences with Whois misuse? and found that 43.9% reported
>>>>> ?some kind of misuse of their WHOIS information,? including/postal
>>>>> address misuse, email address misuse/and/phone number misuse/tied to
>>>>> the Whois data, as well as/Identity theft, unauthorized intrusion to
>>>>> servers/and/blackmail/to which publicly-published Whois data may have
>>>>> been a contributing factor.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Then the team surveyed Registrars and Registries about Whois
>>>>> harvesting attacks, and the deployment and effectiveness of WHOIS
>>>>> anti-harvesting techniques.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Second and perhaps most interestingly, the CMU team conducted its own
>>>>> experimental study in which they registered a set of domain names in
>>>>> the top five gTLDs through a representative set of Registrars, with
>>>>> unique Registrant identities. Over the course of six months, they
>>>>> tracked emails, voicemails and postal mail received by the
>>>>> registrants of these experimental domain names. The purpose of the
>>>>> study was to eliminate ?any extraneous variables,? e.g. the
>>>>> publication of a postal address in both the Whois and an outside
>>>>> directory.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The conclusions of the study are Striking ? and answer questions
>>>>> floating in the GNSO for over a decade./Yes, there is abuse of
>>>>> publicly-published Whois data. Yes, that abuse is statistically
>>>>> significant./We share again the main finding of the Study for
>>>>> additional review in this comment period:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The main finding of the descriptive study is that there is a
>>>>> statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misuse affecting
>>>>> Registrants? email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>>>>> published in WHOIS when registering domains in these gTLDs.Overall,
>>>>> we find that 44% of Registrants experience one or more of these types
>>>>> of WHOIS misuse.[Emphasis added, WHOIS Misuse Study, p. 6]
>>>>> 
>>>>> We thank CMU for the extensive efforts it devoted to this study, and
>>>>> the extra efforts made and extra time spent to expand studies to
>>>>> include more experts from Latin America and overall go above and
>>>>> beyond the requirements for arounded and complete study.
>>>>> 
>>>>> _Reply to Other Commenters:_
>>>>> 
>>>>> *ALAC Comments:*
>>>>> ALAC published the following comment in their comments: ?We note the
>>>>> study has returned findings that align with individual experience of
>>>>> At-Large constituents plus the evidence of widespread occurrence has
>>>>> validated similar research undertaken by At-Large connected
>>>>> researchers.?
>>>>> 
>>>>> We note that NCUC, too, has directly experienced deeply concerning
>>>>> misuses of WHOIS data. In particular, attorneys in NCUC have directly
>>>>> experienced and directly worked with clients who have experienced:
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Stalking, for which the Whois was the only published source for the
>>>>> location of an online, home-based business by which an ex-spouse
>>>>> found his wife and stalked her.
>>>>> -Political persecution, by which Whois data was used not only to
>>>>> track dissenters (some located in the US and protected by the First
>>>>> Amendment), but also their families located in the countries about
>>>>> whose corruption the websites were devoted (and who were not
>>>>> similarly protected);
>>>>> -Chilling effects, by which Whois data was used to track down and
>>>>> intimidate or silence those who have a different political, religious
>>>>> or moral view;
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Anticompetitive activity ? by which competitors used Whois data to
>>>>> track down entrepreneurs and small businesses owners and seek to
>>>>> intimidate them to set businesses plans and services aside.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We further share with ALAC the deep concern that ?WHOIS misuse is
>>>>> factual and widespread, as the evidence from 44% of sampled
>>>>> registrants across the several domains attest.?We further agree that
>>>>> thisposes a ?continued threat? to the ?security and confidence in the
>>>>> use of the Internet, [and] the public interest demands measures to
>>>>> address and abate its impact.?ALAC
>>>>> Comments,http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-whois-misuse-27nov13/msg00006.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> We have the evidence, and measures must now be taken to protect
>>>>> Registrants, and the speech, work, expression, hobbies, research,
>>>>> business, education and communication they conduct using their domain
>>>>> names.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Respectfully submitted,
>>>>> 
>>>>> [if approved]
>>>>> 
>>>>> NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY
>>>>> 
>>>>> <NCUC DRAFT Comments - Misuse of Whois
>>>>> Study.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>> 
>>>> ***********************************************
>>>> 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/><http://www.ncuc.org/>
>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>>>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch><mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
>>>> wjdrake at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com><mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>>>> www.williamdrake.org
>>>> <http://www.williamdrake.org/><http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>>>> ***********************************************
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <Attached Message Part.txt>_______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

***********************************************
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 wjdrake  Sat Jan 18 21:37:36 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 20:37:36 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of Whois
	Study - timely
In-Reply-To: <52DAA035.3050103@acm.org>
References: <52DA65ED-A879-46F4-9D2F-6AC0047F7753@egyptig.org>
	<52DAA035.3050103@acm.org>
Message-ID: <7645EE08-3A34-47D0-921A-7BBE102025E6@gmail.com>


On Jan 18, 2014, at 4:39 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> 
> At this point I would need to hear at least one voice from each of the constituencies with no objections to feel free to do this.

no objection from me?

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140118/2fe281e7/attachment.html>


From avri  Sat Jan 18 22:05:11 2014
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:05:11 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of Whois
 Study - timely
Message-ID: <oov4uihyu4h5kq7oquj5f45p.1390075511006@email.android.com>

Hi?

Well if NCUC send this in, it will be safe to assume NCUC supports it. But I still feel I need at least one of the npoc members to endorse the ncsg-pc endorsement since we do not have enough time for the 'speak now or we will assume support' consensus process.

I haven't seen one yet unless I missed it.

avri

Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

-------- Original message --------
From: William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> 
Date:01/18/2014  14:35  (GMT-05:00) 
To: Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> 
Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org> 
Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of Whois Study - timely 

Hi Avri

There?s been a lot of comm on this...NCUC has been working to get a full slate of volunteers to fill all open slots.? We are almost there and will then convene an EC meeting to approve them.? So until then yes please you and Nuno are still the reps to NCSG PC.? By end of month this should be fixed.

Thanks

Bill

On Jan 18, 2014, at 5:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> No, they haven't as far as i know.? I was one of the 2013 NCUC appointees, and may still be until repaced. Nuno is listed as the remaining NCUC, he replaced Mary when she went into the staff.? So it would be good to hear from him
> 
> For NPOC, it would be good to have Marie Laure or Rudy to agree.? Not enough time to do a timed call at this point.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 18-Jan-14 11:01, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Has the NCUC-EC made its final appointments to the NCSG-PC? In any case,
>> I second Avri?s request for support of this statement by this committee.
>> I apologise for the short notice, and I feel I have some responsibility
>> to bear on this. Until very recently, I was mistakenly under the
>> impression that we had another week to submit this statement.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 18, 2014, at 4:39 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Any chance we can endorse this as well in the few hours left?
>>> 
>>> I would just send a last minute note endorsing the NCUC statement once
>>> it was made, assuming it is made.? i think i can still call myself
>>> alternate chair.? Or the NCSg chair can send the note.
>>> 
>>> "The NCSG-PC endorse the reply statement submitted by the NCUC url-here."
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> At this point I would need to hear at least one voice from each of the
>>> constituencies with no objections to feel free to do this.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject:Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of Whois Study -
>>> timely
>>> Date:Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:31:38 +0100
>>> From:Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
>>> To:William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>
>>> CC:NCUC EC <ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org>>,
>>> "ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>"
>>> <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Bill and all,
>>> 
>>> I have gone through the study as well as attended the webinar with the
>>> researchers who performed it and find that Kathy?s comments are spot on.
>>> The statistical significance she (and the report) mention were found to
>>> be with a 95% confidence rate, which is the standard accepted confidence
>>> of an accurate study based on quantitative analysis.
>>> 
>>> I am happy to endorse this statement and am grateful to Kathy for taking
>>> the time to draft it.
>>> 
>>> Thanks Kathy.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> On Jan 18, 2014, at 2:57 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>
>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Folks
>>>> 
>>>> As Kathy has indicated, the timeline on this is rather short, 11:59pm
>>>> UTC today, and she?s asking that it be approved as a NCUC statement in
>>>> the (probably likely) event it can?t be at the NCSG level in time.
>>>> The challenge here is that, per previous, we have not for some time
>>>> had the NCUC policy committee called for in our dated bylaws to
>>>> approve constituency-level statements. So the way we?ve done such
>>>> things in recent years is pretty much rough consensus after hearing
>>>> from as many folks as possible in the time frame?certainly elected
>>>> (EC) or appointed (NCSG PC) representatives, and regular members as
>>>> well.? Admittedly, this is not quite a satisfactory approach given
>>>> that NCUC is now much bigger and more diverse when that model set it,
>>>> but in lieu of a formal PC a broader and virtual PC is what we have to
>>>> work with at the moment.
>>>> 
>>>> So, it?d be really helpful if we could hear back either way from
>>>> whoever?s online and can get their head around this in the next few
>>>> hours.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> 
>>>> Bill
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 16, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com
>>>> <mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com>
>>>> <mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>> I need your help. There is an amazing study done by two researchers
>>>>> (a PhD and an almost-PhD) at Carnegie Melon University.? They tested
>>>>> the hypothesis of whether "public access to WHOIS data leads to a
>>>>> measurable degree of misuse of certain kinds of gTLD domain name
>>>>> Registrant identity and contact information."? They did both a
>>>>> descriptive study (surveys of law enforcement and privacy people,
>>>>> registrants and registrars) and an experimental study (registering
>>>>> domain names with no other traceable source and seeing how much spam,
>>>>> and unsolicited phone calls and emails they received).
>>>>> 
>>>>> They found what we have been telling ICANN for years: "there is a
>>>>> statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misue affecting
>>>>> Registrants' email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>>>>> published in Whois."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Great and let's tell them so! I've drafted some comments that not
>>>>> only support the findings (and review the great effort dedicated to
>>>>> the study), but also draw on abuse cases we have discussed and shared
>>>>> from the NCUC over many years, including political persecution,
>>>>> chilling effects, anti-competitive activity, and stalking.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Since these are Reply Comments, it is traditional to not only share
>>>>> your own views, but comment on those of others.? Our views are, in
>>>>> many way, close to those of ALAC on this issue. ALAC's comments note
>>>>> that the Study's results "align with individual experience of
>>>>> At-Large constituents" and also research ALAC has done.? So the
>>>>> noncommercial and individual registrant groups are aligned on this
>>>>> issue - and that is key.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Below and attached please find the draft comments. Please feel free
>>>>> to send me edits with Track Changes (if you use the attached file).
>>>>> To avoid a flood on the list, feel free to share small edits with me
>>>>> privately.? Big edits and changes are probably up for discussion.
>>>>> DEADLINE: SATURDAY (but I am judging my son's debate team, so
>>>>> tomorrow if possible).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best and tx,
>>>>> Kathy
>>>>> 
>>>>> *[DRAFT] Comments of the Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN*
>>>>> *Study on Whois Misuse*
>>>>> *Due: January 18, 2014*
>>>>> 
>>>>> The Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN submits this document
>>>>> in response to the call for public comments on the*/Study on Whois
>>>>> Misuse/*posted on the ICANN website. We respectfully submit that this
>>>>> Study is a very important one for ICANN and for the GNSO policy work
>>>>> ahead.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We note that the study seems thorough and professionally done. Its
>>>>> named researchers were Dr. Nicolas Christin and Nektarios Leontiadis.
>>>>> Dr. Christin received his PhD in Computer Science from the University
>>>>> of Virginia, and is an Assistant Research Professor of Electrical and
>>>>> Computer Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University.Nektarios
>>>>> Leontiadis is a PhD candidate at Carnegie Mellon University, in the
>>>>> department of Engineering and Public Policy, with research focused on
>>>>> the economic modeling of online crime. Both are affiliated with
>>>>> CMU?s/CyLab/security lab.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This study stayed close and tight to the Terms of Reference set out
>>>>> for it --terms set and designed by members of the GNSO and approved
>>>>> by the GNSO Council.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The key question of the study was:/Does public access to
>>>>> WHOIS-published data lead to a measurable degree of misuse?/The
>>>>> answer was an unequivocal yes:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The main finding of the descriptive study is that there is
>>>>> a*statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misuse affecting
>>>>> Registrants? email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>>>>> published in WHOIS*when registering domains in these gTLDs.*Overall,
>>>>> we find that 44% of Registrants experience one or more of these types
>>>>> of WHOIS misuse.*[Emphasis added, WHOIS Misuse Study, p. 6]
>>>>> 
>>>>> We appreciate the extensive efforts the CMU team undertook to test
>>>>> the hypothesis it was given by ICANN and the GNSO.First, it conducted
>>>>> a descriptive study reaching out to Experts, Registrants and
>>>>> Registries/Registrars. Specifically, the team surveyed a ?diverse
>>>>> group of experts in the fields of security and privacy affiliated
>>>>> with research institutes, academia, law enforcement agencies,
>>>>> Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and national data protection
>>>>> commissioners.? [Study, p. 13]
>>>>> 
>>>>> The team surveyed Registrants for a ?better understanding of their
>>>>> direct experiences with Whois misuse? and found that 43.9% reported
>>>>> ?some kind of misuse of their WHOIS information,? including/postal
>>>>> address misuse, email address misuse/and/phone number misuse/tied to
>>>>> the Whois data, as well as/Identity theft, unauthorized intrusion to
>>>>> servers/and/blackmail/to which publicly-published Whois data may have
>>>>> been a contributing factor.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Then the team surveyed Registrars and Registries about Whois
>>>>> harvesting attacks, and the deployment and effectiveness of WHOIS
>>>>> anti-harvesting techniques.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Second and perhaps most interestingly, the CMU team conducted its own
>>>>> experimental study in which they registered a set of domain names in
>>>>> the top five gTLDs through a representative set of Registrars, with
>>>>> unique Registrant identities. Over the course of six months, they
>>>>> tracked emails, voicemails and postal mail received by the
>>>>> registrants of these experimental domain names. The purpose of the
>>>>> study was to eliminate ?any extraneous variables,? e.g. the
>>>>> publication of a postal address in both the Whois and an outside
>>>>> directory.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The conclusions of the study are Striking ? and answer questions
>>>>> floating in the GNSO for over a decade./Yes, there is abuse of
>>>>> publicly-published Whois data. Yes, that abuse is statistically
>>>>> significant./We share again the main finding of the Study for
>>>>> additional review in this comment period:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The main finding of the descriptive study is that there is a
>>>>> statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misuse affecting
>>>>> Registrants? email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>>>>> published in WHOIS when registering domains in these gTLDs.Overall,
>>>>> we find that 44% of Registrants experience one or more of these types
>>>>> of WHOIS misuse.[Emphasis added, WHOIS Misuse Study, p. 6]
>>>>> 
>>>>> We thank CMU for the extensive efforts it devoted to this study, and
>>>>> the extra efforts made and extra time spent to expand studies to
>>>>> include more experts from Latin America and overall go above and
>>>>> beyond the requirements for arounded and complete study.
>>>>> 
>>>>> _Reply to Other Commenters:_
>>>>> 
>>>>> *ALAC Comments:*
>>>>> ALAC published the following comment in their comments: ?We note the
>>>>> study has returned findings that align with individual experience of
>>>>> At-Large constituents plus the evidence of widespread occurrence has
>>>>> validated similar research undertaken by At-Large connected
>>>>> researchers.?
>>>>> 
>>>>> We note that NCUC, too, has directly experienced deeply concerning
>>>>> misuses of WHOIS data. In particular, attorneys in NCUC have directly
>>>>> experienced and directly worked with clients who have experienced:
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Stalking, for which the Whois was the only published source for the
>>>>> location of an online, home-based business by which an ex-spouse
>>>>> found his wife and stalked her.
>>>>> -Political persecution, by which Whois data was used not only to
>>>>> track dissenters (some located in the US and protected by the First
>>>>> Amendment), but also their families located in the countries about
>>>>> whose corruption the websites were devoted (and who were not
>>>>> similarly protected);
>>>>> -Chilling effects, by which Whois data was used to track down and
>>>>> intimidate or silence those who have a different political, religious
>>>>> or moral view;
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Anticompetitive activity ? by which competitors used Whois data to
>>>>> track down entrepreneurs and small businesses owners and seek to
>>>>> intimidate them to set businesses plans and services aside.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We further share with ALAC the deep concern that ?WHOIS misuse is
>>>>> factual and widespread, as the evidence from 44% of sampled
>>>>> registrants across the several domains attest.?We further agree that
>>>>> thisposes a ?continued threat? to the ?security and confidence in the
>>>>> use of the Internet, [and] the public interest demands measures to
>>>>> address and abate its impact.?ALAC
>>>>> Comments,http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-whois-misuse-27nov13/msg00006.html
>>>>> 
>>>>> We have the evidence, and measures must now be taken to protect
>>>>> Registrants, and the speech, work, expression, hobbies, research,
>>>>> business, education and communication they conduct using their domain
>>>>> names.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Respectfully submitted,
>>>>> 
>>>>> [if approved]
>>>>> 
>>>>> NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY
>>>>> 
>>>>> <NCUC DRAFT Comments - Misuse of Whois
>>>>> Study.docx>_______________________________________________
>>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>>> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>> 
>>>> ***********************************************
>>>> 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/><http://www.ncuc.org/>
>>>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>>>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch><mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
>>>> wjdrake at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com><mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>>>> www.williamdrake.org
>>>> <http://www.williamdrake.org/><http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>>>> ***********************************************
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>>>> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <Attached Message Part.txt>_______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

***********************************************
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/20140118/71061e97/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Sat Jan 18 22:22:33 2014
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 12:22:33 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of Whois
	Study - timely
In-Reply-To: <oov4uihyu4h5kq7oquj5f45p.1390075511006@email.android.com>
References: <oov4uihyu4h5kq7oquj5f45p.1390075511006@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <1ABBDFAD-A33F-4D8C-B147-8AEBB3DAADC5@ipjustice.org>

Thanks for this.  Just a friendly reminder that it the affirmative responsibility of all the NCSG Policy Committee Representatives to read proposed policy statements and weigh in on them.  Let's work as a team and all do our part!

