From klaus.stoll Sun Jun 1 16:29:18 2014 From: klaus.stoll (Klaus Stoll) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 14:29:18 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <538B2AAE.5040002@gkpfoundation.org> Dear Friends Greetings. We should be disappointed but not beaten. We should still put Sam up as a candidate and have one if not three round of votes on him. We might be n for a pleasant surprise. Yours Klaus On 5/30/2014 11:54 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Everybody, > > Steve Metalitz just informed me that CSG cannot support Sam candidate. > I am really for Sam and definitely don't like bringing those kind of news. > > we shouldn't wait for CSG to come with proposals and we should be more > proactive in this regard. > first thing is to agree about deadline to elect board member to impose > some visibility. agree on election process. I don't know if they will > propose to meet in London but I would like the NCSG PC to work on that > before. > > looking to hear your comments. > > Regards, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Metalitz, Steven* > > Date: 2014-05-31 6:11 GMT+09:00 > Subject: RE: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 > To: Rafik Dammak > > > > Rafik, > > I wanted to let you know that on our call today, CSG concluded that we > cannot support Sam as a Board candidate at this time. We are > continuing to explore further options for moving forward. I will let > you know as soon as we have something further to propose. > > Steve > > *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com > ] > *Sent:* Saturday, May 24, 2014 9:56 PM > > > *To:* Metalitz, Steven > *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 > > Thanks Steve, so we will wait then for the final decision. > > Rafik > > 2014-05-24 4:01 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven >: > > Hi Rafik, > > We had a CSG leadership call on this today and are undertaking further > consultation within our constituencies on a couple of points. We are > to meet again next Friday. > > Steve > > *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com > ] > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:56 PM > *To:* Metalitz, Steven > *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 > > Hi Steve, > > is it possible to know when CSG will respond to us about Sam candidature? > > Best Regards, > > > Rafik > > 2014-05-21 9:53 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >: > > Thanks Steve, > > Rafik > > 2014-05-21 4:36 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven >: > > Rafik, > > For circulation to NCSG. > > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nathalie Peregrine [mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org > ] > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:48 AM > To: Rosette, Kristina; Metalitz, Steven; tony holmes > (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com > ); Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de > ); > Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com > ; marilynscade at hotmail.com > ; harris at cabase.org.ar > > Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org > Subject: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 > > Dear all, > > Please find attached the transcript of the CSG call held with Sam > Lanfranco on May 19th 2014. > > Kind regards > > Nathalie > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Sun Jun 1 16:44:52 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:44:52 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate In-Reply-To: <538B2AAE.5040002@gkpfoundation.org> References: <538B2AAE.5040002@gkpfoundation.org> Message-ID: <538B2E54.4030101@acm.org> Hi, I do not think that makes sense. We already know that he is not going to get their votes. First we need to come to a mutual decide that none of the previous candidates are qualified to run. Then CSG and NCSG pick 2 new candidates And we come up with a procedure that terminates - like the one i suggested. avri On 01-Jun-14 15:29, Klaus Stoll wrote: > Dear Friends > > Greetings. We should be disappointed but not beaten. We should still put > Sam up as a candidate and have one if not three round of votes on him. > We might be n for a pleasant surprise. > > Yours > > Klaus > > On 5/30/2014 11:54 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi Everybody, >> >> Steve Metalitz just informed me that CSG cannot support Sam candidate. >> I am really for Sam and definitely don't like bringing those kind of news. >> >> we shouldn't wait for CSG to come with proposals and we should be more >> proactive in this regard. >> first thing is to agree about deadline to elect board member to impose >> some visibility. agree on election process. I don't know if they will >> propose to meet in London but I would like the NCSG PC to work on that >> before. >> >> looking to hear your comments. >> >> Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: *Metalitz, Steven* > >> Date: 2014-05-31 6:11 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: RE: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 >> To: Rafik Dammak > >> >> >> Rafik, >> >> >> >> I wanted to let you know that on our call today, CSG concluded that we >> cannot support Sam as a Board candidate at this time. We are >> continuing to explore further options for moving forward. I will let >> you know as soon as we have something further to propose. >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> ] >> *Sent:* Saturday, May 24, 2014 9:56 PM >> >> >> *To:* Metalitz, Steven >> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 >> >> >> >> Thanks Steve, so we will wait then for the final decision. >> >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> 2014-05-24 4:01 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven > >: >> >> Hi Rafik, >> >> >> >> We had a CSG leadership call on this today and are undertaking further >> consultation within our constituencies on a couple of points. We are >> to meet again next Friday. >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> ] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:56 PM >> *To:* Metalitz, Steven >> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 >> >> >> >> Hi Steve, >> >> >> >> is it possible to know when CSG will respond to us about Sam candidature? >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> 2014-05-21 9:53 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >: >> >> Thanks Steve, >> >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> 2014-05-21 4:36 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven > >: >> >> >> >> Rafik, >> >> For circulation to NCSG. >> >> Steve >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Nathalie Peregrine [mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org >> ] >> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:48 AM >> To: Rosette, Kristina; Metalitz, Steven; tony holmes >> (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com >> ); Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >> (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de >> ); >> Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com >> ; marilynscade at hotmail.com >> ; harris at cabase.org.ar >> >> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org >> Subject: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 >> >> Dear all, >> >> Please find attached the transcript of the CSG call held with Sam >> Lanfranco on May 19th 2014. >> >> Kind regards >> >> Nathalie >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 klaus.stoll Sun Jun 1 17:53:39 2014 From: klaus.stoll (Klaus Stoll) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 15:53:39 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate In-Reply-To: <538B2E54.4030101@acm.org> References: <538B2AAE.5040002@gkpfoundation.org> <538B2E54.4030101@acm.org> Message-ID: <538B3E73.7030508@gkpfoundation.org> Dear Colleagues On 6/1/2014 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I do not think that makes sense. We already know that he is not going > to get their votes. to get their votes. I very strongly disagree with this! You had your chance to see if there are any stray votes, Sam has the same right to have a chance to collect stray votes. In fact I have a feeling that he might be able to pick 2 votes up, he was well received by some. > > First we need to come to a mutual decide that none of the previous > candidates are qualified to run. Agree, on the other side, why should we allow Bill to take the due process hostage? > > Then CSG and NCSG pick 2 new candidates See above, much too early! Sam needs to have his day! > And we come up with a procedure that terminates - like the one i suggested. We should discuss this, but nothing is agreed and decided! Yours Klaus > > avri > > > On 01-Jun-14 15:29, Klaus Stoll wrote: >> Dear Friends >> >> Greetings. We should be disappointed but not beaten. We should still put >> Sam up as a candidate and have one if not three round of votes on him. >> We might be n for a pleasant surprise. >> >> Yours >> >> Klaus >> >> On 5/30/2014 11:54 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi Everybody, >>> >>> Steve Metalitz just informed me that CSG cannot support Sam candidate. >>> I am really for Sam and definitely don't like bringing those kind of news. >>> >>> we shouldn't wait for CSG to come with proposals and we should be more >>> proactive in this regard. >>> first thing is to agree about deadline to elect board member to impose >>> some visibility. agree on election process. I don't know if they will >>> propose to meet in London but I would like the NCSG PC to work on that >>> before. >>> >>> looking to hear your comments. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: *Metalitz, Steven* > >>> Date: 2014-05-31 6:11 GMT+09:00 >>> Subject: RE: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 >>> To: Rafik Dammak > >>> >>> >>> Rafik, >>> >>> >>> >>> I wanted to let you know that on our call today, CSG concluded that we >>> cannot support Sam as a Board candidate at this time. We are >>> continuing to explore further options for moving forward. I will let >>> you know as soon as we have something further to propose. >>> >>> >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>> ] >>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 24, 2014 9:56 PM >>> >>> >>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven >>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks Steve, so we will wait then for the final decision. >>> >>> >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-05-24 4:01 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven >> >: >>> >>> Hi Rafik, >>> >>> >>> >>> We had a CSG leadership call on this today and are undertaking further >>> consultation within our constituencies on a couple of points. We are >>> to meet again next Friday. >>> >>> >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>> ] >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:56 PM >>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven >>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Steve, >>> >>> >>> >>> is it possible to know when CSG will respond to us about Sam candidature? >>> >>> >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-05-21 9:53 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >> >: >>> >>> Thanks Steve, >>> >>> >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-05-21 4:36 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven >> >: >>> >>> >>> >>> Rafik, >>> >>> For circulation to NCSG. >>> >>> Steve >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Nathalie Peregrine [mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org >>> ] >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:48 AM >>> To: Rosette, Kristina; Metalitz, Steven; tony holmes >>> (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com >>> ); Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>> (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de >>> ); >>> Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com >>> ; marilynscade at hotmail.com >>> ; harris at cabase.org.ar >>> >>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org >>> Subject: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> Please find attached the transcript of the CSG call held with Sam >>> Lanfranco on May 19th 2014. >>> >>> Kind regards >>> >>> Nathalie >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 avri Sun Jun 1 18:19:56 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 17:19:56 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate In-Reply-To: <538B3E73.7030508@gkpfoundation.org> References: <538B2AAE.5040002@gkpfoundation.org> <538B2E54.4030101@acm.org> <538B3E73.7030508@gkpfoundation.org> Message-ID: <538B449C.2050909@acm.org> Hi, Perhaps he did not have a chance for stray votes, just as i never had a chance to go up against NOTA in a third round. He was selected as the compromise candidate and that did not work. Now we move on. Yes, we disagree. This is something the rest of the PC will have to weigh in on. avri On 01-Jun-14 16:53, Klaus Stoll wrote: > Dear Colleagues > > On 6/1/2014 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I do not think that makes sense. We already know that he is not going >> to get their votes. > > to get their votes. > > I very strongly disagree with this! You had your chance to see if there > are any stray votes, Sam has the same right to have a chance to collect > stray votes. In fact I have a feeling that he might be able to pick 2 > votes up, he was well received by some. >> >> First we need to come to a mutual decide that none of the previous >> candidates are qualified to run. > Agree, on the other side, why should we allow Bill to take the due > process hostage? >> >> Then CSG and NCSG pick 2 new candidates > See above, much too early! Sam needs to have his day! >> And we come up with a procedure that terminates - like the one i >> suggested. > We should discuss this, but nothing is agreed and decided! > > Yours > > Klaus >> >> avri >> >> >> On 01-Jun-14 15:29, Klaus Stoll wrote: >>> Dear Friends >>> >>> Greetings. We should be disappointed but not beaten. We should still put >>> Sam up as a candidate and have one if not three round of votes on him. >>> We might be n for a pleasant surprise. >>> >>> Yours >>> >>> Klaus >>> >>> On 5/30/2014 11:54 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> Hi Everybody, >>>> >>>> Steve Metalitz just informed me that CSG cannot support Sam candidate. >>>> I am really for Sam and definitely don't like bringing those kind of >>>> news. >>>> >>>> we shouldn't wait for CSG to come with proposals and we should be more >>>> proactive in this regard. >>>> first thing is to agree about deadline to elect board member to impose >>>> some visibility. agree on election process. I don't know if they will >>>> propose to meet in London but I would like the NCSG PC to work on that >>>> before. >>>> >>>> looking to hear your comments. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: *Metalitz, Steven* > >>>> Date: 2014-05-31 6:11 GMT+09:00 >>>> Subject: RE: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May >>>> 2014 >>>> To: Rafik Dammak >>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> Rafik, >>>> >>>> >>>> I wanted to let you know that on our call today, CSG concluded that we >>>> cannot support Sam as a Board candidate at this time. We are >>>> continuing to explore further options for moving forward. I will let >>>> you know as soon as we have something further to propose. >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>> ] >>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 24, 2014 9:56 PM >>>> >>>> >>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven >>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 >>>> May 2014 >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks Steve, so we will wait then for the final decision. >>>> >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-05-24 4:01 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven >>> >: >>>> >>>> Hi Rafik, >>>> >>>> >>>> We had a CSG leadership call on this today and are undertaking further >>>> consultation within our constituencies on a couple of points. We are >>>> to meet again next Friday. >>>> >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>> ] >>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:56 PM >>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven >>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 >>>> May 2014 >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Steve, >>>> >>>> >>>> is it possible to know when CSG will respond to us about Sam >>>> candidature? >>>> >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-05-21 9:53 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >>> >: >>>> >>>> Thanks Steve, >>>> >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-05-21 4:36 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven >>> >: >>>> >>>> >>>> Rafik, >>>> >>>> For circulation to NCSG. >>>> >>>> Steve >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Nathalie Peregrine [mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org >>>> ] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:48 AM >>>> To: Rosette, Kristina; Metalitz, Steven; tony holmes >>>> (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com >>>> ); Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>> (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de >>>> ); >>>> Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com >>>> ; marilynscade at hotmail.com >>>> ; harris at cabase.org.ar >>>> >>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org >>>> Subject: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 >>>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> Please find attached the transcript of the CSG call held with Sam >>>> Lanfranco on May 19th 2014. >>>> >>>> Kind regards >>>> >>>> Nathalie >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 aelsadr Sun Jun 1 19:01:42 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2014 18:01:42 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate In-Reply-To: <538B449C.2050909@acm.org> References: <538B2AAE.5040002@gkpfoundation.org> <538B2E54.4030101@acm.org> <538B3E73.7030508@gkpfoundation.org> <538B449C.2050909@acm.org> Message-ID: <7545524A-28E2-46B4-B59B-363596C89C09@egyptig.org> >From what I can tell, the CSG have clearly indicated that they will not support Sam. Is there any reason to believe that there may be a splinter constituency within them that we don't know about? If not, I don't understand the rationale behind putting Sam up in a vote against a candidate of theirs. Klaus..., could you please elaborate on this? Thanks. Amr Sent from mobile > On Jun 1, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > Perhaps he did not have a chance for stray votes, just as i never had a > chance to go up against NOTA in a third round. He was selected as the > compromise candidate and that did not work. Now we move on. > > Yes, we disagree. > This is something the rest of the PC will have to weigh in on. > > avri > >> On 01-Jun-14 16:53, Klaus Stoll wrote: >> Dear Colleagues >> >>> On 6/1/2014 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I do not think that makes sense. We already know that he is not going >>> to get their votes. >> >> to get their votes. >> >> I very strongly disagree with this! You had your chance to see if there >> are any stray votes, Sam has the same right to have a chance to collect >> stray votes. In fact I have a feeling that he might be able to pick 2 >> votes up, he was well received by some. >>> >>> First we need to come to a mutual decide that none of the previous >>> candidates are qualified to run. >> Agree, on the other side, why should we allow Bill to take the due >> process hostage? >>> >>> Then CSG and NCSG pick 2 new candidates >> See above, much too early! Sam needs to have his day! >>> And we come up with a procedure that terminates - like the one i >>> suggested. >> We should discuss this, but nothing is agreed and decided! >> >> Yours >> >> Klaus >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>>> On 01-Jun-14 15:29, Klaus Stoll wrote: >>>> Dear Friends >>>> >>>> Greetings. We should be disappointed but not beaten. We should still put >>>> Sam up as a candidate and have one if not three round of votes on him. >>>> We might be n for a pleasant surprise. >>>> >>>> Yours >>>> >>>> Klaus >>>> >>>>> On 5/30/2014 11:54 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> Hi Everybody, >>>>> >>>>> Steve Metalitz just informed me that CSG cannot support Sam candidate. >>>>> I am really for Sam and definitely don't like bringing those kind of >>>>> news. >>>>> >>>>> we shouldn't wait for CSG to come with proposals and we should be more >>>>> proactive in this regard. >>>>> first thing is to agree about deadline to elect board member to impose >>>>> some visibility. agree on election process. I don't know if they will >>>>> propose to meet in London but I would like the NCSG PC to work on that >>>>> before. >>>>> >>>>> looking to hear your comments. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: *Metalitz, Steven* > >>>>> Date: 2014-05-31 6:11 GMT+09:00 >>>>> Subject: RE: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May >>>>> 2014 >>>>> To: Rafik Dammak >>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rafik, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I wanted to let you know that on our call today, CSG concluded that we >>>>> cannot support Sam as a Board candidate at this time. We are >>>>> continuing to explore further options for moving forward. I will let >>>>> you know as soon as we have something further to propose. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>> ] >>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 24, 2014 9:56 PM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven >>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 >>>>> May 2014 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Steve, so we will wait then for the final decision. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2014-05-24 4:01 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven >>>> >: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We had a CSG leadership call on this today and are undertaking further >>>>> consultation within our constituencies on a couple of points. We are >>>>> to meet again next Friday. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>> ] >>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:56 PM >>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven >>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 >>>>> May 2014 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Steve, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> is it possible to know when CSG will respond to us about Sam >>>>> candidature? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2014-05-21 9:53 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >>>> >: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Steve, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2014-05-21 4:36 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven >>>> >: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rafik, >>>>> >>>>> For circulation to NCSG. >>>>> >>>>> Steve >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Nathalie Peregrine [mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org >>>>> ] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:48 AM >>>>> To: Rosette, Kristina; Metalitz, Steven; tony holmes >>>>> (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com >>>>> ); Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>>> (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de >>>>> ); >>>>> Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com >>>>> ; marilynscade at hotmail.com >>>>> ; harris at cabase.org.ar >>>>> >>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org >>>>> Subject: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> Please find attached the transcript of the CSG call held with Sam >>>>> Lanfranco on May 19th 2014. >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards >>>>> >>>>> Nathalie >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From stephanie.perrin Sun Jun 1 20:20:55 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2014 17:20:55 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate In-Reply-To: <7545524A-28E2-46B4-B59B-363596C89C09@egyptig.org> References: <538B2AAE.5040002@gkpfoundation.org> <538B2E54.4030101@acm.org> <538B3E73.7030508@gkpfoundation.org> <538B449C.2050909@acm.org>, <7545524A-28E2-46B4-B59B-363596C89C09@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <1401643254824.56434@mail.utoronto.ca> why not, did they give a reason? steph ________________________________________ From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org on behalf of Amr Elsadr Sent: June 1, 2014 12:01 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate >From what I can tell, the CSG have clearly indicated that they will not support Sam. Is there any reason to believe that there may be a splinter constituency within them that we don't know about? If not, I don't understand the rationale behind putting Sam up in a vote against a candidate of theirs. Klaus..., could you please elaborate on this? Thanks. Amr Sent from mobile > On Jun 1, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > Perhaps he did not have a chance for stray votes, just as i never had a > chance to go up against NOTA in a third round. He was selected as the > compromise candidate and that did not work. Now we move on. > > Yes, we disagree. > This is something the rest of the PC will have to weigh in on. > > avri > >> On 01-Jun-14 16:53, Klaus Stoll wrote: >> Dear Colleagues >> >>> On 6/1/2014 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I do not think that makes sense. We already know that he is not going >>> to get their votes. >> >> to get their votes. >> >> I very strongly disagree with this! You had your chance to see if there >> are any stray votes, Sam has the same right to have a chance to collect >> stray votes. In fact I have a feeling that he might be able to pick 2 >> votes up, he was well received by some. >>> >>> First we need to come to a mutual decide that none of the previous >>> candidates are qualified to run. >> Agree, on the other side, why should we allow Bill to take the due >> process hostage? >>> >>> Then CSG and NCSG pick 2 new candidates >> See above, much too early! Sam needs to have his day! >>> And we come up with a procedure that terminates - like the one i >>> suggested. >> We should discuss this, but nothing is agreed and decided! >> >> Yours >> >> Klaus >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>>> On 01-Jun-14 15:29, Klaus Stoll wrote: >>>> Dear Friends >>>> >>>> Greetings. We should be disappointed but not beaten. We should still put >>>> Sam up as a candidate and have one if not three round of votes on him. >>>> We might be n for a pleasant surprise. >>>> >>>> Yours >>>> >>>> Klaus >>>> >>>>> On 5/30/2014 11:54 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> Hi Everybody, >>>>> >>>>> Steve Metalitz just informed me that CSG cannot support Sam candidate. >>>>> I am really for Sam and definitely don't like bringing those kind of >>>>> news. >>>>> >>>>> we shouldn't wait for CSG to come with proposals and we should be more >>>>> proactive in this regard. >>>>> first thing is to agree about deadline to elect board member to impose >>>>> some visibility. agree on election process. I don't know if they will >>>>> propose to meet in London but I would like the NCSG PC to work on that >>>>> before. >>>>> >>>>> looking to hear your comments. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> From: *Metalitz, Steven* > >>>>> Date: 2014-05-31 6:11 GMT+09:00 >>>>> Subject: RE: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May >>>>> 2014 >>>>> To: Rafik Dammak >>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rafik, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I wanted to let you know that on our call today, CSG concluded that we >>>>> cannot support Sam as a Board candidate at this time. We are >>>>> continuing to explore further options for moving forward. I will let >>>>> you know as soon as we have something further to propose. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>> ] >>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 24, 2014 9:56 PM >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven >>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 >>>>> May 2014 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Steve, so we will wait then for the final decision. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2014-05-24 4:01 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven >>>> >: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We had a CSG leadership call on this today and are undertaking further >>>>> consultation within our constituencies on a couple of points. We are >>>>> to meet again next Friday. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Steve >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>> ] >>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:56 PM >>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven >>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 >>>>> May 2014 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Steve, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> is it possible to know when CSG will respond to us about Sam >>>>> candidature? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2014-05-21 9:53 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >>>> >: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Steve, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2014-05-21 4:36 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven >>>> >: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Rafik, >>>>> >>>>> For circulation to NCSG. >>>>> >>>>> Steve >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Nathalie Peregrine [mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org >>>>> ] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:48 AM >>>>> To: Rosette, Kristina; Metalitz, Steven; tony holmes >>>>> (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com >>>>> ); Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>>> (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de >>>>> ); >>>>> Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com >>>>> ; marilynscade at hotmail.com >>>>> ; harris at cabase.org.ar >>>>> >>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org >>>>> Subject: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 >>>>> >>>>> Dear all, >>>>> >>>>> Please find attached the transcript of the CSG call held with Sam >>>>> Lanfranco on May 19th 2014. >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards >>>>> >>>>> Nathalie >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From rafik.dammak Mon Jun 2 06:36:59 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 12:36:59 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?NCSG_response_to_=E2=80=9CEnhancing_ICANN?= =?utf-8?b?4oCZcyBBY2NvdW50YWJpbGl0eeKAnS1wcm9jZXNzLiA6IHJlcXVlc3Qg?= =?utf-8?q?a_last_call?= Message-ID: Hi Maria we get extension for comment deadline to 6th June but I think that last call should be made earlier , I would suggest Wednesday 4th June and ending in 5th June. I hope that PC members will reach consensus to endorse the statement. I will submit it when the last call end. we need the draft team to work then on the reply period. Can you please initiate the process? Thank you, Best, Rafik 2014-05-28 12:16 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi Maria, > > Gabrielle and Niels worked on the comments and made the edits in the > document. so we have an updated version > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit > > I circulated the document again in NCSG mailing list. I would like to ask > kindly NCSG PC members to review the document and getting consensus with > due diligence to submit this comment. > > can you please set the start and end date for last call? as reminder the > deadline for submission is *30th May 23:59UTC*. getting the green light > after the confirmation of last call, I will submit the comment on behalf of > NCSG. > > we have then later the reply period where I think we can work to add > additional comments and responding to other groups submissions > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > 2014-05-27 20:56 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell : > >> Hi all, >> >> Are Niels and Gabrielle happy with the current draft of the document at >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit >> ? >> >> As Rafik has pointed out, we have another couple of days to finalise. So >> I'd just like to check if the interested people are still working on the >> draft / or satisfied with it? >> >> All the best, Maria >> >> >> >> On 26 May 2014 06:34, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi Marilia, >>> >>> thanks for the review and commenting. the deadline to submit was Tuesday >>> 23:59 UTC but checking the announcement, we get 3 additional days because >>> the technical issuers with migration to new website ( >>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en >>> ). >>> >>> Policy Committee should endorse asap. I think that Maria will handle the >>> last call as PC chair. then having the green light I will submit before the >>> deadline. >>> >>> there will be reply period after this and I think we can expand with >>> another comment about missing parts or clarifying others, in addition to >>> commenting the contributions of other groups. >>> >>> Niels and Gabrielle are working on resolving remaining questions in the >>> document. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2014-05-26 8:03 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel : >>> >>> Thanks, Rafik. Made a few comments, mostly on top of others. >>>> Good contribution. Thanks to folks of Article 19 and others who worked >>>> on it. >>>> Best, >>>> Mar?lia >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Rafik Dammak >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Avri, >>>>> >>>>> Niels and Gabrielle will answers comments soon. and yes we should >>>>> lockdown on language soon. hope that next comments would propose some >>>>> wording. >>>>> I think we will be more efficient than ITU.. hopefully :) >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> 2014-05-23 1:55 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : >>>>> >>>>> hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> had already indicated it in comments. have now added words to Rafik's >>>>>> added words. >>>>>> >>>>>> added some other weasel words too in response to some of Milton's >>>>>> concerns. >>>>>> >>>>>> when do we get a lock down on the language and a removal of brackets. >>>>>> >>>>>> [we have become so ITU.] >>>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 22-May-14 10:47, Maria Farrell wrote: >>>>>> > Hi guys, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > No final call has yet been made. Avri, would you mind marking up the >>>>>> > text with your suggestions and re-circulating? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Many thanks, Maria >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak >>>>> > > wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Hi Rudi, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are getting >>>>>> > comments now. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Rafik >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick >>>>> > >: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the proposed >>>>>> > document (googledoc) a week ago. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Maria, can you proceed ? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Kind regards, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Rudi Vansnick >>>>>> > NPOC chair Policy Committee >>>>>> > NPOC treasurer >>>>>> > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org >>>>>> > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 >>>>>> >>>>>> > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >>>>>> >>>>>> > www.npoc.org >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak >>>>>> > > >>>>>> het >>>>>> > volgende geschreven: >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> Hi everyone, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> We have this draft commenting ICANN accountability. The >>>>>> >> comment deadline is 27th may. >>>>>> >> I count on PC to act quickly. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Best Regards, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Rafik >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>> >> From: "Niels ten Oever" >>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM >>>>>> >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing >>>>>> >> ICANN?s Accountability?-process. >>>>>> >> To: >>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> Cc: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Dear all, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from Brenden and >>>>>> >> Avri, have >>>>>> >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the ?Enhancing ICANN?s >>>>>> >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and comment here: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be great if >>>>>> you >>>>>> >> could >>>>>> >> share your comments before Monday the 26th. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Best, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Niels >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Niels ten Oever >>>>>> >> Acting Head of Digital >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Article 19 >>>>>> >> www.article19.org >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 >>>>>> 636D >>>>>> >> 68E9 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Mar?lia Maciel* >>>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito >>>> Rio >>>> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law >>>> School >>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>> >>>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu >>>> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ >>>> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >>>> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Mon Jun 2 08:22:45 2014 From: joy (joy) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 17:22:45 +1200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate In-Reply-To: <1401643254824.56434@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <538B2AAE.5040002@gkpfoundation.org> <538B2E54.4030101@acm.org> <538B3E73.7030508@gkpfoundation.org> <538B449C.2050909@acm.org>, <7545524A-28E2-46B4-B59B-363596C89C09@egyptig.org> <1401643254824.56434@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <538C0A25.1020201@apc.org> thanks for the updates - as Stephanie requests, yes, it would be good to have reasons Klaus, I also do not understand the rationale of proposing a candidate that CSG has made clear they will not support - is this not a poor use of our precious few resources? meanwhile, any thoughts on the end game here? joy On 2/06/2014 5:20 a.m., Stephanie Perrin wrote: > why not, did they give a reason? > steph > ________________________________________ > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org on behalf of Amr Elsadr > Sent: June 1, 2014 12:01 PM > To: Avri Doria > Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate > > From what I can tell, the CSG have clearly indicated that they will not support Sam. Is there any reason to believe that there may be a splinter constituency within them that we don't know about? > > If not, I don't understand the rationale behind putting Sam up in a vote against a candidate of theirs. Klaus..., could you please elaborate on this? > > Thanks. > > Amr > > Sent from mobile > >> On Jun 1, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Perhaps he did not have a chance for stray votes, just as i never had a >> chance to go up against NOTA in a third round. He was selected as the >> compromise candidate and that did not work. Now we move on. >> >> Yes, we disagree. >> This is something the rest of the PC will have to weigh in on. >> >> avri >> >>> On 01-Jun-14 16:53, Klaus Stoll wrote: >>> Dear Colleagues >>> >>>> On 6/1/2014 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I do not think that makes sense. We already know that he is not going >>>> to get their votes. >>> to get their votes. >>> >>> I very strongly disagree with this! You had your chance to see if there >>> are any stray votes, Sam has the same right to have a chance to collect >>> stray votes. In fact I have a feeling that he might be able to pick 2 >>> votes up, he was well received by some. >>>> First we need to come to a mutual decide that none of the previous >>>> candidates are qualified to run. >>> Agree, on the other side, why should we allow Bill to take the due >>> process hostage? >>>> Then CSG and NCSG pick 2 new candidates >>> See above, much too early! Sam needs to have his day! >>>> And we come up with a procedure that terminates - like the one i >>>> suggested. >>> We should discuss this, but nothing is agreed and decided! >>> >>> Yours >>> >>> Klaus >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 01-Jun-14 15:29, Klaus Stoll wrote: >>>>> Dear Friends >>>>> >>>>> Greetings. We should be disappointed but not beaten. We should still put >>>>> Sam up as a candidate and have one if not three round of votes on him. >>>>> We might be n for a pleasant surprise. >>>>> >>>>> Yours >>>>> >>>>> Klaus >>>>> >>>>>> On 5/30/2014 11:54 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> Hi Everybody, >>>>>> >>>>>> Steve Metalitz just informed me that CSG cannot support Sam candidate. >>>>>> I am really for Sam and definitely don't like bringing those kind of >>>>>> news. >>>>>> >>>>>> we shouldn't wait for CSG to come with proposals and we should be more >>>>>> proactive in this regard. >>>>>> first thing is to agree about deadline to elect board member to impose >>>>>> some visibility. agree on election process. I don't know if they will >>>>>> propose to meet in London but I would like the NCSG PC to work on that >>>>>> before. >>>>>> >>>>>> looking to hear your comments. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>> From: *Metalitz, Steven* > >>>>>> Date: 2014-05-31 6:11 GMT+09:00 >>>>>> Subject: RE: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May >>>>>> 2014 >>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak >>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I wanted to let you know that on our call today, CSG concluded that we >>>>>> cannot support Sam as a Board candidate at this time. We are >>>>>> continuing to explore further options for moving forward. I will let >>>>>> you know as soon as we have something further to propose. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Steve >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>>> ] >>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 24, 2014 9:56 PM >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 >>>>>> May 2014 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Steve, so we will wait then for the final decision. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2014-05-24 4:01 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven >>>>> >: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Rafik, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We had a CSG leadership call on this today and are undertaking further >>>>>> consultation within our constituencies on a couple of points. We are >>>>>> to meet again next Friday. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Steve >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>>> ] >>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:56 PM >>>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 >>>>>> May 2014 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Steve, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> is it possible to know when CSG will respond to us about Sam >>>>>> candidature? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2014-05-21 9:53 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >>>>> >: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Steve, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2014-05-21 4:36 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven >>>>> >: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik, >>>>>> >>>>>> For circulation to NCSG. >>>>>> >>>>>> Steve >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Nathalie Peregrine [mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org >>>>>> ] >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:48 AM >>>>>> To: Rosette, Kristina; Metalitz, Steven; tony holmes >>>>>> (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com >>>>>> ); Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>>>>> (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de >>>>>> ); >>>>>> Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com >>>>>> ; marilynscade at hotmail.com >>>>>> ; harris at cabase.org.ar >>>>>> >>>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org >>>>>> Subject: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Please find attached the transcript of the CSG call held with Sam >>>>>> Lanfranco on May 19th 2014. >>>>>> >>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Nathalie >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From rafik.dammak Mon Jun 2 09:10:03 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 15:10:03 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate In-Reply-To: <538C0A25.1020201@apc.org> References: <538B2AAE.5040002@gkpfoundation.org> <538B2E54.4030101@acm.org> <538B3E73.7030508@gkpfoundation.org> <538B449C.2050909@acm.org> <7545524A-28E2-46B4-B59B-363596C89C09@egyptig.org> <1401643254824.56434@mail.utoronto.ca> <538C0A25.1020201@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Joy, for the end of game, it depends which election process we will agree with CSG , I suspect that they may suggest what they already proposed for next elections (when they thought we could elect a board member with the first 3 rounds), it seems more complex version of what Avri proposed Best, Rafik 2014-06-02 14:22 GMT+09:00 joy : > thanks for the updates - as Stephanie requests, yes, it would be good to > have reasons > Klaus, I also do not understand the rationale of proposing a candidate > that CSG has made clear they will not support - is this not a poor use > of our precious few resources? > meanwhile, any thoughts on the end game here? > > joy > > On 2/06/2014 5:20 a.m., Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > why not, did they give a reason? > > steph > > ________________________________________ > > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org on > behalf of Amr Elsadr > > Sent: June 1, 2014 12:01 PM > > To: Avri Doria > > Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org > > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate > > > > From what I can tell, the CSG have clearly indicated that they will not > support Sam. Is there any reason to believe that there may be a splinter > constituency within them that we don't know about? > > > > If not, I don't understand the rationale behind putting Sam up in a vote > against a candidate of theirs. Klaus..., could you please elaborate on this? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Amr > > > > Sent from mobile > > > >> On Jun 1, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Perhaps he did not have a chance for stray votes, just as i never had a > >> chance to go up against NOTA in a third round. He was selected as the > >> compromise candidate and that did not work. Now we move on. > >> > >> Yes, we disagree. > >> This is something the rest of the PC will have to weigh in on. > >> > >> avri > >> > >>> On 01-Jun-14 16:53, Klaus Stoll wrote: > >>> Dear Colleagues > >>> > >>>> On 6/1/2014 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I do not think that makes sense. We already know that he is not going > >>>> to get their votes. > >>> to get their votes. > >>> > >>> I very strongly disagree with this! You had your chance to see if there > >>> are any stray votes, Sam has the same right to have a chance to collect > >>> stray votes. In fact I have a feeling that he might be able to pick 2 > >>> votes up, he was well received by some. > >>>> First we need to come to a mutual decide that none of the previous > >>>> candidates are qualified to run. > >>> Agree, on the other side, why should we allow Bill to take the due > >>> process hostage? > >>>> Then CSG and NCSG pick 2 new candidates > >>> See above, much too early! Sam needs to have his day! > >>>> And we come up with a procedure that terminates - like the one i > >>>> suggested. > >>> We should discuss this, but nothing is agreed and decided! > >>> > >>> Yours > >>> > >>> Klaus > >>>> avri > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On 01-Jun-14 15:29, Klaus Stoll wrote: > >>>>> Dear Friends > >>>>> > >>>>> Greetings. We should be disappointed but not beaten. We should still > put > >>>>> Sam up as a candidate and have one if not three round of votes on > him. > >>>>> We might be n for a pleasant surprise. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yours > >>>>> > >>>>> Klaus > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 5/30/2014 11:54 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >>>>>> Hi Everybody, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Steve Metalitz just informed me that CSG cannot support Sam > candidate. > >>>>>> I am really for Sam and definitely don't like bringing those kind of > >>>>>> news. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> we shouldn't wait for CSG to come with proposals and we should be > more > >>>>>> proactive in this regard. > >>>>>> first thing is to agree about deadline to elect board member to > impose > >>>>>> some visibility. agree on election process. I don't know if they > will > >>>>>> propose to meet in London but I would like the NCSG PC to work on > that > >>>>>> before. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> looking to hear your comments. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Rafik > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>>>>> From: *Metalitz, Steven* > > >>>>>> Date: 2014-05-31 6:11 GMT+09:00 > >>>>>> Subject: RE: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May > >>>>>> 2014 > >>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Rafik, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I wanted to let you know that on our call today, CSG concluded that > we > >>>>>> cannot support Sam as a Board candidate at this time. We are > >>>>>> continuing to explore further options for moving forward. I will > let > >>>>>> you know as soon as we have something further to propose. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Steve > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com > >>>>>> ] > >>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 24, 2014 9:56 PM > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven > >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 > >>>>>> May 2014 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks Steve, so we will wait then for the final decision. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Rafik > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2014-05-24 4:01 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven >>>>>> >: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Rafik, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We had a CSG leadership call on this today and are undertaking > further > >>>>>> consultation within our constituencies on a couple of points. We > are > >>>>>> to meet again next Friday. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Steve > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com > >>>>>> ] > >>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:56 PM > >>>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven > >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 > >>>>>> May 2014 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Steve, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> is it possible to know when CSG will respond to us about Sam > >>>>>> candidature? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best Regards, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Rafik > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2014-05-21 9:53 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >>>>>> >: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks Steve, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Rafik > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2014-05-21 4:36 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven >>>>>> >: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Rafik, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> For circulation to NCSG. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Steve > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Nathalie Peregrine [mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org > >>>>>> ] > >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:48 AM > >>>>>> To: Rosette, Kristina; Metalitz, Steven; tony holmes > >>>>>> (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com > >>>>>> ); Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > >>>>>> (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de > >>>>>> ); > >>>>>> Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com > >>>>>> ; marilynscade at hotmail.com > >>>>>> ; harris at cabase.org.ar > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org > >>>>>> Subject: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dear all, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please find attached the transcript of the CSG call held with > Sam > >>>>>> Lanfranco on May 19th 2014. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Kind regards > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Nathalie > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CSG suggestions - Board seat 14 election procedure_draft.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 23556 bytes Desc: not available URL: From klaus.stoll Mon Jun 2 22:05:06 2014 From: klaus.stoll (Klaus Stoll) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 20:05:06 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate In-Reply-To: References: <538B2AAE.5040002@gkpfoundation.org> <538B2E54.4030101@acm.org> <538B3E73.7030508@gkpfoundation.org> <538B449C.2050909@acm.org> <7545524A-28E2-46B4-B59B-363596C89C09@egyptig.org> <1401643254824.56434@mail.utoronto.ca> <538C0A25.1020201@apc.org> Message-ID: <538CCAE2.4050200@gkpfoundation.org> Hi, just to make my position clear again. Avri had her chance to be elected, her chances to be supported by the CSG where as high or even lower as Sams are now to be supported by the CSG. Was this then also "a poor use of our precious few resources?" (Rafik). What is now different when it comes to Sam? This is a question of fairness! We can not judge what happens before it actually takes place. As a second thought. We had an agreement in the NCSG about Sams nomination following Avri. I agreed and voted consistently on that basis for Avri giving her as much chances as was possible for me. It seems as the NCUC candidate did not make it, the rules changed and all sorts of lame excuses are made. Are we accepting now that the CSG is dictating to us to ditch a candidate that has not even appeared on the ballot. If that is the case I recommend, to make long things short, that we just ask the CSG for their candidate and promise to vote for it. The end effect is the same!. Yours Klaus On 6/2/2014 7:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Joy, > > for the end of game, it depends which election process we will agree > with CSG , I suspect that they may suggest what they already proposed > for next elections (when they thought we could elect a board member > with the first 3 rounds), it seems more complex version of what Avri > proposed > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2014-06-02 14:22 GMT+09:00 joy >: > > thanks for the updates - as Stephanie requests, yes, it would be > good to > have reasons > Klaus, I also do not understand the rationale of proposing a candidate > that CSG has made clear they will not support - is this not a poor use > of our precious few resources? > meanwhile, any thoughts on the end game here? > > joy > > On 2/06/2014 5:20 a.m., Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > why not, did they give a reason? > > steph > > ________________________________________ > > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org > > > on behalf of Amr Elsadr > > > > Sent: June 1, 2014 12:01 PM > > To: Avri Doria > > Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org > > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate > > > > From what I can tell, the CSG have clearly indicated that they > will not support Sam. Is there any reason to believe that there > may be a splinter constituency within them that we don't know about? > > > > If not, I don't understand the rationale behind putting Sam up > in a vote against a candidate of theirs. Klaus..., could you > please elaborate on this? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Amr > > > > Sent from mobile > > > >> On Jun 1, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Avri Doria > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Perhaps he did not have a chance for stray votes, just as i > never had a > >> chance to go up against NOTA in a third round. He was selected > as the > >> compromise candidate and that did not work. Now we move on. > >> > >> Yes, we disagree. > >> This is something the rest of the PC will have to weigh in on. > >> > >> avri > >> > >>> On 01-Jun-14 16:53, Klaus Stoll wrote: > >>> Dear Colleagues > >>> > >>>> On 6/1/2014 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I do not think that makes sense. We already know that he is > not going > >>>> to get their votes. > >>> to get their votes. > >>> > >>> I very strongly disagree with this! You had your chance to see > if there > >>> are any stray votes, Sam has the same right to have a chance > to collect > >>> stray votes. In fact I have a feeling that he might be able to > pick 2 > >>> votes up, he was well received by some. > >>>> First we need to come to a mutual decide that none of the > previous > >>>> candidates are qualified to run. > >>> Agree, on the other side, why should we allow Bill to take the due > >>> process hostage? > >>>> Then CSG and NCSG pick 2 new candidates > >>> See above, much too early! Sam needs to have his day! > >>>> And we come up with a procedure that terminates - like the one i > >>>> suggested. > >>> We should discuss this, but nothing is agreed and decided! > >>> > >>> Yours > >>> > >>> Klaus > >>>> avri > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On 01-Jun-14 15:29, Klaus Stoll wrote: > >>>>> Dear Friends > >>>>> > >>>>> Greetings. We should be disappointed but not beaten. We > should still put > >>>>> Sam up as a candidate and have one if not three round of > votes on him. > >>>>> We might be n for a pleasant surprise. > >>>>> > >>>>> Yours > >>>>> > >>>>> Klaus > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 5/30/2014 11:54 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >>>>>> Hi Everybody, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Steve Metalitz just informed me that CSG cannot support Sam > candidate. > >>>>>> I am really for Sam and definitely don't like bringing > those kind of > >>>>>> news. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> we shouldn't wait for CSG to come with proposals and we > should be more > >>>>>> proactive in this regard. > >>>>>> first thing is to agree about deadline to elect board > member to impose > >>>>>> some visibility. agree on election process. I don't know if > they will > >>>>>> propose to meet in London but I would like the NCSG PC to > work on that > >>>>>> before. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> looking to hear your comments. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Rafik > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>>>>> From: *Metalitz, Steven* > >> > >>>>>> Date: 2014-05-31 6:11 GMT+09:00 > >>>>>> Subject: RE: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription > - 19 May > >>>>>> 2014 > >>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak > >>>>>> >> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Rafik, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I wanted to let you know that on our call today, CSG > concluded that we > >>>>>> cannot support Sam as a Board candidate at this time. We are > >>>>>> continuing to explore further options for moving forward. > I will let > >>>>>> you know as soon as we have something further to propose. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Steve > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > >>>>>> >] > >>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 24, 2014 9:56 PM > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven > >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco > Transcription - 19 > >>>>>> May 2014 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks Steve, so we will wait then for the final decision. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Rafik > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2014-05-24 4:01 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven > >>>>>> >>: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Rafik, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> We had a CSG leadership call on this today and are > undertaking further > >>>>>> consultation within our constituencies on a couple of > points. We are > >>>>>> to meet again next Friday. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Steve > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > >>>>>> >] > >>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:56 PM > >>>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven > >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco > Transcription - 19 > >>>>>> May 2014 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Steve, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> is it possible to know when CSG will respond to us about Sam > >>>>>> candidature? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best Regards, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Rafik > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2014-05-21 9:53 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > > >>>>>> >>: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks Steve, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Rafik > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2014-05-21 4:36 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven > >>>>>> >>: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Rafik, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> For circulation to NCSG. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Steve > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: Nathalie Peregrine > [mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org > > >>>>>> >] > >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:48 AM > >>>>>> To: Rosette, Kristina; Metalitz, Steven; tony holmes > >>>>>> (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com > > >>>>>> >); Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > >>>>>> (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de > > >>>>>> >); > >>>>>> Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com > > >>>>>> >; marilynscade at hotmail.com > > >>>>>> >; harris at cabase.org.ar > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org > > > >>>>>> Subject: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 > May 2014 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Dear all, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please find attached the transcript of the CSG call > held with Sam > >>>>>> Lanfranco on May 19th 2014. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Kind regards > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Nathalie > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: From avri Tue Jun 3 00:03:51 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 23:03:51 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate In-Reply-To: <538CCAE2.4050200@gkpfoundation.org> References: <538B2AAE.5040002@gkpfoundation.org> <538B2E54.4030101@acm.org> <538B3E73.7030508@gkpfoundation.org> <538B449C.2050909@acm.org> <7545524A-28E2-46B4-B59B-363596C89C09@egyptig.org> <1401643254824.56434@mail.utoronto.ca> <538C0A25.1020201@apc.org> <538CCAE2.4050200@gkpfoundation.org> Message-ID: <538CE6B7.3020108@acm.org> Hi, This was not part of the deal and it is not something I support. avri On 02-Jun-14 21:05, Klaus Stoll wrote: > Hi, > > just to make my position clear again. Avri had her chance to be elected, > her chances to be supported by the CSG where as high or even lower as > Sams are now to be supported by the CSG. Was this then also "a poor use > of our precious few resources?" (Rafik). What is now different when it > comes to Sam? This is a question of fairness! We can not judge what > happens before it actually takes place. > As a second thought. We had an agreement in the NCSG about Sams > nomination following Avri. I agreed and voted consistently on that basis > for Avri giving her as much chances as was possible for me. It seems as > the NCUC candidate did not make it, the rules changed and all sorts of > lame excuses are made. Are we accepting now that the CSG is dictating to > us to ditch a candidate that has not even appeared on the ballot. If > that is the case I recommend, to make long things short, that we just > ask the CSG for their candidate and promise to vote for it. The end > effect is the same!. > > Yours > > Klaus > > > > On 6/2/2014 7:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi Joy, >> >> for the end of game, it depends which election process we will agree >> with CSG , I suspect that they may suggest what they already proposed >> for next elections (when they thought we could elect a board member >> with the first 3 rounds), it seems more complex version of what Avri >> proposed >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-06-02 14:22 GMT+09:00 joy >: >> >> thanks for the updates - as Stephanie requests, yes, it would be >> good to >> have reasons >> Klaus, I also do not understand the rationale of proposing a candidate >> that CSG has made clear they will not support - is this not a poor use >> of our precious few resources? >> meanwhile, any thoughts on the end game here? >> >> joy >> >> On 2/06/2014 5:20 a.m., Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> > why not, did they give a reason? >> > steph >> > ________________________________________ >> > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org >> >> > > on behalf of Amr Elsadr >> > >> > Sent: June 1, 2014 12:01 PM >> > To: Avri Doria >> > Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org >> > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate >> > >> > From what I can tell, the CSG have clearly indicated that they >> will not support Sam. Is there any reason to believe that there >> may be a splinter constituency within them that we don't know about? >> > >> > If not, I don't understand the rationale behind putting Sam up >> in a vote against a candidate of theirs. Klaus..., could you >> please elaborate on this? >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > Amr >> > >> > Sent from mobile >> > >> >> On Jun 1, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Avri Doria > > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> Perhaps he did not have a chance for stray votes, just as i >> never had a >> >> chance to go up against NOTA in a third round. He was selected >> as the >> >> compromise candidate and that did not work. Now we move on. >> >> >> >> Yes, we disagree. >> >> This is something the rest of the PC will have to weigh in on. >> >> >> >> avri >> >> >> >>> On 01-Jun-14 16:53, Klaus Stoll wrote: >> >>> Dear Colleagues >> >>> >> >>>> On 6/1/2014 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>>> Hi, >> >>>> >> >>>> I do not think that makes sense. We already know that he is >> not going >> >>>> to get their votes. >> >>> to get their votes. >> >>> >> >>> I very strongly disagree with this! You had your chance to see >> if there >> >>> are any stray votes, Sam has the same right to have a chance >> to collect >> >>> stray votes. In fact I have a feeling that he might be able to >> pick 2 >> >>> votes up, he was well received by some. >> >>>> First we need to come to a mutual decide that none of the >> previous >> >>>> candidates are qualified to run. >> >>> Agree, on the other side, why should we allow Bill to take the due >> >>> process hostage? >> >>>> Then CSG and NCSG pick 2 new candidates >> >>> See above, much too early! Sam needs to have his day! >> >>>> And we come up with a procedure that terminates - like the one i >> >>>> suggested. >> >>> We should discuss this, but nothing is agreed and decided! >> >>> >> >>> Yours >> >>> >> >>> Klaus >> >>>> avri >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>>> On 01-Jun-14 15:29, Klaus Stoll wrote: >> >>>>> Dear Friends >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Greetings. We should be disappointed but not beaten. We >> should still put >> >>>>> Sam up as a candidate and have one if not three round of >> votes on him. >> >>>>> We might be n for a pleasant surprise. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Yours >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Klaus >> >>>>> >> >>>>>> On 5/30/2014 11:54 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>>>>> Hi Everybody, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Steve Metalitz just informed me that CSG cannot support Sam >> candidate. >> >>>>>> I am really for Sam and definitely don't like bringing >> those kind of >> >>>>>> news. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> we shouldn't wait for CSG to come with proposals and we >> should be more >> >>>>>> proactive in this regard. >> >>>>>> first thing is to agree about deadline to elect board >> member to impose >> >>>>>> some visibility. agree on election process. I don't know if >> they will >> >>>>>> propose to meet in London but I would like the NCSG PC to >> work on that >> >>>>>> before. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> looking to hear your comments. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Regards, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Rafik >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >>>>>> From: *Metalitz, Steven* >> >> >> >>>>>> Date: 2014-05-31 6:11 GMT+09:00 >> >>>>>> Subject: RE: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription >> - 19 May >> >>>>>> 2014 >> >>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak > >> >>>>>> > >> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Rafik, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I wanted to let you know that on our call today, CSG >> concluded that we >> >>>>>> cannot support Sam as a Board candidate at this time. We are >> >>>>>> continuing to explore further options for moving forward. >> I will let >> >>>>>> you know as soon as we have something further to propose. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Steve >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> >> >>>>>> > >] >> >>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 24, 2014 9:56 PM >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven >> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco >> Transcription - 19 >> >>>>>> May 2014 >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Thanks Steve, so we will wait then for the final decision. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Rafik >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> 2014-05-24 4:01 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven > >> >>>>>> >>: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Hi Rafik, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> We had a CSG leadership call on this today and are >> undertaking further >> >>>>>> consultation within our constituencies on a couple of >> points. We are >> >>>>>> to meet again next Friday. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Steve >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> >> >>>>>> > >] >> >>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:56 PM >> >>>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven >> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco >> Transcription - 19 >> >>>>>> May 2014 >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Hi Steve, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> is it possible to know when CSG will respond to us about Sam >> >>>>>> candidature? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Best Regards, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Rafik >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> 2014-05-21 9:53 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >> >> >>>>>> > >>: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Thanks Steve, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Rafik >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> 2014-05-21 4:36 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven > >> >>>>>> >>: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Rafik, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> For circulation to NCSG. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Steve >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>>>>> From: Nathalie Peregrine >> [mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org >> >> >>>>>> > >] >> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:48 AM >> >>>>>> To: Rosette, Kristina; Metalitz, Steven; tony holmes >> >>>>>> (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com >> >> >>>>>> > >); Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >> >>>>>> (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de >> >> >>>>>> > >); >> >>>>>> Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com >> >> >>>>>> > >; marilynscade at hotmail.com >> >> >>>>>> > >; harris at cabase.org.ar >> >> >>>>>> > >> >>>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org >> > >> >>>>>> Subject: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 >> May 2014 >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Dear all, >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Please find attached the transcript of the CSG call >> held with Sam >> >>>>>> Lanfranco on May 19th 2014. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Kind regards >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Nathalie >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>>>> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From avri Tue Jun 3 00:14:20 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 23:14:20 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate In-Reply-To: <538CE6B7.3020108@acm.org> References: <538B2AAE.5040002@gkpfoundation.org> <538B2E54.4030101@acm.org> <538B3E73.7030508@gkpfoundation.org> <538B449C.2050909@acm.org> <7545524A-28E2-46B4-B59B-363596C89C09@egyptig.org> <1401643254824.56434@mail.utoronto.ca> <538C0A25.1020201@apc.org> <538CCAE2.4050200@gkpfoundation.org> <538CE6B7.3020108@acm.org> Message-ID: <538CE92C.8080609@acm.org> Hi, The be specific the deal was - i stood as a stalking horse candidate, expected to not win, in order to bring Sam up as a compromise that they would accept. Nothing beyond that. The NPOC council member NCUC supported getting on the council voted with us for my candidacy as agreed. When I failed as was expected, we put Sam up as a compromise candidate as agreed. The compromise was not accepted by CSG. That is the all that what was compromised between the two Constituencies. And that deal has run its course. We are back to zero. avri On 02-Jun-14 23:03, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > This was not part of the deal and it is not something I support. > > avri > > > On 02-Jun-14 21:05, Klaus Stoll wrote: >> Hi, >> >> just to make my position clear again. Avri had her chance to be elected, >> her chances to be supported by the CSG where as high or even lower as >> Sams are now to be supported by the CSG. Was this then also "a poor use >> of our precious few resources?" (Rafik). What is now different when it >> comes to Sam? This is a question of fairness! We can not judge what >> happens before it actually takes place. >> As a second thought. We had an agreement in the NCSG about Sams >> nomination following Avri. I agreed and voted consistently on that basis >> for Avri giving her as much chances as was possible for me. It seems as >> the NCUC candidate did not make it, the rules changed and all sorts of >> lame excuses are made. Are we accepting now that the CSG is dictating to >> us to ditch a candidate that has not even appeared on the ballot. If >> that is the case I recommend, to make long things short, that we just >> ask the CSG for their candidate and promise to vote for it. The end >> effect is the same!. >> >> Yours >> >> Klaus >> >> >> >> On 6/2/2014 7:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi Joy, >>> >>> for the end of game, it depends which election process we will agree >>> with CSG , I suspect that they may suggest what they already proposed >>> for next elections (when they thought we could elect a board member >>> with the first 3 rounds), it seems more complex version of what Avri >>> proposed >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2014-06-02 14:22 GMT+09:00 joy >: >>> >>> thanks for the updates - as Stephanie requests, yes, it would be >>> good to >>> have reasons >>> Klaus, I also do not understand the rationale of proposing a candidate >>> that CSG has made clear they will not support - is this not a poor use >>> of our precious few resources? >>> meanwhile, any thoughts on the end game here? >>> >>> joy >>> >>> On 2/06/2014 5:20 a.m., Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> > why not, did they give a reason? >>> > steph >>> > ________________________________________ >>> > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org >>> >>> >> > on behalf of Amr Elsadr >>> > >>> > Sent: June 1, 2014 12:01 PM >>> > To: Avri Doria >>> > Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org >>> > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate >>> > >>> > From what I can tell, the CSG have clearly indicated that they >>> will not support Sam. Is there any reason to believe that there >>> may be a splinter constituency within them that we don't know about? >>> > >>> > If not, I don't understand the rationale behind putting Sam up >>> in a vote against a candidate of theirs. Klaus..., could you >>> please elaborate on this? >>> > >>> > Thanks. >>> > >>> > Amr >>> > >>> > Sent from mobile >>> > >>> >> On Jun 1, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Avri Doria >> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi, >>> >> >>> >> Perhaps he did not have a chance for stray votes, just as i >>> never had a >>> >> chance to go up against NOTA in a third round. He was selected >>> as the >>> >> compromise candidate and that did not work. Now we move on. >>> >> >>> >> Yes, we disagree. >>> >> This is something the rest of the PC will have to weigh in on. >>> >> >>> >> avri >>> >> >>> >>> On 01-Jun-14 16:53, Klaus Stoll wrote: >>> >>> Dear Colleagues >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 6/1/2014 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I do not think that makes sense. We already know that he is >>> not going >>> >>>> to get their votes. >>> >>> to get their votes. >>> >>> >>> >>> I very strongly disagree with this! You had your chance to see >>> if there >>> >>> are any stray votes, Sam has the same right to have a chance >>> to collect >>> >>> stray votes. In fact I have a feeling that he might be able to >>> pick 2 >>> >>> votes up, he was well received by some. >>> >>>> First we need to come to a mutual decide that none of the >>> previous >>> >>>> candidates are qualified to run. >>> >>> Agree, on the other side, why should we allow Bill to take the due >>> >>> process hostage? >>> >>>> Then CSG and NCSG pick 2 new candidates >>> >>> See above, much too early! Sam needs to have his day! >>> >>>> And we come up with a procedure that terminates - like the one i >>> >>>> suggested. >>> >>> We should discuss this, but nothing is agreed and decided! >>> >>> >>> >>> Yours >>> >>> >>> >>> Klaus >>> >>>> avri >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> On 01-Jun-14 15:29, Klaus Stoll wrote: >>> >>>>> Dear Friends >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Greetings. We should be disappointed but not beaten. We >>> should still put >>> >>>>> Sam up as a candidate and have one if not three round of >>> votes on him. >>> >>>>> We might be n for a pleasant surprise. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Yours >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Klaus >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> On 5/30/2014 11:54 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>>>>> Hi Everybody, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Steve Metalitz just informed me that CSG cannot support Sam >>> candidate. >>> >>>>>> I am really for Sam and definitely don't like bringing >>> those kind of >>> >>>>>> news. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> we shouldn't wait for CSG to come with proposals and we >>> should be more >>> >>>>>> proactive in this regard. >>> >>>>>> first thing is to agree about deadline to elect board >>> member to impose >>> >>>>>> some visibility. agree on election process. I don't know if >>> they will >>> >>>>>> propose to meet in London but I would like the NCSG PC to >>> work on that >>> >>>>>> before. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> looking to hear your comments. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Regards, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Rafik >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> >>>>>> From: *Metalitz, Steven* >>> >> >>> >>>>>> Date: 2014-05-31 6:11 GMT+09:00 >>> >>>>>> Subject: RE: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription >>> - 19 May >>> >>>>>> 2014 >>> >>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak >> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Rafik, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I wanted to let you know that on our call today, CSG >>> concluded that we >>> >>>>>> cannot support Sam as a Board candidate at this time. We are >>> >>>>>> continuing to explore further options for moving forward. >>> I will let >>> >>>>>> you know as soon as we have something further to propose. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Steve >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >] >>> >>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 24, 2014 9:56 PM >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven >>> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco >>> Transcription - 19 >>> >>>>>> May 2014 >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Thanks Steve, so we will wait then for the final decision. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Rafik >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> 2014-05-24 4:01 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven >> >>> >>>>>> >>: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Hi Rafik, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> We had a CSG leadership call on this today and are >>> undertaking further >>> >>>>>> consultation within our constituencies on a couple of >>> points. We are >>> >>>>>> to meet again next Friday. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Steve >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >] >>> >>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:56 PM >>> >>>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven >>> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco >>> Transcription - 19 >>> >>>>>> May 2014 >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Hi Steve, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> is it possible to know when CSG will respond to us about Sam >>> >>>>>> candidature? >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Best Regards, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Rafik >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> 2014-05-21 9:53 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >>: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Thanks Steve, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Rafik >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> 2014-05-21 4:36 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven >> >>> >>>>>> >>: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Rafik, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> For circulation to NCSG. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Steve >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>>>>> From: Nathalie Peregrine >>> [mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >] >>> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:48 AM >>> >>>>>> To: Rosette, Kristina; Metalitz, Steven; tony holmes >>> >>>>>> (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >); Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>> >>>>>> (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >); >>> >>>>>> Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >; marilynscade at hotmail.com >>> >>> >>>>>> >> >; harris at cabase.org.ar >>> >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org >>> > >>> >>>>>> Subject: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 >>> May 2014 >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Please find attached the transcript of the CSG call >>> held with Sam >>> >>>>>> Lanfranco on May 19th 2014. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Kind regards >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Nathalie >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> > >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> From rafik.dammak Tue Jun 3 00:40:18 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 06:40:18 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate In-Reply-To: <538CCAE2.4050200@gkpfoundation.org> References: <538B2AAE.5040002@gkpfoundation.org> <538B2E54.4030101@acm.org> <538B3E73.7030508@gkpfoundation.org> <538B449C.2050909@acm.org> <7545524A-28E2-46B4-B59B-363596C89C09@egyptig.org> <1401643254824.56434@mail.utoronto.ca> <538C0A25.1020201@apc.org> <538CCAE2.4050200@gkpfoundation.org> Message-ID: Hi Klaus, > >Was this then also "a poor use of our precious few resources?" (Rafik). It is not me who said that. Rafik > > On 6/2/2014 7:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi Joy, >> >> for the end of game, it depends which election process we will agree with CSG , I suspect that they may suggest what they already proposed for next elections (when they thought we could elect a board member with the first 3 rounds), it seems more complex version of what Avri proposed >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-06-02 14:22 GMT+09:00 joy : >>> >>> thanks for the updates - as Stephanie requests, yes, it would be good to >>> have reasons >>> Klaus, I also do not understand the rationale of proposing a candidate >>> that CSG has made clear they will not support - is this not a poor use >>> of our precious few resources? >>> meanwhile, any thoughts on the end game here? >>> >>> joy >>> >>> On 2/06/2014 5:20 a.m., Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> > why not, did they give a reason? >>> > steph >>> > ________________________________________ >>> > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org on behalf of Amr Elsadr >>> > Sent: June 1, 2014 12:01 PM >>> > To: Avri Doria >>> > Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org >>> > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate >>> > >>> > From what I can tell, the CSG have clearly indicated that they will not support Sam. Is there any reason to believe that there may be a splinter constituency within them that we don't know about? >>> > >>> > If not, I don't understand the rationale behind putting Sam up in a vote against a candidate of theirs. Klaus..., could you please elaborate on this? >>> > >>> > Thanks. >>> > >>> > Amr >>> > >>> > Sent from mobile >>> > >>> >> On Jun 1, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi, >>> >> >>> >> Perhaps he did not have a chance for stray votes, just as i never had a >>> >> chance to go up against NOTA in a third round. He was selected as the >>> >> compromise candidate and that did not work. Now we move on. >>> >> >>> >> Yes, we disagree. >>> >> This is something the rest of the PC will have to weigh in on. >>> >> >>> >> avri >>> >> >>> >>> On 01-Jun-14 16:53, Klaus Stoll wrote: >>> >>> Dear Colleagues >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 6/1/2014 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I do not think that makes sense. We already know that he is not going >>> >>>> to get their votes. >>> >>> to get their votes. >>> >>> >>> >>> I very strongly disagree with this! You had your chance to see if there >>> >>> are any stray votes, Sam has the same right to have a chance to collect >>> >>> stray votes. In fact I have a feeling that he might be able to pick 2 >>> >>> votes up, he was well received by some. >>> >>>> First we need to come to a mutual decide that none of the previous >>> >>>> candidates are qualified to run. >>> >>> Agree, on the other side, why should we allow Bill to take the due >>> >>> process hostage? >>> >>>> Then CSG and NCSG pick 2 new candidates >>> >>> See above, much too early! Sam needs to have his day! >>> >>>> And we come up with a procedure that terminates - like the one i >>> >>>> suggested. >>> >>> We should discuss this, but nothing is agreed and decided! >>> >>> >>> >>> Yours >>> >>> >>> >>> Klaus >>> >>>> avri >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> On 01-Jun-14 15:29, Klaus Stoll wrote: >>> >>>>> Dear Friends >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Greetings. We should be disappointed but not beaten. We should still put >>> >>>>> Sam up as a candidate and have one if not three round of votes on him. >>> >>>>> We might be n for a pleasant surprise. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Yours >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Klaus >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> On 5/30/2014 11:54 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>>>>> Hi Everybody, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Steve Metalitz just informed me that CSG cannot support Sam candidate. >>> >>>>>> I am really for Sam and definitely don't like bringing those kind of >>> >>>>>> news. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> we shouldn't wait for CSG to come with proposals and we should be more >>> >>>>>> proactive in this regard. >>> >>>>>> first thing is to agree about deadline to elect board member to impose >>> >>>>>> some visibility. agree on election process. I don't know if they will >>> >>>>>> propose to meet in London but I would like the NCSG PC to work on that >>> >>>>>> before. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> looking to hear your comments. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Regards, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Rafik >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> >>>>>> From: *Metalitz, Steven* > >>> >>>>>> Date: 2014-05-31 6:11 GMT+09:00 >>> >>>>>> Subject: RE: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May >>> >>>>>> 2014 >>> >>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak >> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Rafik, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I wanted to let you know that on our call today, CSG concluded that we >>> >>>>>> cannot support Sam as a Board candidate at this time. We are >>> >>>>>> continuing to explore further options for moving forward. I will let >>> >>>>>> you know as soon as we have something further to propose. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Steve >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>> >>>>>> ] >>> >>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 24, 2014 9:56 PM >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven >>> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 >>> >>>>>> May 2014 >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Thanks Steve, so we will wait then for the final decision. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Rafik >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> 2014-05-24 4:01 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven >> >>>>>> >: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Hi Rafik, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> We had a CSG leadership call on this today and are undertaking further >>> >>>>>> consultation within our constituencies on a couple of points. We are >>> >>>>>> to meet again next Friday. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Steve >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>> >>>>>> ] >>> >>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:56 PM >>> >>>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven >>> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 >>> >>>>>> May 2014 >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Hi Steve, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> is it possible to know when CSG will respond to us about Sam >>> >>>>>> candidature? >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Best Regards, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Rafik >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> 2014-05-21 9:53 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >> >>>>>> >: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Thanks Steve, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Rafik >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> 2014-05-21 4:36 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven >> >>>>>> >: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Rafik, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> For circulation to NCSG. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Steve >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>> >>>>>> From: Nathalie Peregrine [mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org >>> >>>>>> ] >>> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:48 AM >>> >>>>>> To: Rosette, Kristina; Metalitz, Steven; tony holmes >>> >>>>>> (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com >>> >>>>>> ); Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >>> >>>>>> (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de >>> >>>>>> ); >>> >>>>>> Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com >>> >>>>>> ; marilynscade at hotmail.com >>> >>>>>> ; harris at cabase.org.ar >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org >>> >>>>>> Subject: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Please find attached the transcript of the CSG call held with Sam >>> >>>>>> Lanfranco on May 19th 2014. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Kind regards >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Nathalie >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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: From klaus.stoll Tue Jun 3 01:01:06 2014 From: klaus.stoll (Klaus Stoll) Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 23:01:06 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate In-Reply-To: References: <538B2AAE.5040002@gkpfoundation.org> <538B2E54.4030101@acm.org> <538B3E73.7030508@gkpfoundation.org> <538B449C.2050909@acm.org> <7545524A-28E2-46B4-B59B-363596C89C09@egyptig.org> <1401643254824.56434@mail.utoronto.ca> <538C0A25.1020201@apc.org> <538CCAE2.4050200@gkpfoundation.org> Message-ID: <538CF422.9030103@gkpfoundation.org> Dear Rafik Yes you are right, I did read the email wrong, it was Joy who said it, I apologize. Still the argument if mine stands and I think Sam deserves a vote. Sorry again Yours Klaus On 6/2/2014 10:40 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Klaus, > > > > >Was this then also "a poor use of our precious few resources?" (Rafik). > > It is not me who said that. > > Rafik > > > > > On 6/2/2014 7:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> > >> Hi Joy, > >> > >> for the end of game, it depends which election process we will > agree with CSG , I suspect that they may suggest what they already > proposed for next elections (when they thought we could elect a board > member with the first 3 rounds), it seems more complex version of what > Avri proposed > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> 2014-06-02 14:22 GMT+09:00 joy >: > >>> > >>> thanks for the updates - as Stephanie requests, yes, it would be > good to > >>> have reasons > >>> Klaus, I also do not understand the rationale of proposing a candidate > >>> that CSG has made clear they will not support - is this not a poor use > >>> of our precious few resources? > >>> meanwhile, any thoughts on the end game here? > >>> > >>> joy > >>> > >>> On 2/06/2014 5:20 a.m., Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >>> > why not, did they give a reason? > >>> > steph > >>> > ________________________________________ > >>> > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org > > on behalf of Amr Elsadr > > > >>> > Sent: June 1, 2014 12:01 PM > >>> > To: Avri Doria > >>> > Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org > >>> > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate > >>> > > >>> > From what I can tell, the CSG have clearly indicated that they > will not support Sam. Is there any reason to believe that there may be > a splinter constituency within them that we don't know about? > >>> > > >>> > If not, I don't understand the rationale behind putting Sam up > in a vote against a candidate of theirs. Klaus..., could you please > elaborate on this? > >>> > > >>> > Thanks. > >>> > > >>> > Amr > >>> > > >>> > Sent from mobile > >>> > > >>> >> On Jun 1, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Avri Doria > wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> Hi, > >>> >> > >>> >> Perhaps he did not have a chance for stray votes, just as i > never had a > >>> >> chance to go up against NOTA in a third round. He was selected > as the > >>> >> compromise candidate and that did not work. Now we move on. > >>> >> > >>> >> Yes, we disagree. > >>> >> This is something the rest of the PC will have to weigh in on. > >>> >> > >>> >> avri > >>> >> > >>> >>> On 01-Jun-14 16:53, Klaus Stoll wrote: > >>> >>> Dear Colleagues > >>> >>> > >>> >>>> On 6/1/2014 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >>> >>>> Hi, > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> I do not think that makes sense. We already know that he is > not going > >>> >>>> to get their votes. > >>> >>> to get their votes. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> I very strongly disagree with this! You had your chance to see > if there > >>> >>> are any stray votes, Sam has the same right to have a chance > to collect > >>> >>> stray votes. In fact I have a feeling that he might be able to > pick 2 > >>> >>> votes up, he was well received by some. > >>> >>>> First we need to come to a mutual decide that none of the > previous > >>> >>>> candidates are qualified to run. > >>> >>> Agree, on the other side, why should we allow Bill to take the due > >>> >>> process hostage? > >>> >>>> Then CSG and NCSG pick 2 new candidates > >>> >>> See above, much too early! Sam needs to have his day! > >>> >>>> And we come up with a procedure that terminates - like the one i > >>> >>>> suggested. > >>> >>> We should discuss this, but nothing is agreed and decided! > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Yours > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Klaus > >>> >>>> avri > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>>> On 01-Jun-14 15:29, Klaus Stoll wrote: > >>> >>>>> Dear Friends > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Greetings. We should be disappointed but not beaten. We > should still put > >>> >>>>> Sam up as a candidate and have one if not three round of > votes on him. > >>> >>>>> We might be n for a pleasant surprise. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Yours > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Klaus > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>>> On 5/30/2014 11:54 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >>> >>>>>> Hi Everybody, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Steve Metalitz just informed me that CSG cannot support Sam > candidate. > >>> >>>>>> I am really for Sam and definitely don't like bringing > those kind of > >>> >>>>>> news. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> we shouldn't wait for CSG to come with proposals and we > should be more > >>> >>>>>> proactive in this regard. > >>> >>>>>> first thing is to agree about deadline to elect board > member to impose > >>> >>>>>> some visibility. agree on election process. I don't know if > they will > >>> >>>>>> propose to meet in London but I would like the NCSG PC to > work on that > >>> >>>>>> before. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> looking to hear your comments. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Regards, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Rafik > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> >>>>>> From: *Metalitz, Steven* > >> > >>> >>>>>> Date: 2014-05-31 6:11 GMT+09:00 > >>> >>>>>> Subject: RE: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription > - 19 May > >>> >>>>>> 2014 > >>> >>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak > >>> >>>>>> >> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Rafik, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> I wanted to let you know that on our call today, CSG > concluded that we > >>> >>>>>> cannot support Sam as a Board candidate at this time. We are > >>> >>>>>> continuing to explore further options for moving forward. > I will let > >>> >>>>>> you know as soon as we have something further to propose. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Steve > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > >>> >>>>>> >] > >>> >>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 24, 2014 9:56 PM > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven > >>> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco > Transcription - 19 > >>> >>>>>> May 2014 > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Thanks Steve, so we will wait then for the final decision. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Rafik > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> 2014-05-24 4:01 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven > >>> >>>>>> >>: > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Hi Rafik, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> We had a CSG leadership call on this today and are > undertaking further > >>> >>>>>> consultation within our constituencies on a couple of > points. We are > >>> >>>>>> to meet again next Friday. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Steve > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > >>> >>>>>> >] > >>> >>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:56 PM > >>> >>>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven > >>> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco > Transcription - 19 > >>> >>>>>> May 2014 > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Hi Steve, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> is it possible to know when CSG will respond to us about Sam > >>> >>>>>> candidature? > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Best Regards, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Rafik > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> 2014-05-21 9:53 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > > >>> >>>>>> >>: > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Thanks Steve, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Rafik > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> 2014-05-21 4:36 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven > >>> >>>>>> >>: > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Rafik, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> For circulation to NCSG. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Steve > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>> >>>>>> From: Nathalie Peregrine > [mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org > >>> >>>>>> >] > >>> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:48 AM > >>> >>>>>> To: Rosette, Kristina; Metalitz, Steven; tony holmes > >>> >>>>>> (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com > > >>> >>>>>> >); Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > >>> >>>>>> (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de > > >>> >>>>>> >); > >>> >>>>>> Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com > > >>> >>>>>> >; marilynscade at hotmail.com > > >>> >>>>>> >; harris at cabase.org.ar > > >>> >>>>>> > > >>> >>>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org > > > >>> >>>>>> Subject: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 > May 2014 > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Dear all, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Please find attached the transcript of the CSG call > held with Sam > >>> >>>>>> Lanfranco on May 19th 2014. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Kind regards > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Nathalie > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>> >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>> >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> >> _______________________________________________ > >>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> > 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: From joy Tue Jun 3 10:57:17 2014 From: joy (joy) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 19:57:17 +1200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate In-Reply-To: <538CF422.9030103@gkpfoundation.org> References: <538B2AAE.5040002@gkpfoundation.org> <538B2E54.4030101@acm.org> <538B3E73.7030508@gkpfoundation.org> <538B449C.2050909@acm.org> <7545524A-28E2-46B4-B59B-363596C89C09@egyptig.org> <1401643254824.56434@mail.utoronto.ca> <538C0A25.1020201@apc.org> <538CCAE2.4050200@gkpfoundation.org> <538CF422.9030103@gkpfoundation.org> Message-ID: <538D7FDD.3090802@apc.org> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Tue Jun 3 12:16:21 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 10:16:21 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Draft_NCSG_response_to_?= =?utf-8?b?4oCcRW5oYW5jaW5nIElDQU5O4oCZcyBBY2NvdW50YWJpbGl0eeKAnS1w?= =?utf-8?q?rocess=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <537B34AB.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <6B0F6FB4-ADD3-427E-B6F6-58100BA6B7CE@isoc.be> <537E2C12.3000001@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi all, Following the 1-week extension by ICANN to submission of comments, we now need to finalise and submit ours. Any final revisions need to be submitted by midnight GMT tomorrow, Weds, 4 June. The final version will be submitted to ICANN 24 hours after that. So 1) if you have final revisions, make them to this doc (and note your rationale), or send direct to Niels and Gabrielle. 2) Niels/Gabrielle, please send me the final version by midnight GMT, Thurs 5 June. All the best, Maria On 27 May 2014 13:05, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Maria, > > Niels and Gabrielle are going to work in the comments today to resolve the > comments. I guess we can have clean version by tomorrow? > I can confirm with them > > Rafik > > > 2014-05-27 20:56 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell : > > Hi all, >> >> Are Niels and Gabrielle happy with the current draft of the document at >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit >> ? >> >> As Rafik has pointed out, we have another couple of days to finalise. So >> I'd just like to check if the interested people are still working on the >> draft / or satisfied with it? >> >> All the best, Maria >> >> >> >> On 26 May 2014 06:34, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi Marilia, >>> >>> thanks for the review and commenting. the deadline to submit was Tuesday >>> 23:59 UTC but checking the announcement, we get 3 additional days because >>> the technical issuers with migration to new website ( >>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en >>> ). >>> >>> Policy Committee should endorse asap. I think that Maria will handle the >>> last call as PC chair. then having the green light I will submit before the >>> deadline. >>> >>> there will be reply period after this and I think we can expand with >>> another comment about missing parts or clarifying others, in addition to >>> commenting the contributions of other groups. >>> >>> Niels and Gabrielle are working on resolving remaining questions in the >>> document. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2014-05-26 8:03 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel : >>> >>> Thanks, Rafik. Made a few comments, mostly on top of others. >>>> Good contribution. Thanks to folks of Article 19 and others who worked >>>> on it. >>>> Best, >>>> Mar?lia >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Rafik Dammak >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Avri, >>>>> >>>>> Niels and Gabrielle will answers comments soon. and yes we should >>>>> lockdown on language soon. hope that next comments would propose some >>>>> wording. >>>>> I think we will be more efficient than ITU.. hopefully :) >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> 2014-05-23 1:55 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : >>>>> >>>>> hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> had already indicated it in comments. have now added words to Rafik's >>>>>> added words. >>>>>> >>>>>> added some other weasel words too in response to some of Milton's >>>>>> concerns. >>>>>> >>>>>> when do we get a lock down on the language and a removal of brackets. >>>>>> >>>>>> [we have become so ITU.] >>>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 22-May-14 10:47, Maria Farrell wrote: >>>>>> > Hi guys, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > No final call has yet been made. Avri, would you mind marking up the >>>>>> > text with your suggestions and re-circulating? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Many thanks, Maria >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak >>>>> > > wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Hi Rudi, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are getting >>>>>> > comments now. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Rafik >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick >>>>> > >: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the proposed >>>>>> > document (googledoc) a week ago. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Maria, can you proceed ? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Kind regards, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Rudi Vansnick >>>>>> > NPOC chair Policy Committee >>>>>> > NPOC treasurer >>>>>> > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org >>>>>> > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 >>>>>> >>>>>> > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >>>>>> >>>>>> > www.npoc.org >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak >>>>>> > > >>>>>> het >>>>>> > volgende geschreven: >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> Hi everyone, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> We have this draft commenting ICANN accountability. The >>>>>> >> comment deadline is 27th may. >>>>>> >> I count on PC to act quickly. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Best Regards, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Rafik >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>> >> From: "Niels ten Oever" >>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM >>>>>> >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing >>>>>> >> ICANN?s Accountability?-process. >>>>>> >> To: >>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> Cc: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Dear all, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from Brenden and >>>>>> >> Avri, have >>>>>> >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the ?Enhancing ICANN?s >>>>>> >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and comment here: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be great if >>>>>> you >>>>>> >> could >>>>>> >> share your comments before Monday the 26th. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Best, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Niels >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Niels ten Oever >>>>>> >> Acting Head of Digital >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Article 19 >>>>>> >> www.article19.org >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 >>>>>> 636D >>>>>> >> 68E9 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Mar?lia Maciel* >>>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito >>>> Rio >>>> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law >>>> School >>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>> >>>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu >>>> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ >>>> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >>>> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Tue Jun 3 12:32:49 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 10:32:49 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate In-Reply-To: <538D7FDD.3090802@apc.org> References: <538B2AAE.5040002@gkpfoundation.org> <538B2E54.4030101@acm.org> <538B3E73.7030508@gkpfoundation.org> <538B449C.2050909@acm.org> <7545524A-28E2-46B4-B59B-363596C89C09@egyptig.org> <1401643254824.56434@mail.utoronto.ca> <538C0A25.1020201@apc.org> <538CCAE2.4050200@gkpfoundation.org> <538CF422.9030103@gkpfoundation.org> <538D7FDD.3090802@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi all, It is not a question of fairness that Sam somehow be entitled to now be an election candidate - in my opinion, we supported his candidacy when we knew Avri would most likely lose the election, and when we thought the compromise candidate had a *greater* chance of being agreed to by CSG. We already agreed as an SG to put Sam in the best position to win and, unfortunately, he did not. Putting Sam forward as a candidate now makes no sense in either moral - he has already had the best chance possible - or tactical - why would the CSG support a candidate they have already rejected - terms. Klaus, I would love to think we have a firm chance of getting Sam through an election, but in the absence of firm information about his level of support changing, you must see that we cannot put him forward again. This would unnecessarily antagonise the CSG without any obvious gain for us, making it even less likely that we can all agree on a candidate. I would be very disappointed if this process were now to devolve into a npoc versus ncuc fight to get 'our own candidate' in. If we are to get an NCSG person on the board, we need to all get behind a candidate with the strongest chance of success. Divided we fall. What are the constructive steps we can now take to get the strongest possible candidate onto the Board? (and by 'strongest', I mean candidate most likely to succeed, as both our candidates so far were very strong, imho.) As I see it we can either: 1) Come up with a new candidate and/or propose a new process - possibly a new election run-off either with our candidate already proposed or not 2) Wait for CSG to suggest both a new candidate and process 3) Retain the current Board member as we can't agree on either a person or a new process Option 1 would seem to give us the strongest opportunity to influence events. How do we achieve it? We all made and honourably kept to an agreement re. our previous two candidates. That agreement is now completed. Let's make a new one. Maria On 3 June 2014 08:57, joy wrote: > Hi Klaus - i do think it is a poor use of resources to ask for a vote > when it is clear the candidate is not supported: if you have other > information suggesting that the vote would succeed, please do share it so > we can assess whether a call for a vote would be productive. In the > meantime, i think a better use of resources is to focus on how to secure an > agreed candidate, including a process if necessary. > Avri is also correct in relation to the understanding of the agreement for > candidates. > Joy > > On 3/06/2014 10:01 a.m., Klaus Stoll wrote: > > Dear Rafik > > Yes you are right, I did read the email wrong, it was Joy who said it, I > apologize. > > Still the argument if mine stands and I think Sam deserves a vote. > > Sorry again > > Yours > > Klaus > > On 6/2/2014 10:40 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > Hi Klaus, > > > > >Was this then also "a poor use of our precious few resources?" (Rafik). > > It is not me who said that. > > Rafik > > > > > On 6/2/2014 7:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> > >> Hi Joy, > >> > >> for the end of game, it depends which election process we will agree > with CSG , I suspect that they may suggest what they already proposed for > next elections (when they thought we could elect a board member with the > first 3 rounds), it seems more complex version of what Avri proposed > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> 2014-06-02 14:22 GMT+09:00 joy > >: > >>> > >>> thanks for the updates - as Stephanie requests, yes, it would be good > to > >>> have reasons > >>> Klaus, I also do not understand the rationale of proposing a candidate > >>> that CSG has made clear they will not support - is this not a poor use > >>> of our precious few resources? > >>> meanwhile, any thoughts on the end game here? > >>> > >>> joy > >>> > >>> On 2/06/2014 5:20 a.m., Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >>> > why not, did they give a reason? > >>> > steph > >>> > ________________________________________ > >>> > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org > < > pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org > > on behalf of Amr Elsadr < > aelsadr at egyptig.org > > >>> > Sent: June 1, 2014 12:01 PM > >>> > To: Avri Doria > >>> > Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org > > >>> > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate > >>> > > >>> > From what I can tell, the CSG have clearly indicated that they will > not support Sam. Is there any reason to believe that there may be a > splinter constituency within them that we don't know about? > >>> > > >>> > If not, I don't understand the rationale behind putting Sam up in a > vote against a candidate of theirs. Klaus..., could you please elaborate on > this? > >>> > > >>> > Thanks. > >>> > > >>> > Amr > >>> > > >>> > Sent from mobile > >>> > > >>> >> On Jun 1, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Avri Doria > wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> Hi, > >>> >> > >>> >> Perhaps he did not have a chance for stray votes, just as i never > had a > >>> >> chance to go up against NOTA in a third round. He was selected as > the > >>> >> compromise candidate and that did not work. Now we move on. > >>> >> > >>> >> Yes, we disagree. > >>> >> This is something the rest of the PC will have to weigh in on. > >>> >> > >>> >> avri > >>> >> > >>> >>> On 01-Jun-14 16:53, Klaus Stoll wrote: > >>> >>> Dear Colleagues > >>> >>> > >>> >>>> On 6/1/2014 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >>> >>>> Hi, > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> I do not think that makes sense. We already know that he is not > going > >>> >>>> to get their votes. > >>> >>> to get their votes. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> I very strongly disagree with this! You had your chance to see if > there > >>> >>> are any stray votes, Sam has the same right to have a chance to > collect > >>> >>> stray votes. In fact I have a feeling that he might be able to > pick 2 > >>> >>> votes up, he was well received by some. > >>> >>>> First we need to come to a mutual decide that none of the > previous > >>> >>>> candidates are qualified to run. > >>> >>> Agree, on the other side, why should we allow Bill to take the due > >>> >>> process hostage? > >>> >>>> Then CSG and NCSG pick 2 new candidates > >>> >>> See above, much too early! Sam needs to have his day! > >>> >>>> And we come up with a procedure that terminates - like the one i > >>> >>>> suggested. > >>> >>> We should discuss this, but nothing is agreed and decided! > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Yours > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Klaus > >>> >>>> avri > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>>> On 01-Jun-14 15:29, Klaus Stoll wrote: > >>> >>>>> Dear Friends > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Greetings. We should be disappointed but not beaten. We should > still put > >>> >>>>> Sam up as a candidate and have one if not three round of votes > on him. > >>> >>>>> We might be n for a pleasant surprise. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Yours > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Klaus > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>>> On 5/30/2014 11:54 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >>> >>>>>> Hi Everybody, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Steve Metalitz just informed me that CSG cannot support Sam > candidate. > >>> >>>>>> I am really for Sam and definitely don't like bringing those > kind of > >>> >>>>>> news. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> we shouldn't wait for CSG to come with proposals and we should > be more > >>> >>>>>> proactive in this regard. > >>> >>>>>> first thing is to agree about deadline to elect board member to > impose > >>> >>>>>> some visibility. agree on election process. I don't know if > they will > >>> >>>>>> propose to meet in London but I would like the NCSG PC to work > on that > >>> >>>>>> before. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> looking to hear your comments. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Regards, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Rafik > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> >>>>>> From: *Metalitz, Steven* > > >> > >>> >>>>>> Date: 2014-05-31 6:11 GMT+09:00 > >>> >>>>>> Subject: RE: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 > May > >>> >>>>>> 2014 > >>> >>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak > >>> >>>>>> > >> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Rafik, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> I wanted to let you know that on our call today, CSG concluded > that we > >>> >>>>>> cannot support Sam as a Board candidate at this time. We are > >>> >>>>>> continuing to explore further options for moving forward. I > will let > >>> >>>>>> you know as soon as we have something further to propose. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Steve > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > > >>> >>>>>> > >] > >>> >>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 24, 2014 9:56 PM > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven > >>> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - > 19 > >>> >>>>>> May 2014 > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Thanks Steve, so we will wait then for the final decision. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Rafik > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> 2014-05-24 4:01 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven > >>> >>>>>> > >>: > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Hi Rafik, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> We had a CSG leadership call on this today and are undertaking > further > >>> >>>>>> consultation within our constituencies on a couple of points. > We are > >>> >>>>>> to meet again next Friday. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Steve > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > > >>> >>>>>> > >] > >>> >>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:56 PM > >>> >>>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven > >>> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - > 19 > >>> >>>>>> May 2014 > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Hi Steve, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> is it possible to know when CSG will respond to us about Sam > >>> >>>>>> candidature? > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Best Regards, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Rafik > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> 2014-05-21 9:53 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >>> >>>>>> > >>: > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Thanks Steve, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Rafik > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> 2014-05-21 4:36 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven > >>> >>>>>> > >>: > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Rafik, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> For circulation to NCSG. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Steve > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>> >>>>>> From: Nathalie Peregrine [ > mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org > > >>> >>>>>> > >] > >>> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:48 AM > >>> >>>>>> To: Rosette, Kristina; Metalitz, Steven; tony holmes > >>> >>>>>> (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com > > >>> >>>>>> > >); Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > >>> >>>>>> (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de > > >>> >>>>>> > >); > >>> >>>>>> Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com > > >>> >>>>>> > >; marilynscade at hotmail.com > > >>> >>>>>> > >; > harris at cabase.org.ar > >>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org > > > > >>> >>>>>> Subject: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May > 2014 > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Dear all, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Please find attached the transcript of the CSG call held > with Sam > >>> >>>>>> Lanfranco on May 19th 2014. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Kind regards > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Nathalie > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>> >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > >>> >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>> >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > >>> >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > >>> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> >> _______________________________________________ > >>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > >>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Tue Jun 3 12:34:34 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 18:34:34 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Draft_NCSG_response_to_?= =?utf-8?b?4oCcRW5oYW5jaW5nIElDQU5O4oCZcyBBY2NvdW50YWJpbGl0eeKAnS1w?= =?utf-8?q?rocess=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <537B34AB.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <6B0F6FB4-ADD3-427E-B6F6-58100BA6B7CE@isoc.be> <537E2C12.3000001@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Maria, Thanks!adding niels and gabrielle in cc. With your proposed timeline I can submit by 5th june? Rafik On Jun 3, 2014 6:16 PM, "Maria Farrell" wrote: > Hi all, > > Following the 1-week extension by ICANN to submission of comments, we now > need to finalise and submit ours. > > Any final revisions need to be submitted by midnight GMT tomorrow, Weds, 4 > June. The final version will be submitted to ICANN 24 hours after that. > > So 1) if you have final revisions, make them to this doc (and note your > rationale), or send direct to Niels and Gabrielle. > > 2) Niels/Gabrielle, please send me the final version by midnight GMT, > Thurs 5 June. > > All the best, Maria > > > On 27 May 2014 13:05, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Maria, >> >> Niels and Gabrielle are going to work in the comments today to resolve >> the comments. I guess we can have clean version by tomorrow? >> I can confirm with them >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2014-05-27 20:56 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell : >> >> Hi all, >>> >>> Are Niels and Gabrielle happy with the current draft of the document at >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit >>> ? >>> >>> As Rafik has pointed out, we have another couple of days to finalise. So >>> I'd just like to check if the interested people are still working on the >>> draft / or satisfied with it? >>> >>> All the best, Maria >>> >>> >>> >>> On 26 May 2014 06:34, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Marilia, >>>> >>>> thanks for the review and commenting. the deadline to submit was >>>> Tuesday 23:59 UTC but checking the announcement, we get 3 additional days >>>> because the technical issuers with migration to new website ( >>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en >>>> ). >>>> >>>> Policy Committee should endorse asap. I think that Maria will handle >>>> the last call as PC chair. then having the green light I will submit before >>>> the deadline. >>>> >>>> there will be reply period after this and I think we can expand with >>>> another comment about missing parts or clarifying others, in addition to >>>> commenting the contributions of other groups. >>>> >>>> Niels and Gabrielle are working on resolving remaining questions in the >>>> document. >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-05-26 8:03 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel : >>>> >>>> Thanks, Rafik. Made a few comments, mostly on top of others. >>>>> Good contribution. Thanks to folks of Article 19 and others who worked >>>>> on it. >>>>> Best, >>>>> Mar?lia >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Rafik Dammak >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Avri, >>>>>> >>>>>> Niels and Gabrielle will answers comments soon. and yes we should >>>>>> lockdown on language soon. hope that next comments would propose some >>>>>> wording. >>>>>> I think we will be more efficient than ITU.. hopefully :) >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> 2014-05-23 1:55 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : >>>>>> >>>>>> hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> had already indicated it in comments. have now added words to >>>>>>> Rafik's >>>>>>> added words. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> added some other weasel words too in response to some of Milton's >>>>>>> concerns. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> when do we get a lock down on the language and a removal of >>>>>>> brackets. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [we have become so ITU.] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> avri >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 22-May-14 10:47, Maria Farrell wrote: >>>>>>> > Hi guys, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > No final call has yet been made. Avri, would you mind marking up >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> > text with your suggestions and re-circulating? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Many thanks, Maria >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak >>>>>> > > wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Hi Rudi, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are getting >>>>>>> > comments now. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Rafik >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick < >>>>>>> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be >>>>>>> > >: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the proposed >>>>>>> > document (googledoc) a week ago. >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Maria, can you proceed ? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Kind regards, >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Rudi Vansnick >>>>>>> > NPOC chair Policy Committee >>>>>>> > NPOC treasurer >>>>>>> > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org >>>>>>> > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > www.npoc.org >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> het >>>>>>> > volgende geschreven: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >> Hi everyone, >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> We have this draft commenting ICANN accountability. The >>>>>>> >> comment deadline is 27th may. >>>>>>> >> I count on PC to act quickly. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Best Regards, >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Rafik >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>> >> From: "Niels ten Oever" >>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM >>>>>>> >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing >>>>>>> >> ICANN?s Accountability?-process. >>>>>>> >> To: >>>>>> >> > >>>>>>> >> Cc: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Dear all, >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from Brenden and >>>>>>> >> Avri, have >>>>>>> >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the ?Enhancing >>>>>>> ICANN?s >>>>>>> >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and comment here: >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be great >>>>>>> if you >>>>>>> >> could >>>>>>> >> share your comments before Monday the 26th. >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Best, >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Niels >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Niels ten Oever >>>>>>> >> Acting Head of Digital >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> Article 19 >>>>>>> >> www.article19.org >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 >>>>>>> 636D >>>>>>> >> 68E9 >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> *Mar?lia Maciel* >>>>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito >>>>> Rio >>>>> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV >>>>> Law School >>>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>>> >>>>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu >>>>> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ >>>>> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >>>>> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Tue Jun 3 12:38:12 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 10:38:12 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Draft_NCSG_response_to_?= =?utf-8?b?4oCcRW5oYW5jaW5nIElDQU5O4oCZcyBBY2NvdW50YWJpbGl0eeKAnS1w?= =?utf-8?q?rocess=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <537B34AB.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <6B0F6FB4-ADD3-427E-B6F6-58100BA6B7CE@isoc.be> <537E2C12.3000001@acm.org> Message-ID: Sorry, guys - I forgot Niels and Gabrielle weren't on the NCSG PC list. Thanks, Rafik! Rafik, with the timeline I proposed, I let the 5th be potentially a day to resolve any conflicting comments Niels and Gabrielle receive. So if they get things that are hard to reconcile, they may need that 24 hours to write them up. But if not, we should be able to submit on 5 June. cheers, m On 3 June 2014 10:34, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Maria, > > Thanks!adding niels and gabrielle in cc. > With your proposed timeline I can submit by 5th june? > > Rafik > On Jun 3, 2014 6:16 PM, "Maria Farrell" wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Following the 1-week extension by ICANN to submission of comments, we now >> need to finalise and submit ours. >> >> Any final revisions need to be submitted by midnight GMT tomorrow, Weds, >> 4 June. The final version will be submitted to ICANN 24 hours after that. >> >> So 1) if you have final revisions, make them to this doc (and note your >> rationale), or send direct to Niels and Gabrielle. >> >> 2) Niels/Gabrielle, please send me the final version by midnight GMT, >> Thurs 5 June. >> >> All the best, Maria >> >> >> On 27 May 2014 13:05, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi Maria, >>> >>> Niels and Gabrielle are going to work in the comments today to resolve >>> the comments. I guess we can have clean version by tomorrow? >>> I can confirm with them >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2014-05-27 20:56 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell : >>> >>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Are Niels and Gabrielle happy with the current draft of the document at >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit >>>> ? >>>> >>>> As Rafik has pointed out, we have another couple of days to finalise. >>>> So I'd just like to check if the interested people are still working on the >>>> draft / or satisfied with it? >>>> >>>> All the best, Maria >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 26 May 2014 06:34, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Marilia, >>>>> >>>>> thanks for the review and commenting. the deadline to submit was >>>>> Tuesday 23:59 UTC but checking the announcement, we get 3 additional days >>>>> because the technical issuers with migration to new website ( >>>>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en >>>>> ). >>>>> >>>>> Policy Committee should endorse asap. I think that Maria will handle >>>>> the last call as PC chair. then having the green light I will submit before >>>>> the deadline. >>>>> >>>>> there will be reply period after this and I think we can expand with >>>>> another comment about missing parts or clarifying others, in addition to >>>>> commenting the contributions of other groups. >>>>> >>>>> Niels and Gabrielle are working on resolving remaining questions in >>>>> the document. >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2014-05-26 8:03 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel : >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, Rafik. Made a few comments, mostly on top of others. >>>>>> Good contribution. Thanks to folks of Article 19 and others who >>>>>> worked on it. >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Mar?lia >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Rafik Dammak >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Avri, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Niels and Gabrielle will answers comments soon. and yes we should >>>>>>> lockdown on language soon. hope that next comments would propose some >>>>>>> wording. >>>>>>> I think we will be more efficient than ITU.. hopefully :) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2014-05-23 1:55 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> had already indicated it in comments. have now added words to >>>>>>>> Rafik's >>>>>>>> added words. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> added some other weasel words too in response to some of Milton's >>>>>>>> concerns. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> when do we get a lock down on the language and a removal of >>>>>>>> brackets. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [we have become so ITU.] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 22-May-14 10:47, Maria Farrell wrote: >>>>>>>> > Hi guys, >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > No final call has yet been made. Avri, would you mind marking up >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> > text with your suggestions and re-circulating? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Many thanks, Maria >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak >>>>>>> > > wrote: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Hi Rudi, >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are getting >>>>>>>> > comments now. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Rafik >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick < >>>>>>>> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be >>>>>>>> > >: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the proposed >>>>>>>> > document (googledoc) a week ago. >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Maria, can you proceed ? >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Kind regards, >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Rudi Vansnick >>>>>>>> > NPOC chair Policy Committee >>>>>>>> > NPOC treasurer >>>>>>>> > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org >>>>>>>> > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > www.npoc.org >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> het >>>>>>>> > volgende geschreven: >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> We have this draft commenting ICANN accountability. The >>>>>>>> >> comment deadline is 27th may. >>>>>>>> >> I count on PC to act quickly. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Best Regards, >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Rafik >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>> >> From: "Niels ten Oever" >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM >>>>>>>> >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing >>>>>>>> >> ICANN?s Accountability?-process. >>>>>>>> >> To: >>>>>>> >> > >>>>>>>> >> Cc: >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Dear all, >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from Brenden and >>>>>>>> >> Avri, have >>>>>>>> >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the ?Enhancing >>>>>>>> ICANN?s >>>>>>>> >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and comment >>>>>>>> here: >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be great >>>>>>>> if you >>>>>>>> >> could >>>>>>>> >> share your comments before Monday the 26th. >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Best, >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Niels >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Niels ten Oever >>>>>>>> >> Acting Head of Digital >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> Article 19 >>>>>>>> >> www.article19.org >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 >>>>>>>> A0F2 636D >>>>>>>> >> 68E9 >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> *Mar?lia Maciel* >>>>>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV >>>>>> Direito Rio >>>>>> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV >>>>>> Law School >>>>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>>>> >>>>>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu >>>>>> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ >>>>>> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >>>>>> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wolfgang.kleinwaechter Tue Jun 3 12:49:47 2014 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:49:47 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate References: <538B2AAE.5040002@gkpfoundation.org> <538B2E54.4030101@acm.org> <538B3E73.7030508@gkpfoundation.org> <538B449C.2050909@acm.org> <7545524A-28E2-46B4-B59B-363596C89C09@egyptig.org> <1401643254824.56434@mail.utoronto.ca> <538C0A25.1020201@apc.org> <538CCAE2.4050200@gkpfoundation.org> <538CF422.9030103@gkpfoundation.org> <538D7FDD.3090802@apc.org> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A80164233F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> In the light of the recent developments: Does somebody think on this list that a recondsideration of Avris nomination would have a chance? We could wait until the CSG makes a proposal and when we find their proposal unacceptable we could ask whether they could rethink their position. Just an idea :-))) Wolfgang -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Maria Farrell Gesendet: Di 03.06.2014 11:32 An: Joy Liddicoat Cc: NCSG-Policy Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate Hi all, It is not a question of fairness that Sam somehow be entitled to now be an election candidate - in my opinion, we supported his candidacy when we knew Avri would most likely lose the election, and when we thought the compromise candidate had a *greater* chance of being agreed to by CSG. We already agreed as an SG to put Sam in the best position to win and, unfortunately, he did not. Putting Sam forward as a candidate now makes no sense in either moral - he has already had the best chance possible - or tactical - why would the CSG support a candidate they have already rejected - terms. Klaus, I would love to think we have a firm chance of getting Sam through an election, but in the absence of firm information about his level of support changing, you must see that we cannot put him forward again. This would unnecessarily antagonise the CSG without any obvious gain for us, making it even less likely that we can all agree on a candidate. I would be very disappointed if this process were now to devolve into a npoc versus ncuc fight to get 'our own candidate' in. If we are to get an NCSG person on the board, we need to all get behind a candidate with the strongest chance of success. Divided we fall. What are the constructive steps we can now take to get the strongest possible candidate onto the Board? (and by 'strongest', I mean candidate most likely to succeed, as both our candidates so far were very strong, imho.) As I see it we can either: 1) Come up with a new candidate and/or propose a new process - possibly a new election run-off either with our candidate already proposed or not 2) Wait for CSG to suggest both a new candidate and process 3) Retain the current Board member as we can't agree on either a person or a new process Option 1 would seem to give us the strongest opportunity to influence events. How do we achieve it? We all made and honourably kept to an agreement re. our previous two candidates. That agreement is now completed. Let's make a new one. Maria On 3 June 2014 08:57, joy wrote: > Hi Klaus - i do think it is a poor use of resources to ask for a vote > when it is clear the candidate is not supported: if you have other > information suggesting that the vote would succeed, please do share it so > we can assess whether a call for a vote would be productive. In the > meantime, i think a better use of resources is to focus on how to secure an > agreed candidate, including a process if necessary. > Avri is also correct in relation to the understanding of the agreement for > candidates. > Joy > > On 3/06/2014 10:01 a.m., Klaus Stoll wrote: > > Dear Rafik > > Yes you are right, I did read the email wrong, it was Joy who said it, I > apologize. > > Still the argument if mine stands and I think Sam deserves a vote. > > Sorry again > > Yours > > Klaus > > On 6/2/2014 10:40 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > > Hi Klaus, > > > > >Was this then also "a poor use of our precious few resources?" (Rafik). > > It is not me who said that. > > Rafik > > > > > On 6/2/2014 7:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> > >> Hi Joy, > >> > >> for the end of game, it depends which election process we will agree > with CSG , I suspect that they may suggest what they already proposed for > next elections (when they thought we could elect a board member with the > first 3 rounds), it seems more complex version of what Avri proposed > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> 2014-06-02 14:22 GMT+09:00 joy > >: > >>> > >>> thanks for the updates - as Stephanie requests, yes, it would be good > to > >>> have reasons > >>> Klaus, I also do not understand the rationale of proposing a candidate > >>> that CSG has made clear they will not support - is this not a poor use > >>> of our precious few resources? > >>> meanwhile, any thoughts on the end game here? > >>> > >>> joy > >>> > >>> On 2/06/2014 5:20 a.m., Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >>> > why not, did they give a reason? > >>> > steph > >>> > ________________________________________ > >>> > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org > < > pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org > > on behalf of Amr Elsadr < > aelsadr at egyptig.org > > >>> > Sent: June 1, 2014 12:01 PM > >>> > To: Avri Doria > >>> > Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org > > >>> > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate > >>> > > >>> > From what I can tell, the CSG have clearly indicated that they will > not support Sam. Is there any reason to believe that there may be a > splinter constituency within them that we don't know about? > >>> > > >>> > If not, I don't understand the rationale behind putting Sam up in a > vote against a candidate of theirs. Klaus..., could you please elaborate on > this? > >>> > > >>> > Thanks. > >>> > > >>> > Amr > >>> > > >>> > Sent from mobile > >>> > > >>> >> On Jun 1, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Avri Doria > wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> Hi, > >>> >> > >>> >> Perhaps he did not have a chance for stray votes, just as i never > had a > >>> >> chance to go up against NOTA in a third round. He was selected as > the > >>> >> compromise candidate and that did not work. Now we move on. > >>> >> > >>> >> Yes, we disagree. > >>> >> This is something the rest of the PC will have to weigh in on. > >>> >> > >>> >> avri > >>> >> > >>> >>> On 01-Jun-14 16:53, Klaus Stoll wrote: > >>> >>> Dear Colleagues > >>> >>> > >>> >>>> On 6/1/2014 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >>> >>>> Hi, > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> I do not think that makes sense. We already know that he is not > going > >>> >>>> to get their votes. > >>> >>> to get their votes. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> I very strongly disagree with this! You had your chance to see if > there > >>> >>> are any stray votes, Sam has the same right to have a chance to > collect > >>> >>> stray votes. In fact I have a feeling that he might be able to > pick 2 > >>> >>> votes up, he was well received by some. > >>> >>>> First we need to come to a mutual decide that none of the > previous > >>> >>>> candidates are qualified to run. > >>> >>> Agree, on the other side, why should we allow Bill to take the due > >>> >>> process hostage? > >>> >>>> Then CSG and NCSG pick 2 new candidates > >>> >>> See above, much too early! Sam needs to have his day! > >>> >>>> And we come up with a procedure that terminates - like the one i > >>> >>>> suggested. > >>> >>> We should discuss this, but nothing is agreed and decided! > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Yours > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Klaus > >>> >>>> avri > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>>> On 01-Jun-14 15:29, Klaus Stoll wrote: > >>> >>>>> Dear Friends > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Greetings. We should be disappointed but not beaten. We should > still put > >>> >>>>> Sam up as a candidate and have one if not three round of votes > on him. > >>> >>>>> We might be n for a pleasant surprise. > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Yours > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Klaus > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>>> On 5/30/2014 11:54 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >>> >>>>>> Hi Everybody, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Steve Metalitz just informed me that CSG cannot support Sam > candidate. > >>> >>>>>> I am really for Sam and definitely don't like bringing those > kind of > >>> >>>>>> news. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> we shouldn't wait for CSG to come with proposals and we should > be more > >>> >>>>>> proactive in this regard. > >>> >>>>>> first thing is to agree about deadline to elect board member to > impose > >>> >>>>>> some visibility. agree on election process. I don't know if > they will > >>> >>>>>> propose to meet in London but I would like the NCSG PC to work > on that > >>> >>>>>> before. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> looking to hear your comments. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Regards, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Rafik > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> >>>>>> From: *Metalitz, Steven* > > >> > >>> >>>>>> Date: 2014-05-31 6:11 GMT+09:00 > >>> >>>>>> Subject: RE: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 > May > >>> >>>>>> 2014 > >>> >>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak > >>> >>>>>> > >> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Rafik, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> I wanted to let you know that on our call today, CSG concluded > that we > >>> >>>>>> cannot support Sam as a Board candidate at this time. We are > >>> >>>>>> continuing to explore further options for moving forward. I > will let > >>> >>>>>> you know as soon as we have something further to propose. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Steve > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > > >>> >>>>>> > >] > >>> >>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 24, 2014 9:56 PM > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven > >>> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - > 19 > >>> >>>>>> May 2014 > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Thanks Steve, so we will wait then for the final decision. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Rafik > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> 2014-05-24 4:01 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven > >>> >>>>>> > >>: > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Hi Rafik, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> We had a CSG leadership call on this today and are undertaking > further > >>> >>>>>> consultation within our constituencies on a couple of points. > We are > >>> >>>>>> to meet again next Friday. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Steve > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > > >>> >>>>>> > >] > >>> >>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:56 PM > >>> >>>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven > >>> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - > 19 > >>> >>>>>> May 2014 > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Hi Steve, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> is it possible to know when CSG will respond to us about Sam > >>> >>>>>> candidature? > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Best Regards, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Rafik > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> 2014-05-21 9:53 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >>> >>>>>> > >>: > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Thanks Steve, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Rafik > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> 2014-05-21 4:36 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven > >>> >>>>>> > >>: > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Rafik, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> For circulation to NCSG. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Steve > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>> >>>>>> From: Nathalie Peregrine [ > mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org > > >>> >>>>>> > >] > >>> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:48 AM > >>> >>>>>> To: Rosette, Kristina; Metalitz, Steven; tony holmes > >>> >>>>>> (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com > > >>> >>>>>> > >); Wolf-Ulrich Knoben > >>> >>>>>> (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de > > >>> >>>>>> > >); > >>> >>>>>> Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com > > >>> >>>>>> > >; marilynscade at hotmail.com > > >>> >>>>>> > >; > harris at cabase.org.ar > >>> >>>>>> > > > >>> >>>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org > > > > >>> >>>>>> Subject: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May > 2014 > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Dear all, > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Please find attached the transcript of the CSG call held > with Sam > >>> >>>>>> Lanfranco on May 19th 2014. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Kind regards > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Nathalie > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>> >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > >>> >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>> >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > >>> >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > >>> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> >> _______________________________________________ > >>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > >>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > From rafik.dammak Tue Jun 3 13:47:00 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 19:47:00 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate In-Reply-To: References: <538B2AAE.5040002@gkpfoundation.org> <538B2E54.4030101@acm.org> <538B3E73.7030508@gkpfoundation.org> <538B449C.2050909@acm.org> <7545524A-28E2-46B4-B59B-363596C89C09@egyptig.org> <1401643254824.56434@mail.utoronto.ca> <538C0A25.1020201@apc.org> <538CCAE2.4050200@gkpfoundation.org> <538CF422.9030103@gkpfoundation.org> <538D7FDD.3090802@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Maria, thanks, I expect CSG to come soon with proposals for the election. I see emergency to have our counter-proposal regarding the election process. that is something we should work on Best, Rafik 2014-06-03 18:32 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell : > Hi all, > > It is not a question of fairness that Sam somehow be entitled to now be an > election candidate - in my opinion, we supported his candidacy when we knew > Avri would most likely lose the election, and when we thought the > compromise candidate had a *greater* chance of being agreed to by CSG. We > already agreed as an SG to put Sam in the best position to win and, > unfortunately, he did not. > > Putting Sam forward as a candidate now makes no sense in either moral - he > has already had the best chance possible - or tactical - why would the CSG > support a candidate they have already rejected - terms. > > Klaus, I would love to think we have a firm chance of getting Sam through > an election, but in the absence of firm information about his level of > support changing, you must see that we cannot put him forward again. This > would unnecessarily antagonise the CSG without any obvious gain for us, > making it even less likely that we can all agree on a candidate. > > I would be very disappointed if this process were now to devolve into a > npoc versus ncuc fight to get 'our own candidate' in. If we are to get an > NCSG person on the board, we need to all get behind a candidate with the > strongest chance of success. Divided we fall. > > What are the constructive steps we can now take to get the strongest > possible candidate onto the Board? (and by 'strongest', I mean candidate > most likely to succeed, as both our candidates so far were very strong, > imho.) > > As I see it we can either: > > 1) Come up with a new candidate and/or propose a new process - possibly a > new election run-off either with our candidate already proposed or not > > 2) Wait for CSG to suggest both a new candidate and process > > 3) Retain the current Board member as we can't agree on either a person or > a new process > > Option 1 would seem to give us the strongest opportunity to influence > events. How do we achieve it? > > We all made and honourably kept to an agreement re. our previous two > candidates. That agreement is now completed. Let's make a new one. > > Maria > > > > On 3 June 2014 08:57, joy wrote: > >> Hi Klaus - i do think it is a poor use of resources to ask for a vote >> when it is clear the candidate is not supported: if you have other >> information suggesting that the vote would succeed, please do share it so >> we can assess whether a call for a vote would be productive. In the >> meantime, i think a better use of resources is to focus on how to secure an >> agreed candidate, including a process if necessary. >> Avri is also correct in relation to the understanding of the agreement >> for candidates. >> Joy >> >> On 3/06/2014 10:01 a.m., Klaus Stoll wrote: >> >> Dear Rafik >> >> Yes you are right, I did read the email wrong, it was Joy who said it, I >> apologize. >> >> Still the argument if mine stands and I think Sam deserves a vote. >> >> Sorry again >> >> Yours >> >> Klaus >> >> On 6/2/2014 10:40 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> >> Hi Klaus, >> >> > >> >Was this then also "a poor use of our precious few resources?" (Rafik). >> >> It is not me who said that. >> >> Rafik >> >> > >> > On 6/2/2014 7:10 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Joy, >> >> >> >> for the end of game, it depends which election process we will agree >> with CSG , I suspect that they may suggest what they already proposed for >> next elections (when they thought we could elect a board member with the >> first 3 rounds), it seems more complex version of what Avri proposed >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> 2014-06-02 14:22 GMT+09:00 joy >> >: >> >>> >> >>> thanks for the updates - as Stephanie requests, yes, it would be good >> to >> >>> have reasons >> >>> Klaus, I also do not understand the rationale of proposing a >> candidate >> >>> that CSG has made clear they will not support - is this not a poor >> use >> >>> of our precious few resources? >> >>> meanwhile, any thoughts on the end game here? >> >>> >> >>> joy >> >>> >> >>> On 2/06/2014 5:20 a.m., Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >>> > why not, did they give a reason? >> >>> > steph >> >>> > ________________________________________ >> >>> > From: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org >> < >> pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org >> > on behalf of Amr Elsadr < >> aelsadr at egyptig.org > >> >>> > Sent: June 1, 2014 12:01 PM >> >>> > To: Avri Doria >> >>> > Cc: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org >> >> >>> > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate >> >>> > >> >>> > From what I can tell, the CSG have clearly indicated that they will >> not support Sam. Is there any reason to believe that there may be a >> splinter constituency within them that we don't know about? >> >>> > >> >>> > If not, I don't understand the rationale behind putting Sam up in a >> vote against a candidate of theirs. Klaus..., could you please elaborate on >> this? >> >>> > >> >>> > Thanks. >> >>> > >> >>> > Amr >> >>> > >> >>> > Sent from mobile >> >>> > >> >>> >> On Jun 1, 2014, at 5:19 PM, Avri Doria > > wrote: >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Hi, >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Perhaps he did not have a chance for stray votes, just as i never >> had a >> >>> >> chance to go up against NOTA in a third round. He was selected as >> the >> >>> >> compromise candidate and that did not work. Now we move on. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> Yes, we disagree. >> >>> >> This is something the rest of the PC will have to weigh in on. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> avri >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> On 01-Jun-14 16:53, Klaus Stoll wrote: >> >>> >>> Dear Colleagues >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>>> On 6/1/2014 2:44 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> >>>> Hi, >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> I do not think that makes sense. We already know that he is not >> going >> >>> >>>> to get their votes. >> >>> >>> to get their votes. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> I very strongly disagree with this! You had your chance to see if >> there >> >>> >>> are any stray votes, Sam has the same right to have a chance to >> collect >> >>> >>> stray votes. In fact I have a feeling that he might be able to >> pick 2 >> >>> >>> votes up, he was well received by some. >> >>> >>>> First we need to come to a mutual decide that none of the >> previous >> >>> >>>> candidates are qualified to run. >> >>> >>> Agree, on the other side, why should we allow Bill to take the >> due >> >>> >>> process hostage? >> >>> >>>> Then CSG and NCSG pick 2 new candidates >> >>> >>> See above, much too early! Sam needs to have his day! >> >>> >>>> And we come up with a procedure that terminates - like the one i >> >>> >>>> suggested. >> >>> >>> We should discuss this, but nothing is agreed and decided! >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Yours >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Klaus >> >>> >>>> avri >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>>> On 01-Jun-14 15:29, Klaus Stoll wrote: >> >>> >>>>> Dear Friends >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> Greetings. We should be disappointed but not beaten. We should >> still put >> >>> >>>>> Sam up as a candidate and have one if not three round of votes >> on him. >> >>> >>>>> We might be n for a pleasant surprise. >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> Yours >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> Klaus >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> On 5/30/2014 11:54 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> >>>>>> Hi Everybody, >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Steve Metalitz just informed me that CSG cannot support Sam >> candidate. >> >>> >>>>>> I am really for Sam and definitely don't like bringing those >> kind of >> >>> >>>>>> news. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> we shouldn't wait for CSG to come with proposals and we should >> be more >> >>> >>>>>> proactive in this regard. >> >>> >>>>>> first thing is to agree about deadline to elect board member >> to impose >> >>> >>>>>> some visibility. agree on election process. I don't know if >> they will >> >>> >>>>>> propose to meet in London but I would like the NCSG PC to work >> on that >> >>> >>>>>> before. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> looking to hear your comments. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Regards, >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Rafik >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >>> >>>>>> From: *Metalitz, Steven* >> >> >> >> >>> >>>>>> Date: 2014-05-31 6:11 GMT+09:00 >> >>> >>>>>> Subject: RE: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - >> 19 May >> >>> >>>>>> 2014 >> >>> >>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak > >> >>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Rafik, >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> I wanted to let you know that on our call today, CSG concluded >> that we >> >>> >>>>>> cannot support Sam as a Board candidate at this time. We are >> >>> >>>>>> continuing to explore further options for moving forward. I >> will let >> >>> >>>>>> you know as soon as we have something further to propose. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Steve >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> >> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >] >> >>> >>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, May 24, 2014 9:56 PM >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven >> >>> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - >> 19 >> >>> >>>>>> May 2014 >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Thanks Steve, so we will wait then for the final decision. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Rafik >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> 2014-05-24 4:01 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven > >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>: >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Hi Rafik, >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> We had a CSG leadership call on this today and are undertaking >> further >> >>> >>>>>> consultation within our constituencies on a couple of points. >> We are >> >>> >>>>>> to meet again next Friday. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Steve >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> *From:*Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> >> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >] >> >>> >>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:56 PM >> >>> >>>>>> *To:* Metalitz, Steven >> >>> >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - >> 19 >> >>> >>>>>> May 2014 >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Hi Steve, >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> is it possible to know when CSG will respond to us about Sam >> >>> >>>>>> candidature? >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Best Regards, >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Rafik >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> 2014-05-21 9:53 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>: >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Thanks Steve, >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Rafik >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> 2014-05-21 4:36 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven > >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>: >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Rafik, >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> For circulation to NCSG. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Steve >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> >>>>>> From: Nathalie Peregrine [ >> mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org >> >> >>> >>>>>> > >> >] >> >>> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:48 AM >> >>> >>>>>> To: Rosette, Kristina; Metalitz, Steven; tony holmes >> >>> >>>>>> (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com >> >> >>> >>>>>> > >> >); Wolf-Ulrich Knoben >> >>> >>>>>> (Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de >> >> >>> >>>>>> > >> >); >> >>> >>>>>> Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com >> >> >>> >>>>>> > >> >; marilynscade at hotmail.com >> >> >>> >>>>>> > >> >; harris at cabase.org.ar >> >> >>> >>>>>> >> > >> >>> >>>>>> Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org >> >> > >> >>> >>>>>> Subject: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 >> May 2014 >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Dear all, >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Please find attached the transcript of the CSG call held >> with Sam >> >>> >>>>>> Lanfranco on May 19th 2014. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Kind regards >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Nathalie >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> >>> >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> >>> >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> >>> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> >>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> >>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >> >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>> > >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >> >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>> > >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Tue Jun 3 16:35:07 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 15:35:07 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate In-Reply-To: References: <538B2AAE.5040002@gkpfoundation.org> <538B2E54.4030101@acm.org> <538B3E73.7030508@gkpfoundation.org> <538B449C.2050909@acm.org> <7545524A-28E2-46B4-B59B-363596C89C09@egyptig.org> <1401643254824.56434@mail.utoronto.ca> <538C0A25.1020201@apc.org> <538CCAE2.4050200@gkpfoundation.org> <538CF422.9030103@gkpfoundation.org> <538D7FDD.3090802@apc.org> Message-ID: <538DCF0B.5000008@acm.org> On 03-Jun-14 11:32, Maria Farrell wrote: > > 3) Retain the current Board member as we can't agree on either a person > or a new process As he lost to me, even if i did not win the necessary supermajority, i will not be pleased by a situation that leaves him in the seat. Maybe enough for me to lose the last shreds of support i have for ICANN processes. avri From rafik.dammak Tue Jun 3 17:01:57 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 23:01:57 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Draft_NCSG_response_to_?= =?utf-8?b?4oCcRW5oYW5jaW5nIElDQU5O4oCZcyBBY2NvdW50YWJpbGl0eeKAnS1w?= =?utf-8?q?rocess=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <537B34AB.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <6B0F6FB4-ADD3-427E-B6F6-58100BA6B7CE@isoc.be> <537E2C12.3000001@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Niels, if some part are not easy to resolve, one option is that we can drop them for now and work on comment for reply period. For submission, I will do that on behalf of NCSG to this address comments-enhancing-accountability-06may14 at icann.org submitted comments are here http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-enhancing-accountability-06may14/ Best, Rafik 2014-06-03 22:56 GMT+09:00 Niels ten Oever : > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Dear all, > > Gabrielle and I'll try to resolve all comments by Thursday (no time to > work on this before), some comments are quite general though, so they > might not be very easy to resolve in a manner that is satisfying for > everyone. > > Just to be sure: what is the submission process. Do we send it to > Rafik, Maria, or do we send it to ICANN ourselves on behalf of the > NCSG? If the latter, do we send it to theresa.swinehart at icann.org > directly? > > Best, > > Niels > > > Niels ten Oever > Acting Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > On 06/03/2014 11:38 AM, Maria Farrell wrote: > > Sorry, guys - I forgot Niels and Gabrielle weren't on the NCSG PC > > list. Thanks, Rafik! > > > > Rafik, with the timeline I proposed, I let the 5th be potentially a > > day to resolve any conflicting comments Niels and Gabrielle > > receive. So if they get things that are hard to reconcile, they may > > need that 24 hours to write them up. But if not, we should be able > > to submit on 5 June. > > > > cheers, m > > > > > > On 3 June 2014 10:34, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: > > > > Hi Maria, > > > > Thanks!adding niels and gabrielle in cc. With your proposed > > timeline I can submit by 5th june? > > > > Rafik > > > > On Jun 3, 2014 6:16 PM, "Maria Farrell" > > wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Following the 1-week extension by ICANN to submission of comments, > > we now need to finalise and submit ours. > > > > Any final revisions need to be submitted by midnight GMT tomorrow, > > Weds, 4 June. The final version will be submitted to ICANN 24 hours > > after that. > > > > So 1) if you have final revisions, make them to this doc (and note > > your rationale), or send direct to Niels and Gabrielle. > > > > 2) Niels/Gabrielle, please send me the final version by midnight > > GMT, Thurs 5 June. > > > > All the best, Maria > > > > > > On 27 May 2014 13:05, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: > > > > Hi Maria, > > > > Niels and Gabrielle are going to work in the comments today to > > resolve the comments. I guess we can have clean version by > > tomorrow? I can confirm with them > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2014-05-27 20:56 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell > >: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Are Niels and Gabrielle happy with the current draft of the > > document at > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit > > > > > ? > > > > As Rafik has pointed out, we have another couple of days to > > finalise. So I'd just like to check if the interested people are > > still working on the draft / or satisfied with it? > > > > All the best, Maria > > > > > > > > On 26 May 2014 06:34, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: > > > > Hi Marilia, > > > > thanks for the review and commenting. the deadline to submit was > > Tuesday 23:59 UTC but checking the announcement, we get 3 > > additional days because the technical issuers with migration to new > > website > > ( > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en > ). > > > > > > Policy Committee should endorse asap. I think that Maria will > > handle the last call as PC chair. then having the green light I > > will submit before the deadline. > > > > there will be reply period after this and I think we can expand > > with another comment about missing parts or clarifying others, in > > addition to commenting the contributions of other groups. > > > > Niels and Gabrielle are working on resolving remaining questions in > > the document. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Rafik > > > > > > > > 2014-05-26 8:03 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel > >: > > > > Thanks, Rafik. Made a few comments, mostly on top of others. Good > > contribution. Thanks to folks of Article 19 and others who worked > > on it. Best, Mar?lia > > > > > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Rafik Dammak > > > wrote: > > > > Hi Avri, > > > > Niels and Gabrielle will answers comments soon. and yes we should > > lockdown on language soon. hope that next comments would propose > > some wording. I think we will be more efficient than ITU.. > > hopefully :) > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Rafik > > > > 2014-05-23 1:55 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria > >: > > > > hi, > > > > had already indicated it in comments. have now added words to > > Rafik's added words. > > > > added some other weasel words too in response to some of Milton's > > concerns. > > > > when do we get a lock down on the language and a removal of > > brackets. > > > > [we have become so ITU.] > > > > avri > > > > > > On 22-May-14 10:47, Maria Farrell wrote: > >> Hi guys, > >> > >> No final call has yet been made. Avri, > > would you mind marking up the > >> text with your suggestions and > > re-circulating? > >> > >> Many thanks, Maria > >> > >> > >> On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak > > > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Rudi, > >> > >> no, Niels shared the document two > > days ago and we are getting > >> comments now. > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> > >> 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi > > Vansnick > >> > >>: > >> > >> If I?m not wrong we agreed on > > the content of the proposed > >> document (googledoc) a week ago. > >> > >> Maria, can you proceed ? > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> > >> Rudi Vansnick NPOC chair Policy Committee NPOC treasurer > >> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org > > > > > >> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 > > > > > >> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 > > > > > >> www.npoc.org > > > >> > >> Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft > > Rafik Dammak > >> > > >> het > >> volgende geschreven: > >> > >>> Hi everyone, > >>> > >>> We have this draft commenting > > ICANN accountability. The > >>> comment deadline is 27th may. I count on PC to act quickly. > >>> > >>> Best Regards, > >>> > >>> Rafik > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message > > ---------- > >>> From: "Niels ten Oever" > > > >>> > > > >> > >>> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft > > NCSG response to ?Enhancing > >>> ICANN?s Accountability?-process. To: > > > > >>> > > > >> > >>> Cc: > >>> > >>> Dear all, > >>> > >>> Gabrielle and I, with the > > great comments from Brenden and > >>> Avri, have drafted a potential NCSG > > response to the ?Enhancing ICANN?s > >>> Accountability?-process. You > > can find it and comment here: > >>> > >>> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > >> > >>> The deadline is Tuesday next > > week, so it would be great if you > >>> could share your comments before > > Monday the 26th. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Niels > >>> > >>> > >>> Niels ten Oever Acting Head of Digital > >>> > >>> Article 19 www.article19.org > > > >>> > >>> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 > > BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D > >>> 68E9 > >>> > >>> > > _______________________________________________ > >>> PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > > > > >>> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >> > >> > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > > > > >> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > > >> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing > > list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing > > list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > > > > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e > > Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center > > for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > > > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > > PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - > > http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin > > America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing > > list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/ > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTjdO/AAoJEAi1oPJjbWjpn8IIAKp4aCgYcdcLRPA2e4MGqqW/ > yRM+TTQ/hgOE0tPX2fVbeuKkuJje0r8BeJhFQnyfHqRTSTG9L4JwWNW+TmZZVxIc > KBKpnMT301eKoiQ160DyMrBGrK1NGNkOry80FbtaVq4550gddy+fO82GHOGLjema > inlmqCHPjhk6eUu8QTj7q0yyidkSv9ANog59BPO+hohEBmbuomtUYi0lqNwHjvJJ > yGw25i4oj3ZnR5moh23/COf/hiHI432HbTDrmJluoiCcLu3YAo5UF8qi4NyPWgCH > GYZoIU+qkFy4j412k7VqaCkcWLg4+nAmtyD9CfN76N+eFPBqB9Pd2VvtYrC80Sg= > =ZpzO > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Wed Jun 4 08:44:38 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 07:44:38 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [] 360 Assessment Feedback In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <538EB246.4040907@acm.org> hi, Interested in getting opinions on these questions. I will be commenting on them as part of the team today. Note these come from the SIC. The GNSO group is being allowed to review them. I am late getting this done. As last minute as ever. avri -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [gnso-review-dt] 360 Assessment Feedback Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 16:41:46 -0700 From: Matt Ashtiani To: gnso-review-dt at icann.org Dear All, Please note that the 360 Assessment that was reviewed on today?s call is available here: http://goo.gl/5664D8. Please be sure to provide feedback on the language and scope of the questions by Wednesday 4-June-2014 23:59. Copies of past calls, recordings, transcripts, and meeting notes are available on the GNSO Review 2014 Working Party Meetings Workspace . Regards, Matt Ashtiani Strategic Initiatives Manager ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 USA From joy Wed Jun 4 11:27:02 2014 From: joy (joy) Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 20:27:02 +1200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate In-Reply-To: <538DCF0B.5000008@acm.org> References: <538B2AAE.5040002@gkpfoundation.org> <538B2E54.4030101@acm.org> <538B3E73.7030508@gkpfoundation.org> <538B449C.2050909@acm.org> <7545524A-28E2-46B4-B59B-363596C89C09@egyptig.org> <1401643254824.56434@mail.utoronto.ca> <538C0A25.1020201@apc.org> <538CCAE2.4050200@gkpfoundation.org> <538CF422.9030103@gkpfoundation.org> <538D7FDD.3090802@apc.org> <538DCF0B.5000008@acm.org> Message-ID: <538ED856.2030707@apc.org> hi - I also agree that we cannot retain the current Board member: he has already lost a vote and i would not support him as a candidate in another round. Joy On 4/06/2014 1:35 a.m., Avri Doria wrote: > > On 03-Jun-14 11:32, Maria Farrell wrote: >> 3) Retain the current Board member as we can't agree on either a person >> or a new process > > As he lost to me, even if i did not win the necessary supermajority, i > will not be pleased by a situation that leaves him in the seat. > > Maybe enough for me to lose the last shreds of support i have for ICANN > processes. > > avri > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From stephanie.perrin Thu Jun 5 08:01:40 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 05:01:40 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate In-Reply-To: <538DCF0B.5000008@acm.org> References: <1401643254824.56434@mail.utoronto.ca> <538C0A25.1020201@apc.org> <538CCAE2.4050200@gkpfoundation.org> <538CF422.9030103@gkpfoundation.org> <538D7FDD.3090802@apc.org> <538DCF0B.5000008@acm.org> Message-ID: <20140605050139.8081552.9210.3261@mail.utoronto.ca> I agree with Avri. Very odd outcome. Stephanie PS. I still have no internet. Phone only marginally better than nothing Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. From: Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 9:35 AM To: pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate On 03-Jun-14 11:32, Maria Farrell wrote: > > 3) Retain the current Board member as we can't agree on either a person > or a new process As he lost to me, even if i did not win the necessary supermajority, i will not be pleased by a situation that leaves him in the seat. Maybe enough for me to lose the last shreds of support i have for ICANN processes. 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: From avri Fri Jun 6 10:24:56 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 09:24:56 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Public Comment Closed for Comments: Enhancing ICANN Accountability In-Reply-To: <539166f86226a_7b33481bc047883c@web6.lax.icann.org.mail> References: <539166f86226a_7b33481bc047883c@web6.lax.icann.org.mail> Message-ID: <53916CC8.9020501@ella.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Fri Jun 6 10:32:07 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 16:32:07 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Public Comment Closed for Comments: Enhancing ICANN Accountability In-Reply-To: <53916CC8.9020501@ella.com> References: <539166f86226a_7b33481bc047883c@web6.lax.icann.org.mail> <53916CC8.9020501@ella.com> Message-ID: Hi Avri, not yet , in the announcement, it says the comment is open to 6 Jun 2014 23:59 UTC and Reply Period: 7 Jun 2014 - 27 Jun 2014 23:59 UTC ( https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en ) Gabrielle send a clean version , if Maria confirm, I can submit the statement any time. Rafik 2014-06-06 16:24 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > so did we get a comment in? > > avri > > > -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Public Comment Closed for > Comments: Enhancing ICANN Accountability Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 03:00:08 > -0400 From: icann.org To: Avri > Doria > > [image: ICANN] Comment Period Closed > Enhancing ICANN Accountability > ------------------------------ > > The comment period has closed for a public comment you follow. It will be > open for replies from 2014-06-07 to 2014-06-27. > > Read more > > > This message was sent to avri at ella.com from: > > ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > > Manage Your Subscription > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Fri Jun 6 10:32:38 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 16:32:38 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A__=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Draft_NCSG_respons?= =?utf-8?q?e_to_=E2=80=9CEnhancing_ICANN=E2=80=99s_Accountability?= =?utf-8?b?4oCdLXByb2Nlc3Mu?= In-Reply-To: References: <537B34AB.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <6B0F6FB4-ADD3-427E-B6F6-58100BA6B7CE@isoc.be> <537E2C12.3000001@acm.org> Message-ID: FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gabrielle Guillemin Date: 2014-06-06 5:08 GMT+09:00 Subject: RE: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing ICANN?s Accountability?-process. To: Maria Farrell , Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com> Cc: NCSG-Policy , Niels ten Oever < niels at article19.org> Hi all, This should be the final document: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing Please note that in most instances, we didn't make any further changes as there were no concrete language suggestions or the comments concerned the questions themselves. Changes have been made at: Q1, para. 2, last sentence and Q2, para.2, 2nd sentence. Please let me know if you would like the rationale for these or if there is anything else we can do. All the best, Gabrielle ________________________________ From: Maria Farrell [maria.farrell at gmail.com] Sent: 03 June 2014 10:38 To: Rafik Dammak Cc: NCSG-Policy; Niels ten Oever; Gabrielle Guillemin Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing ICANN?s Accountability?-process. Sorry, guys - I forgot Niels and Gabrielle weren't on the NCSG PC list. Thanks, Rafik! Rafik, with the timeline I proposed, I let the 5th be potentially a day to resolve any conflicting comments Niels and Gabrielle receive. So if they get things that are hard to reconcile, they may need that 24 hours to write them up. But if not, we should be able to submit on 5 June. cheers, m On 3 June 2014 10:34, Rafik Dammak > wrote: Hi Maria, Thanks!adding niels and gabrielle in cc. With your proposed timeline I can submit by 5th june? Rafik On Jun 3, 2014 6:16 PM, "Maria Farrell" > wrote: Hi all, Following the 1-week extension by ICANN to submission of comments, we now need to finalise and submit ours. Any final revisions need to be submitted by midnight GMT tomorrow, Weds, 4 June. The final version will be submitted to ICANN 24 hours after that. So 1) if you have final revisions, make them to this doc (and note your rationale), or send direct to Niels and Gabrielle. 2) Niels/Gabrielle, please send me the final version by midnight GMT, Thurs 5 June. All the best, Maria On 27 May 2014 13:05, Rafik Dammak > wrote: Hi Maria, Niels and Gabrielle are going to work in the comments today to resolve the comments. I guess we can have clean version by tomorrow? I can confirm with them Rafik 2014-05-27 20:56 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell >: Hi all, Are Niels and Gabrielle happy with the current draft of the document at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit ? As Rafik has pointed out, we have another couple of days to finalise. So I'd just like to check if the interested people are still working on the draft / or satisfied with it? All the best, Maria On 26 May 2014 06:34, Rafik Dammak > wrote: Hi Marilia, thanks for the review and commenting. the deadline to submit was Tuesday 23:59 UTC but checking the announcement, we get 3 additional days because the technical issuers with migration to new website ( https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en ). Policy Committee should endorse asap. I think that Maria will handle the last call as PC chair. then having the green light I will submit before the deadline. there will be reply period after this and I think we can expand with another comment about missing parts or clarifying others, in addition to commenting the contributions of other groups. Niels and Gabrielle are working on resolving remaining questions in the document. Best Regards, Rafik 2014-05-26 8:03 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel >: Thanks, Rafik. Made a few comments, mostly on top of others. Good contribution. Thanks to folks of Article 19 and others who worked on it. Best, Mar?lia On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: Hi Avri, Niels and Gabrielle will answers comments soon. and yes we should lockdown on language soon. hope that next comments would propose some wording. I think we will be more efficient than ITU.. hopefully :) Best Regards, Rafik 2014-05-23 1:55 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria >: hi, had already indicated it in comments. have now added words to Rafik's added words. added some other weasel words too in response to some of Milton's concerns. when do we get a lock down on the language and a removal of brackets. [we have become so ITU.] avri On 22-May-14 10:47, Maria Farrell wrote: > Hi guys, > > No final call has yet been made. Avri, would you mind marking up the > text with your suggestions and re-circulating? > > Many thanks, Maria > > > On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak > >> wrote: > > Hi Rudi, > > no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are getting > comments now. > > Rafik > > > 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick > >>: > > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the proposed > document (googledoc) a week ago. > > Maria, can you proceed ? > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > NPOC chair Policy Committee > NPOC treasurer > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org > > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 > www.npoc.org > > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak > >> het > volgende geschreven: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> We have this draft commenting ICANN accountability. The >> comment deadline is 27th may. >> I count on PC to act quickly. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Niels ten Oever" >> >> >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing >> ICANN?s Accountability?-process. >> To: >> >> >> Cc: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from Brenden and >> Avri, have >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the ?Enhancing ICANN?s >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and comment here: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing >> >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be great if you >> could >> share your comments before Monday the 26th. >> >> Best, >> >> Niels >> >> >> Niels ten Oever >> Acting Head of Digital >> >> Article 19 >> www.article19.org < http://www.article19.org/> >> >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D >> 68E9 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- Mar?lia Maciel Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Fri Jun 6 10:44:58 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 09:44:58 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Public Comment Closed for Comments: Enhancing ICANN Accountability In-Reply-To: References: <539166f86226a_7b33481bc047883c@web6.lax.icann.org.mail> <53916CC8.9020501@ella.com> Message-ID: <5391717A.6030909@ella.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Fri Jun 6 10:49:19 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 16:49:19 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Public Comment Closed for Comments: Enhancing ICANN Accountability In-Reply-To: <5391717A.6030909@ella.com> References: <539166f86226a_7b33481bc047883c@web6.lax.icann.org.mail> <53916CC8.9020501@ella.com> <5391717A.6030909@ella.com> Message-ID: when I will send the comment to that address I will ask ICANN staff for confirmation probably we got another glitch, I think the deadline was set with PST time with the wrong day. Rafik 2014-06-06 16:44 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > weird that they sent the comment period closed. > > i guess it is like a last call. > i hope they still take the comment. > > avri > > > On 06-Jun-14 09:32, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Avri, > > not yet , in the announcement, it says the comment is open to 6 Jun 2014 > 23:59 UTC > and Reply Period: 7 Jun 2014 - 27 Jun 2014 23:59 UTC ( > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en > ) > > Gabrielle send a clean version , if Maria confirm, I can submit the > statement any time. > > Rafik > > > > 2014-06-06 16:24 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > >> so did we get a comment in? >> >> avri >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Public Comment Closed for >> Comments: Enhancing ICANN Accountability Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 >> 03:00:08 -0400 From: icann.org To: >> Avri Doria >> >> [image: ICANN] Comment Period Closed >> Enhancing ICANN Accountability >> ------------------------------ >> >> The comment period has closed for a public comment you follow. It will be >> open for replies from 2014-06-07 to 2014-06-27. >> >> Read more >> >> >> This message was sent to avri at ella.com from: >> >> ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 >> >> Manage Your Subscription >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: From rafik.dammak Fri Jun 6 11:14:15 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 17:14:15 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Draft_NCSG_response_to_?= =?utf-8?b?4oCcRW5oYW5jaW5nIElDQU5O4oCZcyBBY2NvdW50YWJpbGl0eeKAnS1w?= =?utf-8?q?rocess=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <537B34AB.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <6B0F6FB4-ADD3-427E-B6F6-58100BA6B7CE@isoc.be> <537E2C12.3000001@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Gabrielle, thank you very much for the work done and responding to the comments Rafik 2014-06-06 5:08 GMT+09:00 Gabrielle Guillemin : > Hi all, > > This should be the final document: > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing > > Please note that in most instances, we didn't make any further changes as > there were no concrete language suggestions or the comments concerned the > questions themselves. > > Changes have been made at: Q1, para. 2, last sentence and Q2, para.2, 2nd > sentence. > > Please let me know if you would like the rationale for these or if there > is anything else we can do. > > All the best, > > Gabrielle > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Maria Farrell [maria.farrell at gmail.com] > Sent: 03 June 2014 10:38 > To: Rafik Dammak > Cc: NCSG-Policy; Niels ten Oever; Gabrielle Guillemin > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing > ICANN?s Accountability?-process. > > Sorry, guys - I forgot Niels and Gabrielle weren't on the NCSG PC list. > Thanks, Rafik! > > Rafik, with the timeline I proposed, I let the 5th be potentially a day to > resolve any conflicting comments Niels and Gabrielle receive. So if they > get things that are hard to reconcile, they may need that 24 hours to write > them up. But if not, we should be able to submit on 5 June. > > cheers, m > > > On 3 June 2014 10:34, Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi Maria, > > Thanks!adding niels and gabrielle in cc. > With your proposed timeline I can submit by 5th june? > > Rafik > > On Jun 3, 2014 6:16 PM, "Maria Farrell" maria.farrell at gmail.com>> wrote: > Hi all, > > Following the 1-week extension by ICANN to submission of comments, we now > need to finalise and submit ours. > > Any final revisions need to be submitted by midnight GMT tomorrow, Weds, 4 > June. The final version will be submitted to ICANN 24 hours after that. > > So 1) if you have final revisions, make them to this doc (and note your > rationale), or send direct to Niels and Gabrielle. > > 2) Niels/Gabrielle, please send me the final version by midnight GMT, > Thurs 5 June. > > All the best, Maria > > > On 27 May 2014 13:05, Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote: > Hi Maria, > > Niels and Gabrielle are going to work in the comments today to resolve the > comments. I guess we can have clean version by tomorrow? > I can confirm with them > > Rafik > > > 2014-05-27 20:56 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell maria.farrell at gmail.com>>: > > Hi all, > > Are Niels and Gabrielle happy with the current draft of the document at > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit > ? > > As Rafik has pointed out, we have another couple of days to finalise. So > I'd just like to check if the interested people are still working on the > draft / or satisfied with it? > > All the best, Maria > > > > On 26 May 2014 06:34, Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi Marilia, > > thanks for the review and commenting. the deadline to submit was Tuesday > 23:59 UTC but checking the announcement, we get 3 additional days because > the technical issuers with migration to new website ( > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en > ). > > Policy Committee should endorse asap. I think that Maria will handle the > last call as PC chair. then having the green light I will submit before the > deadline. > > there will be reply period after this and I think we can expand with > another comment about missing parts or clarifying others, in addition to > commenting the contributions of other groups. > > Niels and Gabrielle are working on resolving remaining questions in the > document. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > 2014-05-26 8:03 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel mariliamaciel at gmail.com>>: > > Thanks, Rafik. Made a few comments, mostly on top of others. > Good contribution. Thanks to folks of Article 19 and others who worked on > it. > Best, > Mar?lia > > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > Hi Avri, > > Niels and Gabrielle will answers comments soon. and yes we should lockdown > on language soon. hope that next comments would propose some wording. > I think we will be more efficient than ITU.. hopefully :) > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > 2014-05-23 1:55 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria >: > > hi, > > had already indicated it in comments. have now added words to Rafik's > added words. > > added some other weasel words too in response to some of Milton's concerns. > > when do we get a lock down on the language and a removal of brackets. > > [we have become so ITU.] > > avri > > > On 22-May-14 10:47, Maria Farrell wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > No final call has yet been made. Avri, would you mind marking up the > > text with your suggestions and re-circulating? > > > > Many thanks, Maria > > > > > > On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak at gmail.com> > > >> wrote: > > > > Hi Rudi, > > > > no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are getting > > comments now. > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick > > >>: > > > > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the proposed > > document (googledoc) a week ago. > > > > Maria, can you proceed ? > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Rudi Vansnick > > NPOC chair Policy Committee > > NPOC treasurer > > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org rudi.vansnick at npoc.org> > > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 > > > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 > 32 > > > www.npoc.org > > > > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak > > rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> het > > volgende geschreven: > > > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> We have this draft commenting ICANN accountability. The > >> comment deadline is 27th may. > >> I count on PC to act quickly. > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: "Niels ten Oever" lists at digitaldissidents.org> > >> lists at digitaldissidents.org>>> > >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM > >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing > >> ICANN?s Accountability?-process. > >> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu> > >> NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>> > >> Cc: > >> > >> Dear all, > >> > >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from Brenden and > >> Avri, have > >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the ?Enhancing ICANN?s > >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and comment here: > >> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing > >> > >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be great if you > >> could > >> share your comments before Monday the 26th. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Niels > >> > >> > >> Niels ten Oever > >> Acting Head of Digital > >> > >> Article 19 > >> www.article19.org < > http://www.article19.org/> > >> > >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D > >> 68E9 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org 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 > > > > > -- > Mar?lia Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law > School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ > Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - > http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Fri Jun 6 12:05:44 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:05:44 +0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Draft_NCSG_response_to_?= =?utf-8?b?4oCcRW5oYW5jaW5nIElDQU5O4oCZcyBBY2NvdW50YWJpbGl0eeKAnS1w?= =?utf-8?q?rocess=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <537B34AB.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <6B0F6FB4-ADD3-427E-B6F6-58100BA6B7CE@isoc.be> <537E2C12.3000001@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Gabrielle and Niels, Thank you for drafting this excellent statement. It is a really great piece of work. And thanks to everyone who contributed comments and input along the way. All the best, Maria On 6 June 2014 11:14, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Gabrielle, > > thank you very much for the work done and responding to the comments > > Rafik > > > 2014-06-06 5:08 GMT+09:00 Gabrielle Guillemin : > > Hi all, >> >> This should be the final document: >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Please note that in most instances, we didn't make any further changes as >> there were no concrete language suggestions or the comments concerned the >> questions themselves. >> >> Changes have been made at: Q1, para. 2, last sentence and Q2, para.2, 2nd >> sentence. >> >> Please let me know if you would like the rationale for these or if there >> is anything else we can do. >> >> All the best, >> >> Gabrielle >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Maria Farrell [maria.farrell at gmail.com] >> Sent: 03 June 2014 10:38 >> To: Rafik Dammak >> Cc: NCSG-Policy; Niels ten Oever; Gabrielle Guillemin >> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing >> ICANN?s Accountability?-process. >> >> Sorry, guys - I forgot Niels and Gabrielle weren't on the NCSG PC list. >> Thanks, Rafik! >> >> Rafik, with the timeline I proposed, I let the 5th be potentially a day >> to resolve any conflicting comments Niels and Gabrielle receive. So if they >> get things that are hard to reconcile, they may need that 24 hours to write >> them up. But if not, we should be able to submit on 5 June. >> >> cheers, m >> >> >> On 3 June 2014 10:34, Rafik Dammak > rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Maria, >> >> Thanks!adding niels and gabrielle in cc. >> With your proposed timeline I can submit by 5th june? >> >> Rafik >> >> On Jun 3, 2014 6:16 PM, "Maria Farrell" > maria.farrell at gmail.com>> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Following the 1-week extension by ICANN to submission of comments, we now >> need to finalise and submit ours. >> >> Any final revisions need to be submitted by midnight GMT tomorrow, Weds, >> 4 June. The final version will be submitted to ICANN 24 hours after that. >> >> So 1) if you have final revisions, make them to this doc (and note your >> rationale), or send direct to Niels and Gabrielle. >> >> 2) Niels/Gabrielle, please send me the final version by midnight GMT, >> Thurs 5 June. >> >> All the best, Maria >> >> >> On 27 May 2014 13:05, Rafik Dammak > rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote: >> Hi Maria, >> >> Niels and Gabrielle are going to work in the comments today to resolve >> the comments. I guess we can have clean version by tomorrow? >> I can confirm with them >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2014-05-27 20:56 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell > maria.farrell at gmail.com>>: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Are Niels and Gabrielle happy with the current draft of the document at >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit >> ? >> >> As Rafik has pointed out, we have another couple of days to finalise. So >> I'd just like to check if the interested people are still working on the >> draft / or satisfied with it? >> >> All the best, Maria >> >> >> >> On 26 May 2014 06:34, Rafik Dammak > rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi Marilia, >> >> thanks for the review and commenting. the deadline to submit was Tuesday >> 23:59 UTC but checking the announcement, we get 3 additional days because >> the technical issuers with migration to new website ( >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en >> ). >> >> Policy Committee should endorse asap. I think that Maria will handle the >> last call as PC chair. then having the green light I will submit before the >> deadline. >> >> there will be reply period after this and I think we can expand with >> another comment about missing parts or clarifying others, in addition to >> commenting the contributions of other groups. >> >> Niels and Gabrielle are working on resolving remaining questions in the >> document. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2014-05-26 8:03 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel > mariliamaciel at gmail.com>>: >> >> Thanks, Rafik. Made a few comments, mostly on top of others. >> Good contribution. Thanks to folks of Article 19 and others who worked on >> it. >> Best, >> Mar?lia >> >> >> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: >> Hi Avri, >> >> Niels and Gabrielle will answers comments soon. and yes we should >> lockdown on language soon. hope that next comments would propose some >> wording. >> I think we will be more efficient than ITU.. hopefully :) >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-05-23 1:55 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria >: >> >> hi, >> >> had already indicated it in comments. have now added words to Rafik's >> added words. >> >> added some other weasel words too in response to some of Milton's >> concerns. >> >> when do we get a lock down on the language and a removal of brackets. >> >> [we have become so ITU.] >> >> avri >> >> >> On 22-May-14 10:47, Maria Farrell wrote: >> > Hi guys, >> > >> > No final call has yet been made. Avri, would you mind marking up the >> > text with your suggestions and re-circulating? >> > >> > Many thanks, Maria >> > >> > >> > On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak > rafik.dammak at gmail.com> >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > Hi Rudi, >> > >> > no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are getting >> > comments now. >> > >> > Rafik >> > >> > >> > 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick > >> > >>: >> > >> > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the proposed >> > document (googledoc) a week ago. >> > >> > Maria, can you proceed ? >> > >> > Kind regards, >> > >> > Rudi Vansnick >> > NPOC chair Policy Committee >> > NPOC treasurer >> > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org> >> > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 >> >> > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >> >> > www.npoc.org >> > >> > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak >> > > rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> het >> > volgende geschreven: >> > >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> >> >> We have this draft commenting ICANN accountability. The >> >> comment deadline is 27th may. >> >> I count on PC to act quickly. >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >> From: "Niels ten Oever" > lists at digitaldissidents.org> >> >> > lists at digitaldissidents.org>>> >> >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM >> >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing >> >> ICANN?s Accountability?-process. >> >> To: > NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu> >> >> > NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>> >> >> Cc: >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from Brenden and >> >> Avri, have >> >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the ?Enhancing ICANN?s >> >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and comment here: >> >> >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be great if you >> >> could >> >> share your comments before Monday the 26th. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Niels >> >> >> >> >> >> Niels ten Oever >> >> Acting Head of Digital >> >> >> >> Article 19 >> >> www.article19.org < >> http://www.article19.org/> >> >> >> >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D >> >> 68E9 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> >> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > 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 >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Mar?lia Maciel >> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law >> School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu >> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ >> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Fri Jun 6 12:07:32 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 12:07:32 +0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Draft_NCSG_response_to_?= =?utf-8?b?4oCcRW5oYW5jaW5nIElDQU5O4oCZcyBBY2NvdW50YWJpbGl0eeKAnS1w?= =?utf-8?q?rocess=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <537B34AB.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <6B0F6FB4-ADD3-427E-B6F6-58100BA6B7CE@isoc.be> <537E2C12.3000001@acm.org> Message-ID: And just to confirm that the final version of the statement - which we will submit today - is the current draft on Google drive, which I also copy below for the record. All the best, Maria Comments of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on ?Enhancing ICANN?s Accountability? This comment, initially drafted by ARTICLE 19, is supported by and submitted on behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG). NCSG is the voice of civil society and nonprofit organizations in ICANN?s domain name policy making organ, the Generic Names Supporting Organization. It is composed of two constituencies, the Noncommercial Users Constituency ( http://ncuc.org) and the Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns Constituency (http://www.npoc.org) , as well as a number of unaffiliated individuals. The NCUC and NPOC, both constituencies under the ?NCSG umbrella?, consists of civil society members from 81 different countries, including organizations and individuals. The NCSG welcomes the opportunity to discuss the ways in which ICANN?s accountability to the broader community should be enhanced. In this submission, we respond more specifically to the questions asked by ICANN as part of the present consultation process. Our responses are guided, among other things, by our longstanding expertise in Internet governance and human rights work. - What issues does the community identify as being core to strengthening ICANN?s overall accountability in the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government? ICANN is in many ways a unique organisation due to its ?multi-stakeholder? make-up. For this reason, traditional accountability mechanisms for international organisations, private companies or public bodies are ill-suited or, at any rate, extremely difficult to implement. The AOC bottom-up mechanisms are an essential part of accountability at ICANN, but they are far from sufficient to provide strong accountability. Indeed, the lack of strong accountability mechanisms is a well-known shortfall within ICANN. Although efforts have been made to improve the organisation?s transparency and accountability over the years, this does not go far enough. In our view, ICANN must be made subject to external & independent oversight mechanisms in order to ensure meaningful accountability of its decisions. We suggest that this could be achieved by the creation of a new external, multistakeholder and independent body that would review the Board?s decisions & actions and respond to appeals subject to rules on standing and applicable grounds for review to be defined in the upcoming process. One important feature of such body would be that at a minimum no ICANN Board member or staff should be able to sit on it, in order to safeguard its independence. Whether that body should also include elected members of any of its Advisory Committees or Supporting Organizations should be the subject of further discussion. - What should be the guiding principles to ensure that the notion of accountability is understood and accepted globally? What are the consequences if the ICANN Board is not being accountable to the community? Is there anything that should be added to the Working Group?s mandate? Accountability is not simply a notion. It is a fundamental principle of governance that ensures that those who make decisions or take action are answerable for them. Transparency should be at the heart of any accountability process. At the same time, for accountability to be meaningful, anyone affected by those decisions or actions must be able to challenge them, i.e. have a remedy, subject to rules on standing and applicable grounds for review to be defined during the upcoming process. Equally, such remedy must be accompanied by proportionate sanctions or damages where appropriate. Accountability also requires clear rules, transparent decision-making processes, the right to a remedy and appeals processes which are independent from the initial decision-maker. Lack of accountability breeds mistrust and inefficiency. If ICANN fails to demonstrate its commitment to meaningful accountability, it may ultimately lessen the weight of the Board?s decisions vis-a-vis ICANN?s constituents, customers and other stakeholders when it makes controversial decisions. By contrast, the very existence of stronger accountability mechanisms is more likely to lead to better decision-making and therefore greater credibility and legitimacy of the organisation as a whole. - Do the Affirmation of Commitments and the values expressed therein need to evolve to support global acceptance of ICANN?s accountability and so, how? How does the Affirmation of Commitments need to evolve to support global acceptance of ICANN's accountability, and who should take part in this AoC? We believe that several values expressed in the Affirmation of Commitments (AOC) should be maintained and supported. In particular, we support the commitments to: (a) preserve the security, stability and resiliency of the DNS; (b) promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace; and (c) facilitate international participation in DNS technical coordination. At the same time, we believe that the AOC should be amended to ensure that ICANN?s decisions are fully consistent with human rights standards. In this regard, ICANN should guarantee that decisions related to the global technical coordination of the DNS are made in a transparent and accountable manner and crucially, ?for the protection and advancement of human rights and Internet freedoms? rather than ?in the public interest?, which is a standard that lacks sufficient specificity in this context. Other aspects of the By-Laws could be amended to reflect the need for the organisation to evolve and provide stronger accountability mechanisms to the wider community. For instance, the By-Laws should be amended to prohibit ICANN from engaging in regulation of content or conduct in violation of the rights to freedom of expression or privacy. The AOC would need to review adherence to this prohibition. Finally, we reiterate that whilst the AOC constitutes an important check on ICANN?s decisions and actions, it is insufficient to provide the kind of external accountability that the organisation sorely needs. - What are the means by which the Community is assured that ICANN is meeting its accountability commitments? To begin with, it is vital that the consultation process on ICANN?s accountability is conducted in a transparent & inclusive manner in order to give credibility to ICANN?s commitments. Secondly, the process whereby reform proposals are accepted must be both clear and ensure meaningful participation of all stakeholders concerned. Thirdly, as noted above, in order to achieve true accountability, ICANN must accept some form of external & independent check on its actions, including the Board. Consultative processes on accountability should extend beyond the ICANN community and into the broader Internet governance ecosystem. In addition, existing accountability & transparency processes must be strengthened on several levels. We identify below a number of ways in which this could be achieved: Transparency of Board decision-making processes Accountability & Transparency Review Team 1 & 2 have both made a series of recommendations, some of which have not been implemented yet, including: - The Board?s decision should be both publicised and duly reasoned. Where decisions are not unanimous, the minority opinions should be documented and attributed. - The Board should review redaction standards for Board documents, Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any other ICANN documents to create a single published redaction policy. Equally, a process should be put in place to regularly evaluate redacted material to determine if redactions are still required and if not, ensure that redactions are removed. - The Board should ensure the use of Transparency Metrics and Reporting. We believe that these and other recommendations of the ATRT 1 & 2 teams are vitally important and should be duly implemented. If the Board rejects or fails to implement particular recommendations, it should be required to give reasons for its decision or inaction. Strengthening the role and powers of the Ombudsman At present, the ombudsman?s jurisdiction is confined to complaints about unfair treatment by ICANN, decisions, actions or inactions of ICANN's supporting organisations as well as decisions, actions, or inactions by the Board of Directors that may be inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation or the Bylaws. The Ombudsman has investigative powers but can only use alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve complaints. It cannot reverse a decision of the Board, for instance, but may make a recommendation to the Board where appropriate. The Ombudsman's jurisdiction and powers are therefore extremely limited. In particular, the Ombudsman does not have the power to make, change or set aside a policy, administrative or Board decision, act, or omission. In order to strengthen the powers of the Ombudsman, consideration should be given to granting it powers to set Board?s decisions or policies aside. At the same time, if an external oversight body with more significant powers is put in place (e.g. with powers to set Board?s decisions aside), the question arises whether the Ombudsman would still serve a useful purpose. In any event, to the extent that Ombudspersons are a useful alternative dispute resolution mechanisms before matters escalate further, one possibility might be able to give the Ombudsman powers to refer a matter to the external independent body. The ombudsman should also have clear authority to investigate any complaint brought by an employee that is related to ICANN accountability. As with all Ombudsman investigations these investigations must maintain the confidentiality of the employee source. Strengthening the role and powers of the Independent Review of Process Panel As stated in ICANN?s consultation document, the Reconsideration Process is a mechanism to challenge staff action taken against ICANN policies, or Board actions taken without consideration of material information or based upon false or inaccurate information. In addition, the Independent Review Process allows for claims that the ICANN Board acted in a manner inconsistent with its Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation to be considered by an independent panel of neutrals. However, these mechanisms are in our view unsatisfactory, in particular: - Reconsideration by the Board Reviewing Committee is not independent of the board. - The outcome of the Reviewing Process carried out by the IRPP is purely declaratory. Moreover, its rules of procedure follow arbitration rules which are well-known for their lack of transparency. It is also unclear whether the IRPP gives reasons for its declarations. - The cost of the IRPP is prohibitive for most causes. - The current process is only effective in the event that malfeasance can be established and thus the standard for winning an IRP is too high of a burden to provide meaningful accountability. Accordingly, we recommend that, at a minimum, the IRPP?s decisions should be both binding and contain reasons, which should be made public as a matter of principle. In addition, the full review process should accounts for errors as well as ethical lapses. More generally, we believe that mechanisms should be established in the by-laws for dissolution of the Board in exceptional circumstances, consistent with the President Strategy Committee?s Draft Implementation Plan for Improving Institutional Confidence 2009. - Are there other mechanisms that would better ensure that ICANN lives up to its commitments? If ICANN?s status as a private organisation is to be retained, consideration should be given to broadening the scope of the issues that can be taken up before the local courts, in particular issues relating to the right to freedom of expression, and the rights to privacy and personal security. Another possibility would be to include a unilateral option clause that would enable a choice between the local courts or arbitration proceedings. - What additional comments would you like to share that could be of use to the ICANN Accountability Working Group? We note that the creation or improvement of strong accountability mechanisms are inextricably linked to the IANA transition process. In fact, as we stated in our response to the IANA transition consultation: ?Absent the ability to openly discuss separation of policy and implementation, completing the IANA transition proposal must be contingent on first completing an acceptable proposal addressing ICANN accountability.? Therefore, we very much hope that, at a minimum, the present contribution will be taken into account as part of the IANA transition consultation. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The NCSG looks forward to further contributing to the development of strong accountability mechanisms both within and outside of ICANN. On 6 June 2014 12:05, Maria Farrell wrote: > Hi Gabrielle and Niels, > > Thank you for drafting this excellent statement. It is a really great > piece of work. > > And thanks to everyone who contributed comments and input along the way. > > All the best, Maria > > > On 6 June 2014 11:14, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Gabrielle, >> >> thank you very much for the work done and responding to the comments >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2014-06-06 5:08 GMT+09:00 Gabrielle Guillemin : >> >> Hi all, >>> >>> This should be the final document: >>> >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> Please note that in most instances, we didn't make any further changes >>> as there were no concrete language suggestions or the comments concerned >>> the questions themselves. >>> >>> Changes have been made at: Q1, para. 2, last sentence and Q2, para.2, >>> 2nd sentence. >>> >>> Please let me know if you would like the rationale for these or if there >>> is anything else we can do. >>> >>> All the best, >>> >>> Gabrielle >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Maria Farrell [maria.farrell at gmail.com] >>> Sent: 03 June 2014 10:38 >>> To: Rafik Dammak >>> Cc: NCSG-Policy; Niels ten Oever; Gabrielle Guillemin >>> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing >>> ICANN?s Accountability?-process. >>> >>> Sorry, guys - I forgot Niels and Gabrielle weren't on the NCSG PC list. >>> Thanks, Rafik! >>> >>> Rafik, with the timeline I proposed, I let the 5th be potentially a day >>> to resolve any conflicting comments Niels and Gabrielle receive. So if they >>> get things that are hard to reconcile, they may need that 24 hours to write >>> them up. But if not, we should be able to submit on 5 June. >>> >>> cheers, m >>> >>> >>> On 3 June 2014 10:34, Rafik Dammak >> rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Maria, >>> >>> Thanks!adding niels and gabrielle in cc. >>> With your proposed timeline I can submit by 5th june? >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> On Jun 3, 2014 6:16 PM, "Maria Farrell" >> maria.farrell at gmail.com>> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Following the 1-week extension by ICANN to submission of comments, we >>> now need to finalise and submit ours. >>> >>> Any final revisions need to be submitted by midnight GMT tomorrow, Weds, >>> 4 June. The final version will be submitted to ICANN 24 hours after that. >>> >>> So 1) if you have final revisions, make them to this doc (and note your >>> rationale), or send direct to Niels and Gabrielle. >>> >>> 2) Niels/Gabrielle, please send me the final version by midnight GMT, >>> Thurs 5 June. >>> >>> All the best, Maria >>> >>> >>> On 27 May 2014 13:05, Rafik Dammak >> rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote: >>> Hi Maria, >>> >>> Niels and Gabrielle are going to work in the comments today to resolve >>> the comments. I guess we can have clean version by tomorrow? >>> I can confirm with them >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2014-05-27 20:56 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell >> >: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Are Niels and Gabrielle happy with the current draft of the document at >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit >>> ? >>> >>> As Rafik has pointed out, we have another couple of days to finalise. So >>> I'd just like to check if the interested people are still working on the >>> draft / or satisfied with it? >>> >>> All the best, Maria >>> >>> >>> >>> On 26 May 2014 06:34, Rafik Dammak >> rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Marilia, >>> >>> thanks for the review and commenting. the deadline to submit was Tuesday >>> 23:59 UTC but checking the announcement, we get 3 additional days because >>> the technical issuers with migration to new website ( >>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en >>> ). >>> >>> Policy Committee should endorse asap. I think that Maria will handle the >>> last call as PC chair. then having the green light I will submit before the >>> deadline. >>> >>> there will be reply period after this and I think we can expand with >>> another comment about missing parts or clarifying others, in addition to >>> commenting the contributions of other groups. >>> >>> Niels and Gabrielle are working on resolving remaining questions in the >>> document. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2014-05-26 8:03 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel >> >: >>> >>> Thanks, Rafik. Made a few comments, mostly on top of others. >>> Good contribution. Thanks to folks of Article 19 and others who worked >>> on it. >>> Best, >>> Mar?lia >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Rafik Dammak >> > wrote: >>> Hi Avri, >>> >>> Niels and Gabrielle will answers comments soon. and yes we should >>> lockdown on language soon. hope that next comments would propose some >>> wording. >>> I think we will be more efficient than ITU.. hopefully :) >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2014-05-23 1:55 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria >> >>: >>> >>> hi, >>> >>> had already indicated it in comments. have now added words to Rafik's >>> added words. >>> >>> added some other weasel words too in response to some of Milton's >>> concerns. >>> >>> when do we get a lock down on the language and a removal of brackets. >>> >>> [we have become so ITU.] >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 22-May-14 10:47, Maria Farrell wrote: >>> > Hi guys, >>> > >>> > No final call has yet been made. Avri, would you mind marking up the >>> > text with your suggestions and re-circulating? >>> > >>> > Many thanks, Maria >>> > >>> > >>> > On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak >> rafik.dammak at gmail.com> >>> > >> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi Rudi, >>> > >>> > no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are getting >>> > comments now. >>> > >>> > Rafik >>> > >>> > >>> > 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick >> >>> > >>: >>> > >>> > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the proposed >>> > document (googledoc) a week ago. >>> > >>> > Maria, can you proceed ? >>> > >>> > Kind regards, >>> > >>> > Rudi Vansnick >>> > NPOC chair Policy Committee >>> > NPOC treasurer >>> > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org >> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org> >>> > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 >>> >>> > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >>> >>> > www.npoc.org >>> > >>> > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak >>> > >>> >> het >>> > volgende geschreven: >>> > >>> >> Hi everyone, >>> >> >>> >> We have this draft commenting ICANN accountability. The >>> >> comment deadline is 27th may. >>> >> I count on PC to act quickly. >>> >> >>> >> Best Regards, >>> >> >>> >> Rafik >>> >> >>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> >> From: "Niels ten Oever" >> lists at digitaldissidents.org> >>> >> >> lists at digitaldissidents.org>>> >>> >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM >>> >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing >>> >> ICANN?s Accountability?-process. >>> >> To: >> NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu> >>> >> >> NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>>> >>> >> Cc: >>> >> >>> >> Dear all, >>> >> >>> >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from Brenden and >>> >> Avri, have >>> >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the ?Enhancing ICANN?s >>> >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and comment here: >>> >> >>> >> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing >>> >> >>> >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be great if you >>> >> could >>> >> share your comments before Monday the 26th. >>> >> >>> >> Best, >>> >> >>> >> Niels >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Niels ten Oever >>> >> Acting Head of Digital >>> >> >>> >> Article 19 >>> >> www.article19.org < >>> http://www.article19.org/> >>> >> >>> >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D >>> >> 68E9 >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> >>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mar?lia Maciel >>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law >>> School >>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu >>> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ >>> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >>> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Fri Jun 6 12:28:25 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2014 11:28:25 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?windows-1252?q?=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Draft_NCSG_response?= =?windows-1252?q?_to_=93Enhancing_ICANN=92s_Accountability=94-process=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <537E2C12.3000001@acm.org> Message-ID: <539189B9.40708@acm.org> hi, Just for the record, I support this statement. avri On 06-Jun-14 11:07, Maria Farrell wrote: > And just to confirm that the final version of the statement - which we > will submit today - is the current draft on Google drive, which I also > copy below for the record. > > All the best, Maria > > Comments of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on ?Enhancing > ICANN?s Accountability? > > > This comment, initially drafted by ARTICLE 19, is supported by and > submitted on behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG). NCSG > is the voice of civil society and nonprofit organizations in ICANN?s > domain name policy making organ, the Generic Names Supporting > Organization. It is composed of two constituencies, the Noncommercial > Users Constituency (http://ncuc.org) and the Not-for-Profit > Operational Concerns Constituency (http://www.npoc.org) , > as well as a number of unaffiliated individuals. The NCUC and NPOC, both > constituencies under the ?NCSG umbrella?, consists of civil society > members from 81 different countries, including organizations and > individuals. > > > The NCSG welcomes the opportunity to discuss the ways in which ICANN?s > accountability to the broader community should be enhanced. In this > submission, we respond more specifically to the questions asked by ICANN > as part of the present consultation process. Our responses are guided, > among other things, by our longstanding expertise in Internet governance > and human rights work. > > > * > > What issues does the community identify as being core to > strengthening ICANN?s overall accountability in the absence of its > historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government? > > > ICANN is in many ways a unique organisation due to its > ?multi-stakeholder? make-up. For this reason, traditional accountability > mechanisms for international organisations, private companies or public > bodies are ill-suited or, at any rate, extremely difficult to implement. > The AOC bottom-up mechanisms are an essential part of accountability at > ICANN, but they are far from sufficient to provide strong > accountability. Indeed, the lack of strong accountability mechanisms is > a well-known shortfall within ICANN. > > > Although efforts have been made to improve the organisation?s > transparency and accountability over the years, this does not go far > enough. In our view, ICANN must be made subject to external & > independent oversight mechanisms in order to ensure meaningful > accountability of its decisions. We suggest that this could be achieved > by the creation of a new external, multistakeholder and independent body > that would review the Board?s decisions & actions and respond to appeals > subject to rules on standing and applicable grounds for review to be > defined in the upcoming process. One important feature of such body > would be that at a minimum no ICANN Board member or staff should be able > to sit on it, in order to safeguard its independence. Whether that body > should also include elected members of any of its Advisory Committees or > Supporting Organizations should be the subject of further discussion. > > > * > > What should be the guiding principles to ensure that the notion of > accountability is understood and accepted globally? What are the > consequences if the ICANN Board is not being accountable to the > community? Is there anything that should be added to the Working > Group?s mandate? > > > Accountability is not simply a notion. It is a fundamental principle of > governance that ensures that those who make decisions or take action are > answerable for them. Transparency should be at the heart of any > accountability process. At the same time, for accountability to be > meaningful, anyone affected by those decisions or actions must be able > to challenge them, i.e. have a remedy, subject to rules on standing and > applicable grounds for review to be defined during the upcoming process. > Equally, such remedy must be accompanied by proportionate sanctions or > damages where appropriate. Accountability also requires clear rules, > transparent decision-making processes, the right to a remedy and appeals > processes which are independent from the initial decision-maker. > > > Lack of accountability breeds mistrust and inefficiency. If ICANN fails > to demonstrate its commitment to meaningful accountability, it may > ultimately lessen the weight of the Board?s decisions vis-a-vis ICANN?s > constituents, customers and other stakeholders when it makes > controversial decisions. By contrast, the very existence of stronger > accountability mechanisms is more likely to lead to better > decision-making and therefore greater credibility and legitimacy of the > organisation as a whole. > > > > * > > Do the Affirmation of Commitments and the values expressed therein > need to evolve to support global acceptance of ICANN?s > accountability and so, how? How does the Affirmation of Commitments > need to evolve to support global acceptance of ICANN's > accountability, and who should take part in this AoC? > > > We believe that several values expressed in the Affirmation of > Commitments (AOC) should be maintained and supported. In particular, we > support the commitments to: (a) preserve the security, stability and > resiliency of the DNS; (b) promote competition, consumer trust, and > consumer choice in the DNS marketplace; and (c) facilitate international > participation in DNS technical coordination. > > > At the same time, we believe that the AOC should be amended to ensure > that ICANN?s decisions are fully consistent with human rights standards. > In this regard, ICANN should guarantee that decisions related to the > global technical coordination of the DNS are made in a transparent and > accountable manner and crucially, ?for the protection and advancement of > human rights and Internet freedoms? rather than ?in the public > interest?, which is a standard that lacks sufficient specificity in this > context. > > > Other aspects of the By-Laws could be amended to reflect the need for > the organisation to evolve and provide stronger accountability > mechanisms to the wider community. For instance, the By-Laws should be > amended to prohibit ICANN from engaging in regulation of content or > conduct in violation of the rights to freedom of expression or privacy. > The AOC would need to review adherence to this prohibition. > > > Finally, we reiterate that whilst the AOC constitutes an important check > on ICANN?s decisions and actions, it is insufficient to provide the kind > of external accountability that the organisation sorely needs. > > > * > > What are the means by which the Community is assured that ICANN is > meeting its accountability commitments? > > > To begin with, it is vital that the consultation process on ICANN?s > accountability is conducted in a transparent & inclusive manner in order > to give credibility to ICANN?s commitments. Secondly, the process > whereby reform proposals are accepted must be both clear and ensure > meaningful participation of all stakeholders concerned. Thirdly, as > noted above, in order to achieve true accountability, ICANN must accept > some form of external & independent check on its actions, including the > Board. Consultative processes on accountability should extend beyond > the ICANN community and into the broader Internet governance ecosystem. > > > In addition, existing accountability & transparency processes must be > strengthened on several levels. We identify below a number of ways in > which this could be achieved: > > > Transparency of Board decision-making processes > > Accountability & Transparency Review Team 1 & 2 have both made a series > of recommendations, some of which have not been implemented yet, including: > > > * > > The Board?s decision should be both publicised and duly reasoned. > Where decisions are not unanimous, the minority opinions should be > documented and attributed. > > * > > The Board should review redaction standards for Board documents, > Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any other ICANN > documents to create a single published redaction policy. Equally, a > process should be put in place to regularly evaluate redacted > material to determine if redactions are still required and if not, > ensure that redactions are removed. > > * > > The Board should ensure the use of Transparency Metrics and Reporting. > > > We believe that these and other recommendations of the ATRT 1 & 2 teams > are vitally important and should be duly implemented. If the Board > rejects or fails to implement particular recommendations, it should be > required to give reasons for its decision or inaction. > > > Strengthening the role and powers of the Ombudsman > > At present, the ombudsman?s jurisdiction is confined to complaints > about unfair treatment by ICANN, decisions, actions or inactions of > ICANN's supporting organisations as well as decisions, actions, or > inactions by the Board of Directors that may be inconsistent with the > Articles of Incorporation or the Bylaws. The Ombudsman has investigative > powers but can only use alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to > resolve complaints. It cannot reverse a decision of the Board, for > instance, but may make a recommendation to the Board where appropriate. > The Ombudsman's jurisdiction and powers are therefore extremely limited. > In particular, the Ombudsman does not have the power to make, change or > set aside a policy, administrative or Board decision, act, or omission. > > > In order to strengthen the powers of the Ombudsman, consideration should > be given to granting it powers to set Board?s decisions or policies > aside. At the same time, if an external oversight body with more > significant powers is put in place (e.g. with powers to set Board?s > decisions aside), the question arises whether the Ombudsman would still > serve a useful purpose. In any event, to the extent that Ombudspersons > are a useful alternative dispute resolution mechanisms before matters > escalate further, one possibility might be able to give the Ombudsman > powers to refer a matter to the external independent body. > > > The ombudsman should also have clear authority to investigate any > complaint brought by an employee that is related to ICANN > accountability. As with all Ombudsman investigations these > investigations must maintain the confidentiality of the employee source. > > Strengthening the role and powers of the Independent Review of Process Panel > > As stated in ICANN?s consultation document, the Reconsideration Process > is a mechanism to challenge staff action taken against ICANN policies, > or Board actions taken without consideration of material information or > based upon false or inaccurate information. In addition, the Independent > Review Process allows for claims that the ICANN Board acted in a manner > inconsistent with its Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation to be > considered by an independent panel of neutrals. > > > However, these mechanisms are in our view unsatisfactory, in particular: > > > * > > Reconsideration by the Board Reviewing Committee is not independent > of the board. > > > * > > The outcome of the Reviewing Process carried out by the IRPP is > purely declaratory. Moreover, its rules of procedure follow > arbitration rules which are well-known for their lack of > transparency. It is also unclear whether the IRPP gives reasons for > its declarations. > > > * > > The cost of the IRPP is prohibitive for most causes. > > > * > > The current process is only effective in the event that malfeasance > can be established and thus the standard for winning an IRP is too > high of a burden to provide meaningful accountability. > > > Accordingly, we recommend that, at a minimum, the IRPP?s decisions > should be both binding and contain reasons, which should be made public > as a matter of principle. In addition, the full review process should > accounts for errors as well as ethical lapses. > > > More generally, we believe that mechanisms should be established in the > by-laws for dissolution of the Board in exceptional circumstances, > consistent with the President Strategy Committee?s Draft Implementation > Plan for Improving Institutional Confidence 2009. > > > > * > > Are there other mechanisms that would better ensure that ICANN lives > up to its commitments? > > > If ICANN?s status as a private organisation is to be retained, > consideration should be given to broadening the scope of the issues that > can be taken up before the local courts, in particular issues relating > to the right to freedom of expression, and the rights to privacy and > personal security. Another possibility would be to include a unilateral > option clause that would enable a choice between the local courts or > arbitration proceedings. > > > * > > What additional comments would you like to share that could be of > use to the ICANN Accountability Working Group? > > > We note that the creation or improvement of strong accountability > mechanisms are inextricably linked to the IANA transition process. In > fact, as we stated in our response to the IANA transition consultation: > ?Absent the ability to openly discuss separation of policy and > implementation, completing the IANA transition proposal must be > contingent on first completing an acceptable proposal addressing ICANN > accountability.? Therefore, we very much hope that, at a minimum, the > present contribution will be taken into account as part of the IANA > transition consultation. > > > Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The NCSG looks forward to > further contributing to the development of strong accountability > mechanisms both within and outside of ICANN. > > > > > > > On 6 June 2014 12:05, Maria Farrell > wrote: > > Hi Gabrielle and Niels, > > Thank you for drafting this excellent statement. It is a really > great piece of work. > > And thanks to everyone who contributed comments and input along the > way. > > All the best, Maria > > > On 6 June 2014 11:14, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi Gabrielle, > > thank you very much for the work done and responding to the comments > > Rafik > > > 2014-06-06 5:08 GMT+09:00 Gabrielle Guillemin > >: > > Hi all, > > This should be the final document: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing > > Please note that in most instances, we didn't make any > further changes as there were no concrete language > suggestions or the comments concerned the questions themselves. > > Changes have been made at: Q1, para. 2, last sentence and > Q2, para.2, 2nd sentence. > > Please let me know if you would like the rationale for these > or if there is anything else we can do. > > All the best, > > Gabrielle > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Maria Farrell [maria.farrell at gmail.com > ] > Sent: 03 June 2014 10:38 > To: Rafik Dammak > Cc: NCSG-Policy; Niels ten Oever; Gabrielle Guillemin > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to > ?Enhancing ICANN?s Accountability?-process. > > Sorry, guys - I forgot Niels and Gabrielle weren't on the > NCSG PC list. Thanks, Rafik! > > Rafik, with the timeline I proposed, I let the 5th be > potentially a day to resolve any conflicting comments Niels > and Gabrielle receive. So if they get things that are hard > to reconcile, they may need that 24 hours to write them up. > But if not, we should be able to submit on 5 June. > > cheers, m > > > On 3 June 2014 10:34, Rafik Dammak >> > wrote: > > Hi Maria, > > Thanks!adding niels and gabrielle in cc. > With your proposed timeline I can submit by 5th june? > > Rafik > > On Jun 3, 2014 6:16 PM, "Maria Farrell" > >> wrote: > Hi all, > > Following the 1-week extension by ICANN to submission of > comments, we now need to finalise and submit ours. > > Any final revisions need to be submitted by midnight GMT > tomorrow, Weds, 4 June. The final version will be submitted > to ICANN 24 hours after that. > > So 1) if you have final revisions, make them to this doc > (and note your rationale), or send direct to Niels and > Gabrielle. > > 2) Niels/Gabrielle, please send me the final version by > midnight GMT, Thurs 5 June. > > All the best, Maria > > > On 27 May 2014 13:05, Rafik Dammak >> > wrote: > Hi Maria, > > Niels and Gabrielle are going to work in the comments today > to resolve the comments. I guess we can have clean version > by tomorrow? > I can confirm with them > > Rafik > > > 2014-05-27 20:56 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell > >>: > > Hi all, > > Are Niels and Gabrielle happy with the current draft of the > document at > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit > ? > > As Rafik has pointed out, we have another couple of days to > finalise. So I'd just like to check if the interested people > are still working on the draft / or satisfied with it? > > All the best, Maria > > > > On 26 May 2014 06:34, Rafik Dammak >> > wrote: > > Hi Marilia, > > thanks for the review and commenting. the deadline to submit > was Tuesday 23:59 UTC but checking the announcement, we get > 3 additional days because the technical issuers with > migration to new website > (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en). > > Policy Committee should endorse asap. I think that Maria > will handle the last call as PC chair. then having the green > light I will submit before the deadline. > > there will be reply period after this and I think we can > expand with another comment about missing parts or > clarifying others, in addition to commenting the > contributions of other groups. > > Niels and Gabrielle are working on resolving remaining > questions in the document. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > 2014-05-26 8:03 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel > >>: > > Thanks, Rafik. Made a few comments, mostly on top of others. > Good contribution. Thanks to folks of Article 19 and others > who worked on it. > Best, > Mar?lia > > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Rafik Dammak > >> > wrote: > Hi Avri, > > Niels and Gabrielle will answers comments soon. and yes we > should lockdown on language soon. hope that next comments > would propose some wording. > I think we will be more efficient than ITU.. hopefully :) > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > 2014-05-23 1:55 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria >>: > > hi, > > had already indicated it in comments. have now added words > to Rafik's > added words. > > added some other weasel words too in response to some of > Milton's concerns. > > when do we get a lock down on the language and a removal of > brackets. > > [we have become so ITU.] > > avri > > > On 22-May-14 10:47, Maria Farrell wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > No final call has yet been made. Avri, would you mind > marking up the > > text with your suggestions and re-circulating? > > > > Many thanks, Maria > > > > > > On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak > > > >>> > wrote: > > > > Hi Rudi, > > > > no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are > getting > > comments now. > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick > > > > >>>: > > > > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the > proposed > > document (googledoc) a week ago. > > > > Maria, can you proceed ? > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Rudi Vansnick > > NPOC chair Policy Committee > > NPOC treasurer > > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org > > > >> > > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 > > > > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 > > > > www.npoc.org > > > > > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak > > > > >>> > het > > volgende geschreven: > > > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> We have this draft commenting ICANN > accountability. The > >> comment deadline is 27th may. > >> I count on PC to act quickly. > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: "Niels ten Oever" > > > >> >>> > >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM > >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to > ?Enhancing > >> ICANN?s Accountability?-process. > >> To: > > >> >>> > >> Cc: > >> > >> Dear all, > >> > >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from > Brenden and > >> Avri, have > >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the > ?Enhancing ICANN?s > >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and > comment here: > >> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing > >> > >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be > great if you > >> could > >> share your comments before Monday the 26th. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Niels > >> > >> > >> Niels ten Oever > >> Acting Head of Digital > >> > >> Article 19 > >> www.article19.org > > > >> > >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B > 08B5 A0F2 636D > >> 68E9 > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > > >> > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > > >> > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > -- > Mar?lia Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - > FGV Direito Rio > Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society > - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > > PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - > http://www.politics.org.br/ > Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - > http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 rafik.dammak Fri Jun 6 13:33:33 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2014 19:33:33 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Draft_NCSG_response_to_?= =?utf-8?b?4oCcRW5oYW5jaW5nIElDQU5O4oCZcyBBY2NvdW50YWJpbGl0eeKAnS1w?= =?utf-8?q?rocess=2E?