Thanks,
Robin


On Jan 18, 2014, at 12:05 PM, avri doria wrote:

> Hi 
> 
> Well if NCUC send this in, it will be safe to assume NCUC supports it. But I still feel I need at least one of the npoc members to endorse the ncsg-pc endorsement since we do not have enough time for the 'speak now or we will assume support' consensus process.
> 
> I haven't seen one yet unless I missed it.
> 
> avri
> 
> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
> 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: William Drake 
> Date:01/18/2014 14:35 (GMT-05:00) 
> To: Avri Doria 
> Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy 
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of Whois Study - timely 
> 
> Hi Avri
> 
> There?s been a lot of comm on this...NCUC has been working to get a full slate of volunteers to fill all open slots.  We are almost there and will then convene an EC meeting to approve them.  So until then yes please you and Nuno are still the reps to NCSG PC.  By end of month this should be fixed.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Jan 18, 2014, at 5:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > No, they haven't as far as i know.  I was one of the 2013 NCUC appointees, and may still be until repaced. Nuno is listed as the remaining NCUC, he replaced Mary when she went into the staff.  So it would be good to hear from him
> > 
> > For NPOC, it would be good to have Marie Laure or Rudy to agree.  Not enough time to do a timed call at this point.
> > 
> > avri
> > 
> > 
> > On 18-Jan-14 11:01, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> >> Has the NCUC-EC made its final appointments to the NCSG-PC? In any case,
> >> I second Avri?s request for support of this statement by this committee.
> >> I apologise for the short notice, and I feel I have some responsibility
> >> to bear on this. Until very recently, I was mistakenly under the
> >> impression that we had another week to submit this statement.
> >> 
> >> Thanks.
> >> 
> >> Amr
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Jan 18, 2014, at 4:39 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> >> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> Any chance we can endorse this as well in the few hours left?
> >>> 
> >>> I would just send a last minute note endorsing the NCUC statement once
> >>> it was made, assuming it is made.  i think i can still call myself
> >>> alternate chair.  Or the NCSg chair can send the note.
> >>> 
> >>> "The NCSG-PC endorse the reply statement submitted by the NCUC url-here."
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> At this point I would need to hear at least one voice from each of the
> >>> constituencies with no objections to feel free to do this.
> >>> 
> >>> avri
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> -------- Original Message --------
> >>> Subject:Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of Whois Study -
> >>> timely
> >>> Date:Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:31:38 +0100
> >>> From:Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
> >>> To:William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>
> >>> CC:NCUC EC <ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org>>,
> >>> "ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>"
> >>> <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>>
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Hi Bill and all,
> >>> 
> >>> I have gone through the study as well as attended the webinar with the
> >>> researchers who performed it and find that Kathy?s comments are spot on.
> >>> The statistical significance she (and the report) mention were found to
> >>> be with a 95% confidence rate, which is the standard accepted confidence
> >>> of an accurate study based on quantitative analysis.
> >>> 
> >>> I am happy to endorse this statement and am grateful to Kathy for taking
> >>> the time to draft it.
> >>> 
> >>> Thanks Kathy.
> >>> 
> >>> Amr
> >>> 
> >>> On Jan 18, 2014, at 2:57 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
> >>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>
> >>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> Hi Folks
> >>>> 
> >>>> As Kathy has indicated, the timeline on this is rather short, 11:59pm
> >>>> UTC today, and she?s asking that it be approved as a NCUC statement in
> >>>> the (probably likely) event it can?t be at the NCSG level in time.
> >>>> The challenge here is that, per previous, we have not for some time
> >>>> had the NCUC policy committee called for in our dated bylaws to
> >>>> approve constituency-level statements. So the way we?ve done such
> >>>> things in recent years is pretty much rough consensus after hearing
> >>>> from as many folks as possible in the time frame?certainly elected
> >>>> (EC) or appointed (NCSG PC) representatives, and regular members as
> >>>> well.  Admittedly, this is not quite a satisfactory approach given
> >>>> that NCUC is now much bigger and more diverse when that model set it,
> >>>> but in lieu of a formal PC a broader and virtual PC is what we have to
> >>>> work with at the moment.
> >>>> 
> >>>> So, it?d be really helpful if we could hear back either way from
> >>>> whoever?s online and can get their head around this in the next few
> >>>> hours.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>> 
> >>>> Bill
> >>>> 
> >>>> 
> >>>> On Jan 16, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com
> >>>> <mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com>
> >>>> <mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> Hi All,
> >>>>> I need your help. There is an amazing study done by two researchers
> >>>>> (a PhD and an almost-PhD) at Carnegie Melon University.  They tested
> >>>>> the hypothesis of whether "public access to WHOIS data leads to a
> >>>>> measurable degree of misuse of certain kinds of gTLD domain name
> >>>>> Registrant identity and contact information."  They did both a
> >>>>> descriptive study (surveys of law enforcement and privacy people,
> >>>>> registrants and registrars) and an experimental study (registering
> >>>>> domain names with no other traceable source and seeing how much spam,
> >>>>> and unsolicited phone calls and emails they received).
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> They found what we have been telling ICANN for years: "there is a
> >>>>> statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misue affecting
> >>>>> Registrants' email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
> >>>>> published in Whois."
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Great and let's tell them so! I've drafted some comments that not
> >>>>> only support the findings (and review the great effort dedicated to
> >>>>> the study), but also draw on abuse cases we have discussed and shared
> >>>>> from the NCUC over many years, including political persecution,
> >>>>> chilling effects, anti-competitive activity, and stalking.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Since these are Reply Comments, it is traditional to not only share
> >>>>> your own views, but comment on those of others.  Our views are, in
> >>>>> many way, close to those of ALAC on this issue. ALAC's comments note
> >>>>> that the Study's results "align with individual experience of
> >>>>> At-Large constituents" and also research ALAC has done.  So the
> >>>>> noncommercial and individual registrant groups are aligned on this
> >>>>> issue - and that is key.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Below and attached please find the draft comments. Please feel free
> >>>>> to send me edits with Track Changes (if you use the attached file).
> >>>>> To avoid a flood on the list, feel free to share small edits with me
> >>>>> privately.  Big edits and changes are probably up for discussion.
> >>>>> DEADLINE: SATURDAY (but I am judging my son's debate team, so
> >>>>> tomorrow if possible).
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Best and tx,
> >>>>> Kathy
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> *[DRAFT] Comments of the Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN*
> >>>>> *Study on Whois Misuse*
> >>>>> *Due: January 18, 2014*
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN submits this document
> >>>>> in response to the call for public comments on the*/Study on Whois
> >>>>> Misuse/*posted on the ICANN website. We respectfully submit that this
> >>>>> Study is a very important one for ICANN and for the GNSO policy work
> >>>>> ahead.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> We note that the study seems thorough and professionally done. Its
> >>>>> named researchers were Dr. Nicolas Christin and Nektarios Leontiadis.
> >>>>> Dr. Christin received his PhD in Computer Science from the University
> >>>>> of Virginia, and is an Assistant Research Professor of Electrical and
> >>>>> Computer Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University.Nektarios
> >>>>> Leontiadis is a PhD candidate at Carnegie Mellon University, in the
> >>>>> department of Engineering and Public Policy, with research focused on
> >>>>> the economic modeling of online crime. Both are affiliated with
> >>>>> CMU?s/CyLab/security lab.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> This study stayed close and tight to the Terms of Reference set out
> >>>>> for it --terms set and designed by members of the GNSO and approved
> >>>>> by the GNSO Council.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The key question of the study was:/Does public access to
> >>>>> WHOIS-published data lead to a measurable degree of misuse?/The
> >>>>> answer was an unequivocal yes:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The main finding of the descriptive study is that there is
> >>>>> a*statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misuse affecting
> >>>>> Registrants? email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
> >>>>> published in WHOIS*when registering domains in these gTLDs.*Overall,
> >>>>> we find that 44% of Registrants experience one or more of these types
> >>>>> of WHOIS misuse.*[Emphasis added, WHOIS Misuse Study, p. 6]
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> We appreciate the extensive efforts the CMU team undertook to test
> >>>>> the hypothesis it was given by ICANN and the GNSO.First, it conducted
> >>>>> a descriptive study reaching out to Experts, Registrants and
> >>>>> Registries/Registrars. Specifically, the team surveyed a ?diverse
> >>>>> group of experts in the fields of security and privacy affiliated
> >>>>> with research institutes, academia, law enforcement agencies,
> >>>>> Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and national data protection
> >>>>> commissioners.? [Study, p. 13]
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The team surveyed Registrants for a ?better understanding of their
> >>>>> direct experiences with Whois misuse? and found that 43.9% reported
> >>>>> ?some kind of misuse of their WHOIS information,? including/postal
> >>>>> address misuse, email address misuse/and/phone number misuse/tied to
> >>>>> the Whois data, as well as/Identity theft, unauthorized intrusion to
> >>>>> servers/and/blackmail/to which publicly-published Whois data may have
> >>>>> been a contributing factor.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Then the team surveyed Registrars and Registries about Whois
> >>>>> harvesting attacks, and the deployment and effectiveness of WHOIS
> >>>>> anti-harvesting techniques.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Second and perhaps most interestingly, the CMU team conducted its own
> >>>>> experimental study in which they registered a set of domain names in
> >>>>> the top five gTLDs through a representative set of Registrars, with
> >>>>> unique Registrant identities. Over the course of six months, they
> >>>>> tracked emails, voicemails and postal mail received by the
> >>>>> registrants of these experimental domain names. The purpose of the
> >>>>> study was to eliminate ?any extraneous variables,? e.g. the
> >>>>> publication of a postal address in both the Whois and an outside
> >>>>> directory.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The conclusions of the study are Striking ? and answer questions
> >>>>> floating in the GNSO for over a decade./Yes, there is abuse of
> >>>>> publicly-published Whois data. Yes, that abuse is statistically
> >>>>> significant./We share again the main finding of the Study for
> >>>>> additional review in this comment period:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> The main finding of the descriptive study is that there is a
> >>>>> statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misuse affecting
> >>>>> Registrants? email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
> >>>>> published in WHOIS when registering domains in these gTLDs.Overall,
> >>>>> we find that 44% of Registrants experience one or more of these types
> >>>>> of WHOIS misuse.[Emphasis added, WHOIS Misuse Study, p. 6]
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> We thank CMU for the extensive efforts it devoted to this study, and
> >>>>> the extra efforts made and extra time spent to expand studies to
> >>>>> include more experts from Latin America and overall go above and
> >>>>> beyond the requirements for arounded and complete study.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> _Reply to Other Commenters:_
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> *ALAC Comments:*
> >>>>> ALAC published the following comment in their comments: ?We note the
> >>>>> study has returned findings that align with individual experience of
> >>>>> At-Large constituents plus the evidence of widespread occurrence has
> >>>>> validated similar research undertaken by At-Large connected
> >>>>> researchers.?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> We note that NCUC, too, has directly experienced deeply concerning
> >>>>> misuses of WHOIS data. In particular, attorneys in NCUC have directly
> >>>>> experienced and directly worked with clients who have experienced:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -Stalking, for which the Whois was the only published source for the
> >>>>> location of an online, home-based business by which an ex-spouse
> >>>>> found his wife and stalked her.
> >>>>> -Political persecution, by which Whois data was used not only to
> >>>>> track dissenters (some located in the US and protected by the First
> >>>>> Amendment), but also their families located in the countries about
> >>>>> whose corruption the websites were devoted (and who were not
> >>>>> similarly protected);
> >>>>> -Chilling effects, by which Whois data was used to track down and
> >>>>> intimidate or silence those who have a different political, religious
> >>>>> or moral view;
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> -Anticompetitive activity ? by which competitors used Whois data to
> >>>>> track down entrepreneurs and small businesses owners and seek to
> >>>>> intimidate them to set businesses plans and services aside.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> We further share with ALAC the deep concern that ?WHOIS misuse is
> >>>>> factual and widespread, as the evidence from 44% of sampled
> >>>>> registrants across the several domains attest.?We further agree that
> >>>>> thisposes a ?continued threat? to the ?security and confidence in the
> >>>>> use of the Internet, [and] the public interest demands measures to
> >>>>> address and abate its impact.?ALAC
> >>>>> Comments,http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-whois-misuse-27nov13/msg00006.html
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> We have the evidence, and measures must now be taken to protect
> >>>>> Registrants, and the speech, work, expression, hobbies, research,
> >>>>> business, education and communication they conduct using their domain
> >>>>> names.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Respectfully submitted,
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> [if approved]
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> <NCUC DRAFT Comments - Misuse of Whois
> >>>>> Study.docx>_______________________________________________
> >>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> >>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> >>>>> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> >>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> >>>> 
> >>>> ***********************************************
> >>>> 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/><http://www.ncuc.org/>
> >>>> william.drake at uzh.ch
> >>>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch><mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
> >>>> wjdrake at gmail.com
> >>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com><mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
> >>>> www.williamdrake.org
> >>>> <http://www.williamdrake.org/><http://www.williamdrake.org/>
> >>>> ***********************************************
> >>>> 
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> >>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> >>>> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
> >>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> <Attached Message Part.txt>_______________________________________________
> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> >> 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> ***********************************************
> 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/20140118/c37eeae6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140118/c37eeae6/attachment-0001.sig>


From avri  Sat Jan 18 22:35:32 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:35:32 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of Whois
 Study - timely
In-Reply-To: <1ABBDFAD-A33F-4D8C-B147-8AEBB3DAADC5@ipjustice.org>
References: <oov4uihyu4h5kq7oquj5f45p.1390075511006@email.android.com>
	<1ABBDFAD-A33F-4D8C-B147-8AEBB3DAADC5@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <52DAE594.5060509@acm.org>

Hi,

Yes Robin, i know I should have done this earlier.  But I didn't.

Now, it is a lot to expect people to react quickly on a Saturday.  I am 
still hoping, but my lack of getting the request out early, really does 
exonerate anyone from not reacting in time.

avri


On 18-Jan-14 15:22, Robin Gross wrote:
> Thanks for this.  Just a friendly reminder that it the affirmative
> responsibility of all the NCSG Policy Committee Representatives to read
> proposed policy statements and weigh in on them.  Let's work as a team
> and all do our part!
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
> On Jan 18, 2014, at 12:05 PM, avri doria wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> Well if NCUC send this in, it will be safe to assume NCUC supports it.
>> But I still feel I need at least one of the npoc members to endorse
>> the ncsg-pc endorsement since we do not have enough time for the
>> 'speak now or we will assume support' consensus process.
>>
>> I haven't seen one yet unless I missed it.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>>
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: William Drake
>> Date:01/18/2014 14:35 (GMT-05:00)
>> To: Avri Doria
>> Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy
>> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of
>> Whois Study - timely
>>
>> Hi Avri
>>
>> There?s been a lot of comm on this...NCUC has been working to get a
>> full slate of volunteers to fill all open slots.  We are almost there
>> and will then convene an EC meeting to approve them.  So until then
>> yes please you and Nuno are still the reps to NCSG PC.  By end of
>> month this should be fixed.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> On Jan 18, 2014, at 5:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG
>> <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > No, they haven't as far as i know.  I was one of the 2013 NCUC
>> appointees, and may still be until repaced. Nuno is listed as the
>> remaining NCUC, he replaced Mary when she went into the staff.  So it
>> would be good to hear from him
>> >
>> > For NPOC, it would be good to have Marie Laure or Rudy to agree.
>> Not enough time to do a timed call at this point.
>> >
>> > avri
>> >
>> >
>> > On 18-Jan-14 11:01, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> >> Has the NCUC-EC made its final appointments to the NCSG-PC? In any
>> case,
>> >> I second Avri?s request for support of this statement by this
>> committee.
>> >> I apologise for the short notice, and I feel I have some responsibility
>> >> to bear on this. Until very recently, I was mistakenly under the
>> >> impression that we had another week to submit this statement.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks.
>> >>
>> >> Amr
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Jan 18, 2014, at 4:39 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>
>> >> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> Any chance we can endorse this as well in the few hours left?
>> >>>
>> >>> I would just send a last minute note endorsing the NCUC statement once
>> >>> it was made, assuming it is made.  i think i can still call myself
>> >>> alternate chair.  Or the NCSg chair can send the note.
>> >>>
>> >>> "The NCSG-PC endorse the reply statement submitted by the NCUC
>> url-here."
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> At this point I would need to hear at least one voice from each of the
>> >>> constituencies with no objections to feel free to do this.
>> >>>
>> >>> avri
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> -------- Original Message --------
>> >>> Subject:Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of Whois Study -
>> >>> timely
>> >>> Date:Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:31:38 +0100
>> >>> From:Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
>> >>> To:William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>
>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>
>> >>> CC:NCUC EC <ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org>
>> <mailto:ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org>>,
>> >>> "ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>> <mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>"
>> >>> <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>> <mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Bill and all,
>> >>>
>> >>> I have gone through the study as well as attended the webinar with the
>> >>> researchers who performed it and find that Kathy?s comments are
>> spot on.
>> >>> The statistical significance she (and the report) mention were
>> found to
>> >>> be with a 95% confidence rate, which is the standard accepted
>> confidence
>> >>> of an accurate study based on quantitative analysis.
>> >>>
>> >>> I am happy to endorse this statement and am grateful to Kathy for
>> taking
>> >>> the time to draft it.
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks Kathy.
>> >>>
>> >>> Amr
>> >>>
>> >>> On Jan 18, 2014, at 2:57 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>
>> >>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>
>> >>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Hi Folks
>> >>>>
>> >>>> As Kathy has indicated, the timeline on this is rather short, 11:59pm
>> >>>> UTC today, and she?s asking that it be approved as a NCUC
>> statement in
>> >>>> the (probably likely) event it can?t be at the NCSG level in time.
>> >>>> The challenge here is that, per previous, we have not for some time
>> >>>> had the NCUC policy committee called for in our dated bylaws to
>> >>>> approve constituency-level statements. So the way we?ve done such
>> >>>> things in recent years is pretty much rough consensus after hearing
>> >>>> from as many folks as possible in the time frame?certainly elected
>> >>>> (EC) or appointed (NCSG PC) representatives, and regular members as
>> >>>> well.  Admittedly, this is not quite a satisfactory approach given
>> >>>> that NCUC is now much bigger and more diverse when that model set it,
>> >>>> but in lieu of a formal PC a broader and virtual PC is what we
>> have to
>> >>>> work with at the moment.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So, it?d be really helpful if we could hear back either way from
>> >>>> whoever?s online and can get their head around this in the next few
>> >>>> hours.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thanks
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Bill
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Jan 16, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Kathy Kleiman
>> <Kathy at kathykleiman.com <mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com>
>> >>>> <mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com>
>> >>>> <mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Hi All,
>> >>>>> I need your help. There is an amazing study done by two researchers
>> >>>>> (a PhD and an almost-PhD) at Carnegie Melon University.  They tested
>> >>>>> the hypothesis of whether "public access to WHOIS data leads to a
>> >>>>> measurable degree of misuse of certain kinds of gTLD domain name
>> >>>>> Registrant identity and contact information."  They did both a
>> >>>>> descriptive study (surveys of law enforcement and privacy people,
>> >>>>> registrants and registrars) and an experimental study (registering
>> >>>>> domain names with no other traceable source and seeing how much
>> spam,
>> >>>>> and unsolicited phone calls and emails they received).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> They found what we have been telling ICANN for years: "there is a
>> >>>>> statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misue affecting
>> >>>>> Registrants' email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>> >>>>> published in Whois."
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Great and let's tell them so! I've drafted some comments that not
>> >>>>> only support the findings (and review the great effort dedicated to
>> >>>>> the study), but also draw on abuse cases we have discussed and
>> shared
>> >>>>> from the NCUC over many years, including political persecution,
>> >>>>> chilling effects, anti-competitive activity, and stalking.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Since these are Reply Comments, it is traditional to not only share
>> >>>>> your own views, but comment on those of others.  Our views are, in
>> >>>>> many way, close to those of ALAC on this issue. ALAC's comments note
>> >>>>> that the Study's results "align with individual experience of
>> >>>>> At-Large constituents" and also research ALAC has done.  So the
>> >>>>> noncommercial and individual registrant groups are aligned on this
>> >>>>> issue - and that is key.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Below and attached please find the draft comments. Please feel free
>> >>>>> to send me edits with Track Changes (if you use the attached file).
>> >>>>> To avoid a flood on the list, feel free to share small edits with me
>> >>>>> privately.  Big edits and changes are probably up for discussion.
>> >>>>> DEADLINE: SATURDAY (but I am judging my son's debate team, so
>> >>>>> tomorrow if possible).
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Best and tx,
>> >>>>> Kathy
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *[DRAFT] Comments of the Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN*
>> >>>>> *Study on Whois Misuse*
>> >>>>> *Due: January 18, 2014*
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN submits this document
>> >>>>> in response to the call for public comments on the*/Study on Whois
>> >>>>> Misuse/*posted on the ICANN website. We respectfully submit that
>> this
>> >>>>> Study is a very important one for ICANN and for the GNSO policy work
>> >>>>> ahead.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> We note that the study seems thorough and professionally done. Its
>> >>>>> named researchers were Dr. Nicolas Christin and Nektarios
>> Leontiadis.
>> >>>>> Dr. Christin received his PhD in Computer Science from the
>> University
>> >>>>> of Virginia, and is an Assistant Research Professor of
>> Electrical and
>> >>>>> Computer Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University.Nektarios
>> >>>>> Leontiadis is a PhD candidate at Carnegie Mellon University, in the
>> >>>>> department of Engineering and Public Policy, with research
>> focused on
>> >>>>> the economic modeling of online crime. Both are affiliated with
>> >>>>> CMU?s/CyLab/security lab.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> This study stayed close and tight to the Terms of Reference set out
>> >>>>> for it --terms set and designed by members of the GNSO and approved
>> >>>>> by the GNSO Council.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The key question of the study was:/Does public access to
>> >>>>> WHOIS-published data lead to a measurable degree of misuse?/The
>> >>>>> answer was an unequivocal yes:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The main finding of the descriptive study is that there is
>> >>>>> a*statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misuse affecting
>> >>>>> Registrants? email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>> >>>>> published in WHOIS*when registering domains in these gTLDs.*Overall,
>> >>>>> we find that 44% of Registrants experience one or more of these
>> types
>> >>>>> of WHOIS misuse.*[Emphasis added, WHOIS Misuse Study, p. 6]
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> We appreciate the extensive efforts the CMU team undertook to test
>> >>>>> the hypothesis it was given by ICANN and the GNSO.First, it
>> conducted
>> >>>>> a descriptive study reaching out to Experts, Registrants and
>> >>>>> Registries/Registrars. Specifically, the team surveyed a ?diverse
>> >>>>> group of experts in the fields of security and privacy affiliated
>> >>>>> with research institutes, academia, law enforcement agencies,
>> >>>>> Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and national data protection
>> >>>>> commissioners.? [Study, p. 13]
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The team surveyed Registrants for a ?better understanding of their
>> >>>>> direct experiences with Whois misuse? and found that 43.9% reported
>> >>>>> ?some kind of misuse of their WHOIS information,? including/postal
>> >>>>> address misuse, email address misuse/and/phone number misuse/tied to
>> >>>>> the Whois data, as well as/Identity theft, unauthorized intrusion to
>> >>>>> servers/and/blackmail/to which publicly-published Whois data may
>> have
>> >>>>> been a contributing factor.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Then the team surveyed Registrars and Registries about Whois
>> >>>>> harvesting attacks, and the deployment and effectiveness of WHOIS
>> >>>>> anti-harvesting techniques.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Second and perhaps most interestingly, the CMU team conducted
>> its own
>> >>>>> experimental study in which they registered a set of domain names in
>> >>>>> the top five gTLDs through a representative set of Registrars, with
>> >>>>> unique Registrant identities. Over the course of six months, they
>> >>>>> tracked emails, voicemails and postal mail received by the
>> >>>>> registrants of these experimental domain names. The purpose of the
>> >>>>> study was to eliminate ?any extraneous variables,? e.g. the
>> >>>>> publication of a postal address in both the Whois and an outside
>> >>>>> directory.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The conclusions of the study are Striking ? and answer questions
>> >>>>> floating in the GNSO for over a decade./Yes, there is abuse of
>> >>>>> publicly-published Whois data. Yes, that abuse is statistically
>> >>>>> significant./We share again the main finding of the Study for
>> >>>>> additional review in this comment period:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The main finding of the descriptive study is that there is a
>> >>>>> statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misuse affecting
>> >>>>> Registrants? email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>> >>>>> published in WHOIS when registering domains in these gTLDs.Overall,
>> >>>>> we find that 44% of Registrants experience one or more of these
>> types
>> >>>>> of WHOIS misuse.[Emphasis added, WHOIS Misuse Study, p. 6]
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> We thank CMU for the extensive efforts it devoted to this study, and
>> >>>>> the extra efforts made and extra time spent to expand studies to
>> >>>>> include more experts from Latin America and overall go above and
>> >>>>> beyond the requirements for arounded and complete study.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> _Reply to Other Commenters:_
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> *ALAC Comments:*
>> >>>>> ALAC published the following comment in their comments: ?We note the
>> >>>>> study has returned findings that align with individual experience of
>> >>>>> At-Large constituents plus the evidence of widespread occurrence has
>> >>>>> validated similar research undertaken by At-Large connected
>> >>>>> researchers.?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> We note that NCUC, too, has directly experienced deeply concerning
>> >>>>> misuses of WHOIS data. In particular, attorneys in NCUC have
>> directly
>> >>>>> experienced and directly worked with clients who have experienced:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> -Stalking, for which the Whois was the only published source for the
>> >>>>> location of an online, home-based business by which an ex-spouse
>> >>>>> found his wife and stalked her.
>> >>>>> -Political persecution, by which Whois data was used not only to
>> >>>>> track dissenters (some located in the US and protected by the First
>> >>>>> Amendment), but also their families located in the countries about
>> >>>>> whose corruption the websites were devoted (and who were not
>> >>>>> similarly protected);
>> >>>>> -Chilling effects, by which Whois data was used to track down and
>> >>>>> intimidate or silence those who have a different political,
>> religious
>> >>>>> or moral view;
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> -Anticompetitive activity ? by which competitors used Whois data to
>> >>>>> track down entrepreneurs and small businesses owners and seek to
>> >>>>> intimidate them to set businesses plans and services aside.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> We further share with ALAC the deep concern that ?WHOIS misuse is
>> >>>>> factual and widespread, as the evidence from 44% of sampled
>> >>>>> registrants across the several domains attest.?We further agree that
>> >>>>> thisposes a ?continued threat? to the ?security and confidence
>> in the
>> >>>>> use of the Internet, [and] the public interest demands measures to
>> >>>>> address and abate its impact.?ALAC
>> >>>>>
>> Comments,http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-whois-misuse-27nov13/msg00006.html
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> We have the evidence, and measures must now be taken to protect
>> >>>>> Registrants, and the speech, work, expression, hobbies, research,
>> >>>>> business, education and communication they conduct using their
>> domain
>> >>>>> names.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Respectfully submitted,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> [if approved]
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> <NCUC DRAFT Comments - Misuse of Whois
>> >>>>> Study.docx>_______________________________________________
>> >>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> >>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>> >>>>>
>> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>> >>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ***********************************************
>> >>>> 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>
>> <http://www.ncuc.org/><http://www.ncuc.org/>
>> >>>> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>
>> >>>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch><mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
>> >>>> wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>
>> >>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com><mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>> >>>> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
>> >>>> <http://www.williamdrake.org/><http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>> >>>> ***********************************************
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>> >>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>> >>>>
>> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>> >>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> <Attached Message
>> Part.txt>_______________________________________________
>> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > PC-NCSG mailing list
>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>> ***********************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org>
>> william.drake at uzh.ch <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
>> wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org>
>> ***********************************************
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



From avri  Sun Jan 19 01:17:26 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 18:17:26 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [] Draft comments on Misuse of Whois Study - timely
In-Reply-To: <oov4uihyu4h5kq7oquj5f45p.1390075511006@email.android.com>
References: <oov4uihyu4h5kq7oquj5f45p.1390075511006@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <52DB0B86.8030201@acm.org>

Hi,

Well  NCUC has submitted

http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-whois-misuse-27nov13/msg00012.html

But I still have not heard from anyone in NPOC.
I have less than hour left.
Though I am fine with submitting late.

Or not submitting at all if that is the upshot of this last minute 'process'

avri


On 18-Jan-14 15:05, avri doria wrote:

> Hi
>
> Well if NCUC send this in, it will be safe to assume NCUC supports it.
> But I still feel I need at least one of the npoc members to endorse the
> ncsg-pc endorsement since we do not have enough time for the 'speak now
> or we will assume support' consensus process.
>
> I haven't seen one yet unless I missed it.
>
> avri
>
> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: William Drake
> Date:01/18/2014 14:35 (GMT-05:00)
> To: Avri Doria
> Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of Whois
> Study - timely
>
> Hi Avri
>
> There?s been a lot of comm on this...NCUC has been working to get a full
> slate of volunteers to fill all open slots.  We are almost there and
> will then convene an EC meeting to approve them.  So until then yes
> please you and Nuno are still the reps to NCSG PC.  By end of month this
> should be fixed.
>
> Thanks
>
> Bill
>
> On Jan 18, 2014, at 5:11 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>
>  > Hi,
>  >
>  > No, they haven't as far as i know.  I was one of the 2013 NCUC
> appointees, and may still be until repaced. Nuno is listed as the
> remaining NCUC, he replaced Mary when she went into the staff.  So it
> would be good to hear from him
>  >
>  > For NPOC, it would be good to have Marie Laure or Rudy to agree.  Not
> enough time to do a timed call at this point.
>  >
>  > avri
>  >
>  >
>  > On 18-Jan-14 11:01, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>  >> Has the NCUC-EC made its final appointments to the NCSG-PC? In any case,
>  >> I second Avri?s request for support of this statement by this committee.
>  >> I apologise for the short notice, and I feel I have some responsibility
>  >> to bear on this. Until very recently, I was mistakenly under the
>  >> impression that we had another week to submit this statement.
>  >>
>  >> Thanks.
>  >>
>  >> Amr
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> On Jan 18, 2014, at 4:39 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>  >> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>  >>
>  >>>
>  >>> Any chance we can endorse this as well in the few hours left?
>  >>>
>  >>> I would just send a last minute note endorsing the NCUC statement once
>  >>> it was made, assuming it is made.  i think i can still call myself
>  >>> alternate chair.  Or the NCSg chair can send the note.
>  >>>
>  >>> "The NCSG-PC endorse the reply statement submitted by the NCUC
> url-here."
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>> At this point I would need to hear at least one voice from each of the
>  >>> constituencies with no objections to feel free to do this.
>  >>>
>  >>> avri
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>> -------- Original Message --------
>  >>> Subject:Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of Whois Study -
>  >>> timely
>  >>> Date:Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:31:38 +0100
>  >>> From:Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>
>  >>> To:William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>
>  >>> CC:NCUC EC <ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org>>,
>  >>> "ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>"
>  >>> <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>>
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>> Hi Bill and all,
>  >>>
>  >>> I have gone through the study as well as attended the webinar with the
>  >>> researchers who performed it and find that Kathy?s comments are
> spot on.
>  >>> The statistical significance she (and the report) mention were found to
>  >>> be with a 95% confidence rate, which is the standard accepted
> confidence
>  >>> of an accurate study based on quantitative analysis.
>  >>>
>  >>> I am happy to endorse this statement and am grateful to Kathy for
> taking
>  >>> the time to draft it.
>  >>>
>  >>> Thanks Kathy.
>  >>>
>  >>> Amr
>  >>>
>  >>> On Jan 18, 2014, at 2:57 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>  >>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>
>  >>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>  >>>
>  >>>> Hi Folks
>  >>>>
>  >>>> As Kathy has indicated, the timeline on this is rather short, 11:59pm
>  >>>> UTC today, and she?s asking that it be approved as a NCUC statement in
>  >>>> the (probably likely) event it can?t be at the NCSG level in time.
>  >>>> The challenge here is that, per previous, we have not for some time
>  >>>> had the NCUC policy committee called for in our dated bylaws to
>  >>>> approve constituency-level statements. So the way we?ve done such
>  >>>> things in recent years is pretty much rough consensus after hearing
>  >>>> from as many folks as possible in the time frame?certainly elected
>  >>>> (EC) or appointed (NCSG PC) representatives, and regular members as
>  >>>> well.  Admittedly, this is not quite a satisfactory approach given
>  >>>> that NCUC is now much bigger and more diverse when that model set it,
>  >>>> but in lieu of a formal PC a broader and virtual PC is what we have to
>  >>>> work with at the moment.
>  >>>>
>  >>>> So, it?d be really helpful if we could hear back either way from
>  >>>> whoever?s online and can get their head around this in the next few
>  >>>> hours.
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Thanks
>  >>>>
>  >>>> Bill
>  >>>>
>  >>>>
>  >>>> On Jan 16, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com
>  >>>> <mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com>
>  >>>> <mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
>  >>>>
>  >>>>> Hi All,
>  >>>>> I need your help. There is an amazing study done by two researchers
>  >>>>> (a PhD and an almost-PhD) at Carnegie Melon University.  They tested
>  >>>>> the hypothesis of whether "public access to WHOIS data leads to a
>  >>>>> measurable degree of misuse of certain kinds of gTLD domain name
>  >>>>> Registrant identity and contact information."  They did both a
>  >>>>> descriptive study (surveys of law enforcement and privacy people,
>  >>>>> registrants and registrars) and an experimental study (registering
>  >>>>> domain names with no other traceable source and seeing how much spam,
>  >>>>> and unsolicited phone calls and emails they received).
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> They found what we have been telling ICANN for years: "there is a
>  >>>>> statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misue affecting
>  >>>>> Registrants' email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>  >>>>> published in Whois."
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> Great and let's tell them so! I've drafted some comments that not
>  >>>>> only support the findings (and review the great effort dedicated to
>  >>>>> the study), but also draw on abuse cases we have discussed and shared
>  >>>>> from the NCUC over many years, including political persecution,
>  >>>>> chilling effects, anti-competitive activity, and stalking.
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> Since these are Reply Comments, it is traditional to not only share
>  >>>>> your own views, but comment on those of others.  Our views are, in
>  >>>>> many way, close to those of ALAC on this issue. ALAC's comments note
>  >>>>> that the Study's results "align with individual experience of
>  >>>>> At-Large constituents" and also research ALAC has done.  So the
>  >>>>> noncommercial and individual registrant groups are aligned on this
>  >>>>> issue - and that is key.
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> Below and attached please find the draft comments. Please feel free
>  >>>>> to send me edits with Track Changes (if you use the attached file).
>  >>>>> To avoid a flood on the list, feel free to share small edits with me
>  >>>>> privately.  Big edits and changes are probably up for discussion.
>  >>>>> DEADLINE: SATURDAY (but I am judging my son's debate team, so
>  >>>>> tomorrow if possible).
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> Best and tx,
>  >>>>> Kathy
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> *[DRAFT] Comments of the Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN*
>  >>>>> *Study on Whois Misuse*
>  >>>>> *Due: January 18, 2014*
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> The Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN submits this document
>  >>>>> in response to the call for public comments on the*/Study on Whois
>  >>>>> Misuse/*posted on the ICANN website. We respectfully submit that this
>  >>>>> Study is a very important one for ICANN and for the GNSO policy work
>  >>>>> ahead.
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> We note that the study seems thorough and professionally done. Its
>  >>>>> named researchers were Dr. Nicolas Christin and Nektarios Leontiadis.
>  >>>>> Dr. Christin received his PhD in Computer Science from the University
>  >>>>> of Virginia, and is an Assistant Research Professor of Electrical and
>  >>>>> Computer Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University.Nektarios
>  >>>>> Leontiadis is a PhD candidate at Carnegie Mellon University, in the
>  >>>>> department of Engineering and Public Policy, with research focused on
>  >>>>> the economic modeling of online crime. Both are affiliated with
>  >>>>> CMU?s/CyLab/security lab.
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> This study stayed close and tight to the Terms of Reference set out
>  >>>>> for it --terms set and designed by members of the GNSO and approved
>  >>>>> by the GNSO Council.
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> The key question of the study was:/Does public access to
>  >>>>> WHOIS-published data lead to a measurable degree of misuse?/The
>  >>>>> answer was an unequivocal yes:
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> The main finding of the descriptive study is that there is
>  >>>>> a*statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misuse affecting
>  >>>>> Registrants? email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>  >>>>> published in WHOIS*when registering domains in these gTLDs.*Overall,
>  >>>>> we find that 44% of Registrants experience one or more of these types
>  >>>>> of WHOIS misuse.*[Emphasis added, WHOIS Misuse Study, p. 6]
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> We appreciate the extensive efforts the CMU team undertook to test
>  >>>>> the hypothesis it was given by ICANN and the GNSO.First, it conducted
>  >>>>> a descriptive study reaching out to Experts, Registrants and
>  >>>>> Registries/Registrars. Specifically, the team surveyed a ?diverse
>  >>>>> group of experts in the fields of security and privacy affiliated
>  >>>>> with research institutes, academia, law enforcement agencies,
>  >>>>> Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and national data protection
>  >>>>> commissioners.? [Study, p. 13]
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> The team surveyed Registrants for a ?better understanding of their
>  >>>>> direct experiences with Whois misuse? and found that 43.9% reported
>  >>>>> ?some kind of misuse of their WHOIS information,? including/postal
>  >>>>> address misuse, email address misuse/and/phone number misuse/tied to
>  >>>>> the Whois data, as well as/Identity theft, unauthorized intrusion to
>  >>>>> servers/and/blackmail/to which publicly-published Whois data may have
>  >>>>> been a contributing factor.
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> Then the team surveyed Registrars and Registries about Whois
>  >>>>> harvesting attacks, and the deployment and effectiveness of WHOIS
>  >>>>> anti-harvesting techniques.
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> Second and perhaps most interestingly, the CMU team conducted its own
>  >>>>> experimental study in which they registered a set of domain names in
>  >>>>> the top five gTLDs through a representative set of Registrars, with
>  >>>>> unique Registrant identities. Over the course of six months, they
>  >>>>> tracked emails, voicemails and postal mail received by the
>  >>>>> registrants of these experimental domain names. The purpose of the
>  >>>>> study was to eliminate ?any extraneous variables,? e.g. the
>  >>>>> publication of a postal address in both the Whois and an outside
>  >>>>> directory.
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> The conclusions of the study are Striking ? and answer questions
>  >>>>> floating in the GNSO for over a decade./Yes, there is abuse of
>  >>>>> publicly-published Whois data. Yes, that abuse is statistically
>  >>>>> significant./We share again the main finding of the Study for
>  >>>>> additional review in this comment period:
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> The main finding of the descriptive study is that there is a
>  >>>>> statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misuse affecting
>  >>>>> Registrants? email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>  >>>>> published in WHOIS when registering domains in these gTLDs.Overall,
>  >>>>> we find that 44% of Registrants experience one or more of these types
>  >>>>> of WHOIS misuse.[Emphasis added, WHOIS Misuse Study, p. 6]
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> We thank CMU for the extensive efforts it devoted to this study, and
>  >>>>> the extra efforts made and extra time spent to expand studies to
>  >>>>> include more experts from Latin America and overall go above and
>  >>>>> beyond the requirements for arounded and complete study.
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> _Reply to Other Commenters:_
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> *ALAC Comments:*
>  >>>>> ALAC published the following comment in their comments: ?We note the
>  >>>>> study has returned findings that align with individual experience of
>  >>>>> At-Large constituents plus the evidence of widespread occurrence has
>  >>>>> validated similar research undertaken by At-Large connected
>  >>>>> researchers.?
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> We note that NCUC, too, has directly experienced deeply concerning
>  >>>>> misuses of WHOIS data. In particular, attorneys in NCUC have directly
>  >>>>> experienced and directly worked with clients who have experienced:
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> -Stalking, for which the Whois was the only published source for the
>  >>>>> location of an online, home-based business by which an ex-spouse
>  >>>>> found his wife and stalked her.
>  >>>>> -Political persecution, by which Whois data was used not only to
>  >>>>> track dissenters (some located in the US and protected by the First
>  >>>>> Amendment), but also their families located in the countries about
>  >>>>> whose corruption the websites were devoted (and who were not
>  >>>>> similarly protected);
>  >>>>> -Chilling effects, by which Whois data was used to track down and
>  >>>>> intimidate or silence those who have a different political, religious
>  >>>>> or moral view;
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> -Anticompetitive activity ? by which competitors used Whois data to
>  >>>>> track down entrepreneurs and small businesses owners and seek to
>  >>>>> intimidate them to set businesses plans and services aside.
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> We further share with ALAC the deep concern that ?WHOIS misuse is
>  >>>>> factual and widespread, as the evidence from 44% of sampled
>  >>>>> registrants across the several domains attest.?We further agree that
>  >>>>> thisposes a ?continued threat? to the ?security and confidence in the
>  >>>>> use of the Internet, [and] the public interest demands measures to
>  >>>>> address and abate its impact.?ALAC
>  >>>>>
> Comments,http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-whois-misuse-27nov13/msg00006.html
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> We have the evidence, and measures must now be taken to protect
>  >>>>> Registrants, and the speech, work, expression, hobbies, research,
>  >>>>> business, education and communication they conduct using their domain
>  >>>>> names.
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> Respectfully submitted,
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> [if approved]
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY
>  >>>>>
>  >>>>> <NCUC DRAFT Comments - Misuse of Whois
>  >>>>> Study.docx>_______________________________________________
>  >>>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>  >>>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>  >>>>>
> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>  >>>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>  >>>>
>  >>>> ***********************************************
>  >>>> 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/><http://www.ncuc.org/>
>  >>>> william.drake at uzh.ch
>  >>>> <mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch><mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch> (direct),
>  >>>> wjdrake at gmail.com
>  >>>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com><mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com> (lists),
>  >>>> www.williamdrake.org
>  >>>> <http://www.williamdrake.org/><http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>  >>>> ***********************************************
>  >>>>
>  >>>> _______________________________________________
>  >>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>  >>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>  >>>>
> <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org><mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>  >>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>> <Attached Message
> Part.txt>_______________________________________________
>  >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>  >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>  >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>  >>
>  >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > PC-NCSG mailing list
>  > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>  > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> ***********************************************
> 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 mllemineur  Tue Jan 21 18:46:48 2014
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 10:46:48 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of
 Whois Study - timely
In-Reply-To: <52DAA035.3050103@acm.org>
References: <52DA65ED-A879-46F4-9D2F-6AC0047F7753@egyptig.org>
	<52DAA035.3050103@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqFafcsfyG9gAXnhotTSQobTzHz3LwFmYYFOYKyh_KUHzg@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Avri,

NPOC supports the NCUC statement.

Best,

mll


On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
> Any chance we can endorse this as well in the few hours left?
>
> I would just send a last minute note endorsing the NCUC statement once it
> was made, assuming it is made.  i think i can still call myself alternate
> chair.  Or the NCSg chair can send the note.
>
> "The NCSG-PC endorse the reply statement submitted by the NCUC url-here."
>
>
>
> At this point I would need to hear at least one voice from each of the
> constituencies with no objections to feel free to do this.
>
> avri
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:        Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Draft comments on Misuse of Whois Study
> -
> timely
> Date:   Sat, 18 Jan 2014 16:31:38 +0100
> From:   Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>
> To:     William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
> CC:     NCUC EC <ncuc-ec at lists.ncuc.org>, "ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org"
> <ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>
>
>
> Hi Bill and all,
>
> I have gone through the study as well as attended the webinar with the
> researchers who performed it and find that Kathy?s comments are spot on.
> The statistical significance she (and the report) mention were found to
> be with a 95% confidence rate, which is the standard accepted confidence
> of an accurate study based on quantitative analysis.
>
> I am happy to endorse this statement and am grateful to Kathy for taking
> the time to draft it.
>
> Thanks Kathy.
>
> Amr
>
> On Jan 18, 2014, at 2:57 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>  Hi Folks
>>
>> As Kathy has indicated, the timeline on this is rather short, 11:59pm
>> UTC today, and she?s asking that it be approved as a NCUC statement in
>> the (probably likely) event it can?t be at the NCSG level in time.
>>  The challenge here is that, per previous, we have not for some time
>> had the NCUC policy committee called for in our dated bylaws to
>> approve constituency-level statements. So the way we?ve done such
>> things in recent years is pretty much rough consensus after hearing
>> from as many folks as possible in the time frame?certainly elected
>> (EC) or appointed (NCSG PC) representatives, and regular members as
>> well.  Admittedly, this is not quite a satisfactory approach given
>> that NCUC is now much bigger and more diverse when that model set it,
>> but in lieu of a formal PC a broader and virtual PC is what we have to
>> work with at the moment.
>>
>> So, it?d be really helpful if we could hear back either way from
>> whoever?s online and can get their head around this in the next few hours.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> On Jan 16, 2014, at 11:52 PM, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com
>> <mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com>> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi All,
>>> I need your help. There is an amazing study done by two researchers
>>> (a PhD and an almost-PhD) at Carnegie Melon University.  They tested
>>> the hypothesis of whether "public access to WHOIS data leads to a
>>> measurable degree of misuse of certain kinds of gTLD domain name
>>> Registrant identity and contact information."  They did both a
>>> descriptive study (surveys of law enforcement and privacy people,
>>> registrants and registrars) and an experimental study (registering
>>> domain names with no other traceable source and seeing how much spam,
>>> and unsolicited phone calls and emails they received).
>>>
>>> They found what we have been telling ICANN for years: "there is a
>>> statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misue affecting
>>> Registrants' email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>>> published in Whois."
>>>
>>> Great and let's tell them so! I've drafted some comments that not
>>> only support the findings (and review the great effort dedicated to
>>> the study), but also draw on abuse cases we have discussed and shared
>>> from the NCUC over many years, including political persecution,
>>> chilling effects, anti-competitive activity, and stalking.
>>>
>>> Since these are Reply Comments, it is traditional to not only share
>>> your own views, but comment on those of others.  Our views are, in
>>> many way, close to those of ALAC on this issue. ALAC's comments note
>>> that the Study's results "align with individual experience of
>>> At-Large constituents" and also research ALAC has done.  So the
>>> noncommercial and individual registrant groups are aligned on this
>>> issue - and that is key.
>>>
>>> Below and attached please find the draft comments. Please feel free
>>> to send me edits with Track Changes (if you use the attached file).
>>> To avoid a flood on the list, feel free to share small edits with me
>>> privately.  Big edits and changes are probably up for discussion.
>>> DEADLINE: SATURDAY (but I am judging my son's debate team, so
>>> tomorrow if possible).
>>>
>>> Best and tx,
>>> Kathy
>>>
>>> *[DRAFT] Comments of the Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN*
>>> *Study on Whois Misuse*
>>> *Due: January 18, 2014*
>>>
>>> The Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN submits this document
>>> in response to the call for public comments on the*/Study on Whois
>>> Misuse/*posted on the ICANN website. We respectfully submit that this
>>> Study is a very important one for ICANN and for the GNSO policy work
>>> ahead.
>>>
>>> We note that the study seems thorough and professionally done. Its
>>> named researchers were Dr. Nicolas Christin and Nektarios Leontiadis.
>>> Dr. Christin received his PhD in Computer Science from the University
>>> of Virginia, and is an Assistant Research Professor of Electrical and
>>> Computer Engineering at Carnegie Mellon University.Nektarios
>>> Leontiadis is a PhD candidate at Carnegie Mellon University, in the
>>> department of Engineering and Public Policy, with research focused on
>>> the economic modeling of online crime. Both are affiliated with
>>> CMU?s/CyLab/security lab.
>>>
>>> This study stayed close and tight to the Terms of Reference set out
>>> for it --terms set and designed by members of the GNSO and approved
>>> by the GNSO Council.
>>>
>>> The key question of the study was:/Does public access to
>>> WHOIS-published data lead to a measurable degree of misuse?/The
>>> answer was an unequivocal yes:
>>>
>>> The main finding of the descriptive study is that there is
>>> a*statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misuse affecting
>>> Registrants? email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>>> published in WHOIS*when registering domains in these gTLDs.*Overall,
>>> we find that 44% of Registrants experience one or more of these types
>>> of WHOIS misuse.*[Emphasis added, WHOIS Misuse Study, p. 6]
>>>
>>> We appreciate the extensive efforts the CMU team undertook to test
>>> the hypothesis it was given by ICANN and the GNSO.First, it conducted
>>> a descriptive study reaching out to Experts, Registrants and
>>> Registries/Registrars. Specifically, the team surveyed a ?diverse
>>> group of experts in the fields of security and privacy affiliated
>>> with research institutes, academia, law enforcement agencies,
>>> Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and national data protection
>>> commissioners.? [Study, p. 13]
>>>
>>> The team surveyed Registrants for a ?better understanding of their
>>> direct experiences with Whois misuse? and found that 43.9% reported
>>> ?some kind of misuse of their WHOIS information,? including/postal
>>> address misuse, email address misuse/and/phone number misuse/tied to
>>> the Whois data, as well as/Identity theft, unauthorized intrusion to
>>> servers/and/blackmail/to which publicly-published Whois data may have
>>> been a contributing factor.
>>>
>>> Then the team surveyed Registrars and Registries about Whois
>>> harvesting attacks, and the deployment and effectiveness of WHOIS
>>> anti-harvesting techniques.
>>>
>>> Second and perhaps most interestingly, the CMU team conducted its own
>>> experimental study in which they registered a set of domain names in
>>> the top five gTLDs through a representative set of Registrars, with
>>> unique Registrant identities. Over the course of six months, they
>>> tracked emails, voicemails and postal mail received by the
>>> registrants of these experimental domain names. The purpose of the
>>> study was to eliminate ?any extraneous variables,? e.g. the
>>> publication of a postal address in both the Whois and an outside
>>> directory.
>>>
>>> The conclusions of the study are Striking ? and answer questions
>>> floating in the GNSO for over a decade./Yes, there is abuse of
>>> publicly-published Whois data. Yes, that abuse is statistically
>>> significant./We share again the main finding of the Study for
>>> additional review in this comment period:
>>>
>>> The main finding of the descriptive study is that there is a
>>> statistically significant occurrence of WHOIS misuse affecting
>>> Registrants? email addresses, postal addresses, and phone numbers,
>>> published in WHOIS when registering domains in these gTLDs.Overall,
>>> we find that 44% of Registrants experience one or more of these types
>>> of WHOIS misuse.[Emphasis added, WHOIS Misuse Study, p. 6]
>>>
>>> We thank CMU for the extensive efforts it devoted to this study, and
>>> the extra efforts made and extra time spent to expand studies to
>>> include more experts from Latin America and overall go above and
>>> beyond the requirements for arounded and complete study.
>>>
>>> _Reply to Other Commenters:_
>>>
>>> *ALAC Comments:*
>>> ALAC published the following comment in their comments: ?We note the
>>> study has returned findings that align with individual experience of
>>> At-Large constituents plus the evidence of widespread occurrence has
>>> validated similar research undertaken by At-Large connected researchers.?
>>>
>>> We note that NCUC, too, has directly experienced deeply concerning
>>> misuses of WHOIS data. In particular, attorneys in NCUC have directly
>>> experienced and directly worked with clients who have experienced:
>>>
>>> -Stalking, for which the Whois was the only published source for the
>>> location of an online, home-based business by which an ex-spouse
>>> found his wife and stalked her.
>>> -Political persecution, by which Whois data was used not only to
>>> track dissenters (some located in the US and protected by the First
>>> Amendment), but also their families located in the countries about
>>> whose corruption the websites were devoted (and who were not
>>> similarly protected);
>>> -Chilling effects, by which Whois data was used to track down and
>>> intimidate or silence those who have a different political, religious
>>> or moral view;
>>>
>>> -Anticompetitive activity ? by which competitors used Whois data to
>>> track down entrepreneurs and small businesses owners and seek to
>>> intimidate them to set businesses plans and services aside.
>>>
>>> We further share with ALAC the deep concern that ?WHOIS misuse is
>>> factual and widespread, as the evidence from 44% of sampled
>>> registrants across the several domains attest.?We further agree that
>>> thisposes a ?continued threat? to the ?security and confidence in the
>>> use of the Internet, [and] the public interest demands measures to
>>> address and abate its impact.?ALAC
>>> Comments,http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-whois-
>>> misuse-27nov13/msg00006.html
>>>
>>> We have the evidence, and measures must now be taken to protect
>>> Registrants, and the speech, work, expression, hobbies, research,
>>> business, education and communication they conduct using their domain
>>> names.
>>>
>>> Respectfully submitted,
>>>
>>> [if approved]
>>>
>>> NONCOMMERCIAL USERS CONSTITUENCY
>>>
>>> <NCUC DRAFT Comments - Misuse of Whois
>>> Study.docx>_______________________________________________
>>> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
>>> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>>
>>
>> ***********************************************
>> 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 <mailto:Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org>
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140121/f3ab67d8/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Thu Jan 23 22:57:49 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:57:49 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Skype chat
Message-ID: <52E1824D.1030804@acm.org>

Hi,

Since there are new people in the group.
And i know i should wait until we get more new people.
Then again they should go back to the mailing list archives to help 
themselves with starting up in the NCSG-PC.