= In-Reply-To: <539189B9.40708@acm.org> References: <537E2C12.3000001@acm.org> <539189B9.40708@acm.org> Message-ID: hello everyone, the comment was submitted and received the automatic confirmation ( that is new) Rafik 2014-06-06 18:28 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > hi, > > Just for the record, I support this statement. > > avri > > > On 06-Jun-14 11:07, Maria Farrell wrote: > > And just to confirm that the final version of the statement - which we > > will submit today - is the current draft on Google drive, which I also > > copy below for the record. > > > > All the best, Maria > > > > Comments of the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) on ?Enhancing > > ICANN?s Accountability? > > > > > > This comment, initially drafted by ARTICLE 19, is supported by and > > submitted on behalf of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG). NCSG > > is the voice of civil society and nonprofit organizations in ICANN?s > > domain name policy making organ, the Generic Names Supporting > > Organization. It is composed of two constituencies, the Noncommercial > > Users Constituency (http://ncuc.org) and the Not-for-Profit > > Operational Concerns Constituency (http://www.npoc.org) , > > as well as a number of unaffiliated individuals. The NCUC and NPOC, both > > constituencies under the ?NCSG umbrella?, consists of civil society > > members from 81 different countries, including organizations and > > individuals. > > > > > > The NCSG welcomes the opportunity to discuss the ways in which ICANN?s > > accountability to the broader community should be enhanced. In this > > submission, we respond more specifically to the questions asked by ICANN > > as part of the present consultation process. Our responses are guided, > > among other things, by our longstanding expertise in Internet governance > > and human rights work. > > > > > > * > > > > What issues does the community identify as being core to > > strengthening ICANN?s overall accountability in the absence of its > > historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government? > > > > > > ICANN is in many ways a unique organisation due to its > > ?multi-stakeholder? make-up. For this reason, traditional accountability > > mechanisms for international organisations, private companies or public > > bodies are ill-suited or, at any rate, extremely difficult to implement. > > The AOC bottom-up mechanisms are an essential part of accountability at > > ICANN, but they are far from sufficient to provide strong > > accountability. Indeed, the lack of strong accountability mechanisms is > > a well-known shortfall within ICANN. > > > > > > Although efforts have been made to improve the organisation?s > > transparency and accountability over the years, this does not go far > > enough. In our view, ICANN must be made subject to external & > > independent oversight mechanisms in order to ensure meaningful > > accountability of its decisions. We suggest that this could be achieved > > by the creation of a new external, multistakeholder and independent body > > that would review the Board?s decisions & actions and respond to appeals > > subject to rules on standing and applicable grounds for review to be > > defined in the upcoming process. One important feature of such body > > would be that at a minimum no ICANN Board member or staff should be able > > to sit on it, in order to safeguard its independence. Whether that body > > should also include elected members of any of its Advisory Committees or > > Supporting Organizations should be the subject of further discussion. > > > > > > * > > > > What should be the guiding principles to ensure that the notion of > > accountability is understood and accepted globally? What are the > > consequences if the ICANN Board is not being accountable to the > > community? Is there anything that should be added to the Working > > Group?s mandate? > > > > > > Accountability is not simply a notion. It is a fundamental principle of > > governance that ensures that those who make decisions or take action are > > answerable for them. Transparency should be at the heart of any > > accountability process. At the same time, for accountability to be > > meaningful, anyone affected by those decisions or actions must be able > > to challenge them, i.e. have a remedy, subject to rules on standing and > > applicable grounds for review to be defined during the upcoming process. > > Equally, such remedy must be accompanied by proportionate sanctions or > > damages where appropriate. Accountability also requires clear rules, > > transparent decision-making processes, the right to a remedy and appeals > > processes which are independent from the initial decision-maker. > > > > > > Lack of accountability breeds mistrust and inefficiency. If ICANN fails > > to demonstrate its commitment to meaningful accountability, it may > > ultimately lessen the weight of the Board?s decisions vis-a-vis ICANN?s > > constituents, customers and other stakeholders when it makes > > controversial decisions. By contrast, the very existence of stronger > > accountability mechanisms is more likely to lead to better > > decision-making and therefore greater credibility and legitimacy of the > > organisation as a whole. > > > > > > > > * > > > > Do the Affirmation of Commitments and the values expressed therein > > need to evolve to support global acceptance of ICANN?s > > accountability and so, how? How does the Affirmation of Commitments > > need to evolve to support global acceptance of ICANN's > > accountability, and who should take part in this AoC? > > > > > > We believe that several values expressed in the Affirmation of > > Commitments (AOC) should be maintained and supported. In particular, we > > support the commitments to: (a) preserve the security, stability and > > resiliency of the DNS; (b) promote competition, consumer trust, and > > consumer choice in the DNS marketplace; and (c) facilitate international > > participation in DNS technical coordination. > > > > > > At the same time, we believe that the AOC should be amended to ensure > > that ICANN?s decisions are fully consistent with human rights standards. > > In this regard, ICANN should guarantee that decisions related to the > > global technical coordination of the DNS are made in a transparent and > > accountable manner and crucially, ?for the protection and advancement of > > human rights and Internet freedoms? rather than ?in the public > > interest?, which is a standard that lacks sufficient specificity in this > > context. > > > > > > Other aspects of the By-Laws could be amended to reflect the need for > > the organisation to evolve and provide stronger accountability > > mechanisms to the wider community. For instance, the By-Laws should be > > amended to prohibit ICANN from engaging in regulation of content or > > conduct in violation of the rights to freedom of expression or privacy. > > The AOC would need to review adherence to this prohibition. > > > > > > Finally, we reiterate that whilst the AOC constitutes an important check > > on ICANN?s decisions and actions, it is insufficient to provide the kind > > of external accountability that the organisation sorely needs. > > > > > > * > > > > What are the means by which the Community is assured that ICANN is > > meeting its accountability commitments? > > > > > > To begin with, it is vital that the consultation process on ICANN?s > > accountability is conducted in a transparent & inclusive manner in order > > to give credibility to ICANN?s commitments. Secondly, the process > > whereby reform proposals are accepted must be both clear and ensure > > meaningful participation of all stakeholders concerned. Thirdly, as > > noted above, in order to achieve true accountability, ICANN must accept > > some form of external & independent check on its actions, including the > > Board. Consultative processes on accountability should extend beyond > > the ICANN community and into the broader Internet governance ecosystem. > > > > > > In addition, existing accountability & transparency processes must be > > strengthened on several levels. We identify below a number of ways in > > which this could be achieved: > > > > > > Transparency of Board decision-making processes > > > > Accountability & Transparency Review Team 1 & 2 have both made a series > > of recommendations, some of which have not been implemented yet, > including: > > > > > > * > > > > The Board?s decision should be both publicised and duly reasoned. > > Where decisions are not unanimous, the minority opinions should be > > documented and attributed. > > > > * > > > > The Board should review redaction standards for Board documents, > > Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any other ICANN > > documents to create a single published redaction policy. Equally, a > > process should be put in place to regularly evaluate redacted > > material to determine if redactions are still required and if not, > > ensure that redactions are removed. > > > > * > > > > The Board should ensure the use of Transparency Metrics and > Reporting. > > > > > > We believe that these and other recommendations of the ATRT 1 & 2 teams > > are vitally important and should be duly implemented. If the Board > > rejects or fails to implement particular recommendations, it should be > > required to give reasons for its decision or inaction. > > > > > > Strengthening the role and powers of the Ombudsman > > > > At present, the ombudsman?s jurisdiction is confined to complaints > > about unfair treatment by ICANN, decisions, actions or inactions of > > ICANN's supporting organisations as well as decisions, actions, or > > inactions by the Board of Directors that may be inconsistent with the > > Articles of Incorporation or the Bylaws. The Ombudsman has investigative > > powers but can only use alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to > > resolve complaints. It cannot reverse a decision of the Board, for > > instance, but may make a recommendation to the Board where appropriate. > > The Ombudsman's jurisdiction and powers are therefore extremely limited. > > In particular, the Ombudsman does not have the power to make, change or > > set aside a policy, administrative or Board decision, act, or omission. > > > > > > In order to strengthen the powers of the Ombudsman, consideration should > > be given to granting it powers to set Board?s decisions or policies > > aside. At the same time, if an external oversight body with more > > significant powers is put in place (e.g. with powers to set Board?s > > decisions aside), the question arises whether the Ombudsman would still > > serve a useful purpose. In any event, to the extent that Ombudspersons > > are a useful alternative dispute resolution mechanisms before matters > > escalate further, one possibility might be able to give the Ombudsman > > powers to refer a matter to the external independent body. > > > > > > The ombudsman should also have clear authority to investigate any > > complaint brought by an employee that is related to ICANN > > accountability. As with all Ombudsman investigations these > > investigations must maintain the confidentiality of the employee source. > > > > Strengthening the role and powers of the Independent Review of Process > Panel > > > > As stated in ICANN?s consultation document, the Reconsideration Process > > is a mechanism to challenge staff action taken against ICANN policies, > > or Board actions taken without consideration of material information or > > based upon false or inaccurate information. In addition, the Independent > > Review Process allows for claims that the ICANN Board acted in a manner > > inconsistent with its Bylaws or Articles of Incorporation to be > > considered by an independent panel of neutrals. > > > > > > However, these mechanisms are in our view unsatisfactory, in particular: > > > > > > * > > > > Reconsideration by the Board Reviewing Committee is not independent > > of the board. > > > > > > * > > > > The outcome of the Reviewing Process carried out by the IRPP is > > purely declaratory. Moreover, its rules of procedure follow > > arbitration rules which are well-known for their lack of > > transparency. It is also unclear whether the IRPP gives reasons for > > its declarations. > > > > > > * > > > > The cost of the IRPP is prohibitive for most causes. > > > > > > * > > > > The current process is only effective in the event that malfeasance > > can be established and thus the standard for winning an IRP is too > > high of a burden to provide meaningful accountability. > > > > > > Accordingly, we recommend that, at a minimum, the IRPP?s decisions > > should be both binding and contain reasons, which should be made public > > as a matter of principle. In addition, the full review process should > > accounts for errors as well as ethical lapses. > > > > > > More generally, we believe that mechanisms should be established in the > > by-laws for dissolution of the Board in exceptional circumstances, > > consistent with the President Strategy Committee?s Draft Implementation > > Plan for Improving Institutional Confidence 2009. > > > > > > > > * > > > > Are there other mechanisms that would better ensure that ICANN lives > > up to its commitments? > > > > > > If ICANN?s status as a private organisation is to be retained, > > consideration should be given to broadening the scope of the issues that > > can be taken up before the local courts, in particular issues relating > > to the right to freedom of expression, and the rights to privacy and > > personal security. Another possibility would be to include a unilateral > > option clause that would enable a choice between the local courts or > > arbitration proceedings. > > > > > > * > > > > What additional comments would you like to share that could be of > > use to the ICANN Accountability Working Group? > > > > > > We note that the creation or improvement of strong accountability > > mechanisms are inextricably linked to the IANA transition process. In > > fact, as we stated in our response to the IANA transition consultation: > > ?Absent the ability to openly discuss separation of policy and > > implementation, completing the IANA transition proposal must be > > contingent on first completing an acceptable proposal addressing ICANN > > accountability.? Therefore, we very much hope that, at a minimum, the > > present contribution will be taken into account as part of the IANA > > transition consultation. > > > > > > Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The NCSG looks forward to > > further contributing to the development of strong accountability > > mechanisms both within and outside of ICANN. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6 June 2014 12:05, Maria Farrell > > wrote: > > > > Hi Gabrielle and Niels, > > > > Thank you for drafting this excellent statement. It is a really > > great piece of work. > > > > And thanks to everyone who contributed comments and input along the > > way. > > > > All the best, Maria > > > > > > On 6 June 2014 11:14, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: > > > > Hi Gabrielle, > > > > thank you very much for the work done and responding to the > comments > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2014-06-06 5:08 GMT+09:00 Gabrielle Guillemin > > >: > > > > Hi all, > > > > This should be the final document: > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing > > > > Please note that in most instances, we didn't make any > > further changes as there were no concrete language > > suggestions or the comments concerned the questions > themselves. > > > > Changes have been made at: Q1, para. 2, last sentence and > > Q2, para.2, 2nd sentence. > > > > Please let me know if you would like the rationale for these > > or if there is anything else we can do. > > > > All the best, > > > > Gabrielle > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Maria Farrell [maria.farrell at gmail.com > > ] > > Sent: 03 June 2014 10:38 > > To: Rafik Dammak > > Cc: NCSG-Policy; Niels ten Oever; Gabrielle Guillemin > > Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to > > ?Enhancing ICANN?s Accountability?-process. > > > > Sorry, guys - I forgot Niels and Gabrielle weren't on the > > NCSG PC list. Thanks, Rafik! > > > > Rafik, with the timeline I proposed, I let the 5th be > > potentially a day to resolve any conflicting comments Niels > > and Gabrielle receive. So if they get things that are hard > > to reconcile, they may need that 24 hours to write them up. > > But if not, we should be able to submit on 5 June. > > > > cheers, m > > > > > > On 3 June 2014 10:34, Rafik Dammak > rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> > > wrote: > > > > Hi Maria, > > > > Thanks!adding niels and gabrielle in cc. > > With your proposed timeline I can submit by 5th june? > > > > Rafik > > > > On Jun 3, 2014 6:16 PM, "Maria Farrell" > > > maria.farrell at gmail.com > > >> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Following the 1-week extension by ICANN to submission of > > comments, we now need to finalise and submit ours. > > > > Any final revisions need to be submitted by midnight GMT > > tomorrow, Weds, 4 June. The final version will be submitted > > to ICANN 24 hours after that. > > > > So 1) if you have final revisions, make them to this doc > > (and note your rationale), or send direct to Niels and > > Gabrielle. > > > > 2) Niels/Gabrielle, please send me the final version by > > midnight GMT, Thurs 5 June. > > > > All the best, Maria > > > > > > On 27 May 2014 13:05, Rafik Dammak > rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> > > wrote: > > Hi Maria, > > > > Niels and Gabrielle are going to work in the comments today > > to resolve the comments. I guess we can have clean version > > by tomorrow? > > I can confirm with them > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2014-05-27 20:56 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell > > > maria.farrell at gmail.com > > >>: > > > > Hi all, > > > > Are Niels and Gabrielle happy with the current draft of the > > document at > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit > > ? > > > > As Rafik has pointed out, we have another couple of days to > > finalise. So I'd just like to check if the interested people > > are still working on the draft / or satisfied with it? > > > > All the best, Maria > > > > > > > > On 26 May 2014 06:34, Rafik Dammak > rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> > > wrote: > > > > Hi Marilia, > > > > thanks for the review and commenting. the deadline to submit > > was Tuesday 23:59 UTC but checking the announcement, we get > > 3 additional days because the technical issuers with > > migration to new website > > ( > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en > ). > > > > Policy Committee should endorse asap. I think that Maria > > will handle the last call as PC chair. then having the green > > light I will submit before the deadline. > > > > there will be reply period after this and I think we can > > expand with another comment about missing parts or > > clarifying others, in addition to commenting the > > contributions of other groups. > > > > Niels and Gabrielle are working on resolving remaining > > questions in the document. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2014-05-26 8:03 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel > > > mariliamaciel at gmail.com > > >>: > > > > Thanks, Rafik. Made a few comments, mostly on top of others. > > Good contribution. Thanks to folks of Article 19 and others > > who worked on it. > > Best, > > Mar?lia > > > > > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Rafik Dammak > > > rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> > > wrote: > > Hi Avri, > > > > Niels and Gabrielle will answers comments soon. and yes we > > should lockdown on language soon. hope that next comments > > would propose some wording. > > I think we will be more efficient than ITU.. hopefully :) > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Rafik > > > > 2014-05-23 1:55 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria > > >>: > > > > hi, > > > > had already indicated it in comments. have now added words > > to Rafik's > > added words. > > > > added some other weasel words too in response to some of > > Milton's concerns. > > > > when do we get a lock down on the language and a removal of > > brackets. > > > > [we have become so ITU.] > > > > avri > > > > > > On 22-May-14 10:47, Maria Farrell wrote: > > > Hi guys, > > > > > > No final call has yet been made. Avri, would you mind > > marking up the > > > text with your suggestions and re-circulating? > > > > > > Many thanks, Maria > > > > > > > > > On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak > rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > > > > rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Rudi, > > > > > > no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are > > getting > > > comments now. > > > > > > Rafik > > > > > > > > > 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick > > > > > > > > > > >>>: > > > > > > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the > > proposed > > > document (googledoc) a week ago. > > > > > > Maria, can you proceed ? > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > Rudi Vansnick > > > NPOC chair Policy Committee > > > NPOC treasurer > > > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org > > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org > > > > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org >> > > > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 > > > > > > > > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 > > > > > > > > www.npoc.org > > < > http://www.npoc.org> > > > > > > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak > > > > rafik.dammak at gmail.com > > > > rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>> > > het > > > volgende geschreven: > > > > > >> Hi everyone, > > >> > > >> We have this draft commenting ICANN > > accountability. The > > >> comment deadline is 27th may. > > >> I count on PC to act quickly. > > >> > > >> Best Regards, > > >> > > >> Rafik > > >> > > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > >> From: "Niels ten Oever" > > > lists at digitaldissidents.org > > > > > >> > lists at digitaldissidents.org > > >>> > > >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM > > >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to > > ?Enhancing > > >> ICANN?s Accountability?-process. > > >> To: > NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu > > > > > >> > NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu > > >>> > > >> Cc: > > >> > > >> Dear all, > > >> > > >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from > > Brenden and > > >> Avri, have > > >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the > > ?Enhancing ICANN?s > > >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and > > comment here: > > >> > > >> > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing > > >> > > >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be > > great if you > > >> could > > >> share your comments before Monday the 26th. > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> > > >> Niels > > >> > > >> > > >> Niels ten Oever > > >> Acting Head of Digital > > >> > > >> Article 19 > > >> www.article19.org > > > > > > >> > > >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B > > 08B5 A0F2 636D > > >> 68E9 > > >> > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > > > > > > > >> > > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > > > > > > > >> > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > > > > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > > > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > > > > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Mar?lia Maciel > > Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - > > FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society > > - FGV Law School > > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > > > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > > > > PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - > > http://www.politics.org.br/ > > Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - > > http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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: From rafik.dammak Sat Jun 7 11:17:20 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 17:17:20 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] ICANN IANA Transition Process In-Reply-To: <4A4A24CC-ED78-4CAA-BB0C-246E4CF908B9@ipjustice.org> References: <4A4A24CC-ED78-4CAA-BB0C-246E4CF908B9@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Hi, important to review. Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robin Gross Date: 2014-06-07 13:34 GMT+09:00 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] ICANN IANA Transition Process To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu ICANN publishes today: NTIA IANA Functions' Stewardship Transition - Process to Develop the Proposal and Next Steps: http://goo.gl/7FWHdb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 506 bytes Desc: not available URL: From maria.farrell Mon Jun 9 16:44:11 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 14:44:11 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] Invitation: GNSO Council Stakeholder Group/Constituency Informal discussion - Tuesday, 24 June 2014 in Sovereign at 18:00-19:00 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, FYI. m ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Glen de Saint G?ry Date: 9 June 2014 13:48 Subject: [council] Invitation: GNSO Council Stakeholder Group/Constituency Informal discussion - Tuesday, 24 June 2014 in Sovereign at 18:00-19:00 To: "council at gnso.icann.org" Dear All, Please note that on *Tuesday, 24 June 2014*, there will be a *GNSO Council Stakeholder Group/Constituency Informal discussion* (cocktail) in *Sovereign* at *18:00-19:00.* This informal discussion is in preparation for the Council meeting on Wednesday, after the Stakeholder day meetings. Please inform your respective groups. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. 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: From wjdrake Sat Jun 14 10:45:42 2014 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:45:42 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate In-Reply-To: <538DCF0B.5000008@acm.org> References: <538B2AAE.5040002@gkpfoundation.org> <538B2E54.4030101@acm.org> <538B3E73.7030508@gkpfoundation.org> <538B449C.2050909@acm.org> <7545524A-28E2-46B4-B59B-363596C89C09@egyptig.org> <1401643254824.56434@mail.utoronto.ca> <538C0A25.1020201@apc.org> <538CCAE2.4050200@gkpfoundation.org> <538CF422.9030103@gkpfoundation.org> <538D7FDD.3090802@apc.org> <538DCF0B.5000008@acm.org> Message-ID: <986E1890-520D-48EA-BD06-63DD880CA623@gmail.com> Hi I?m looking at my mad London schedule. The NC and CSG chairs will meet to talk about the intersessional meeting. I suppose the board seat may well come up as well, and since we?l be having a drink maybe people will be a little less clenched and we can have a conversation that does more than decry the sad state of affairs. It could be helpful in this context if we have a clear proposal for the next step they can take back to their folks. What should it be? Thanks Bill On Jun 3, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > On 03-Jun-14 11:32, Maria Farrell wrote: >> >> 3) Retain the current Board member as we can't agree on either a person >> or a new process > > > As he lost to me, even if i did not win the necessary supermajority, i > will not be pleased by a situation that leaves him in the seat. > > Maybe enough for me to lose the last shreds of support i have for ICANN > processes. > > avri > From rafik.dammak Mon Jun 16 10:43:34 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:43:34 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] breakfast with Bruce Tonkin and Bill Graham in London Message-ID: Hi everyone, Bruce and Bill would like to meet us in London in Wednesday morning for breakfast at 7am please add that to your calendars. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Mon Jun 16 15:50:44 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:50:44 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate In-Reply-To: <986E1890-520D-48EA-BD06-63DD880CA623@gmail.com> References: <538B2AAE.5040002@gkpfoundation.org> <538B2E54.4030101@acm.org> <538B3E73.7030508@gkpfoundation.org> <538B449C.2050909@acm.org> <7545524A-28E2-46B4-B59B-363596C89C09@egyptig.org> <1401643254824.56434@mail.utoronto.ca> <538C0A25.1020201@apc.org> <538CCAE2.4050200@gkpfoundation.org> <538CF422.9030103@gkpfoundation.org> <538D7FDD.3090802@apc.org> <538DCF0B.5000008@acm.org> <986E1890-520D-48EA-BD06-63DD880CA623@gmail.com> Message-ID: <539EE824.9080102@acm.org> On 14-Jun-14 09:45, William Drake wrote: > It could be helpful in this context if we have a clear proposal for > the next step they can take back to their folks. What should it be? A general proposal: (: almost includes bracketed language) 1. Nomination by council members, no council member may nominate more than 1 person. Nominations can be for anyone, [including, excepting] previous candidates. (Note the reason is to allow the NCA to make a nomination if s/he wishes. Obviously the SG/C can motivate the nominations as they wish.) 2. first round - -- if someone gets 8, they win -- otherwise, top 2 go into second round 3. second round - -- if someone gets 8, they win -- otherwise, one with most goes into third round with None of the Above (NOTA) 3. third round - -- if person gets 8, they win -- otherwise go back to (1) BTW, I have included the bylaws and procedures that govern this ----- by-laws 6. The GNSO shall make selections to fill Seats 13 and 14 on the ICANN Board by written ballot or by action at a meeting. Each of the two voting Houses of the GNSO, as described in Section 3(8) of this Article, shall make a selection to fill one of two ICANN Board seats, as outlined below; any such selection must have affirmative votes compromising sixty percent (60%) of all the respective voting House members: a. the Contracted Party House shall select a representative to fill Seat 13; and b. the Non-Contracted Party House shall select a representative to fill Seat 14 Election procedures are defined in the GNSO Operating Procedures. Notification of the Board seat selections shall be given by the GNSO Chair in writing to the ICANN Secretary, consistent with Article VI, Sections 8(4) and 12(1). ---- gnso operating procedures 2.4.3 Detailed Election Procedures Each House is responsible for establishing its own internal procedures for nominations, interviews, voting, and candidate selection; however, those processes must be documented and forwarded to the GNSO Council for inclusion as ANNEXES to the GNSO Operating Procedures. If a House subsequently elects to alter its procedures, such amendments must be submitted to the GNSO Council before becoming effective so that the procedures accurately reflect the actual processes and activities performed by each House in selecting its candidate. ----- Note: the NCPH has never submitted its procedures to the council. nor has the CPH. So the whole thing is just a wee bit a farce. Perhaps we should do that. And thus actually have a legitimate process come out of this. From robin Tue Jun 17 02:05:48 2014 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 16:05:48 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] breakfast with Bruce Tonkin and Bill Graham in London In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <674DA9F8-66CB-4532-85ED-D5212536E391@ipjustice.org> Are Bruce & Bill hosting the breakfast? Thanks, Robin On Jun 16, 2014, at 12:43 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Bruce and Bill would like to meet us in London in Wednesday morning for breakfast at 7am > please add that to your calendars. > > Best, > > Rafik > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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: From rafik.dammak Tue Jun 17 02:06:32 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2014 08:06:32 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] breakfast with Bruce Tonkin and Bill Graham in London In-Reply-To: <674DA9F8-66CB-4532-85ED-D5212536E391@ipjustice.org> References: <674DA9F8-66CB-4532-85ED-D5212536E391@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Yes. On Jun 17, 2014 8:06 AM, "Robin Gross" wrote: > Are Bruce & Bill hosting the breakfast? > > Thanks, > Robin > > On Jun 16, 2014, at 12:43 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > Bruce and Bill would like to meet us in London in Wednesday morning for > breakfast at 7am > please add that to your calendars. > > Best, > > Rafik > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Tue Jun 17 04:53:29 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 21:53:29 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] breakfast with Bruce Tonkin and Bill Graham in London In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <539F9F99.1040700@acm.org> Oh happiness! avri On 16-Jun-14 03:43, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Bruce and Bill would like to meet us in London in Wednesday morning for > breakfast at 7am > please add that to your calendars. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From stephanie.perrin Tue Jun 17 05:03:25 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 22:03:25 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] breakfast with Bruce Tonkin and Bill Graham in London In-Reply-To: References: <674DA9F8-66CB-4532-85ED-D5212536E391@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <539FA1ED.5010606@mail.utoronto.ca> Good. I wont have to bring my collection jar and signs. (I bet you think I am kidding....heh heh....) Steph On 2014-06-16, 7:06 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Yes. > > On Jun 17, 2014 8:06 AM, "Robin Gross" > wrote: > > Are Bruce & Bill hosting the breakfast? > > Thanks, > Robin > > On Jun 16, 2014, at 12:43 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> Bruce and Bill would like to meet us in London in Wednesday >> morning for breakfast at 7am >> please add that to your calendars. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: From rafik.dammak Thu Jun 19 03:45:19 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 09:45:19 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Board seat #14 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello everyone, CSG is proposing a compromise candidate Daniel Reed and suggesting to contact him. for GNSO councillor, any feedback about the interaction with him? Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Metalitz, Steven Date: 2014-06-19 6:25 GMT+09:00 Subject: Board seat #14 To: Rafik Dammak Hello Rafik, Sorry for delay in getting back to you on this. After further consideration and discussion, CSG leadership is willing to consider Dan Reed as a possible compromise candidate. In that regard, we encourage you to reach out to Dan to arrange a group interview or discussion with NCSG as you think appropriate. Dan?s e-mail address is *dan-reed at uiowa.edu* * . * We look forward to hearing NCSG?s reaction as to Dan as a possible compromise candidate. Safe travels to London (assuming you are attending the ICANN meeting) and see you there. Steve Metalitz for CSG Ex Comm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From klaus.stoll Thu Jun 19 08:54:37 2014 From: klaus.stoll (Klaus Stoll) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 06:54:37 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Board seat #14 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53A27B1D.8050606@gkpfoundation.org> Dear Rafik No objections in contacting him, but under the clear understanding that Sam's name will be on the ballot for the next round. We can not just let them reject Sam without a vote and then expect us to accept someone else from their side. Yours Klaus On 6/19/2014 1:45 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hello everyone, > > CSG is proposing a compromise candidate Daniel Reed and suggesting to > contact him. > for GNSO councillor, any feedback about the interaction with him? > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Metalitz, Steven* > > Date: 2014-06-19 6:25 GMT+09:00 > Subject: Board seat #14 > To: Rafik Dammak > > > > Hello Rafik, > Sorry for delay in getting back to you on this. > After further consideration and discussion, CSG leadership is willing > to consider Dan Reed as a possible compromise candidate. > In that regard, we encourage you to reach out to Dan to arrange a > group interview or discussion with NCSG as you think appropriate. > Dan's e-mail address is _dan-reed at uiowa.edu_ > _ . _ > We look forward to hearing NCSG's reaction as to Dan as a possible > compromise candidate. > Safe travels to London (assuming you are attending the ICANN meeting) > and see you there. > Steve Metalitz for CSG Ex Comm > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave Thu Jun 19 09:04:59 2014 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 07:04:59 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Board seat #14 In-Reply-To: <53A27B1D.8050606@gkpfoundation.org> References: <53A27B1D.8050606@gkpfoundation.org> Message-ID: <21FB2187-2E7D-4C33-AFC5-D424F8556B95@difference.com.au> Klaus, I don't think you understand what the word 'compromise' means in this context. If you have reason to believe that the CSG would vote differently to the way they have expressly told you they would vote, let us know. Otherwise, let us continue on with a compromise process rather than continue on with an adversarial voting process that we have already shown will get us nowhere. Regards David On 19 Jun 2014, at 6:54 am, Klaus Stoll wrote: Dear Rafik No objections in contacting him, but under the clear understanding that Sam's name will be on the ballot for the next round. We can not just let them reject Sam without a vote and then expect us to accept someone else from their side. Yours Klaus On 6/19/2014 1:45 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hello everyone, CSG is proposing a compromise candidate Daniel Reed and suggesting to contact him. for GNSO councillor, any feedback about the interaction with him? Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Metalitz, Steven Date: 2014-06-19 6:25 GMT+09:00 Subject: Board seat #14 To: Rafik Dammak Hello Rafik, Sorry for delay in getting back to you on this. After further consideration and discussion, CSG leadership is willing to consider Dan Reed as a possible compromise candidate. In that regard, we encourage you to reach out to Dan to arrange a group interview or discussion with NCSG as you think appropriate. Dan?s e-mail address is dan-reed at uiowa.edu . We look forward to hearing NCSG?s reaction as to Dan as a possible compromise candidate. Safe travels to London (assuming you are attending the ICANN meeting) and see you there. Steve Metalitz for CSG Ex Comm _______________________________________________ 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: -------------- 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: From avri Thu Jun 19 13:43:54 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 06:43:54 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Board seat #14 In-Reply-To: <21FB2187-2E7D-4C33-AFC5-D424F8556B95@difference.com.au> References: <53A27B1D.8050606@gkpfoundation.org> <21FB2187-2E7D-4C33-AFC5-D424F8556B95@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <53A2BEEA.1010703@acm.org> Hi, I agree. Lets do the math. And remember that no matter what any individual in CSG ever says they would like to do, they vote as directed. That's their compact. All of us should seek Dan out for bi-laterals (what a silly word). Has he been invited to the privacy to-do? Let's talk to Dan, formally, as early as possible in London. The Constituencies can invite him in for a brief chart if they wish. If we give up lunch beak on constituency day, can NCSG do it then? Then decide if we can live with him in the role. And move on if we can. It would still require a vote between him and NOTA, but he would have to convince just one 1 of us. Sam is a good man, but he was not able to convince them he was a compromise they could live with. Now it is our turn to find out if we think Dan is a good man and to see if he is a compromise we can live with. avri On 19-Jun-14 02:04, David Cake wrote: > Klaus, I don't think you understand what the word 'compromise' means in > this context. > > If you have reason to believe that the CSG would vote differently to the > way they have expressly told you they would vote, let us know. > Otherwise, let us continue on with a compromise process rather than > continue on with an adversarial voting process that we have already > shown will get us nowhere. > > Regards > > David > > On 19 Jun 2014, at 6:54 am, Klaus Stoll > wrote: > >> Dear Rafik >> >> No objections in contacting him, but under the clear understanding >> that Sam's name will be on the ballot for the next round. We can not >> just let them reject Sam without a vote and then expect us to accept >> someone else from their side. >> >> Yours >> >> Klaus >> >> On 6/19/2014 1:45 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hello everyone, >>> >>> CSG is proposing a compromise candidate Daniel Reed and suggesting to >>> contact him. >>> for GNSO councillor, any feedback about the interaction with him? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: *Metalitz, Steven* > >>> Date: 2014-06-19 6:25 GMT+09:00 >>> Subject: Board seat #14 >>> To: Rafik Dammak > >>> >>> >>> Hello Rafik, >>> >>> Sorry for delay in getting back to you on this. >>> >>> After further consideration and discussion, CSG leadership is willing >>> to consider Dan Reed as a possible compromise candidate. >>> >>> In that regard, we encourage you to reach out to Dan to arrange a >>> group interview or discussion with NCSG as you think appropriate. >>> Dan?s e-mail address is _dan-reed at uiowa.edu_ >>> _ . _ >>> >>> We look forward to hearing NCSG?s reaction as to Dan as a possible >>> compromise candidate. >>> >>> Safe travels to London (assuming you are attending the ICANN meeting) >>> and see you there. >>> >>> Steve Metalitz for CSG Ex Comm >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From maria.farrell Thu Jun 19 14:20:42 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 12:20:42 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Board seat #14 In-Reply-To: <53A2BEEA.1010703@acm.org> References: <53A27B1D.8050606@gkpfoundation.org> <21FB2187-2E7D-4C33-AFC5-D424F8556B95@difference.com.au> <53A2BEEA.1010703@acm.org> Message-ID: I share Avri's view. Continuing to press Sam as a viable candidate when he has clearly had his chance and our full support will damage relations both within our stakeholder group and also with the CSG. Let's move on. Maria On 19 June 2014 11:43, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I agree. Lets do the math. And remember that no matter what any > individual in CSG ever says they would like to do, they vote as > directed. That's their compact. > > All of us should seek Dan out for bi-laterals (what a silly word). > Has he been invited to the privacy to-do? > > Let's talk to Dan, formally, as early as possible in London. > The Constituencies can invite him in for a brief chart if they wish. > If we give up lunch beak on constituency day, can NCSG do it then? > > Then decide if we can live with him in the role. > And move on if we can. > > It would still require a vote between him and NOTA, but he would have to > convince just one 1 of us. > > Sam is a good man, but he was not able to convince them he was a > compromise they could live with. Now it is our turn to find out if we > think Dan is a good man and to see if he is a compromise we can live with. > > avri > > > > On 19-Jun-14 02:04, David Cake wrote: > > Klaus, I don't think you understand what the word 'compromise' means in > > this context. > > > > If you have reason to believe that the CSG would vote differently to the > > way they have expressly told you they would vote, let us know. > > Otherwise, let us continue on with a compromise process rather than > > continue on with an adversarial voting process that we have already > > shown will get us nowhere. > > > > Regards > > > > David > > > > On 19 Jun 2014, at 6:54 am, Klaus Stoll > > wrote: > > > >> Dear Rafik > >> > >> No objections in contacting him, but under the clear understanding > >> that Sam's name will be on the ballot for the next round. We can not > >> just let them reject Sam without a vote and then expect us to accept > >> someone else from their side. > >> > >> Yours > >> > >> Klaus > >> > >> On 6/19/2014 1:45 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >>> Hello everyone, > >>> > >>> CSG is proposing a compromise candidate Daniel Reed and suggesting to > >>> contact him. > >>> for GNSO councillor, any feedback about the interaction with him? > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Rafik > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> From: *Metalitz, Steven* > > >>> Date: 2014-06-19 6:25 GMT+09:00 > >>> Subject: Board seat #14 > >>> To: Rafik Dammak rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Hello Rafik, > >>> > >>> Sorry for delay in getting back to you on this. > >>> > >>> After further consideration and discussion, CSG leadership is willing > >>> to consider Dan Reed as a possible compromise candidate. > >>> > >>> In that regard, we encourage you to reach out to Dan to arrange a > >>> group interview or discussion with NCSG as you think appropriate. > >>> Dan?s e-mail address is _dan-reed at uiowa.edu_ > >>> _ . _ > >>> > >>> We look forward to hearing NCSG?s reaction as to Dan as a possible > >>> compromise candidate. > >>> > >>> Safe travels to London (assuming you are attending the ICANN meeting) > >>> and see you there. > >>> > >>> Steve Metalitz for CSG Ex Comm > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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: From magaly.pazello Thu Jun 19 18:43:29 2014 From: magaly.pazello (Magaly Pazello) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 12:43:29 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Board seat #14 In-Reply-To: References: <53A27B1D.8050606@gkpfoundation.org> <21FB2187-2E7D-4C33-AFC5-D424F8556B95@difference.com.au> <53A2BEEA.1010703@acm.org> Message-ID: I am in my way to airport, quick reply to let you know I am also share Avri's views. See you soon! Magaly On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Maria Farrell wrote: > I share Avri's view. > > Continuing to press Sam as a viable candidate when he has clearly had his > chance and our full support will damage relations both within our > stakeholder group and also with the CSG. > > Let's move on. > > Maria > > > On 19 June 2014 11:43, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I agree. Lets do the math. And remember that no matter what any >> individual in CSG ever says they would like to do, they vote as >> directed. That's their compact. >> >> All of us should seek Dan out for bi-laterals (what a silly word). >> Has he been invited to the privacy to-do? >> >> Let's talk to Dan, formally, as early as possible in London. >> The Constituencies can invite him in for a brief chart if they wish. >> If we give up lunch beak on constituency day, can NCSG do it then? >> >> Then decide if we can live with him in the role. >> And move on if we can. >> >> It would still require a vote between him and NOTA, but he would have to >> convince just one 1 of us. >> >> Sam is a good man, but he was not able to convince them he was a >> compromise they could live with. Now it is our turn to find out if we >> think Dan is a good man and to see if he is a compromise we can live with. >> >> avri >> >> >> >> On 19-Jun-14 02:04, David Cake wrote: >> > Klaus, I don't think you understand what the word 'compromise' means in >> > this context. >> > >> > If you have reason to believe that the CSG would vote differently to the >> > way they have expressly told you they would vote, let us know. >> > Otherwise, let us continue on with a compromise process rather than >> > continue on with an adversarial voting process that we have already >> > shown will get us nowhere. >> > >> > Regards >> > >> > David >> > >> > On 19 Jun 2014, at 6:54 am, Klaus Stoll > > > wrote: >> > >> >> Dear Rafik >> >> >> >> No objections in contacting him, but under the clear understanding >> >> that Sam's name will be on the ballot for the next round. We can not >> >> just let them reject Sam without a vote and then expect us to accept >> >> someone else from their side. >> >> >> >> Yours >> >> >> >> Klaus >> >> >> >> On 6/19/2014 1:45 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hello everyone, >> >>> >> >>> CSG is proposing a compromise candidate Daniel Reed and suggesting to >> >>> contact him. >> >>> for GNSO councillor, any feedback about the interaction with him? >> >>> >> >>> Best, >> >>> >> >>> Rafik >> >>> >> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >>> From: *Metalitz, Steven* > >> >>> Date: 2014-06-19 6:25 GMT+09:00 >> >>> Subject: Board seat #14 >> >>> To: Rafik Dammak > rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Hello Rafik, >> >>> >> >>> Sorry for delay in getting back to you on this. >> >>> >> >>> After further consideration and discussion, CSG leadership is willing >> >>> to consider Dan Reed as a possible compromise candidate. >> >>> >> >>> In that regard, we encourage you to reach out to Dan to arrange a >> >>> group interview or discussion with NCSG as you think appropriate. >> >>> Dan?s e-mail address is _dan-reed at uiowa.edu_ >> >>> _ . _ >> >>> >> >>> We look forward to hearing NCSG?s reaction as to Dan as a possible >> >>> compromise candidate. >> >>> >> >>> Safe travels to London (assuming you are attending the ICANN meeting) >> >>> and see you there. >> >>> >> >>> Steve Metalitz for CSG Ex Comm >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Sun Jun 22 12:35:40 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:35:40 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft agenda for today's meeting Message-ID: Hi all, Below is the draft agenda for the NCSG PC meeting today, Cadogan room, 1630 - 1830. Let me know of any comments, and see you later today. All the best, Maria *NCSG Policy Committee Agenda* *22 June 2014* *1 Discussion of Board Seat 14* *2 Preparation discussion on GNSO Council agenda* *Item 4: MOTION ? Approval of a charter for a PDP working group for the IGO & INGO access to curative rights protection mechanisms (10 mins)* The Final Issue Report on the topic of amending the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) to enable International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) to access and use these curative rights protection mechanisms (UDRP & URS) contains a draft charter for the proposed PDP WG. The draft Working Group Charter is appended as Annex 3 to the Final Issue Report and was delivered to the GNSO Council on 25 May 2014. Here the Council will vote on whether or not to approve the Charter. 4.1 ? Present the *motion * (Thomas Rickert / Mary Wong) 4.2 ? Discussion 4.3 ? Vote (Threshold; One third of each house or two thirds of one house) *Item 5: MOTION ? Consideration and evaluation of the New gTLD programme (15 mins)* In 2005 the GNSO began a policy development process which ultimately resulted in the introduction of new gTLDs and the creation of policy recommendations for the launch of a new gTLD application process. In 2007, the GNSO Council adopted the policy recommendations from the GNSO policy development process and these were adopted by the ICANN Board, leading to the approval by the Board of an Application Guidebook ("AGB") for new gTLDs and the launch of the New gTLD Program. The AGB was intended to govern the first round of an ongoing process for the introduction of new TLDs and ICANN?s stated goal to launch subsequent gTLD application rounds as quickly as possible, potentially within one year of the close of the application submission period for the initial round. The first round application submission period closed in June 2012. The Council believes that it has a continuing interest and role to play in evaluating the experiences of the first found and in proposing policy recommendations, if necessary, for changes to subsequent rounds. In this item, the Council will discuss and vote on a motion to take steps to consider, and evaluate the first round of the new gTLD program in order to decide on what, if any, future policy work needs to be undertaken. 5.1 Present the motion (Bret Fausett) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Vote *Item 6: Discussion ? Letter from the NGPC regarding protection of IGO-INGO identifiers in all gTLDs (15 mins)* On 16 June 2014, the Council received a letter from the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) of the ICANN Board regarding the protection of International Governmental Organization and International Non-Governmental Organization (IGO-INGO) identifiers in all gTLDs. Previously, on 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board adopted the GNSO Council?s policy recommendations on IGO-INGO protections that were not inconsistent with the GAC?s advice, and requested additional time to consider the remaining policy recommendations on the same topic that are inconsistent with the GAC?s advice. The GNSO policy recommendations on protections for IGO acronyms differ from the GAC advice *and *a current proposal being discussed with IGOs. The GNSO policy recommendations presented to the Board for adoption would permit eligible IGO acronyms to be added to the TMCH for 90-day claims notification. In writing the letter, the NGPC has stated that it wants to provide an update to the GNSO to appreciate the GNSO?s work but also highlight concerns and to give the GNSO an opportunity to consider modifying the elements of the approved policy recommendations in accordance with the relevant procedure established in the GNSO Operating Procedures. Here, the GNSO Council will consider whether or not to, and potentially the route to, modifying or amending our approved policy prior to adoption by the ICANN Board as provided for under Section 16 of the GNSO Operating Procedures. 6.1 - Discussion 6.2 - Next steps * Update ? Update on the Uniformity of Reporting Final Issue Report Resolution (15 mins)* Here the Council will receive an update, regarding an approved resolution as a result of the Final Issue Report on Uniformity of Reporting (a recommendation from RAPWG). The resolution states, ?*The GNSO Council does not initiate a Policy Development Process at this stage but will review at the completion of the ICANN Contractual Compliance three-year plan expected for 31 December 2013 whether additional action is required*.? ICANN?s Contractual Compliance team will present the past activities and results of the Contractual Compliance three-year plan and future efforts to evolve the contractual compliance function with regard to metrics collection and reporting. The GNSO Council will deliberate whether further attention to this issue is warranted. Note, that the second resolution launched what is now known as the non-PDP, Data & Metrics for Policy Making WG that is currently executing against its approved charter. 7.1 ? Update (Maguy Serad) 7.2 ? Discussion 7.3 ? Next steps *DISCUSSION ? A cross-community working group to develop a transfer process for the IANA stewardship role (15 mins) * A proposal was made in Singapore for the formation of a Cross-Community Working Group (CWG) to work on transition of the IANA stewardship function from the NTIA and an early stage initial draft of a charter for such a CWG was circulated. This has been modified a little since and is available here . An invitation to participate in a drafting team to has now been drafted and sent to all ICANN SO & ACs. Here the Council will take the opportunity, as manager of the policy development processes of the GNSO, to provide direction on the formation, development and work of a CWG on the NTIA transition. 