There is a Skype chat room that we use for back channel conversations 
during council calls and at other times.   so:

1. for future council calls,
2. it could be useful as another way to alert each other to stuff that 
needs to be done and to allow us to have conversations while trying to 
figure out what to do.

Send me your skypename if you want to be added.

Also don't know how many of you listen in to council calls as a habit, 
but it is streamed on  stream.icann.com:8000/gnso.m3u That plus the 
Skype chat allows the council members to have an ongoing discussion with 
the whole committee, and other NCSG members, should they wish that to be 
the case during the meeting.

avri



From rafik.dammak  Fri Jan 24 16:13:37 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 23:13:37 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Request for input: Policy Development Process (PDP)
 on Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues.
In-Reply-To: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F69624716@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F69624716@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThm6OoOXfxqjzimuGcHKaiumy2EVJMkym7CMyXVf_KSkKA@mail.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/20140124/c2a79aeb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Final PPSAI-SG-CInputTemplate-22Jan2014.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 61952 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140124/c2a79aeb/attachment-0001.doc>


From avri  Tue Jan 28 02:13:22 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 19:13:22 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ccWG Ig
Message-ID: <52E6F622.2090708@acm.org>

Hi,

After an extended chat with OCL over the charter, I have decided that I 
do not have the emotional bandwidth for the ccWG Ig.

Please replace me on the WG.

Thanks

avri



From aelsadr  Tue Jan 28 18:41:16 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:41:16 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ccWG Ig
In-Reply-To: <52E6F622.2090708@acm.org>
References: <52E6F622.2090708@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CBDF5B75-FAE1-4099-AE25-E83F252759F3@egyptig.org>

I?m surprised that there might be such strong disagreement on the WG charter, and sorry to hear it?! Some insight on the nature of the disagreement would be helpful.

If you would like to be replaced, do you suggest someone who could pick up where you left off on charter discussions, or someone who would be more useful on the wider context?

My first thoughts include Marilia. Is she on this WG?

Thanks.

Amr

On Jan 28, 2014, at 1:13 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> After an extended chat with OCL over the charter, I have decided that I do not have the emotional bandwidth for the ccWG Ig.
> 
> Please replace me on the WG.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> avri
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Tue Jan 28 19:13:21 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:13:21 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ccWG Ig
In-Reply-To: <CBDF5B75-FAE1-4099-AE25-E83F252759F3@egyptig.org>
References: <52E6F622.2090708@acm.org>
	<CBDF5B75-FAE1-4099-AE25-E83F252759F3@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <52E7E531.9000901@acm.org>

Hi,

The fundamental point of my inability to cope with this group is the 
fact that while the draft charter say 4 per SO or AC, the co-chairs are 
allowing the notion of 4 per SG or C.

So we end up with a GNSO having the ability to send 20 commercial reps 
and 8 non commercial, while ccNSO, ALAC and the rest of them only send 
4.  Now not that many people are interested, nonetheless, the glaring 
lack of fairness makes the group illegitimate.

And this is what the conversation revolved around.  I was trying to get 
the SO/AC count to 5 - to allow for regional diversity in those 
organizations that care - plus a co-chair from each SO/AC.

I was told that 6 per SG/C would never fly.  And when I finally managed 
to get the discussion to understand the difference between SO/AC and 
SG/C I was ready to slit my own throat.  And that is when the 
conversation broke down.  By that point my ability to deal with 
saccharine sweet patronization was maxed out.

That is when I decided I did not need this - I have too much real work I 
need to do and need to shuck some of the energy wasting, soul sucking 
cruft.  The group is malformed and I do not know whether it is fixable - 
a rational charter might have helped, but that isn't going to happen.  I 
most definitely is not fixable with OCL as chair.  And while I am 
interested in the community giving advice to the staff and think we 
should have such a group, I just don't see the headpounding i would have 
to give myself as worth it for this dog's breakfast.  Besides we have 
Bill and others who have the ear of ICANN, so we do get to give advice 
and don't need this group.

We made a mistake when ALAC and NCSG, groups at different levels of 
organization created it with membership parity.  ALAC should have 5 and 
NCSG should have 1 plus our chair (i think the other SG get one, and the 
NCAs should choose among themselves for the one - and hopefully we get a 
bit of geographical spread).

In a sense, my resignation is just me doing what I should have been 
doing if the group was properly configured.  Bill is our lead rep and 
Rafik is the chair.  The rest of us can observe if we wish.
Now, I know that is not going to happen, so I figure NCSG, NCUC and NPOC 
should not limit themselves and should put in 4 each for NPOC and NCUC, 
but I don't want to be one of those, though remain happy to observe.

Incidentally the version of the charter I tried to get under discussion 
is now de-linked but is it still available in the wiki:

https://community.icann.org/display/CPMMB/Proposed+Charter+for+CWG+on+Internet+governance

As for Marila, good choice on your part, but I would personally 
recommend she avoid it like the plague.  She is going to be busy enough 
with /1net, igc, bb, irp ... and the FIG and does not need this in her 
mind as well. But she is a good choice.


avri


On 28-Jan-14 11:41, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> I?m surprised that there might be such strong disagreement on the WG charter, and sorry to hear it?! Some insight on the nature of the disagreement would be helpful.
>
> If you would like to be replaced, do you suggest someone who could pick up where you left off on charter discussions, or someone who would be more useful on the wider context?
>
> My first thoughts include Marilia. Is she on this WG?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Jan 28, 2014, at 1:13 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> After an extended chat with OCL over the charter, I have decided that I do not have the emotional bandwidth for the ccWG Ig.
>>
>> Please replace me on the WG.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> avri
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>



From wjdrake  Tue Jan 28 19:13:35 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:13:35 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ccWG Ig
In-Reply-To: <CBDF5B75-FAE1-4099-AE25-E83F252759F3@egyptig.org>
References: <52E6F622.2090708@acm.org>
	<CBDF5B75-FAE1-4099-AE25-E83F252759F3@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5965D0D2-0BE5-431D-82CF-89E1B44D565F@gmail.com>

Hi Amr

On Jan 28, 2014, at 5:41 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:

> I?m surprised that there might be such strong disagreement on the WG charter, and sorry to hear it?! Some insight on the nature of the disagreement would be helpful.
> 
> If you would like to be replaced, do you suggest someone who could pick up where you left off on charter discussions, or someone who would be more useful on the wider context?
> 
> My first thoughts include Marilia. Is she on this WG?

Pranesh and Stephanie are joining the CCWG as NCUC reps.

Marilia and Stephanie were appointed NCUC reps to the NCSG PC by the NCUC EC meeting that just finished.  Separate announcement on appointments forthcoming on the NCUC list.

Best

Bill
> 
> 
> On Jan 28, 2014, at 1:13 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> After an extended chat with OCL over the charter, I have decided that I do not have the emotional bandwidth for the ccWG Ig.
>> 
>> Please replace me on the WG.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

***********************************************
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 avri  Tue Jan 28 19:23:23 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:23:23 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ccWG Ig
In-Reply-To: <5965D0D2-0BE5-431D-82CF-89E1B44D565F@gmail.com>
References: <52E6F622.2090708@acm.org>
	<CBDF5B75-FAE1-4099-AE25-E83F252759F3@egyptig.org>
	<5965D0D2-0BE5-431D-82CF-89E1B44D565F@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52E7E78B.10407@acm.org>



On 28-Jan-14 12:13, William Drake wrote:
> Marilia and Stephanie were appointed NCUC reps to the NCSG PC by the NCUC EC meeting that just finished.  Separate announcement on appointments forthcoming on the NCUC list.


goody.  great additions.

maybe now we can find a chair? And an alternate chair and I can quit 
pretending.

avri



From wjdrake  Tue Jan 28 19:34:53 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:34:53 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New NCUC Reps for the NCSG PC
In-Reply-To: <52E7E78B.10407@acm.org>
References: <52E6F622.2090708@acm.org>
	<CBDF5B75-FAE1-4099-AE25-E83F252759F3@egyptig.org>
	<5965D0D2-0BE5-431D-82CF-89E1B44D565F@gmail.com>
	<52E7E78B.10407@acm.org>
Message-ID: <8F989871-127A-4F4C-A059-BF49FFA72DCA@gmail.com>

Hi

On Jan 28, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> On 28-Jan-14 12:13, William Drake wrote:
>> Marilia and Stephanie were appointed NCUC reps to the NCSG PC by the NCUC EC meeting that just finished.  Separate announcement on appointments forthcoming on the NCUC list.
> 
> goody.  great additions.
> 
> maybe now we can find a chair? And an alternate chair and I can quit pretending.

As a non-member of the NCSG PC I may not be paying attention closely enough and lost the thread, but had thought that Maria expressed willingness some time ago??



Anyway, to formally state here: Marilia Maciel and Stephanie Perrin have kindly agreed to serve as NCUC?s reps here for 2014, and these appointments were just formally approved by the NCUC EC.  So to join the motley crew at

http://mailman.ipjustice.org/roster/pc-ncsg  

They should subscribe at http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

And Robin as list owner can approve?.

Thanks,

Bill

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




From avri  Tue Jan 28 19:43:57 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:43:57 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New NCUC Reps for the NCSG PC
In-Reply-To: <8F989871-127A-4F4C-A059-BF49FFA72DCA@gmail.com>
References: <52E6F622.2090708@acm.org>
	<CBDF5B75-FAE1-4099-AE25-E83F252759F3@egyptig.org>
	<5965D0D2-0BE5-431D-82CF-89E1B44D565F@gmail.com>
	<52E7E78B.10407@acm.org>
	<8F989871-127A-4F4C-A059-BF49FFA72DCA@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52E7EC5D.3040003@acm.org>

Hi,

Both Maria and Rudi expressed interst.  but then we put it on hold until 
such time as NCUC added its new members.

In my view, once they are on the list and ready it is time to make the 
decsion.  Maria and Rudi may want to put their names forward again, or 
they mau have decided that it they thought better of it.

In any case. As soon as the new mebers are on the list and we can 
ascertain that everybody is ready, we can restart that process and ask 
for nominations etc...

(And yes probably self-nominations, but i have a personal preference for 
nominations.  Even if you ask someone to nominate you, at least someone 
is willing to put themselves on the line for you. Incidentally I think I 
nominated Maria last time, but not sure.)

avri

PS. who is going to add them to the list.  And has this been announced 
on NCUC?  Or just here?




On 28-Jan-14 12:34, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Jan 28, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>
>> On 28-Jan-14 12:13, William Drake wrote:
>>> Marilia and Stephanie were appointed NCUC reps to the NCSG PC by the NCUC EC meeting that just finished.  Separate announcement on appointments forthcoming on the NCUC list.
>>
>> goody.  great additions.
>>
>> maybe now we can find a chair? And an alternate chair and I can quit pretending.
>
> As a non-member of the NCSG PC I may not be paying attention closely enough and lost the thread, but had thought that Maria expressed willingness some time ago??
>
>
>
> Anyway, to formally state here: Marilia Maciel and Stephanie Perrin have kindly agreed to serve as NCUC?s reps here for 2014, and these appointments were just formally approved by the NCUC EC.  So to join the motley crew at
>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/roster/pc-ncsg
>
> They should subscribe at http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> And Robin as list owner can approve?.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill
>
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>    Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>    University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>    ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>    www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************
>
>
>



From aelsadr  Tue Jan 28 20:37:55 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 19:37:55 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ccWG Ig
In-Reply-To: <52E7E531.9000901@acm.org>
References: <52E6F622.2090708@acm.org>
	<CBDF5B75-FAE1-4099-AE25-E83F252759F3@egyptig.org>
	<52E7E531.9000901@acm.org>
Message-ID: <A2F996D8-448D-40B5-A800-1F96F1B47978@egyptig.org>

Hi Avri,

Thanks for the brief. Representation issues were bound to become a problem considering that the CCWG decided to include position statements in its charter, which might very well lead to a lack of consensus. With consensus levels similar to those in the GNSO WG Guidelines, this makes numbers of representatives matter a great deal.

I would think the concept of 6/SG in the GNSO and 6 for every other AC/SO would be reasonable, if some folks (CSG) are willing to make compromises. It would have been more helpful if the WG had decided to limits its chartered mandate to advocating the multi-stakeholder model and ensuring participation of the ICANN community in the upcoming event, while leaving position statements out of it and let SGs/Cs/SOs/ACs work out their own positions independently.

I don?t know if ?positions? are discussed on the CCWG calls, or not. The messages on the list seem to be largely limited to organising doodle polls, apologies to attending calls, organising a f2f in Geneva, and other non-substantive issues. I don?t think I?ll be able to go through transcripts and/or recordings of calls (are there any??), but when those take place (or if they actually are), disparate representation will be a problem.

Avri, can?t really blame you for wanting to punch out. There must be other interested members out there who are willing to become more involved. The NCSG members I see active on 1Net seem to include Milton, Adam, Marilia, David, Joanne, Klaus and Jorge (leaving out Avri and Bill who are already involved with the CCWG). Robin is also an obvious potential. Perhaps a call on the NCSG list (or separately on the constituency lists) for volunteers?? Has there been one? I don?t recall.

Anyway?, I doubt that I am suggesting anything you all haven?t considered before.

Just thought I?d offer some thoughts.

Thanks.

Amr

On Jan 28, 2014, at 6:13 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> The fundamental point of my inability to cope with this group is the fact that while the draft charter say 4 per SO or AC, the co-chairs are allowing the notion of 4 per SG or C.
> 
> So we end up with a GNSO having the ability to send 20 commercial reps and 8 non commercial, while ccNSO, ALAC and the rest of them only send 4.  Now not that many people are interested, nonetheless, the glaring lack of fairness makes the group illegitimate.
> 
> And this is what the conversation revolved around.  I was trying to get the SO/AC count to 5 - to allow for regional diversity in those organizations that care - plus a co-chair from each SO/AC.
> 
> I was told that 6 per SG/C would never fly.  And when I finally managed to get the discussion to understand the difference between SO/AC and SG/C I was ready to slit my own throat.  And that is when the conversation broke down.  By that point my ability to deal with saccharine sweet patronization was maxed out.
> 
> That is when I decided I did not need this - I have too much real work I need to do and need to shuck some of the energy wasting, soul sucking cruft.  The group is malformed and I do not know whether it is fixable - a rational charter might have helped, but that isn't going to happen.  I most definitely is not fixable with OCL as chair.  And while I am interested in the community giving advice to the staff and think we should have such a group, I just don't see the headpounding i would have to give myself as worth it for this dog's breakfast.  Besides we have Bill and others who have the ear of ICANN, so we do get to give advice and don't need this group.
> 
> We made a mistake when ALAC and NCSG, groups at different levels of organization created it with membership parity.  ALAC should have 5 and NCSG should have 1 plus our chair (i think the other SG get one, and the NCAs should choose among themselves for the one - and hopefully we get a bit of geographical spread).
> 
> In a sense, my resignation is just me doing what I should have been doing if the group was properly configured.  Bill is our lead rep and Rafik is the chair.  The rest of us can observe if we wish.
> Now, I know that is not going to happen, so I figure NCSG, NCUC and NPOC should not limit themselves and should put in 4 each for NPOC and NCUC, but I don't want to be one of those, though remain happy to observe.
> 
> Incidentally the version of the charter I tried to get under discussion is now de-linked but is it still available in the wiki:
> 
> https://community.icann.org/display/CPMMB/Proposed+Charter+for+CWG+on+Internet+governance
> 
> As for Marila, good choice on your part, but I would personally recommend she avoid it like the plague.  She is going to be busy enough with /1net, igc, bb, irp ... and the FIG and does not need this in her mind as well. But she is a good choice.
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 28-Jan-14 11:41, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> I?m surprised that there might be such strong disagreement on the WG charter, and sorry to hear it?! Some insight on the nature of the disagreement would be helpful.
>> 
>> If you would like to be replaced, do you suggest someone who could pick up where you left off on charter discussions, or someone who would be more useful on the wider context?
>> 
>> My first thoughts include Marilia. Is she on this WG?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Jan 28, 2014, at 1:13 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> After an extended chat with OCL over the charter, I have decided that I do not have the emotional bandwidth for the ccWG Ig.
>>> 
>>> Please replace me on the WG.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Tue Jan 28 20:40:57 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 19:40:57 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ccWG Ig
In-Reply-To: <5965D0D2-0BE5-431D-82CF-89E1B44D565F@gmail.com>
References: <52E6F622.2090708@acm.org>
	<CBDF5B75-FAE1-4099-AE25-E83F252759F3@egyptig.org>
	<5965D0D2-0BE5-431D-82CF-89E1B44D565F@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F6B5CA71-B024-43CB-B2ED-E7F9F0F3E1B6@egyptig.org>

Thanks to you Bill and all the NCUC EC members. It?ll be great having Marilia and Stephanie here on the NCSG-PC.

?, and good luck to Stephanie and Pranesh on the CCWG.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Jan 28, 2014, at 6:13 PM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Amr
> 
> On Jan 28, 2014, at 5:41 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:
> 
>> I?m surprised that there might be such strong disagreement on the WG charter, and sorry to hear it?! Some insight on the nature of the disagreement would be helpful.
>> 
>> If you would like to be replaced, do you suggest someone who could pick up where you left off on charter discussions, or someone who would be more useful on the wider context?
>> 
>> My first thoughts include Marilia. Is she on this WG?
> 
> Pranesh and Stephanie are joining the CCWG as NCUC reps.
> 
> Marilia and Stephanie were appointed NCUC reps to the NCSG PC by the NCUC EC meeting that just finished.  Separate announcement on appointments forthcoming on the NCUC list.
> 
> Best
> 
> Bill
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 28, 2014, at 1:13 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> After an extended chat with OCL over the charter, I have decided that I do not have the emotional bandwidth for the ccWG Ig.
>>> 
>>> Please replace me on the WG.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> ***********************************************
> 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 robin  Wed Jan 29 02:22:36 2014
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 16:22:36 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New NCUC reps on NCSG-PC
Message-ID: <C359921E-3305-480B-BB59-80FA1480712B@ipjustice.org>

All,

As NCUC has newly appointed Stephanie Perrin and Marilia Maciel to represent it on the NCSG Policy Committee, Stephanie and Marilia have been added to this NCSG-PC mailing list.  Welcome, ladies!

Thanks,
Robin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140128/87fa9cc0/attachment.sig>


From avri  Wed Jan 29 02:58:27 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 19:58:27 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New NCUC reps on NCSG-PC
In-Reply-To: <C359921E-3305-480B-BB59-80FA1480712B@ipjustice.org>
References: <C359921E-3305-480B-BB59-80FA1480712B@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <52E85233.9050002@acm.org>

Yes, Welcome

avri

On 28-Jan-14 19:22, Robin Gross wrote:
> All,
>
> As NCUC has newly appointed Stephanie Perrin and Marilia Maciel to represent it on the NCSG Policy Committee, Stephanie and Marilia have been added to this NCSG-PC mailing list.  Welcome, ladies!
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



From avri  Wed Jan 29 18:38:38 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 11:38:38 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Time to elect a new chair and alternate chair(s)
Message-ID: <52E92E8E.1000501@acm.org>

Hi,

Ok we are now at our full compliment.

We need to (s)elect a new chair.
And we need to (s)elect new alternate chair(s)

I suggest we get started.

How about,
nominations until next Monday.


Then a simple doodle poll of those who agree to be candidates, where the 
person who gets most is chair, and anyone else who gets a vote becomes 
an alternate chair.  We get one vote each.

There really is a lot of work to do so a few alternates who have signed 
up to be doers for a year, would not be bad thing.

The doodle poll can be run by one of the observers, like a past EC or PC 
chair or a past council member.  I recommend that it be done as a blind 
poll while in progress so we don't see anything but our own vote, with 
only the totals revealed (not who voted for whom) at the end.

It is just about as simple as I can think of and prevents the collegial 
deadly embrace we saw when both Maria and Rudi, politely deferred to 
each other for the chair role.  Having served as alternate chair for the 
last bit, I believe there is little difference between a chair and an 
alternate,  except that the chair is the one who is the address for any 
urgent issue and is the point of contact for other committees etc.  Also 
I believe it is important for the actual chair to take primary 
responsibility for making sure everything gets done.

If people agree, I suggest that we start with nominations, including 
selfies.

If people disagree, lets discuss how we want to do this.

avri


I have BCC'ed this to the EC-NCSG list and Rafik, as the EC is process 
oversight for PC-NCSG.  They don't need to react unless they think 
something is amiss in the process.  Having recently re-read the charter, 
I decided this is something we should do in this sort of case.



From aelsadr  Wed Jan 29 18:52:34 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 17:52:34 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Time to elect a new chair and alternate chair(s)
In-Reply-To: <52E92E8E.1000501@acm.org>
References: <52E92E8E.1000501@acm.org>
Message-ID: <094022F9-E12D-41F0-A7E9-8238775D0C21@egyptig.org>

Hi Avri,

I still believe there is some merit in the idea of having two alternates - one from each constituency (regardless of who the chair is). This will hopefully help with fast-tracking responses to policy statements amongst other duties.

I would suggest voting for the chair, and a rough consensus for alternates if this model is agreeable to others on the PC.

BTW?, there is nothing in the NCSG charter that prevents us from having more than one alternate or vice chair.

Thanks.

Amr

On Jan 29, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Ok we are now at our full compliment.
> 
> We need to (s)elect a new chair.
> And we need to (s)elect new alternate chair(s)
> 
> I suggest we get started.
> 
> How about,
> nominations until next Monday.
> 
> 
> Then a simple doodle poll of those who agree to be candidates, where the person who gets most is chair, and anyone else who gets a vote becomes an alternate chair.  We get one vote each.
> 
> There really is a lot of work to do so a few alternates who have signed up to be doers for a year, would not be bad thing.
> 
> The doodle poll can be run by one of the observers, like a past EC or PC chair or a past council member.  I recommend that it be done as a blind poll while in progress so we don't see anything but our own vote, with only the totals revealed (not who voted for whom) at the end.
> 
> It is just about as simple as I can think of and prevents the collegial deadly embrace we saw when both Maria and Rudi, politely deferred to each other for the chair role.  Having served as alternate chair for the last bit, I believe there is little difference between a chair and an alternate,  except that the chair is the one who is the address for any urgent issue and is the point of contact for other committees etc.  Also I believe it is important for the actual chair to take primary responsibility for making sure everything gets done.
> 
> If people agree, I suggest that we start with nominations, including selfies.
> 
> If people disagree, lets discuss how we want to do this.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> I have BCC'ed this to the EC-NCSG list and Rafik, as the EC is process oversight for PC-NCSG.  They don't need to react unless they think something is amiss in the process.  Having recently re-read the charter, I decided this is something we should do in this sort of case.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Wed Jan 29 19:17:33 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 12:17:33 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Time to elect a new chair and alternate chair(s)
In-Reply-To: <094022F9-E12D-41F0-A7E9-8238775D0C21@egyptig.org>
References: <52E92E8E.1000501@acm.org>
	<094022F9-E12D-41F0-A7E9-8238775D0C21@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <52E937AD.60300@acm.org>

Hi,

I figured that having at least one from each C would be the result of 
the process I offered.  Not necessarily one Alternate, 'cause one might 
be the chair.

That is: assume that at least one would be nominated from each C and 
that person would get at least one vote.

How would this process work?:

We could just pick the chair with the vote and let each of the C decide 
who they wanted to serve as a-char.  i.e. the g-council method.

I was hoping for something more collegial, but i am cool with that model.

Now we have two models and a discussion, what do others want.  is there 
a third model?


avri


On 29-Jan-14 11:52, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi Avri,
>
> I still believe there is some merit in the idea of having two alternates - one from each constituency (regardless of who the chair is). This will hopefully help with fast-tracking responses to policy statements amongst other duties.
>
> I would suggest voting for the chair, and a rough consensus for alternates if this model is agreeable to others on the PC.
>
> BTW?, there is nothing in the NCSG charter that prevents us from having more than one alternate or vice chair.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Jan 29, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Ok we are now at our full compliment.
>>
>> We need to (s)elect a new chair.
>> And we need to (s)elect new alternate chair(s)
>>
>> I suggest we get started.
>>
>> How about,
>> nominations until next Monday.
>>
>>
>> Then a simple doodle poll of those who agree to be candidates, where the person who gets most is chair, and anyone else who gets a vote becomes an alternate chair.  We get one vote each.
>>
>> There really is a lot of work to do so a few alternates who have signed up to be doers for a year, would not be bad thing.
>>
>> The doodle poll can be run by one of the observers, like a past EC or PC chair or a past council member.  I recommend that it be done as a blind poll while in progress so we don't see anything but our own vote, with only the totals revealed (not who voted for whom) at the end.
>>
>> It is just about as simple as I can think of and prevents the collegial deadly embrace we saw when both Maria and Rudi, politely deferred to each other for the chair role.  Having served as alternate chair for the last bit, I believe there is little difference between a chair and an alternate,  except that the chair is the one who is the address for any urgent issue and is the point of contact for other committees etc.  Also I believe it is important for the actual chair to take primary responsibility for making sure everything gets done.
>>
>> If people agree, I suggest that we start with nominations, including selfies.
>>
>> If people disagree, lets discuss how we want to do this.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> I have BCC'ed this to the EC-NCSG list and Rafik, as the EC is process oversight for PC-NCSG.  They don't need to react unless they think something is amiss in the process.  Having recently re-read the charter, I decided this is something we should do in this sort of case.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>



From aelsadr  Wed Jan 29 19:52:18 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 18:52:18 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Time to elect a new chair and alternate chair(s)
In-Reply-To: <52E937AD.60300@acm.org>
References: <52E92E8E.1000501@acm.org>
	<094022F9-E12D-41F0-A7E9-8238775D0C21@egyptig.org>
	<52E937AD.60300@acm.org>
Message-ID: <EBE78A76-71BD-4DB6-8CAA-2C4EED033989@egyptig.org>

Hello again,

I should have clarified that what I meant by one from each constituency is one of each of the PC members appointed by the constituencies.

The bottom line is I feel it would be helpful to have a connect between the NCSG-PC and policy decision-making mechanisms in both NC constituencies. Still?, either model would probably work out well, and could be changed in the future if deemed necessary.

Thanks.

Amr

On Jan 29, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I figured that having at least one from each C would be the result of the process I offered.  Not necessarily one Alternate, 'cause one might be the chair.
> 
> That is: assume that at least one would be nominated from each C and that person would get at least one vote.
> 
> How would this process work?:
> 
> We could just pick the chair with the vote and let each of the C decide who they wanted to serve as a-char.  i.e. the g-council method.
> 
> I was hoping for something more collegial, but i am cool with that model.
> 
> Now we have two models and a discussion, what do others want.  is there a third model?
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 29-Jan-14 11:52, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi Avri,
>> 
>> I still believe there is some merit in the idea of having two alternates - one from each constituency (regardless of who the chair is). This will hopefully help with fast-tracking responses to policy statements amongst other duties.
>> 
>> I would suggest voting for the chair, and a rough consensus for alternates if this model is agreeable to others on the PC.
>> 
>> BTW?, there is nothing in the NCSG charter that prevents us from having more than one alternate or vice chair.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Ok we are now at our full compliment.
>>> 
>>> We need to (s)elect a new chair.
>>> And we need to (s)elect new alternate chair(s)
>>> 
>>> I suggest we get started.
>>> 
>>> How about,
>>> nominations until next Monday.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Then a simple doodle poll of those who agree to be candidates, where the person who gets most is chair, and anyone else who gets a vote becomes an alternate chair.  We get one vote each.
>>> 
>>> There really is a lot of work to do so a few alternates who have signed up to be doers for a year, would not be bad thing.
>>> 
>>> The doodle poll can be run by one of the observers, like a past EC or PC chair or a past council member.  I recommend that it be done as a blind poll while in progress so we don't see anything but our own vote, with only the totals revealed (not who voted for whom) at the end.
>>> 
>>> It is just about as simple as I can think of and prevents the collegial deadly embrace we saw when both Maria and Rudi, politely deferred to each other for the chair role.  Having served as alternate chair for the last bit, I believe there is little difference between a chair and an alternate,  except that the chair is the one who is the address for any urgent issue and is the point of contact for other committees etc.  Also I believe it is important for the actual chair to take primary responsibility for making sure everything gets done.
>>> 
>>> If people agree, I suggest that we start with nominations, including selfies.
>>> 
>>> If people disagree, lets discuss how we want to do this.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I have BCC'ed this to the EC-NCSG list and Rafik, as the EC is process oversight for PC-NCSG.  They don't need to react unless they think something is amiss in the process.  Having recently re-read the charter, I decided this is something we should do in this sort of case.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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  Wed Jan 29 20:09:01 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 13:09:01 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Time to elect a new chair and alternate chair(s)
In-Reply-To: <EBE78A76-71BD-4DB6-8CAA-2C4EED033989@egyptig.org>
References: <52E92E8E.1000501@acm.org>
	<094022F9-E12D-41F0-A7E9-8238775D0C21@egyptig.org>
	<52E937AD.60300@acm.org>
	<EBE78A76-71BD-4DB6-8CAA-2C4EED033989@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <52E943BD.70700@acm.org>

Hi,

I am confused.

What do you think we should be doing now.  Process wise.

Also do you think that the chair should be one of the C appointed 
members.  I have considered that, but was wondering if you included that 
thought.

And I agree, the charter just says we have to have  a chair and it can't 
be the SG chair.  Other than that we are free to discuss and do as we 
please in the absence of there being an EC defined process - which it is 
in their power to create.

perhaps we should ask them what to do and force them to create a process 
for us.

thanks

avri


On 29-Jan-14 12:52, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hello again,
>
> I should have clarified that what I meant by one from each constituency is one of each of the PC members appointed by the constituencies.
>
> The bottom line is I feel it would be helpful to have a connect between the NCSG-PC and policy decision-making mechanisms in both NC constituencies. Still?, either model would probably work out well, and could be changed in the future if deemed necessary.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Jan 29, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I figured that having at least one from each C would be the result of the process I offered.  Not necessarily one Alternate, 'cause one might be the chair.
>>
>> That is: assume that at least one would be nominated from each C and that person would get at least one vote.
>>
>> How would this process work?:
>>
>> We could just pick the chair with the vote and let each of the C decide who they wanted to serve as a-char.  i.e. the g-council method.
>>
>> I was hoping for something more collegial, but i am cool with that model.
>>
>> Now we have two models and a discussion, what do others want.  is there a third model?
>>
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 29-Jan-14 11:52, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi Avri,
>>>
>>> I still believe there is some merit in the idea of having two alternates - one from each constituency (regardless of who the chair is). This will hopefully help with fast-tracking responses to policy statements amongst other duties.
>>>
>>> I would suggest voting for the chair, and a rough consensus for alternates if this model is agreeable to others on the PC.
>>>
>>> BTW?, there is nothing in the NCSG charter that prevents us from having more than one alternate or vice chair.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Ok we are now at our full compliment.
>>>>
>>>> We need to (s)elect a new chair.
>>>> And we need to (s)elect new alternate chair(s)
>>>>
>>>> I suggest we get started.
>>>>
>>>> How about,
>>>> nominations until next Monday.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then a simple doodle poll of those who agree to be candidates, where the person who gets most is chair, and anyone else who gets a vote becomes an alternate chair.  We get one vote each.
>>>>
>>>> There really is a lot of work to do so a few alternates who have signed up to be doers for a year, would not be bad thing.
>>>>
>>>> The doodle poll can be run by one of the observers, like a past EC or PC chair or a past council member.  I recommend that it be done as a blind poll while in progress so we don't see anything but our own vote, with only the totals revealed (not who voted for whom) at the end.
>>>>
>>>> It is just about as simple as I can think of and prevents the collegial deadly embrace we saw when both Maria and Rudi, politely deferred to each other for the chair role.  Having served as alternate chair for the last bit, I believe there is little difference between a chair and an alternate,  except that the chair is the one who is the address for any urgent issue and is the point of contact for other committees etc.  Also I believe it is important for the actual chair to take primary responsibility for making sure everything gets done.
>>>>
>>>> If people agree, I suggest that we start with nominations, including selfies.
>>>>
>>>> If people disagree, lets discuss how we want to do this.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have BCC'ed this to the EC-NCSG list and Rafik, as the EC is process oversight for PC-NCSG.  They don't need to react unless they think something is amiss in the process.  Having recently re-read the charter, I decided this is something we should do in this sort of case.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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  Wed Jan 29 20:37:28 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 19:37:28 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Time to elect a new chair and alternate chair(s)
In-Reply-To: <52E943BD.70700@acm.org>
References: <52E92E8E.1000501@acm.org>
	<094022F9-E12D-41F0-A7E9-8238775D0C21@egyptig.org>
	<52E937AD.60300@acm.org>
	<EBE78A76-71BD-4DB6-8CAA-2C4EED033989@egyptig.org>
	<52E943BD.70700@acm.org>
Message-ID: <388F03AC-8637-4904-BB60-7CD056E876F6@egyptig.org>

Apologies about the confusion. Wasn?t my intent to complicate this at all.

I don?t think we should restrict any member of this committee from being able to run for chair. I personally don?t mind nominations or self-nominations. Election of chair should be via PC members votes.

In the event that we decide on having two vice chairs, I would suggest that they be approved by consensus of the NCSG-PC. I?m also open to other ideas on this; perhaps by constituency EC or policy committee (in the case of NPOC) appointments/decisions. I think leaving this up to an internal constituency process might not be so bad. Apart from assisting the NCSG-PC chair in his/her duties, I feel that the connect between policy statements on the constituency level and the NCSG-PC level is very important. In that light, constituencies deciding who this person is through internal (constituency) processes isn?t such a bad idea.

In the event that a constituency appointed NCSG-PC member is elected as the committee chair, then obviously the other appointee would need to fill in one of the two vice-chair positions. We do, however, have a larger pool of committee members representing the NCSG as a whole as options for the chair role (unless we have more constituencies in the NCSG in the future).

If this is all too complicated and folks would like to keep it simple, I don?t mind at all. I?m just trying to figure out a recipe to assign constructive functions to these positions, as opposed to just titles.

Thanks.

Amr

On Jan 29, 2014, at 7:09 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I am confused.
> 
> What do you think we should be doing now.  Process wise.
> 
> Also do you think that the chair should be one of the C appointed members.  I have considered that, but was wondering if you included that thought.
> 
> And I agree, the charter just says we have to have  a chair and it can't be the SG chair.  Other than that we are free to discuss and do as we please in the absence of there being an EC defined process - which it is in their power to create.
> 
> perhaps we should ask them what to do and force them to create a process for us.
> 
> thanks
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 29-Jan-14 12:52, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hello again,
>> 
>> I should have clarified that what I meant by one from each constituency is one of each of the PC members appointed by the constituencies.
>> 
>> The bottom line is I feel it would be helpful to have a connect between the NCSG-PC and policy decision-making mechanisms in both NC constituencies. Still?, either model would probably work out well, and could be changed in the future if deemed necessary.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 6:17 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I figured that having at least one from each C would be the result of the process I offered.  Not necessarily one Alternate, 'cause one might be the chair.
>>> 
>>> That is: assume that at least one would be nominated from each C and that person would get at least one vote.
>>> 
>>> How would this process work?:
>>> 
>>> We could just pick the chair with the vote and let each of the C decide who they wanted to serve as a-char.  i.e. the g-council method.
>>> 
>>> I was hoping for something more collegial, but i am cool with that model.
>>> 
>>> Now we have two models and a discussion, what do others want.  is there a third model?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 29-Jan-14 11:52, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>> Hi Avri,
>>>> 
>>>> I still believe there is some merit in the idea of having two alternates - one from each constituency (regardless of who the chair is). This will hopefully help with fast-tracking responses to policy statements amongst other duties.
>>>> 
>>>> I would suggest voting for the chair, and a rough consensus for alternates if this model is agreeable to others on the PC.
>>>> 
>>>> BTW?, there is nothing in the NCSG charter that prevents us from having more than one alternate or vice chair.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 29, 2014, at 5:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ok we are now at our full compliment.
>>>>> 
>>>>> We need to (s)elect a new chair.
>>>>> And we need to (s)elect new alternate chair(s)
>>>>> 
>>>>> I suggest we get started.
>>>>> 
>>>>> How about,
>>>>> nominations until next Monday.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Then a simple doodle poll of those who agree to be candidates, where the person who gets most is chair, and anyone else who gets a vote becomes an alternate chair.  We get one vote each.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There really is a lot of work to do so a few alternates who have signed up to be doers for a year, would not be bad thing.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The doodle poll can be run by one of the observers, like a past EC or PC chair or a past council member.  I recommend that it be done as a blind poll while in progress so we don't see anything but our own vote, with only the totals revealed (not who voted for whom) at the end.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It is just about as simple as I can think of and prevents the collegial deadly embrace we saw when both Maria and Rudi, politely deferred to each other for the chair role.  Having served as alternate chair for the last bit, I believe there is little difference between a chair and an alternate,  except that the chair is the one who is the address for any urgent issue and is the point of contact for other committees etc.  Also I believe it is important for the actual chair to take primary responsibility for making sure everything gets done.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If people agree, I suggest that we start with nominations, including selfies.
>>>>> 
>>>>> If people disagree, lets discuss how we want to do this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> avri
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have BCC'ed this to the EC-NCSG list and Rafik, as the EC is process oversight for PC-NCSG.  They don't need to react unless they think something is amiss in the process.  Having recently re-read the charter, I decided this is something we should do in this sort of case.
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From stephanie.perrin  Thu Jan 30 06:36:23 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 23:36:23 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New NCUC reps on NCSG-PC
In-Reply-To: <C359921E-3305-480B-BB59-80FA1480712B@ipjustice.org>
References: <C359921E-3305-480B-BB59-80FA1480712B@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <3776FF58-59CB-47CA-A24A-53EEF48ED79C@mail.utoronto.ca>

Thanks so much!
Stephanie
On 2014-01-28, at 7:22 PM, Robin Gross wrote:

> All,
> 
> As NCUC has newly appointed Stephanie Perrin and Marilia Maciel to represent it on the NCSG Policy Committee, Stephanie and Marilia have been added to this NCSG-PC mailing list.  Welcome, ladies!
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Thu Jan 30 14:00:22 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 07:00:22 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Time to elect a new chair and alternate chair(s)
In-Reply-To: <388F03AC-8637-4904-BB60-7CD056E876F6@egyptig.org>
References: <52E92E8E.1000501@acm.org>
	<094022F9-E12D-41F0-A7E9-8238775D0C21@egyptig.org>
	<52E937AD.60300@acm.org>
	<EBE78A76-71BD-4DB6-8CAA-2C4EED033989@egyptig.org>
	<52E943BD.70700@acm.org>
	<388F03AC-8637-4904-BB60-7CD056E876F6@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <52EA3ED6.3080503@acm.org>

Hi,

Well we seem to be the only people interested in this.

At this point I suggest simplifying.

Lets just hold an election for chair as mandated by the charter.  We 
need to do this since our chair is no longer part of the PC, though I do 
hope she remains in the group as an past-council member.

We can then decide if we want to continue having alternate chairs and 
how we go about picking them.  I figure the easiest thing is to ask each 
C to pick one of its PC members for the honor.  Calls for the least SG 
level process, which we seem not so good at anymore.

I think this is sort of what you recommended Amr.  I will not push for 
my original recommendation.  Really doesn't matter one way or another to 
me as long as we elect a chair and I can stop this semi-chair role which 
does not really feel legitimate.  And with no other voice chiming in, I 
might as long go along with the thoughts of the newer members of the PC.

I will send a separate email calling for nominations for chair.

Nominations open until Monday end of day anywhere

Nominees need to have agreed to their nomination by Tuesday end of day 
anywhere.

Balloting starts on Wednesday goes until the following Monday end of day 
anywhere.

It will be a secret doodle poll with only the results announced.

Any objections?

avri




From aelsadr  Thu Jan 30 14:32:56 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 13:32:56 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Time to elect a new chair and alternate chair(s)
In-Reply-To: <52EA3ED6.3080503@acm.org>
References: <52E92E8E.1000501@acm.org>
	<094022F9-E12D-41F0-A7E9-8238775D0C21@egyptig.org>
	<52E937AD.60300@acm.org>
	<EBE78A76-71BD-4DB6-8CAA-2C4EED033989@egyptig.org>
	<52E943BD.70700@acm.org>
	<388F03AC-8637-4904-BB60-7CD056E876F6@egyptig.org>
	<52EA3ED6.3080503@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CFD185E7-66D1-4F8D-958D-78A6A2FC5F3C@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I have no objections. In fact, it occurred to me that we haven't heard from any of the constituency appointed members, and wether they are even willing to serve as alternates. So I think your suggestion is probably the best way to move forward. 

Thanks. 

Amr

Sent from mobile

> On Jan 30, 2014, at 1:00 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Well we seem to be the only people interested in this.
> 
> At this point I suggest simplifying.
> 
> Lets just hold an election for chair as mandated by the charter.  We need to do this since our chair is no longer part of the PC, though I do hope she remains in the group as an past-council member.
> 
> We can then decide if we want to continue having alternate chairs and how we go about picking them.  I figure the easiest thing is to ask each C to pick one of its PC members for the honor.  Calls for the least SG level process, which we seem not so good at anymore.
> 
> I think this is sort of what you recommended Amr.  I will not push for my original recommendation.  Really doesn't matter one way or another to me as long as we elect a chair and I can stop this semi-chair role which does not really feel legitimate.  And with no other voice chiming in, I might as long go along with the thoughts of the newer members of the PC.
> 
> I will send a separate email calling for nominations for chair.
> 
> Nominations open until Monday end of day anywhere
> 
> Nominees need to have agreed to their nomination by Tuesday end of day anywhere.
> 
> Balloting starts on Wednesday goes until the following Monday end of day anywhere.
> 
> It will be a secret doodle poll with only the results announced.
> 
> Any objections?
> 
> avri
> 



From mllemineur  Thu Jan 30 17:40:06 2014
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 09:40:06 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Time to elect a new chair and alternate chair(s)
In-Reply-To: <52EA3ED6.3080503@acm.org>
References: <52E92E8E.1000501@acm.org>
	<094022F9-E12D-41F0-A7E9-8238775D0C21@egyptig.org>
	<52E937AD.60300@acm.org>
	<EBE78A76-71BD-4DB6-8CAA-2C4EED033989@egyptig.org>
	<52E943BD.70700@acm.org>
	<388F03AC-8637-4904-BB60-7CD056E876F6@egyptig.org>
	<52EA3ED6.3080503@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqFQ-JY+0wpa-hpwkRBpmE4yvWALaRPYZtTeXHca3ddc0A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

Sorry for the delay in replying. Not due to a lack of interest at all but
to the fact that this needed to be discussed with Rudi the other NPOC
policy rep at NCSG level, and he is busy attending  a one-week BoT meeting.
We were able to exchange some emails and share opinions to find that we
agree with your latest proposal (process, deadlines, etc,). By the way,
thank you for settling this and thanks to Amr for contributing.  The only
"but" would be that  I would favor picking your original proposal with
regards to the one chair and one alternate model, each from one
constituency vs. having one chair and two alternates.  In December, in my
opinion,  you rightly argued that it would allow more balance in term of
representativeness unlike the other option (two alternates and one chair).
I keep thinking this is the best way to go.

best,

mll


On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Well we seem to be the only people interested in this.
>
> At this point I suggest simplifying.
>
> Lets just hold an election for chair as mandated by the charter.  We need
> to do this since our chair is no longer part of the PC, though I do hope
> she remains in the group as an past-council member.
>
> We can then decide if we want to continue having alternate chairs and how
> we go about picking them.  I figure the easiest thing is to ask each C to
> pick one of its PC members for the honor.  Calls for the least SG level
> process, which we seem not so good at anymore.
>
> I think this is sort of what you recommended Amr.  I will not push for my
> original recommendation.  Really doesn't matter one way or another to me as
> long as we elect a chair and I can stop this semi-chair role which does not
> really feel legitimate.  And with no other voice chiming in, I might as
> long go along with the thoughts of the newer members of the PC.
>
> I will send a separate email calling for nominations for chair.
>
> Nominations open until Monday end of day anywhere
>
> Nominees need to have agreed to their nomination by Tuesday end of day
> anywhere.
>
> Balloting starts on Wednesday goes until the following Monday end of day
> anywhere.
>
> It will be a secret doodle poll with only the results announced.
>
> Any objections?
>
> 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/20140130/84693be9/attachment.html>


From avri  Thu Jan 30 18:13:13 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:13:13 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Time to elect a new chair and alternate chair(s)
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqFQ-JY+0wpa-hpwkRBpmE4yvWALaRPYZtTeXHca3ddc0A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52E92E8E.1000501@acm.org>	<094022F9-E12D-41F0-A7E9-8238775D0C21@egyptig.org>	<52E937AD.60300@acm.org>	<EBE78A76-71BD-4DB6-8CAA-2C4EED033989@egyptig.org>	<52E943BD.70700@acm.org>	<388F03AC-8637-4904-BB60-7CD056E876F6@egyptig.org>	<52EA3ED6.3080503@acm.org>
	<CAD3sNqFQ-JY+0wpa-hpwkRBpmE4yvWALaRPYZtTeXHca3ddc0A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <52EA7A19.9020104@acm.org>

Hi,

thanks for the reply.

If I were to turn this into a process it might work something like

Nominees from both Cs
Top vote getter is Chair,
Next highest vote getter from other C is Alt-chair

(the theoretical edge case this does not cover is: if the person elected 
is an NCSG member but is not a C member.  But that is not a case we have 
to contend with in this choosing, so i do not worry it about, just 
noting the issue.)

So now we have two possible algorithms:

- simple
- alt-simple

Other opinions?

avri


On 30-Jan-14 10:40, marie-laure Lemineur wrote:
> Hi Avri,
>
> Sorry for the delay in replying. Not due to a lack of interest at all
> but to the fact that this needed to be discussed with Rudi the other
> NPOC policy rep at NCSG level, and he is busy attending  a one-week BoT
> meeting. We were able to exchange some emails and share opinions to find
> that we agree with your latest proposal (process, deadlines, etc,). By
> the way, thank you for settling this and thanks to Amr for contributing.
>   The only "but" would be that  I would favor picking your original
> proposal with regards to the one chair and one alternate model, each
> from one constituency vs. having one chair and two alternates.  In
> December, in my opinion,  you rightly argued that it would allow more
> balance in term of representativeness unlike the other option (two
> alternates and one chair). I keep thinking this is the best way to go.
>
> best,
>
> mll
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Well we seem to be the only people interested in this.
>
>     At this point I suggest simplifying.
>
>     Lets just hold an election for chair as mandated by the charter.  We
>     need to do this since our chair is no longer part of the PC, though
>     I do hope she remains in the group as an past-council member.
>
>     We can then decide if we want to continue having alternate chairs
>     and how we go about picking them.  I figure the easiest thing is to
>     ask each C to pick one of its PC members for the honor.  Calls for
>     the least SG level process, which we seem not so good at anymore.
>
>     I think this is sort of what you recommended Amr.  I will not push
>     for my original recommendation.  Really doesn't matter one way or
>     another to me as long as we elect a chair and I can stop this
>     semi-chair role which does not really feel legitimate.  And with no
>     other voice chiming in, I might as long go along with the thoughts
>     of the newer members of the PC.
>
>     I will send a separate email calling for nominations for chair.
>
>     Nominations open until Monday end of day anywhere
>
>     Nominees need to have agreed to their nomination by Tuesday end of
>     day anywhere.
>
>     Balloting starts on Wednesday goes until the following Monday end of
>     day anywhere.
>
>     It will be a secret doodle poll with only the results announced.
>
>     Any objections?
>
>     avri
>
>
>
>     _________________________________________________
>     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 aelsadr  Thu Jan 30 18:27:03 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:27:03 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New NCUC reps on NCSG-PC
In-Reply-To: <C359921E-3305-480B-BB59-80FA1480712B@ipjustice.org>
References: <C359921E-3305-480B-BB59-80FA1480712B@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <2CA2192A-8D95-4B10-B85E-7CD8EBD4CBC0@egyptig.org>

Thanks Robin. Welcome Stephanie and Marilia. Looking forward to working with both of you here.

Amr

On Jan 29, 2014, at 1:22 AM, Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG> wrote:

> All,
> 
> As NCUC has newly appointed Stephanie Perrin and Marilia Maciel to represent it on the NCSG Policy Committee, Stephanie and Marilia have been added to this NCSG-PC mailing list.  Welcome, ladies!
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Thu Jan 30 18:32:34 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:32:34 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Time to elect a new chair and alternate chair(s)
In-Reply-To: <52EA7A19.9020104@acm.org>
References: <52E92E8E.1000501@acm.org>	<094022F9-E12D-41F0-A7E9-8238775D0C21@egyptig.org>	<52E937AD.60300@acm.org>	<EBE78A76-71BD-4DB6-8CAA-2C4EED033989@egyptig.org>	<52E943BD.70700@acm.org>	<388F03AC-8637-4904-BB60-7CD056E876F6@egyptig.org>	<52EA3ED6.3080503@acm.org>
	<CAD3sNqFQ-JY+0wpa-hpwkRBpmE4yvWALaRPYZtTeXHca3ddc0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<52EA7A19.9020104@acm.org>
Message-ID: <34A72D60-8C62-43C7-BB10-F42D2B1461E4@egyptig.org>

Hi,

My main issue with this model (apart from the theoretical scenario Avri highlighted) is that I consider the six NCSG-PC members here as a result of Council elections to be representatives of the entire SG, regardless of our constituency affiliations. I know that I at least feel that way about myself. I can?t in good conscience represent a single constituency on this committee, so wouldn?t be able to nominate myself (or accept nominations) for chair or vice chair under this model.

In any case, I have no intention of serving in one of these positions. Just saying. :)

Thanks.

Amr

On Jan 30, 2014, at 5:13 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> thanks for the reply.
> 
> If I were to turn this into a process it might work something like
> 
> Nominees from both Cs
> Top vote getter is Chair,
> Next highest vote getter from other C is Alt-chair
> 
> (the theoretical edge case this does not cover is: if the person elected is an NCSG member but is not a C member.  But that is not a case we have to contend with in this choosing, so i do not worry it about, just noting the issue.)
> 
> So now we have two possible algorithms:
> 
> - simple
> - alt-simple
> 
> Other opinions?
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 30-Jan-14 10:40, marie-laure Lemineur wrote:
>> Hi Avri,
>> 
>> Sorry for the delay in replying. Not due to a lack of interest at all
>> but to the fact that this needed to be discussed with Rudi the other
>> NPOC policy rep at NCSG level, and he is busy attending  a one-week BoT
>> meeting. We were able to exchange some emails and share opinions to find
>> that we agree with your latest proposal (process, deadlines, etc,). By
>> the way, thank you for settling this and thanks to Amr for contributing.
>>  The only "but" would be that  I would favor picking your original
>> proposal with regards to the one chair and one alternate model, each
>> from one constituency vs. having one chair and two alternates.  In
>> December, in my opinion,  you rightly argued that it would allow more
>> balance in term of representativeness unlike the other option (two
>> alternates and one chair). I keep thinking this is the best way to go.
>> 
>> best,
>> 
>> mll
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>    Hi,
>> 
>>    Well we seem to be the only people interested in this.
>> 
>>    At this point I suggest simplifying.
>> 
>>    Lets just hold an election for chair as mandated by the charter.  We
>>    need to do this since our chair is no longer part of the PC, though
>>    I do hope she remains in the group as an past-council member.
>> 
>>    We can then decide if we want to continue having alternate chairs
>>    and how we go about picking them.  I figure the easiest thing is to
>>    ask each C to pick one of its PC members for the honor.  Calls for
>>    the least SG level process, which we seem not so good at anymore.
>> 
>>    I think this is sort of what you recommended Amr.  I will not push
>>    for my original recommendation.  Really doesn't matter one way or
>>    another to me as long as we elect a chair and I can stop this
>>    semi-chair role which does not really feel legitimate.  And with no
>>    other voice chiming in, I might as long go along with the thoughts
>>    of the newer members of the PC.
>> 
>>    I will send a separate email calling for nominations for chair.
>> 
>>    Nominations open until Monday end of day anywhere
>> 
>>    Nominees need to have agreed to their nomination by Tuesday end of
>>    day anywhere.
>> 
>>    Balloting starts on Wednesday goes until the following Monday end of
>>    day anywhere.
>> 
>>    It will be a secret doodle poll with only the results announced.
>> 
>>    Any objections?
>> 
>>    avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>    _________________________________________________
>>    PC-NCSG mailing list
>>    PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>    http://mailman.ipjustice.org/__listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>    <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140130/e22aee81/attachment.html>


From mllemineur  Thu Jan 30 18:33:12 2014
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 10:33:12 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Time to elect a new chair and alternate chair(s)
In-Reply-To: <52EA7A19.9020104@acm.org>
References: <52E92E8E.1000501@acm.org>
	<094022F9-E12D-41F0-A7E9-8238775D0C21@egyptig.org>
	<52E937AD.60300@acm.org>
	<EBE78A76-71BD-4DB6-8CAA-2C4EED033989@egyptig.org>
	<52E943BD.70700@acm.org>
	<388F03AC-8637-4904-BB60-7CD056E876F6@egyptig.org>
	<52EA3ED6.3080503@acm.org>
	<CAD3sNqFQ-JY+0wpa-hpwkRBpmE4yvWALaRPYZtTeXHca3ddc0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<52EA7A19.9020104@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqH=_pGXiA9z8d+6gk7eeijFLqDjzyFH+BgGmL-y-g263w@mail.gmail.com>

Works for us.
mll


On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> thanks for the reply.
>
> If I were to turn this into a process it might work something like
>
> Nominees from both Cs
> Top vote getter is Chair,
> Next highest vote getter from other C is Alt-chair
>
> (the theoretical edge case this does not cover is: if the person elected
> is an NCSG member but is not a C member.  But that is not a case we have to
> contend with in this choosing, so i do not worry it about, just noting the
> issue.)
>
> So now we have two possible algorithms:
>
> - simple
> - alt-simple
>
> Other opinions?
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 30-Jan-14 10:40, marie-laure Lemineur wrote:
>
>> Hi Avri,
>>
>> Sorry for the delay in replying. Not due to a lack of interest at all
>> but to the fact that this needed to be discussed with Rudi the other
>> NPOC policy rep at NCSG level, and he is busy attending  a one-week BoT
>> meeting. We were able to exchange some emails and share opinions to find
>> that we agree with your latest proposal (process, deadlines, etc,). By
>> the way, thank you for settling this and thanks to Amr for contributing.
>>   The only "but" would be that  I would favor picking your original
>> proposal with regards to the one chair and one alternate model, each
>> from one constituency vs. having one chair and two alternates.  In
>> December, in my opinion,  you rightly argued that it would allow more
>> balance in term of representativeness unlike the other option (two
>> alternates and one chair). I keep thinking this is the best way to go.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> mll
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>
>>     Hi,
>>
>>     Well we seem to be the only people interested in this.
>>
>>     At this point I suggest simplifying.
>>
>>     Lets just hold an election for chair as mandated by the charter.  We
>>     need to do this since our chair is no longer part of the PC, though
>>     I do hope she remains in the group as an past-council member.
>>
>>     We can then decide if we want to continue having alternate chairs
>>     and how we go about picking them.  I figure the easiest thing is to
>>     ask each C to pick one of its PC members for the honor.  Calls for
>>     the least SG level process, which we seem not so good at anymore.
>>
>>     I think this is sort of what you recommended Amr.  I will not push
>>     for my original recommendation.  Really doesn't matter one way or
>>     another to me as long as we elect a chair and I can stop this
>>     semi-chair role which does not really feel legitimate.  And with no
>>     other voice chiming in, I might as long go along with the thoughts
>>     of the newer members of the PC.
>>
>>     I will send a separate email calling for nominations for chair.
>>
>>     Nominations open until Monday end of day anywhere
>>
>>     Nominees need to have agreed to their nomination by Tuesday end of
>>     day anywhere.
>>
>>     Balloting starts on Wednesday goes until the following Monday end of
>>     day anywhere.
>>
>>     It will be a secret doodle poll with only the results announced.
>>
>>     Any objections?
>>
>>     avri
>>
>>
>>
>>     _________________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/__listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>     <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140130/dcffcea0/attachment.html>


From mllemineur  Thu Jan 30 18:34:03 2014
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 10:34:03 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New NCUC reps on NCSG-PC
In-Reply-To: <2CA2192A-8D95-4B10-B85E-7CD8EBD4CBC0@egyptig.org>
References: <C359921E-3305-480B-BB59-80FA1480712B@ipjustice.org>
	<2CA2192A-8D95-4B10-B85E-7CD8EBD4CBC0@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqHcFvJtVRBg9UyODnEoX1QTCbiCk83NVGN-cYoLSmbq+A@mail.gmail.com>

Same here. Welcome Stephanie and Marilia.

Best,
mll


On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Thanks Robin. Welcome Stephanie and Marilia. Looking forward to working
> with both of you here.
>
> Amr
>
> On Jan 29, 2014, at 1:22 AM, Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG> wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > As NCUC has newly appointed Stephanie Perrin and Marilia Maciel to
> represent it on the NCSG Policy Committee, Stephanie and Marilia have been
> added to this NCSG-PC mailing list.  Welcome, ladies!
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Robin
> > _______________________________________________
> > PC-NCSG mailing list
> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140130/928c0612/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Thu Jan 30 18:44:47 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:44:47 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Time to elect a new chair and alternate chair(s)
In-Reply-To: <34A72D60-8C62-43C7-BB10-F42D2B1461E4@egyptig.org>
References: <52E92E8E.1000501@acm.org>	<094022F9-E12D-41F0-A7E9-8238775D0C21@egyptig.org>	<52E937AD.60300@acm.org>	<EBE78A76-71BD-4DB6-8CAA-2C4EED033989@egyptig.org>	<52E943BD.70700@acm.org>	<388F03AC-8637-4904-BB60-7CD056E876F6@egyptig.org>	<52EA3ED6.3080503@acm.org>
	<CAD3sNqFQ-JY+0wpa-hpwkRBpmE4yvWALaRPYZtTeXHca3ddc0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<52EA7A19.9020104@acm.org>
	<34A72D60-8C62-43C7-BB10-F42D2B1461E4@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <52EA817F.3090500@acm.org>

Hi,

good point.

that is the way i feel about myself as well.  so in a sense it means we 
do have the so-called edge case.


avri


On 30-Jan-14 11:32, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My main issue with this model (apart from the theoretical scenario Avri
> highlighted) is that I consider the six NCSG-PC members here as a result
> of Council elections to be representatives of the entire SG, regardless
> of our constituency affiliations. I know that I at least feel that way
> about myself. I can?t in good conscience represent a single constituency
> on this committee, so wouldn?t be able to nominate myself (or accept
> nominations) for chair or vice chair under this model.
>
> In any case, I have no intention of serving in one of these positions.
> Just saying. :)
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Jan 30, 2014, at 5:13 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> thanks for the reply.
>>
>> If I were to turn this into a process it might work something like
>>
>> Nominees from both Cs
>> Top vote getter is Chair,
>> Next highest vote getter from other C is Alt-chair
>>
>> (the theoretical edge case this does not cover is: if the person
>> elected is an NCSG member but is not a C member.  But that is not a
>> case we have to contend with in this choosing, so i do not worry it
>> about, just noting the issue.)
>>
>> So now we have two possible algorithms:
>>
>> - simple
>> - alt-simple
>>
>> Other opinions?
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 30-Jan-14 10:40, marie-laure Lemineur wrote:
>>> Hi Avri,
>>>
>>> Sorry for the delay in replying. Not due to a lack of interest at all
>>> but to the fact that this needed to be discussed with Rudi the other
>>> NPOC policy rep at NCSG level, and he is busy attending  a one-week BoT
>>> meeting. We were able to exchange some emails and share opinions to find
>>> that we agree with your latest proposal (process, deadlines, etc,). By
>>> the way, thank you for settling this and thanks to Amr for contributing.
>>>  The only "but" would be that  I would favor picking your original
>>> proposal with regards to the one chair and one alternate model, each
>>> from one constituency vs. having one chair and two alternates.  In
>>> December, in my opinion,  you rightly argued that it would allow more
>>> balance in term of representativeness unlike the other option (two
>>> alternates and one chair). I keep thinking this is the best way to go.
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>> mll
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>
>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>    Hi,
>>>
>>>    Well we seem to be the only people interested in this.
>>>
>>>    At this point I suggest simplifying.
>>>
>>>    Lets just hold an election for chair as mandated by the charter.  We
>>>    need to do this since our chair is no longer part of the PC, though
>>>    I do hope she remains in the group as an past-council member.
>>>
>>>    We can then decide if we want to continue having alternate chairs
>>>    and how we go about picking them.  I figure the easiest thing is to
>>>    ask each C to pick one of its PC members for the honor.  Calls for
>>>    the least SG level process, which we seem not so good at anymore.
>>>
>>>    I think this is sort of what you recommended Amr.  I will not push
>>>    for my original recommendation.  Really doesn't matter one way or
>>>    another to me as long as we elect a chair and I can stop this
>>>    semi-chair role which does not really feel legitimate.  And with no
>>>    other voice chiming in, I might as long go along with the thoughts
>>>    of the newer members of the PC.
>>>
>>>    I will send a separate email calling for nominations for chair.
>>>
>>>    Nominations open until Monday end of day anywhere
>>>
>>>    Nominees need to have agreed to their nomination by Tuesday end of
>>>    day anywhere.
>>>
>>>    Balloting starts on Wednesday goes until the following Monday end of
>>>    day anywhere.
>>>
>>>    It will be a secret doodle poll with only the results announced.
>>>
>>>    Any objections?
>>>
>>>    avri
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    _________________________________________________
>>>    PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/__listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>    <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>



From mailer  Thu Jan 30 18:51:41 2014
From: mailer (avri doria via Doodle)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 17:51:41 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Pick a new chair
Message-ID: <1934521623.7118439.1391100701640.POLL_INVITECONTACT_PARTICIPANT_INVITATION.doodle@worker1>

Hi there,

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

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 "Pick a new chair."

----

Doodle AG, Werdstrasse 21, 8021 Z?rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140130/c397d71e/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Thu Jan 30 18:52:58 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 11:52:58 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Time to elect a new chair and alternate chair(s)
In-Reply-To: <52EA7A19.9020104@acm.org>
References: <52E92E8E.1000501@acm.org>
	<094022F9-E12D-41F0-A7E9-8238775D0C21@egyptig.org>	<52E937AD.60300@acm.org>
	<EBE78A76-71BD-4DB6-8CAA-2C4EED033989@egyptig.org>	<52E943BD.70700@acm.org>
	<388F03AC-8637-4904-BB60-7CD056E876F6@egyptig.org>
	<52EA3ED6.3080503@acm.org>
	<CAD3sNqFQ-JY+0wpa-hpwkRBpmE4yvWALaRPYZtTeXHca3ddc0A@mail.gmail.com>
	<52EA7A19.9020104@acm.org>
Message-ID: <D68DA08B-5EA8-4107-84BD-4D5F64BACD66@mail.utoronto.ca>

I am reading it all but know so little I dont think I have an informed opinion.  Thanks for doing it!
steph
On 2014-01-30, at 11:13 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> thanks for the reply.
> 
> If I were to turn this into a process it might work something like
> 
> Nominees from both Cs
> Top vote getter is Chair,
> Next highest vote getter from other C is Alt-chair
> 
> (the theoretical edge case this does not cover is: if the person elected is an NCSG member but is not a C member.  But that is not a case we have to contend with in this choosing, so i do not worry it about, just noting the issue.)
> 
> So now we have two possible algorithms:
> 
> - simple
> - alt-simple
> 
> Other opinions?
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 30-Jan-14 10:40, marie-laure Lemineur wrote:
>> Hi Avri,
>> 
>> Sorry for the delay in replying. Not due to a lack of interest at all
>> but to the fact that this needed to be discussed with Rudi the other
>> NPOC policy rep at NCSG level, and he is busy attending  a one-week BoT
>> meeting. We were able to exchange some emails and share opinions to find
>> that we agree with your latest proposal (process, deadlines, etc,). By
>> the way, thank you for settling this and thanks to Amr for contributing.
>>  The only "but" would be that  I would favor picking your original
>> proposal with regards to the one chair and one alternate model, each
>> from one constituency vs. having one chair and two alternates.  In
>> December, in my opinion,  you rightly argued that it would allow more
>> balance in term of representativeness unlike the other option (two
>> alternates and one chair). I keep thinking this is the best way to go.
>> 
>> best,
>> 
>> mll
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 6:00 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>    Hi,
>> 
>>    Well we seem to be the only people interested in this.
>> 
>>    At this point I suggest simplifying.
>> 
>>    Lets just hold an election for chair as mandated by the charter.  We
>>    need to do this since our chair is no longer part of the PC, though
>>    I do hope she remains in the group as an past-council member.
>> 
>>    We can then decide if we want to continue having alternate chairs
>>    and how we go about picking them.  I figure the easiest thing is to
>>    ask each C to pick one of its PC members for the honor.  Calls for
>>    the least SG level process, which we seem not so good at anymore.
>> 
>>    I think this is sort of what you recommended Amr.  I will not push
>>    for my original recommendation.  Really doesn't matter one way or
>>    another to me as long as we elect a chair and I can stop this
>>    semi-chair role which does not really feel legitimate.  And with no
>>    other voice chiming in, I might as long go along with the thoughts
>>    of the newer members of the PC.
>> 
>>    I will send a separate email calling for nominations for chair.
>> 
>>    Nominations open until Monday end of day anywhere
>> 
>>    Nominees need to have agreed to their nomination by Tuesday end of
>>    day anywhere.
>> 
>>    Balloting starts on Wednesday goes until the following Monday end of
>>    day anywhere.
>> 
>>    It will be a secret doodle poll with only the results announced.
>> 
>>    Any objections?
>> 
>>    avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>    _________________________________________________
>>    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
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Thu Jan 30 19:00:37 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:00:37 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Pick a new chair
In-Reply-To: <864431393.7118441.1391100701781.POLL_INVITECONTACT_PARTICIPANT_INVITATION.doodle@worker1>
References: <864431393.7118441.1391100701781.POLL_INVITECONTACT_PARTICIPANT_INVITATION.doodle@worker1>
Message-ID: <52EA8535.6030709@acm.org>


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> 




From avri  Thu Jan 30 19:18:58 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:18:58 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Pick a new chair
In-Reply-To: <52EA8535.6030709@acm.org>
References: <864431393.7118441.1391100701781.POLL_INVITECONTACT_PARTICIPANT_INVITATION.doodle@worker1>
	<52EA8535.6030709@acm.org>
Message-ID: <52EA8982.2050008@acm.org>


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
>
>



From joy  Fri Jan 31 04:44:50 2014
From: joy (joy)
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:44:50 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] New NCUC reps on NCSG-PC
In-Reply-To: <52E85233.9050002@acm.org>
References: <C359921E-3305-480B-BB59-80FA1480712B@ipjustice.org>
	<52E85233.9050002@acm.org>
Message-ID: <52EB0E22.4040703@apc.org>

thanks and welcome to you both
regards
joy
On 29/01/2014 1:58 p.m., Avri Doria wrote:
> Yes, Welcome
>
> avri
>
> On 28-Jan-14 19:22, Robin Gross wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> As NCUC has newly appointed Stephanie Perrin and Marilia Maciel to
>> represent it on the NCSG Policy Committee, Stephanie and Marilia have
>> been added to this NCSG-PC mailing list.  Welcome, ladies!
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: joy.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 229 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140131/7be3e9a8/attachment.vcf>


From avri  Fri Jan 31 20:32:33 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 13:32:33 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Pick a new chair
In-Reply-To: <52EA8982.2050008@acm.org>
References: <864431393.7118441.1391100701781.POLL_INVITECONTACT_PARTICIPANT_INVITATION.doodle@worker1>	<52EA8535.6030709@acm.org>
	<52EA8982.2050008@acm.org>
Message-ID: <52EBEC41.6070400@acm.org>

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
>
>



From avri  Fri Jan 31 20:39:16 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 13:39:16 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Reminder regarding the ATRT2 report
Message-ID: <52EBEDD4.6050706@acm.org>


Reminder that the comment period is open until:
21 February 2014 - 23:59 UTC


http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-recommendations-09jan14-en.htm

This is now available in multiple languages, so please spread the news.

If anyone is ready to propose a comment on this report, I would be glad 
to shepherd in through a NCSG community discussion and editing process 
and through the Policy Committee process.

But somebody needs to step up with the first bit of work.

avri



From avri  Fri Jan 31 23:07:53 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 16:07:53 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Pick a new chair
In-Reply-To: <52EBEC41.6070400@acm.org>
References: <864431393.7118441.1391100701781.POLL_INVITECONTACT_PARTICIPANT_INVITATION.doodle@worker1>	<52EA8535.6030709@acm.org>	<52EA8982.2050008@acm.org>
	<52EBEC41.6070400@acm.org>
Message-ID: <52EC10A9.7030301@acm.org>

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
>
>



From mllemineur  Fri Jan 31 23:40:45 2014
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:40:45 -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: <CAD3sNqGw2-zjz7qyqmt5fjSQibK2MZUj2EU0LnEa5n6nO_CwNA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

Thank you very much Avri for being flexible.

Looks all fine to me.

Best,

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/20140131/c21df1c1/attachment.html>