8.1 - Discussion 8.2 - Next steps *UPDATE ? On the work of the GNSO Review Working Party (10 mins)* As part of a periodic review process that is built into the ICANN model, work on the ICANN board initiated reviews of the GNSO (and the GNSO Council and related functions) has commenced. The objective of the Review is to examine the organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review is to be tightly scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to an independent examiner. A webinar to discuss this has recently taken place. The GNSO Review Working Party has been assembled to: 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, 3. Coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and recommendations. The SIC envisages that once a final report is issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review Working Party will also coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities. *UPDATE ? On the work of the GAC / GNSO Consultation Group (10 mins)* Here the Council will receive an update, including reactions to the Group?s work presented during ICANN 50 in London and to discuss any actions being planned. In particular, the Consultation Group will seek support for the overall direction of its work and specifically, the decision to recruit and appoint a GNSO Liaison to GAC as well as the selection process for such a liaison. The Consultation Group envisages that the actual appointment will take place as soon as possible and, in any event, before ICANN 51. Moreover that such an appointment will be subject to a motion before the GNSO Council. *3 Public comments outstanding* *Public comments ? current:* *https://www.icann.org/public-comments (nb picture at top of page)* FY15 Draft operating plan and budget: Reply period deadline 1 July Enhancing ICANN Accountability Reply period deadline: 27 June Report on Serving the domain name community in underserved regions Reply period deadline: 30 June Proposed Implementation of GNSO PDP Recommendations on Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings - Revised UDRP Rules Reply period deadline: 18 July Whois requirements and national laws Comment period deadline: 3 July Reply period deadline: 1 August Study to evaluate solutions for submission and display of internationalised contact data Comment period deadline: 3 July Reply period deadline: 24 July Universal acceptance of TLDs draft roadmap Comment period deadline: 18 July Reply period deadline: 8 August -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Sun Jun 22 12:50:22 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:50:22 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Draft agenda for today's meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, Below is the updated agenda for the NCSG PC meeting today, Cadogan room, 1630 - 1830. See you later today. All the best, Maria *NCSG Policy Committee Agenda* *22 June 2014* *1 Discussion of Board Seat 14* *2 Discussion on appointing GNSO representatives to the IANA Accountability Coordination Group* *3 Preparation discussion on GNSO Council agenda* *Item 4: MOTION ? Approval of a charter for a PDP working group for the IGO & INGO access to curative rights protection mechanisms (10 mins)* The Final Issue Report on the topic of amending the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure (URS) to enable International Governmental Organizations (IGOs) and International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) to access and use these curative rights protection mechanisms (UDRP & URS) contains a draft charter for the proposed PDP WG. The draft Working Group Charter is appended as Annex 3 to the Final Issue Report and was delivered to the GNSO Council on 25 May 2014. Here the Council will vote on whether or not to approve the Charter. 4.1 ? Present the *motion * (Thomas Rickert / Mary Wong) 4.2 ? Discussion 4.3 ? Vote (Threshold; One third of each house or two thirds of one house) *Item 5: MOTION ? Consideration and evaluation of the New gTLD programme (15 mins)* In 2005 the GNSO began a policy development process which ultimately resulted in the introduction of new gTLDs and the creation of policy recommendations for the launch of a new gTLD application process. In 2007, the GNSO Council adopted the policy recommendations from the GNSO policy development process and these were adopted by the ICANN Board, leading to the approval by the Board of an Application Guidebook ("AGB") for new gTLDs and the launch of the New gTLD Program. The AGB was intended to govern the first round of an ongoing process for the introduction of new TLDs and ICANN?s stated goal to launch subsequent gTLD application rounds as quickly as possible, potentially within one year of the close of the application submission period for the initial round. The first round application submission period closed in June 2012. The Council believes that it has a continuing interest and role to play in evaluating the experiences of the first found and in proposing policy recommendations, if necessary, for changes to subsequent rounds. In this item, the Council will discuss and vote on a motion to take steps to consider, and evaluate the first round of the new gTLD program in order to decide on what, if any, future policy work needs to be undertaken. 5.1 Present the motion (Bret Fausett) 5.2 Discussion 5.3 Vote *Item 6: Discussion ? Letter from the NGPC regarding protection of IGO-INGO identifiers in all gTLDs (15 mins)* On 16 June 2014, the Council received a letter from the New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) of the ICANN Board regarding the protection of International Governmental Organization and International Non-Governmental Organization (IGO-INGO) identifiers in all gTLDs. Previously, on 30 April 2014, the ICANN Board adopted the GNSO Council?s policy recommendations on IGO-INGO protections that were not inconsistent with the GAC?s advice, and requested additional time to consider the remaining policy recommendations on the same topic that are inconsistent with the GAC?s advice. The GNSO policy recommendations on protections for IGO acronyms differ from the GAC advice *and *a current proposal being discussed with IGOs. The GNSO policy recommendations presented to the Board for adoption would permit eligible IGO acronyms to be added to the TMCH for 90-day claims notification. In writing the letter, the NGPC has stated that it wants to provide an update to the GNSO to appreciate the GNSO?s work but also highlight concerns and to give the GNSO an opportunity to consider modifying the elements of the approved policy recommendations in accordance with the relevant procedure established in the GNSO Operating Procedures. Here, the GNSO Council will consider whether or not to, and potentially the route to, modifying or amending our approved policy prior to adoption by the ICANN Board as provided for under Section 16 of the GNSO Operating Procedures. 6.1 - Discussion 6.2 - Next steps * Update ? Update on the Uniformity of Reporting Final Issue Report Resolution (15 mins)* Here the Council will receive an update, regarding an approved resolution as a result of the Final Issue Report on Uniformity of Reporting (a recommendation from RAPWG). The resolution states, ?*The GNSO Council does not initiate a Policy Development Process at this stage but will review at the completion of the ICANN Contractual Compliance three-year plan expected for 31 December 2013 whether additional action is required*.? ICANN?s Contractual Compliance team will present the past activities and results of the Contractual Compliance three-year plan and future efforts to evolve the contractual compliance function with regard to metrics collection and reporting. The GNSO Council will deliberate whether further attention to this issue is warranted. Note, that the second resolution launched what is now known as the non-PDP, Data & Metrics for Policy Making WG that is currently executing against its approved charter. 7.1 ? Update (Maguy Serad) 7.2 ? Discussion 7.3 ? Next steps *DISCUSSION ? A cross-community working group to develop a transfer process for the IANA stewardship role (15 mins) * A proposal was made in Singapore for the formation of a Cross-Community Working Group (CWG) to work on transition of the IANA stewardship function from the NTIA and an early stage initial draft of a charter for such a CWG was circulated. This has been modified a little since and is available here . An invitation to participate in a drafting team to has now been drafted and sent to all ICANN SO & ACs. Here the Council will take the opportunity, as manager of the policy development processes of the GNSO, to provide direction on the formation, development and work of a CWG on the NTIA transition. 8.1 - Discussion 8.2 - Next steps *UPDATE ? On the work of the GNSO Review Working Party (10 mins)* As part of a periodic review process that is built into the ICANN model, work on the ICANN board initiated reviews of the GNSO (and the GNSO Council and related functions) has commenced. The objective of the Review is to examine the organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review is to be tightly scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to an independent examiner. A webinar to discuss this has recently taken place. The GNSO Review Working Party has been assembled to: 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, 3. Coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and recommendations. The SIC envisages that once a final report is issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review Working Party will also coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities. *UPDATE ? On the work of the GAC / GNSO Consultation Group (10 mins)* Here the Council will receive an update, including reactions to the Group?s work presented during ICANN 50 in London and to discuss any actions being planned. In particular, the Consultation Group will seek support for the overall direction of its work and specifically, the decision to recruit and appoint a GNSO Liaison to GAC as well as the selection process for such a liaison. The Consultation Group envisages that the actual appointment will take place as soon as possible and, in any event, before ICANN 51. Moreover that such an appointment will be subject to a motion before the GNSO Council. *3 Public comments outstanding* *Public comments ? current:* *https://www.icann.org/public-comments (nb picture at top of page)* FY15 Draft operating plan and budget: Reply period deadline 1 July Enhancing ICANN Accountability Reply period deadline: 27 June Report on Serving the domain name community in underserved regions Reply period deadline: 30 June Proposed Implementation of GNSO PDP Recommendations on Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings - Revised UDRP Rules Reply period deadline: 18 July Whois requirements and national laws Comment period deadline: 3 July Reply period deadline: 1 August Study to evaluate solutions for submission and display of internationalised contact data Comment period deadline: 3 July Reply period deadline: 24 July Universal acceptance of TLDs draft roadmap Comment period deadline: 18 July Reply period deadline: 8 August -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Mon Jun 23 18:12:32 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 16:12:32 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: Thursday Session on Enhancing ICANN's accountability In-Reply-To: <017e01cf8ef1$06f84470$14e8cd50$@ipracon.com> References: <017e01cf8ef1$06f84470$14e8cd50$@ipracon.com> Message-ID: <53A843E0.7050600@acm.org> Anyone object to my being on the panel? avri -------- Original Message -------- Subject: FW: Thursday Session on Enhancing ICANN's accountability Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:39:49 +0100 From: Jonathan Robinson To: Avri Doria , Avri / James, No objections / comments received. Therefore, confirming I have put your names forward for this panel. Jonathan *From:*Jamie Hedlund [mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org] *Sent:* 19 June 2014 00:50 *To:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Louie Lee; Byron Holland; Jonathan Robinson; heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca; Lars-Johan Liman; Patrick Falstrom *Subject:* Thursday Session on Enhancing ICANN's accountability All, On Thursday, June 26 at 10:30-12:30, there will a session on Enhancing ICANN Accountability in light of the NTIA IANA Stewardship Transition. The purpose of this session is to advance the community dialogue on this important subject. To help make it as informative, interactive and constructive as possible, we propose the following structure: * Introduction and review of community input received in London ? Theresa Swinehart * Overview of existing ICANN accountability mechanisms ? Steve Crocker * Expert presentation on accountability and possible questions for community consideration ? Jan Aart Scholte , Professor, School of Global Studies, Gothenborg, Sweden * Open mike for community input and dialogue with a panel comprised of SO and AC representatives, Steve Crocker, Prof. Scholte and past members of ATRT reviews (Larry Strickling, Fiona Asonga and David Conrad). The dialogue would be moderated by Chris Disspain. Our request to you as SO and AC leaders is to designate one or more representatives from your communities to participate on the panel described above. The representatives would not be expected to make any presentations or prepare any remarks. Rather, the panelists would be there to respond or react to open mike input that is relevant to the panelist's experience or knowledge. Chris would help keep the discussion focused on the subject of enhancing ICANN's accountability in light of the NTIA IANA stewardship transition. He would also facilitate the dialogue between the community and the panelists. This interactive dialogue has the potential to more interesting, informative and constructive than simply collecting input from speakers at the open mike. Please let us know at your earliest convenience if you are willing to designate a representative(s) from your community to sit on the panel. If you have any questions or feedback on the proposed approach to this session, please send those to us as well. Thank you for considering this proposal. Best, Jamie From magaly.pazello Mon Jun 23 19:01:19 2014 From: magaly.pazello (Magaly Pazello) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 13:01:19 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: Thursday Session on Enhancing ICANN's accountability In-Reply-To: <53A843E0.7050600@acm.org> References: <017e01cf8ef1$06f84470$14e8cd50$@ipracon.com> <53A843E0.7050600@acm.org> Message-ID: Of course not ;-) On Monday, June 23, 2014, Avri Doria wrote: > > Anyone object to my being on the panel? > > avri > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: FW: Thursday Session on Enhancing ICANN's accountability > Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:39:49 +0100 > From: Jonathan Robinson > To: Avri Doria , > > > > Avri / James, > > > > No objections / comments received. > > > > Therefore, confirming I have put your names forward for this panel. > > > > Jonathan > > > > *From:*Jamie Hedlund [mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org] > *Sent:* 19 June 2014 00:50 > *To:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Louie Lee; Byron Holland; Jonathan > Robinson; heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca; Lars-Johan Liman; Patrick Falstrom > *Subject:* Thursday Session on Enhancing ICANN's accountability > > > > All, > > > > On Thursday, June 26 at 10:30-12:30, there will a session on Enhancing > ICANN Accountability in light of the NTIA IANA Stewardship Transition. > The purpose of this session is to advance the community dialogue on this > important subject. To help make it as informative, interactive and > constructive as possible, we propose the following structure: > > * Introduction and review of community input received in London ? > Theresa Swinehart > * Overview of existing ICANN accountability mechanisms ? Steve Crocker > * Expert presentation on accountability and possible questions for > community consideration ? Jan Aart Scholte > > < http://www.globalstudies.gu.se/english/about-us/staff?languageId=100001&userId=xsjana >, > Professor, School of Global Studies, Gothenborg, Sweden > * Open mike for community input and dialogue with a panel comprised of > SO and AC representatives, Steve Crocker, Prof. Scholte and past > members of ATRT reviews (Larry Strickling, Fiona Asonga and David > Conrad). The dialogue would be moderated by Chris Disspain. > > Our request to you as SO and AC leaders is to designate one or more > representatives from your communities to participate on the panel > described above. The representatives would not be expected to make any > presentations or prepare any remarks. Rather, the panelists would be > there to respond or react to open mike input that is relevant to the > panelist's experience or knowledge. Chris would help keep the discussion > focused on the subject of enhancing ICANN's accountability in light of > the NTIA IANA stewardship transition. He would also facilitate the > dialogue between the community and the panelists. This interactive > dialogue has the potential to more interesting, informative and > constructive than simply collecting input from speakers at the open mike. > > > > Please let us know at your earliest convenience if you are willing to > designate a representative(s) from your community to sit on the panel. > If you have any questions or feedback on the proposed approach to this > session, please send those to us as well. Thank you for considering this > proposal. > > > > Best, > > Jamie > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -- Sent from my Mobile -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel Mon Jun 23 19:02:43 2014 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 13:02:43 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: Thursday Session on Enhancing ICANN's accountability In-Reply-To: References: <017e01cf8ef1$06f84470$14e8cd50$@ipracon.com> <53A843E0.7050600@acm.org> Message-ID: No objections at all. Mar?lia On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:01 PM, Magaly Pazello wrote: > Of course not ;-) > > > On Monday, June 23, 2014, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > Anyone object to my being on the panel? > > > > avri > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: FW: Thursday Session on Enhancing ICANN's accountability > > Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 15:39:49 +0100 > > From: Jonathan Robinson > > To: Avri Doria , > > > > > > > > Avri / James, > > > > > > > > No objections / comments received. > > > > > > > > Therefore, confirming I have put your names forward for this panel. > > > > > > > > Jonathan > > > > > > > > *From:*Jamie Hedlund [mailto:jamie.hedlund at icann.org] > > *Sent:* 19 June 2014 00:50 > > *To:* Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Louie Lee; Byron Holland; Jonathan > > Robinson; heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca; Lars-Johan Liman; Patrick Falstrom > > *Subject:* Thursday Session on Enhancing ICANN's accountability > > > > > > > > All, > > > > > > > > On Thursday, June 26 at 10:30-12:30, there will a session on Enhancing > > ICANN Accountability in light of the NTIA IANA Stewardship Transition. > > The purpose of this session is to advance the community dialogue on this > > important subject. To help make it as informative, interactive and > > constructive as possible, we propose the following structure: > > > > * Introduction and review of community input received in London ? > > Theresa Swinehart > > * Overview of existing ICANN accountability mechanisms ? Steve Crocker > > * Expert presentation on accountability and possible questions for > > community consideration ? Jan Aart Scholte > > > > < > http://www.globalstudies.gu.se/english/about-us/staff?languageId=100001&userId=xsjana > >, > > Professor, School of Global Studies, Gothenborg, Sweden > > * Open mike for community input and dialogue with a panel comprised of > > SO and AC representatives, Steve Crocker, Prof. Scholte and past > > members of ATRT reviews (Larry Strickling, Fiona Asonga and David > > Conrad). The dialogue would be moderated by Chris Disspain. > > > > Our request to you as SO and AC leaders is to designate one or more > > representatives from your communities to participate on the panel > > described above. The representatives would not be expected to make any > > presentations or prepare any remarks. Rather, the panelists would be > > there to respond or react to open mike input that is relevant to the > > panelist's experience or knowledge. Chris would help keep the discussion > > focused on the subject of enhancing ICANN's accountability in light of > > the NTIA IANA stewardship transition. He would also facilitate the > > dialogue between the community and the panelists. This interactive > > dialogue has the potential to more interesting, informative and > > constructive than simply collecting input from speakers at the open mike. > > > > > > > > Please let us know at your earliest convenience if you are willing to > > designate a representative(s) from your community to sit on the panel. > > If you have any questions or feedback on the proposed approach to this > > session, please send those to us as well. Thank you for considering this > > proposal. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Jamie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > -- > Sent from my Mobile > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Mon Jun 23 19:18:57 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 01:18:57 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Possible Joint Statement on ICANN Accountability? In-Reply-To: <2CFA03BA9889274B88587EE2DF303C820720CC4836@CBIvEXMB05DC.cov.com> References: <2CFA03BA9889274B88587EE2DF303C820720CC4836@CBIvEXMB05DC.cov.com> Message-ID: Hi everyone, just received that, I think a joint statement can be a good thing. I can add this as agenda item for AOB for tomorrow meeting and have to discuss and decide. what do you think? Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rosette, Kristina Date: 2014-06-24 1:11 GMT+09:00 Subject: Possible Joint Statement on ICANN Accountability? To: Elisa Cooper , William Drake < william.drake at uzh.ch>, marie-laure Lemineur , Cintra Sooknanan , Michele Neylon - Blacknight < michele at blacknight.com>, "kdrazek at Verisign.com" , Tony Holmes , Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com> Greetings! I?m writing to you in your respective capacities as Stakeholder Group or Constituency Chairs. (I?ve added Cintra because I know that Marie-Laure is not on ground in London.) It struck me yesterday during the discussion with Theresa and Fadi that it appears that all of the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies may be of like mind regarding the importance of ICANN Accountability. It has been a long time (if ever) that the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies have been of like mind on any substantive issue. It could be very powerful if the Stakeholder Group and Constituency could present a joint statement on the issue during the Public Forum. Of course, any statement would have to be high level and subject to review by your respective Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. I?m reaching out now to gauge whether we are all of like mind and if there is interest in pursuing the joint statement concept. If so, I wanted to ensure that everyone had time to discuss the concept and any statement during Constituency Day. Views? K -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Mon Jun 23 19:23:04 2014 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 09:23:04 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Possible Joint Statement on ICANN Accountability? In-Reply-To: References: <2CFA03BA9889274B88587EE2DF303C820720CC4836@CBIvEXMB05DC.cov.com> Message-ID: <97C92E9B-8D99-4543-989F-CC7E6C1B7A66@ipjustice.org> Great idea! Robin On Jun 23, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > just received that, I think a joint statement can be a good thing. I can add this as agenda item for AOB for tomorrow meeting and have to discuss and decide. > what do you think? > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Rosette, Kristina > Date: 2014-06-24 1:11 GMT+09:00 > Subject: Possible Joint Statement on ICANN Accountability? > To: Elisa Cooper , William Drake , marie-laure Lemineur , Cintra Sooknanan , Michele Neylon - Blacknight , "kdrazek at Verisign.com" , Tony Holmes , Rafik Dammak > > > Greetings! > > > > I?m writing to you in your respective capacities as Stakeholder Group or Constituency Chairs. (I?ve added Cintra because I know that Marie-Laure is not on ground in London.) > > > > It struck me yesterday during the discussion with Theresa and Fadi that it appears that all of the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies may be of like mind regarding the importance of ICANN Accountability. It has been a long time (if ever) that the Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies have been of like mind on any substantive issue. It could be very powerful if the Stakeholder Group and Constituency could present a joint statement on the issue during the Public Forum. > > > > Of course, any statement would have to be high level and subject to review by your respective Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. I?m reaching out now to gauge whether we are all of like mind and if there is interest in pursuing the joint statement concept. If so, I wanted to ensure that everyone had time to discuss the concept and any statement during Constituency Day. > > > > Views? > > > > K > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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: From avri Tue Jun 24 09:10:55 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 07:10:55 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG requested amendments on the IGO/INGO charter In-Reply-To: <53A8B6C4.7030309@kathykleiman.com> References: <53A8B6C4.7030309@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <53A9166F.9000709@acm.org> Hi, The enclosed contains some proposed amendments in red line to the IGO/INGO WG charter. Can we discuss these in this afternoons prep meeting? Thanks avri -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft CRP WG Charter - 25 May 2014 NCSG rev 23 June 2014.docx Type: application/vnd.ms-word Size: 35911 bytes Desc: not available URL: From maria.farrell Tue Jun 24 15:53:02 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 13:53:02 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Current public comment periods open Message-ID: Hi everyone, FYI (as I need to post this on the relevant wiki where people can change it), here are the currently outstanding public comment periods, along with the volunteers where we have any. Please reply to me off-list if you can put your name against one of them and volunteer to draft. All the best, Maria CoE Report : ICANN?s procedures and policies in the light of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democratic values FY15 Draft operating plan and budget: Reply period deadline 1 July Enhancing ICANN Accountability Reply period deadline: 27 June - Remmy Nweke, Maria Farrell Report on Serving the domain name community in underserved regions Reply period deadline: 30 June - Rafik Dammak, Maria Farrell, Klaus Stoll Proposed Implementation of GNSO PDP Recommendations on Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings - Revised UDRP Rules Reply period deadline: 18 July Whois requirements and national laws Comment period deadline: 3 July Reply period deadline: 1 August Study to evaluate solutions for submission and display of internationalised contact data Comment period deadline: 3 July Reply period deadline: 24 July Universal acceptance of TLDs draft roadmap Comment period deadline: 18 July Reply period deadline: 8 August -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Tue Jun 24 17:43:46 2014 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 07:43:46 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed GNSO stmt on accountability Message-ID: <9BAE4C40-21D1-442F-870B-1C43BB537175@ipjustice.org> Folks, Here is the proposed draft statement from the GNSO (the 4 SG's) to the Board during the Public Forum on ICANN Accountability. I think we should support this statement and believe it would be a very powerful statement from the entire community. What do you think? I vote Hell Yes. Thanks, Robin ?We stand before the ICANN Board and Staff today in a rare showing of unanimity among the GNSO. As such, the ICANN Board and Staff should take our statement with appropriate seriousness and consideration. We agree that ICANN has earned the trust of NTIA to operate the IANA functions under a contractual arrangement that could be rebid or terminated. ICANN has also earned the opportunity to convene the multi-stakeholder community to help determine future accountability/stewardship mechanisms. However, ICANN has NOT YET earned the trust of the ICANN community to operate the IANA functions absent new, meaningful and independent accountability structures for the entire organization. True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy. The Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent accountability structure?one that is identified and created by the community?that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents and serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions. In addition, we need third-party independent annual operational and detailed financial audits from a respected firm. One of NTIA?s 4 principles is that the recommended IANA transition plan be multi-stakeholder, so the multi-stakeholder community has the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. We the community are committed to coming together and developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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: From avri Tue Jun 24 18:04:28 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 16:04:28 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed GNSO stmt on accountability In-Reply-To: <9BAE4C40-21D1-442F-870B-1C43BB537175@ipjustice.org> References: <9BAE4C40-21D1-442F-870B-1C43BB537175@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <53A9937C.6070901@acm.org> ok with me. avri On 24-Jun-14 15:43, Robin Gross wrote: > Folks, > > Here is the proposed draft statement from the GNSO (the 4 SG's) to the > Board during the Public Forum on ICANN Accountability. I think we > should support this statement and believe it would be a very powerful > statement from the entire community. What do you think? I vote Hell Yes. > > Thanks, > Robin > > ?We stand before the ICANN Board and Staff today in a rare showing of > unanimity among the GNSO. As such, the ICANN Board and Staff should > take our statement with appropriate seriousness and consideration. > > We agree that ICANN has earned the trust of NTIA to operate the IANA > functions under a contractual arrangement that could be rebid or > terminated. ICANN has also earned the opportunity to convene the > multi-stakeholder community to help determine future > accountability/stewardship mechanisms. However, ICANN has NOT YET > earned the trust of the ICANN community to operate the IANA functions > absent new, meaningful and independent accountability structures for the > entire organization. True accountability does not mean ICANN is only > accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor > does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over > community policy. > > The Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board cannot be > in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We need an > independent accountability structure?one that is identified and created > by the community?that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various > stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents and > serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions. In addition, we > need third-party independent annual operational and detailed financial > audits from a respected firm. > > One of NTIA?s 4 principles is that the recommended IANA transition plan > be multi-stakeholder, so the multi-stakeholder community has the > opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability > structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. > We the community are committed to coming together and developing > recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN > Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community > driven, multi-stakeholder initiative.? > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From robin Tue Jun 24 19:06:50 2014 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:06:50 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed GNSO stmt on accountability In-Reply-To: <53A9937C.6070901@acm.org> References: <9BAE4C40-21D1-442F-870B-1C43BB537175@ipjustice.org> <53A9937C.6070901@acm.org> Message-ID: <087A6334-65BB-4E35-ACB7-40DC67F0AE26@ipjustice.org> Here is the latest draft of the community stmt. The entire GNSO join together today calling for the Board to support community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus across the entire ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral element of the IANA transition. True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community. As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative. > On Jun 24, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > ok with me. > > avri > > >> On 24-Jun-14 15:43, Robin Gross wrote: >> Folks, >> >> Here is the proposed draft statement from the GNSO (the 4 SG's) to the >> Board during the Public Forum on ICANN Accountability. I think we >> should support this statement and believe it would be a very powerful >> statement from the entire community. What do you think? I vote Hell Yes. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >> ?We stand before the ICANN Board and Staff today in a rare showing of >> unanimity among the GNSO. As such, the ICANN Board and Staff should >> take our statement with appropriate seriousness and consideration. >> >> We agree that ICANN has earned the trust of NTIA to operate the IANA >> functions under a contractual arrangement that could be rebid or >> terminated. ICANN has also earned the opportunity to convene the >> multi-stakeholder community to help determine future >> accountability/stewardship mechanisms. However, ICANN has NOT YET >> earned the trust of the ICANN community to operate the IANA functions >> absent new, meaningful and independent accountability structures for the >> entire organization. True accountability does not mean ICANN is only >> accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor >> does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over >> community policy. >> >> The Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board cannot be >> in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We need an >> independent accountability structure?one that is identified and created >> by the community?that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various >> stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents and >> serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions. In addition, we >> need third-party independent annual operational and detailed financial >> audits from a respected firm. >> >> One of NTIA?s 4 principles is that the recommended IANA transition plan >> be multi-stakeholder, so the multi-stakeholder community has the >> opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability >> structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. >> We the community are committed to coming together and developing >> recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN >> Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community >> driven, multi-stakeholder initiative.? >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 rafik.dammak Tue Jun 24 19:22:35 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:22:35 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Park Suite 7:00am Meeting room for Bill and Bruce to meet with NCSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, Reminder that we have breakfast meeting with Bruce and Bill, tomorrow 7:00am Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Glen de Saint G?ry" Date: Jun 24, 2014 4:28 PM Subject: Park Suite 7:00am Meeting room for Bill and Bruce to meet with NCSG To: "Rafik Dammak" Cc: "bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au" , "Bill Graham" , "gnso-secs at icann.org" < gnso-secs at icann.org> Dear Rafik, Will you please inform the people who will be at this meeting. If you have the names I will send them the invitation. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org -----Original Message----- From: Megan Bishop Sent: mardi 24 juin 2014 17:14 To: bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au; Glen de Saint G?ry Cc: Rafik Dammak; Bill Graham Subject: Re: Meeting room for Bill and I to meet with NCSG Hi Bruce, I?ve taken care of this for you. Your meeting will be in Park Suite (breakfast in Belgrave) for 7am. I?ll liaise with Glen on who should receive the invite. Regards, Megan Megan Bishop Board Support Coordinator Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 12025 Waterfront Dr., Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Mobile: +1-310-795-1894 Direct: +1-310-301-5808 One World. One Internet. On 6/24/14, 3:29 PM, "bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au" wrote: >Hello Megan and Glen, > >Would you mind coordinating to check for a meeting room for around 10 >people for Bill Graham and I to have our meeting with the NCSG. > >We are scheduled for 7am tomorrow morning - Wednesday 25 June. > >If possible - I suggest using the Parks room where we have our Board >workshop - as that is convenient. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Tue Jun 24 19:26:19 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:26:19 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed GNSO stmt on accountability In-Reply-To: <087A6334-65BB-4E35-ACB7-40DC67F0AE26@ipjustice.org> References: <9BAE4C40-21D1-442F-870B-1C43BB537175@ipjustice.org> <53A9937C.6070901@acm.org> <087A6334-65BB-4E35-ACB7-40DC67F0AE26@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Thanks, Robin. I support this statement. (Having read both, I think the second is clearer and reads better.) On 24 June 2014 17:06, Robin Gross wrote: > Here is the latest draft of the community stmt. > > The entire GNSO join together today calling for the Board to support > community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides > meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or > inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community. > This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not only does it reflect > an unprecedented level of consensus across the entire ICANN community, it > is a necessary and integral element of the IANA transition. > > True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or > to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean that governments > should have the ultimate say over community policy subject to the rule of > law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the > Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own > decisions. We need an independent accountability structure that holds the > ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under > ICANN?s governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff > decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective > guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community. > > As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has the > opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability > structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. We > are committed to coming together and developing recommendations for > creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill > their obligations and support this community driven, multi-stakeholder > initiative. > > > > > On Jun 24, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > ok with me. > > > > avri > > > > > >> On 24-Jun-14 15:43, Robin Gross wrote: > >> Folks, > >> > >> Here is the proposed draft statement from the GNSO (the 4 SG's) to the > >> Board during the Public Forum on ICANN Accountability. I think we > >> should support this statement and believe it would be a very powerful > >> statement from the entire community. What do you think? I vote Hell > Yes. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Robin > >> > >> ?We stand before the ICANN Board and Staff today in a rare showing of > >> unanimity among the GNSO. As such, the ICANN Board and Staff should > >> take our statement with appropriate seriousness and consideration. > >> > >> We agree that ICANN has earned the trust of NTIA to operate the IANA > >> functions under a contractual arrangement that could be rebid or > >> terminated. ICANN has also earned the opportunity to convene the > >> multi-stakeholder community to help determine future > >> accountability/stewardship mechanisms. However, ICANN has NOT YET > >> earned the trust of the ICANN community to operate the IANA functions > >> absent new, meaningful and independent accountability structures for the > >> entire organization. True accountability does not mean ICANN is only > >> accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor > >> does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over > >> community policy. > >> > >> The Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board cannot be > >> in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We need an > >> independent accountability structure?one that is identified and created > >> by the community?that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various > >> stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents and > >> serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions. In addition, we > >> need third-party independent annual operational and detailed financial > >> audits from a respected firm. > >> > >> One of NTIA?s 4 principles is that the recommended IANA transition plan > >> be multi-stakeholder, so the multi-stakeholder community has the > >> opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability > >> structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. > >> We the community are committed to coming together and developing > >> recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN > >> Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community > >> driven, multi-stakeholder initiative.? > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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: From avri Tue Jun 24 19:29:40 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:29:40 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed GNSO stmt on accountability In-Reply-To: References: <9BAE4C40-21D1-442F-870B-1C43BB537175@ipjustice.org> <53A9937C.6070901@acm.org> <087A6334-65BB-4E35-ACB7-40DC67F0AE26@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <53A9A774.4070501@acm.org> still ok with me for NCSG to sign. avri On 24-Jun-14 17:26, Maria Farrell wrote: > Thanks, Robin. I support this statement. (Having read both, I think the > second is clearer and reads better.) > > > On 24 June 2014 17:06, Robin Gross > wrote: > > Here is the latest draft of the community stmt. > > The entire GNSO join together today calling for the Board to support > community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that > provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by > ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact > with the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration > - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus > across the entire ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral > element of the IANA transition. > > True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to > itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean > that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy > subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be > open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing > and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent > accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and > various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing > documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, > and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance > for the board, the staff, and the entire community. > > As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has > the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful > accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific > accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and > developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask > the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support > this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative. > > > > > On Jun 24, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Avri Doria > wrote: > > > > ok with me. > > > > avri > > > > > >> On 24-Jun-14 15:43, Robin Gross wrote: > >> Folks, > >> > >> Here is the proposed draft statement from the GNSO (the 4 SG's) > to the > >> Board during the Public Forum on ICANN Accountability. I think we > >> should support this statement and believe it would be a very powerful > >> statement from the entire community. What do you think? I vote > Hell Yes. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Robin > >> > >> ?We stand before the ICANN Board and Staff today in a rare showing of > >> unanimity among the GNSO. As such, the ICANN Board and Staff should > >> take our statement with appropriate seriousness and consideration. > >> > >> We agree that ICANN has earned the trust of NTIA to operate the IANA > >> functions under a contractual arrangement that could be rebid or > >> terminated. ICANN has also earned the opportunity to convene the > >> multi-stakeholder community to help determine future > >> accountability/stewardship mechanisms. However, ICANN has NOT YET > >> earned the trust of the ICANN community to operate the IANA functions > >> absent new, meaningful and independent accountability structures > for the > >> entire organization. True accountability does not mean ICANN is > only > >> accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the > world,? nor > >> does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over > >> community policy. > >> > >> The Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board > cannot be > >> in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We > need an > >> independent accountability structure?one that is identified and > created > >> by the community?that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various > >> stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents and > >> serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions. In > addition, we > >> need third-party independent annual operational and detailed > financial > >> audits from a respected firm. > >> > >> One of NTIA?s 4 principles is that the recommended IANA > transition plan > >> be multi-stakeholder, so the multi-stakeholder community has the > >> opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability > >> structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability > issues. > >> We the community are committed to coming together and developing > >> recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN > >> Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this > community > >> driven, multi-stakeholder initiative.? > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 robin Tue Jun 24 19:36:58 2014 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:36:58 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed GNSO stmt on accountability In-Reply-To: <53A9A774.4070501@acm.org> References: <9BAE4C40-21D1-442F-870B-1C43BB537175@ipjustice.org> <53A9937C.6070901@acm.org> <087A6334-65BB-4E35-ACB7-40DC67F0AE26@ipjustice.org> <53A9A774.4070501@acm.org> Message-ID: <808B358E-6581-45D2-87E2-71FE597C936C@ipjustice.org> Will the other councilors please weigh in on this stmt? Thanks. > On Jun 24, 2014, at 5:29 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > still ok with me for NCSG to sign. > > avri > >> On 24-Jun-14 17:26, Maria Farrell wrote: >> Thanks, Robin. I support this statement. (Having read both, I think the >> second is clearer and reads better.) >> >> >> On 24 June 2014 17:06, Robin Gross > > wrote: >> >> Here is the latest draft of the community stmt. >> >> The entire GNSO join together today calling for the Board to support >> community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that >> provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by >> ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact >> with the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration >> - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus >> across the entire ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral >> element of the IANA transition. >> >> True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to >> itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean >> that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy >> subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be >> open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing >> and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent >> accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and >> various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing >> documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, >> and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance >> for the board, the staff, and the entire community. >> >> As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has >> the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful >> accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific >> accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and >> developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask >> the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support >> this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative. >> >> >> >>>> On Jun 24, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Avri Doria >> > wrote: >>> >>> ok with me. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>>> On 24-Jun-14 15:43, Robin Gross wrote: >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> Here is the proposed draft statement from the GNSO (the 4 SG's) >> to the >>>> Board during the Public Forum on ICANN Accountability. I think we >>>> should support this statement and believe it would be a very powerful >>>> statement from the entire community. What do you think? I vote >> Hell Yes. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Robin >>>> >>>> ?We stand before the ICANN Board and Staff today in a rare showing of >>>> unanimity among the GNSO. As such, the ICANN Board and Staff should >>>> take our statement with appropriate seriousness and consideration. >>>> >>>> We agree that ICANN has earned the trust of NTIA to operate the IANA >>>> functions under a contractual arrangement that could be rebid or >>>> terminated. ICANN has also earned the opportunity to convene the >>>> multi-stakeholder community to help determine future >>>> accountability/stewardship mechanisms. However, ICANN has NOT YET >>>> earned the trust of the ICANN community to operate the IANA functions >>>> absent new, meaningful and independent accountability structures >> for the >>>> entire organization. True accountability does not mean ICANN is >> only >>>> accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the >> world,? nor >>>> does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over >>>> community policy. >>>> >>>> The Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board >> cannot be >>>> in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We >> need an >>>> independent accountability structure?one that is identified and >> created >>>> by the community?that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various >>>> stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents and >>>> serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions. In >> addition, we >>>> need third-party independent annual operational and detailed >> financial >>>> audits from a respected firm. >>>> >>>> One of NTIA?s 4 principles is that the recommended IANA >> transition plan >>>> be multi-stakeholder, so the multi-stakeholder community has the >>>> opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability >>>> structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability >> issues. >>>> We the community are committed to coming together and developing >>>> recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN >>>> Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this >> community >>>> driven, multi-stakeholder initiative.? >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From maria.farrell Tue Jun 24 19:40:00 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:40:00 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Park Suite 7:00am Meeting room for Bill and Bruce to meet with NCSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, An FYI and with apologies that I won't be at this meeting tomorrow morning. I'm commuting and it would mean getting out of my lovely warm bed at 0500, and I just. can't. do. it. Have given my apols to Bill. Maria On 24 June 2014 17:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > Reminder that we have breakfast meeting with Bruce and Bill, tomorrow > 7:00am > > Rafik > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Glen de Saint G?ry" > Date: Jun 24, 2014 4:28 PM > Subject: Park Suite 7:00am Meeting room for Bill and Bruce to meet with > NCSG > To: "Rafik Dammak" > Cc: "bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au" , > "Bill Graham" , "gnso-secs at icann.org" < > gnso-secs at icann.org> > > Dear Rafik, > > Will you please inform the people who will be at this meeting. If you have > the names I will send them the invitation. > Thank you very much. > Kind regards, > > Glen > > Glen de Saint G?ry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Megan Bishop > Sent: mardi 24 juin 2014 17:14 > To: bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au; Glen de Saint G?ry > Cc: Rafik Dammak; Bill Graham > Subject: Re: Meeting room for Bill and I to meet with NCSG > > Hi Bruce, > > I?ve taken care of this for you. Your meeting will be in Park Suite > (breakfast in Belgrave) for 7am. > > I?ll liaise with Glen on who should receive the invite. > > Regards, > Megan > > Megan Bishop > Board Support Coordinator > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > 12025 Waterfront Dr., Suite 300 > Los Angeles, CA 90094 > Mobile: +1-310-795-1894 > Direct: +1-310-301-5808 > > One World. One Internet. > > > > > On 6/24/14, 3:29 PM, "bruce.tonkin at melbourneit.com.au" > wrote: > > >Hello Megan and Glen, > > > >Would you mind coordinating to check for a meeting room for around 10 > >people for Bill Graham and I to have our meeting with the NCSG. > > > >We are scheduled for 7am tomorrow morning - Wednesday 25 June. > > > >If possible - I suggest using the Parks room where we have our Board > >workshop - as that is convenient. > > > >Regards, > >Bruce Tonkin > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Tue Jun 24 19:41:12 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 01:41:12 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed GNSO stmt on accountability In-Reply-To: <808B358E-6581-45D2-87E2-71FE597C936C@ipjustice.org> References: <9BAE4C40-21D1-442F-870B-1C43BB537175@ipjustice.org> <53A9937C.6070901@acm.org> <087A6334-65BB-4E35-ACB7-40DC67F0AE26@ipjustice.org> <53A9A774.4070501@acm.org> <808B358E-6581-45D2-87E2-71FE597C936C@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Hi, So if there is no objections by tomorrow, Maria can declare consensus and then I will inform other C/SGs chairs. Rafik The text I got from Kristina The [entire GNSO] join together today calling for the Board to support community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus across the [entire] ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral element of the IANA transition. True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community. As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative. On Jun 24, 2014 5:37 PM, "Robin Gross" wrote: > Will the other councilors please weigh in on this stmt? Thanks. > > > On Jun 24, 2014, at 5:29 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > still ok with me for NCSG to sign. > > > > avri > > > >> On 24-Jun-14 17:26, Maria Farrell wrote: > >> Thanks, Robin. I support this statement. (Having read both, I think the > >> second is clearer and reads better.) > >> > >> > >> On 24 June 2014 17:06, Robin Gross >> > wrote: > >> > >> Here is the latest draft of the community stmt. > >> > >> The entire GNSO join together today calling for the Board to support > >> community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that > >> provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by > >> ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact > >> with the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration > >> - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus > >> across the entire ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral > >> element of the IANA transition. > >> > >> True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to > >> itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean > >> that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy > >> subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be > >> open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing > >> and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent > >> accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and > >> various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing > >> documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, > >> and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance > >> for the board, the staff, and the entire community. > >> > >> As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has > >> the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful > >> accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific > >> accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and > >> developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask > >> the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support > >> this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative. > >> > >> > >> > >>>> On Jun 24, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Avri Doria >>> > wrote: > >>> > >>> ok with me. > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> > >>>> On 24-Jun-14 15:43, Robin Gross wrote: > >>>> Folks, > >>>> > >>>> Here is the proposed draft statement from the GNSO (the 4 SG's) > >> to the > >>>> Board during the Public Forum on ICANN Accountability. I think we > >>>> should support this statement and believe it would be a very powerful > >>>> statement from the entire community. What do you think? I vote > >> Hell Yes. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Robin > >>>> > >>>> ?We stand before the ICANN Board and Staff today in a rare showing of > >>>> unanimity among the GNSO. As such, the ICANN Board and Staff should > >>>> take our statement with appropriate seriousness and consideration. > >>>> > >>>> We agree that ICANN has earned the trust of NTIA to operate the IANA > >>>> functions under a contractual arrangement that could be rebid or > >>>> terminated. ICANN has also earned the opportunity to convene the > >>>> multi-stakeholder community to help determine future > >>>> accountability/stewardship mechanisms. However, ICANN has NOT YET > >>>> earned the trust of the ICANN community to operate the IANA functions > >>>> absent new, meaningful and independent accountability structures > >> for the > >>>> entire organization. True accountability does not mean ICANN is > >> only > >>>> accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the > >> world,? nor > >>>> does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over > >>>> community policy. > >>>> > >>>> The Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board > >> cannot be > >>>> in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We > >> need an > >>>> independent accountability structure?one that is identified and > >> created > >>>> by the community?that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various > >>>> stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents and > >>>> serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions. In > >> addition, we > >>>> need third-party independent annual operational and detailed > >> financial > >>>> audits from a respected firm. > >>>> > >>>> One of NTIA?s 4 principles is that the recommended IANA > >> transition plan > >>>> be multi-stakeholder, so the multi-stakeholder community has the > >>>> opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability > >>>> structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability > >> issues. > >>>> We the community are committed to coming together and developing > >>>> recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN > >>>> Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this > >> community > >>>> driven, multi-stakeholder initiative.? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Tue Jun 24 19:44:00 2014 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:44:00 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed GNSO stmt on accountability In-Reply-To: References: <9BAE4C40-21D1-442F-870B-1C43BB537175@ipjustice.org> <53A9937C.6070901@acm.org> <087A6334-65BB-4E35-ACB7-40DC67F0AE26@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <71497FD8-F4F9-4172-9FB9-D2640C3013B6@gmail.com> I agree with Maria, of course Bill On Jun 24, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Maria Farrell wrote: > Thanks, Robin. I support this statement. (Having read both, I think the second is clearer and reads better.) > > > On 24 June 2014 17:06, Robin Gross wrote: > Here is the latest draft of the community stmt. > > The entire GNSO join together today calling for the Board to support community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus across the entire ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral element of the IANA transition. > > True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community. > > As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative. > > > > > On Jun 24, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > ok with me. > > > > avri > > > > > >> On 24-Jun-14 15:43, Robin Gross wrote: > >> Folks, > >> > >> Here is the proposed draft statement from the GNSO (the 4 SG's) to the > >> Board during the Public Forum on ICANN Accountability. I think we > >> should support this statement and believe it would be a very powerful > >> statement from the entire community. What do you think? I vote Hell Yes. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Robin > >> > >> ?We stand before the ICANN Board and Staff today in a rare showing of > >> unanimity among the GNSO. As such, the ICANN Board and Staff should > >> take our statement with appropriate seriousness and consideration. > >> > >> We agree that ICANN has earned the trust of NTIA to operate the IANA > >> functions under a contractual arrangement that could be rebid or > >> terminated. ICANN has also earned the opportunity to convene the > >> multi-stakeholder community to help determine future > >> accountability/stewardship mechanisms. However, ICANN has NOT YET > >> earned the trust of the ICANN community to operate the IANA functions > >> absent new, meaningful and independent accountability structures for the > >> entire organization. True accountability does not mean ICANN is only > >> accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor > >> does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over > >> community policy. > >> > >> The Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board cannot be > >> in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We need an > >> independent accountability structure?one that is identified and created > >> by the community?that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various > >> stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents and > >> serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions. In addition, we > >> need third-party independent annual operational and detailed financial > >> audits from a respected firm. > >> > >> One of NTIA?s 4 principles is that the recommended IANA transition plan > >> be multi-stakeholder, so the multi-stakeholder community has the > >> opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability > >> structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. > >> We the community are committed to coming together and developing > >> recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN > >> Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community > >> driven, multi-stakeholder initiative.? > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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: From maria.farrell Tue Jun 24 19:46:43 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:46:43 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed GNSO stmt on accountability In-Reply-To: References: <9BAE4C40-21D1-442F-870B-1C43BB537175@ipjustice.org> <53A9937C.6070901@acm.org> <087A6334-65BB-4E35-ACB7-40DC67F0AE26@ipjustice.org> <53A9A774.4070501@acm.org> <808B358E-6581-45D2-87E2-71FE597C936C@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Righto, Rafik. On 24 June 2014 17:41, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > So if there is no objections by tomorrow, Maria can declare consensus and > then I will inform other C/SGs chairs. > > Rafik > > The text I got from Kristina > > The [entire GNSO] join together today calling for the Board to support > community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides > meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or > inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community. > This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not only does it reflect > an unprecedented level of consensus across the [entire] ICANN community, it > is a necessary and integral element of the IANA transition. > > True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or > to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean that governments > should have the ultimate say over community policy subject to the rule of > law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the > Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own > decisions. We need an independent accountability structure that holds the > ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under > ICANN?s governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff > decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective > guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community. > > As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has the > opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability > structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. We > are committed to coming together and developing recommendations for > creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill > their obligations and support this community driven, multi-stakeholder > initiative. > On Jun 24, 2014 5:37 PM, "Robin Gross" wrote: > >> Will the other councilors please weigh in on this stmt? Thanks. >> >> > On Jun 24, 2014, at 5:29 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> > >> > still ok with me for NCSG to sign. >> > >> > avri >> > >> >> On 24-Jun-14 17:26, Maria Farrell wrote: >> >> Thanks, Robin. I support this statement. (Having read both, I think the >> >> second is clearer and reads better.) >> >> >> >> >> >> On 24 June 2014 17:06, Robin Gross > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Here is the latest draft of the community stmt. >> >> >> >> The entire GNSO join together today calling for the Board to support >> >> community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that >> >> provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by >> >> ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact >> >> with the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration >> >> - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus >> >> across the entire ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral >> >> element of the IANA transition. >> >> >> >> True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to >> >> itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean >> >> that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy >> >> subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be >> >> open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing >> >> and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent >> >> accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and >> >> various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing >> >> documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, >> >> and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance >> >> for the board, the staff, and the entire community. >> >> >> >> As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has >> >> the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful >> >> accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific >> >> accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and >> >> developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask >> >> the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support >> >> this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> On Jun 24, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Avri Doria > >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> >>> ok with me. >> >>> >> >>> avri >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> On 24-Jun-14 15:43, Robin Gross wrote: >> >>>> Folks, >> >>>> >> >>>> Here is the proposed draft statement from the GNSO (the 4 SG's) >> >> to the >> >>>> Board during the Public Forum on ICANN Accountability. I think we >> >>>> should support this statement and believe it would be a very powerful >> >>>> statement from the entire community. What do you think? I vote >> >> Hell Yes. >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks, >> >>>> Robin >> >>>> >> >>>> ?We stand before the ICANN Board and Staff today in a rare showing of >> >>>> unanimity among the GNSO. As such, the ICANN Board and Staff should >> >>>> take our statement with appropriate seriousness and consideration. >> >>>> >> >>>> We agree that ICANN has earned the trust of NTIA to operate the IANA >> >>>> functions under a contractual arrangement that could be rebid or >> >>>> terminated. ICANN has also earned the opportunity to convene the >> >>>> multi-stakeholder community to help determine future >> >>>> accountability/stewardship mechanisms. However, ICANN has NOT YET >> >>>> earned the trust of the ICANN community to operate the IANA functions >> >>>> absent new, meaningful and independent accountability structures >> >> for the >> >>>> entire organization. True accountability does not mean ICANN is >> >> only >> >>>> accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the >> >> world,? nor >> >>>> does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over >> >>>> community policy. >> >>>> >> >>>> The Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board >> >> cannot be >> >>>> in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We >> >> need an >> >>>> independent accountability structure?one that is identified and >> >> created >> >>>> by the community?that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various >> >>>> stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents and >> >>>> serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions. In >> >> addition, we >> >>>> need third-party independent annual operational and detailed >> >> financial >> >>>> audits from a respected firm. >> >>>> >> >>>> One of NTIA?s 4 principles is that the recommended IANA >> >> transition plan >> >>>> be multi-stakeholder, so the multi-stakeholder community has the >> >>>> opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability >> >>>> structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability >> >> issues. >> >>>> We the community are committed to coming together and developing >> >>>> recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN >> >>>> Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this >> >> community >> >>>> driven, multi-stakeholder initiative.? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Tue Jun 24 19:47:12 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:47:12 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed GNSO stmt on accountability In-Reply-To: <71497FD8-F4F9-4172-9FB9-D2640C3013B6@gmail.com> References: <9BAE4C40-21D1-442F-870B-1C43BB537175@ipjustice.org> <53A9937C.6070901@acm.org> <087A6334-65BB-4E35-ACB7-40DC67F0AE26@ipjustice.org> <71497FD8-F4F9-4172-9FB9-D2640C3013B6@gmail.com> Message-ID: Well, now you're talking, Bill! On 24 June 2014 17:44, William Drake wrote: > I agree with Maria, of course > > Bill > > On Jun 24, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Maria Farrell > wrote: > > Thanks, Robin. I support this statement. (Having read both, I think the > second is clearer and reads better.) > > > On 24 June 2014 17:06, Robin Gross wrote: > >> Here is the latest draft of the community stmt. >> >> The entire GNSO join together today calling for the Board to support >> community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides >> meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or >> inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community. >> This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not only does it reflect >> an unprecedented level of consensus across the entire ICANN community, it >> is a necessary and integral element of the IANA transition. >> >> True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or >> to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean that governments >> should have the ultimate say over community policy subject to the rule of >> law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the >> Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own >> decisions. We need an independent accountability structure that holds the >> ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under >> ICANN?s governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff >> decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective >> guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community. >> >> As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has the >> opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability >> structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. We >> are committed to coming together and developing recommendations for >> creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill >> their obligations and support this community driven, multi-stakeholder >> initiative. >> >> >> >> > On Jun 24, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> > >> > ok with me. >> > >> > avri >> > >> > >> >> On 24-Jun-14 15:43, Robin Gross wrote: >> >> Folks, >> >> >> >> Here is the proposed draft statement from the GNSO (the 4 SG's) to the >> >> Board during the Public Forum on ICANN Accountability. I think we >> >> should support this statement and believe it would be a very powerful >> >> statement from the entire community. What do you think? I vote Hell >> Yes. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Robin >> >> >> >> ?We stand before the ICANN Board and Staff today in a rare showing of >> >> unanimity among the GNSO. As such, the ICANN Board and Staff should >> >> take our statement with appropriate seriousness and consideration. >> >> >> >> We agree that ICANN has earned the trust of NTIA to operate the IANA >> >> functions under a contractual arrangement that could be rebid or >> >> terminated. ICANN has also earned the opportunity to convene the >> >> multi-stakeholder community to help determine future >> >> accountability/stewardship mechanisms. However, ICANN has NOT YET >> >> earned the trust of the ICANN community to operate the IANA functions >> >> absent new, meaningful and independent accountability structures for >> the >> >> entire organization. True accountability does not mean ICANN is only >> >> accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor >> >> does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over >> >> community policy. >> >> >> >> The Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board cannot be >> >> in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We need >> an >> >> independent accountability structure?one that is identified and created >> >> by the community?that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various >> >> stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents and >> >> serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions. In addition, we >> >> need third-party independent annual operational and detailed financial >> >> audits from a respected firm. >> >> >> >> One of NTIA?s 4 principles is that the recommended IANA transition plan >> >> be multi-stakeholder, so the multi-stakeholder community has the >> >> opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability >> >> structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. >> >> We the community are committed to coming together and developing >> >> recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN >> >> Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community >> >> driven, multi-stakeholder initiative.? >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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: From dave Tue Jun 24 19:55:59 2014 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:55:59 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed GNSO stmt on accountability In-Reply-To: References: <9BAE4C40-21D1-442F-870B-1C43BB537175@ipjustice.org> <53A9937C.6070901@acm.org> <087A6334-65BB-4E35-ACB7-40DC67F0AE26@ipjustice.org> <53A9A774.4070501@acm.org> <808B358E-6581-45D2-87E2-71FE597C936C@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: I support this statement. David On 24 Jun 2014, at 5:41 pm, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi, So if there is no objections by tomorrow, Maria can declare consensus and then I will inform other C/SGs chairs. Rafik The text I got from Kristina The [entire GNSO] join together today calling for the Board to support community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus across the [entire] ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral element of the IANA transition. True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community. As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative. On Jun 24, 2014 5:37 PM, "Robin Gross" wrote: Will the other councilors please weigh in on this stmt? Thanks. > On Jun 24, 2014, at 5:29 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > still ok with me for NCSG to sign. > > avri > >> On 24-Jun-14 17:26, Maria Farrell wrote: >> Thanks, Robin. I support this statement. (Having read both, I think the >> second is clearer and reads better.) >> >> >> On 24 June 2014 17:06, Robin Gross > > wrote: >> >> Here is the latest draft of the community stmt. >> >> The entire GNSO join together today calling for the Board to support >> community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that >> provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by >> ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact >> with the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration >> - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus >> across the entire ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral >> element of the IANA transition. >> >> True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to >> itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean >> that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy >> subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be >> open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing >> and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent >> accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and >> various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing >> documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, >> and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance >> for the board, the staff, and the entire community. >> >> As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has >> the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful >> accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific >> accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and >> developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask >> the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support >> this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative. >> >> >> >>>> On Jun 24, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Avri Doria >> > wrote: >>> >>> ok with me. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>>> On 24-Jun-14 15:43, Robin Gross wrote: >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> Here is the proposed draft statement from the GNSO (the 4 SG's) >> to the >>>> Board during the Public Forum on ICANN Accountability. I think we >>>> should support this statement and believe it would be a very powerful >>>> statement from the entire community. What do you think? I vote >> Hell Yes. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Robin >>>> >>>> ?We stand before the ICANN Board and Staff today in a rare showing of >>>> unanimity among the GNSO. As such, the ICANN Board and Staff should >>>> take our statement with appropriate seriousness and consideration. >>>> >>>> We agree that ICANN has earned the trust of NTIA to operate the IANA >>>> functions under a contractual arrangement that could be rebid or >>>> terminated. ICANN has also earned the opportunity to convene the >>>> multi-stakeholder community to help determine future >>>> accountability/stewardship mechanisms. However, ICANN has NOT YET >>>> earned the trust of the ICANN community to operate the IANA functions >>>> absent new, meaningful and independent accountability structures >> for the >>>> entire organization. True accountability does not mean ICANN is >> only >>>> accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the >> world,? nor >>>> does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over >>>> community policy. >>>> >>>> The Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board >> cannot be >>>> in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We >> need an >>>> independent accountability structure?one that is identified and >> created >>>> by the community?that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various >>>> stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents and >>>> serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions. In >> addition, we >>>> need third-party independent annual operational and detailed >> financial >>>> audits from a respected firm. >>>> >>>> One of NTIA?s 4 principles is that the recommended IANA >> transition plan >>>> be multi-stakeholder, so the multi-stakeholder community has the >>>> opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability >>>> structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability >> issues. >>>> We the community are committed to coming together and developing >>>> recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN >>>> Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this >> community >>>> driven, multi-stakeholder initiative.? >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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: From maria.farrell Tue Jun 24 20:32:59 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 18:32:59 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: Draft CRP WG Charter - 25 May 2014 In-Reply-To: References: <07F06E6EBD995844BDC9E2F0714E727A6516DDD3@EX2K10MAILBOX1.ascd.org> Message-ID: Hi guys, fyi, I sent the updated version to the list. All the best, Maria ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Maria Farrell Date: 24 June 2014 18:32 Subject: Fwd: FW: Draft CRP WG Charter - 25 May 2014 To: "council at gnso.icann.org" Dear Council colleagues, I'm circulating an updated document with proposed changes to the IGO/INGO Curative Rights Protection PDP draft Charter. The only change in this doc is marked in blue track changes version and is the following: "*Conduct research on the number and list of INGOs included on the United Nations list of non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council. "* It is to change the list referred to to be the EcoSoc list, not the DPI one, for consistency. All the best, Maria -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft CRP WG Charter - 25 May 2014 NCSG rev 24 June 2014 redline.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 39666 bytes Desc: not available URL: From maria.farrell Tue Jun 24 21:07:18 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 19:07:18 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [council] FW: [soac-chairs] URGENT: CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS TO FORM A DRAFTING TEAM (IANA STEWARDSHIP TRANSITION) In-Reply-To: <009a01cf8b98$119ac800$34d05800$@afilias.info> References: <1575E22102021C4F8F4F927D4948B2F36BB8D9CF@EXCH-01.CORP.CIRA.CA> <009a01cf8b98$119ac800$34d05800$@afilias.info> Message-ID: Dear all, with sincere apologies that I missed this one when it came out last Friday, we have been asked to field a volunteer for the cross community working group drafting team. The person needs to (ideally) be able to take part in drafting tomorrow (Weds) or the following day (Thurs) on-site here in London. Even though this is terribly short notice, can you please either nominate or self-nominate for this role within the next 12 hours? The NCSG PC will appoint the person to join the drafting team within the next 24 hours. All the best, Maria ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jonathan Robinson Date: 19 June 2014 09:25 Subject: [council] FW: [soac-chairs] URGENT: CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS TO FORM A DRAFTING TEAM (IANA STEWARDSHIP TRANSITION) To: council at gnso.icann.org All, Please see attached. Apologies that this was not forwarded on to you yesterday. Jonathan *From:* Byron Holland [mailto:byron.holland at cira.ca] *Sent:* 17 June 2014 21:12 *To:* soac-chairs at icann.org *Cc:* Jonathan Robinson *Subject:* [soac-chairs] URGENT: CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS TO FORM A DRAFTING TEAM (IANA STEWARDSHIP TRANSITION) Dear SO/AC Chairs, We, the Chairs of the ccNSO and GNSO Council, would hereby like to invite your organization to join a drafting team, tasked with drafting the charter for a *Cross-Community Working Group to develop a Transfer Process for the IANA Stewardship Role*. Based on conversations to date, we anticipate that the ALAC and SSAC will join this effort and we sincerely hope that the ICANN?s other supporting organizations and advisory committees will also respond positively to this initiative. The final draft charter will be presented to at least each of the organizations participating in this effort for their adoption, according to each organization?s own rules and procedures. Taking into account the principles outlined by the NTIA in its announcement, we believe such a cross community working group, with participation from and supported by the ICANN community as well as other organizations, is the most appropriate way to develop a proposal for a transition plan. Initial work by some members of the community resulted in a first draft straw-man document, which is included here as an annex. We believe this may help the drafting team in its efforts, but it is by no means intended to prescribe, limit or restrict conversations, though it is worth noting that some elements contained in the document align with the current thinking of some ccNSO and GNSO members. We anticipate that any final draft should address at a minimum: - Purpose and Scope (what is in and what is out of scope) - Goals and objectives - Deliverables - Timeline - Proposed approach (how is the WG expected to conduct its work, reporting to chartering organizations) - Relationship with Coordination Group as proposed by ICANN (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-06-06-en) - Membership / sponsorship (should membership be limited, open to anyone interested?) - Sponsorship / chartering organizations (should sponsorship be restricted to ICANN structures or also extend to external organizations?) - Staffing / support needed - Rules of engagement - Decision-making methodology (how are decisions made in the WG and how are these reflected in the recommendations) - Process for review / adoption of proposal by chartering organizations (also addressing what would happen if one of the chartering organizations would not adopt the proposal) - Closure of the WG In order to be able to complete the drafting of the charter and share it with the different organizations for consideration in a timely manner, we would ask that each participating organization assign a maximum of 4 representatives to the drafting team. To facilitate the work of the drafting team at its initial stages, we are both available to serve as interim chairs of the charter drafting team, if that is deemed to be helpful, and for as long as the drafting team would like us to. Although the ICANN London meeting is very close, we recognize the value of meeting face-to-face. Therefore we would like to organize an informal meeting of the drafting team during the London ICANN meeting and as such have identified Monday 23 June 2014, 17h00 UTC (18h00 London) as a possible option to do so. We hope and would appreciate if you could provide us with your feedback and the names of volunteers (even it that would be on an interim basis until your organization has formally assigned a representative to this drafting effort in accordance with your own rules and procedures) by Sunday 22 June at the latest. We look forward to receiving your feedback. Byron Holland & Jonathan Robinson ccNSO Council Chair GNSO Council Chair -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ soac-chairs mailing list soac-chairs at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-chairs -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft CCWG Charter June 9 Version.doc Type: application/msword Size: 88576 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri Wed Jun 25 02:24:53 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 00:24:53 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] iana transition coordination person Message-ID: <53AA08C5.9060205@acm.org> talked to Jonathan. we just need to pick one and notify him. that was my action item Who? Milton? might be a case to deploy our toughest. and someone who is up to date on all the issues and who cares. if he has the time and inclination. avri From stephanie.perrin Wed Jun 25 09:10:20 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:10:20 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] breakfast with Bruce Tonkin and Bill Graham in London In-Reply-To: <539FA1ED.5010606@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <674DA9F8-66CB-4532-85ED-D5212536E391@ipjustice.org> <539FA1ED.5010606@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <53AA67CC.5060100@mail.utoronto.ca> where are you in the main dining breakfast spot? or a room? On 2014-06-17, 10:03 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Good. I wont have to bring my collection jar and signs. > (I bet you think I am kidding....heh heh....) > Steph > On 2014-06-16, 7:06 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Yes. >> >> On Jun 17, 2014 8:06 AM, "Robin Gross" > > wrote: >> >> Are Bruce & Bill hosting the breakfast? >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >> On Jun 16, 2014, at 12:43 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> Bruce and Bill would like to meet us in London in Wednesday >>> morning for breakfast at 7am >>> please add that to your calendars. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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: From klaus.stoll Wed Jun 25 10:26:46 2014 From: klaus.stoll (Klaus Stoll) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:26:46 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] iana transition coordination person In-Reply-To: <53AA08C5.9060205@acm.org> References: <53AA08C5.9060205@acm.org> Message-ID: <53AA79B6.701@gkpfoundation.org> Following the description of Avri, I think Sam is our man. Klaus On 6/25/2014 12:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > talked to Jonathan. we just need to pick one and notify him. > > that was my action item > > Who? > > Milton? > > might be a case to deploy our toughest. > and someone who is up to date on all the issues > and who cares. > > if he has the time and inclination. > > avri > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From avri Wed Jun 25 10:46:29 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:46:29 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] iana transition coordination person In-Reply-To: <53AA79B6.701@gkpfoundation.org> References: <53AA08C5.9060205@acm.org> <53AA79B6.701@gkpfoundation.org> Message-ID: <53AA7E55.1000809@acm.org> Hi, Just in case it is not clear? I nominated Milton. avri On 25-Jun-14 08:26, Klaus Stoll wrote: > Following the description of Avri, I think Sam is our man. > > Klaus > > On 6/25/2014 12:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> talked to Jonathan. we just need to pick one and notify him. >> >> that was my action item >> >> Who? >> >> Milton? >> >> might be a case to deploy our toughest. >> and someone who is up to date on all the issues >> and who cares. >> >> if he has the time and inclination. >> >> 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 dave Wed Jun 25 10:50:37 2014 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:50:37 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] iana transition coordination person In-Reply-To: <53AA7E55.1000809@acm.org> References: <53AA08C5.9060205@acm.org> <53AA79B6.701@gkpfoundation.org> <53AA7E55.1000809@acm.org> Message-ID: <8AE86E03-5BA9-408B-B64E-DECCA312F05E@difference.com.au> I second the nomination of Milton. He is clearly spent a lot of time on the IANA issue. David On 25 Jun 2014, at 8:46 am, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, Just in case it is not clear? I nominated Milton. avri On 25-Jun-14 08:26, Klaus Stoll wrote: Following the description of Avri, I think Sam is our man. Klaus On 6/25/2014 12:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: talked to Jonathan. we just need to pick one and notify him. that was my action item Who? Milton? might be a case to deploy our toughest. and someone who is up to date on all the issues and who cares. if he has the time and inclination. 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 _______________________________________________ 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: From klaus.stoll Wed Jun 25 10:59:29 2014 From: klaus.stoll (Klaus Stoll) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 08:59:29 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] iana transition coordination person In-Reply-To: <53AA7E55.1000809@acm.org> References: <53AA08C5.9060205@acm.org> <53AA79B6.701@gkpfoundation.org> <53AA7E55.1000809@acm.org> Message-ID: <53AA8161.1070303@gkpfoundation.org> Hi, Just in case, I nominated Sam. Klaus On 6/25/2014 8:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Just in case it is not clear? > > I nominated Milton. > > avri > > > On 25-Jun-14 08:26, Klaus Stoll wrote: >> Following the description of Avri, I think Sam is our man. >> >> Klaus >> >> On 6/25/2014 12:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> talked to Jonathan. we just need to pick one and notify him. >>> >>> that was my action item >>> >>> Who? >>> >>> Milton? >>> >>> might be a case to deploy our toughest. >>> and someone who is up to date on all the issues >>> and who cares. >>> >>> if he has the time and inclination. >>> >>> 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 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > . > From magaly.pazello Wed Jun 25 11:28:52 2014 From: magaly.pazello (Magaly Pazello) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 05:28:52 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] iana transition coordination person In-Reply-To: References: <53AA08C5.9060205@acm.org> <53AA79B6.701@gkpfoundation.org> <53AA7E55.1000809@acm.org> <8AE86E03-5BA9-408B-B64E-DECCA312F05E@difference.com.au> Message-ID: I also support the nomination of Milton who is the most qualified member among the people that have availability to take the job. Magaly On Wednesday, June 25, 2014, David Cake wrote: > I second the nomination of Milton. > He is clearly spent a lot of time on the IANA issue. > > David > > On 25 Jun 2014, at 8:46 am, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > Just in case it is not clear? > > I nominated Milton. > > avri > > > On 25-Jun-14 08:26, Klaus Stoll wrote: > Following the description of Avri, I think Sam is our man. > > Klaus > > On 6/25/2014 12:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > talked to Jonathan. we just need to pick one and notify him. > > that was my action item > > Who? > > Milton? > > might be a case to deploy our toughest. > and someone who is up to date on all the issues > and who cares. > > if he has the time and inclination. > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- Sent from my Mobile -- Sent from my Mobile -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Wed Jun 25 11:39:28 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 09:39:28 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] iana transition coordination person In-Reply-To: <53AA8161.1070303@gkpfoundation.org> References: <53AA08C5.9060205@acm.org> <53AA79B6.701@gkpfoundation.org> <53AA7E55.1000809@acm.org> <53AA8161.1070303@gkpfoundation.org> Message-ID: <53AA8AC0.9010308@acm.org> Yeah I got that. I had been waiting for Maria to start the process to make it a formal nomination, but since you went ahead and did it before the formal call, I figured I better formalize my nomination just in case there was any doubt that I thought him the best choice we could make at this time for this role. avri On 25-Jun-14 08:59, Klaus Stoll wrote: > Hi, > > Just in case, I nominated Sam. > > Klaus > > On 6/25/2014 8:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Just in case it is not clear? >> >> I nominated Milton. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 25-Jun-14 08:26, Klaus Stoll wrote: >>> Following the description of Avri, I think Sam is our man. >>> >>> Klaus >>> >>> On 6/25/2014 12:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> talked to Jonathan. we just need to pick one and notify him. >>>> >>>> that was my action item >>>> >>>> Who? >>>> >>>> Milton? >>>> >>>> might be a case to deploy our toughest. >>>> and someone who is up to date on all the issues >>>> and who cares. >>>> >>>> if he has the time and inclination. >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 rafik.dammak Wed Jun 25 11:42:32 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 17:42:32 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Date for NCPH Inter cessional In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, Bill, Cintra and me met with CSG representatives about the intercessional session. please fill the doodle poll to agree on date for the meeting. it is also good time to start brainstorming. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Marilyn Cade Date: 2014-06-23 23:17 GMT+09:00 Subject: Date for NCPH Inter cessional To: Cintra Sooknanan , Marilyn Cade < marilynscade at hotmail.com>, Steve Metalitz , Tony Holmes < tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, Bill Drake , Rafik Dammak Cc: "bc-excomm at icann.org" I would like to invite you to the Doodle poll "Date for NCPH Inter cessional." Please follow the link in order to participate in the poll: http://doodle.com/kkr85zc6ueqbfws5 Dear colleagues, as promised an initial Doodle with the dates in January that we discussed. In completing it, please note that January 8-9 is one selection; January 12-13 a second, and January 15-16 the third. I understand that the six of us will continue the planning and coordinating. I copied in the BC-Excomm as that is very helpful to me, as BC CSG. Please try to fill in the dates if you can in the next week. I have also emailed Rob Hoggarth as we agreed, to arrange a meeting with him. If others want to bring along additional folks to that meeting, just let me know, and when I work out a room and time, I can forward that. It is going to be tough to get a time for all of us, but I will do my best to offer all some options. Thanks for the planning time, and thanks, Elisa, for joining us! Marilyn Cade BC CSG Sent from my iPad -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Wed Jun 25 12:31:03 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:31:03 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Selection of NCSG representative/connector on IANA Transition coordination group. In-Reply-To: References: <53AA8A20.7050405@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi all, Thanks for this nomination, and to Avri for posting this on the discuss list. Here are the criteria we agreed to apply to this selection: Knowledge of Internet governance substantive issues, processes, players - and political 'nous' to understand agendas Knowledge of how IANA actually works Time to commit to it - process likely to be time-consuming Commitment to pro-actively feed back to the NCSG and transmit our views back to the transition coordination group Commitment to help communicating to broader groups in our community All the best, Maria On 25 June 2014 10:12, William Drake wrote: > +1 to our ethos embodier > > On Jun 25, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > This is being discussed on the NCSG Policy list, but I think it ought to > > also be discussed here. > > > > I have nominated Milton, my long time argument foil (we disagree as much > > as we agree) - and friend for the role on the IANA Transition > > Coordination group. > > > > I cannot think of anyone else who > > > > - better understands the issue > > - better understands the needs of the NCSG > > - who has greater influence in this area > > - or who has been more dedicated for as long to non commercial causes at > > ICANN > > > > I hope he gets the support of our membership so that the PC feels able > > to pick him for the role. > > > > avri > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Wed Jun 25 12:43:13 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:43:13 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] iana transition coordination person In-Reply-To: <53AA8AC0.9010308@acm.org> References: <53AA08C5.9060205@acm.org> <53AA79B6.701@gkpfoundation.org> <53AA7E55.1000809@acm.org> <53AA8161.1070303@gkpfoundation.org> <53AA8AC0.9010308@acm.org> Message-ID: Sorry guys, I just sent the criteria around. m On 25 June 2014 09:39, Avri Doria wrote: > Yeah I got that. > > I had been waiting for Maria to start the process to make it a formal > nomination, but since you went ahead and did it before the formal call, > I figured I better formalize my nomination just in case there was any > doubt that I thought him the best choice we could make at this time for > this role. > > avri > > On 25-Jun-14 08:59, Klaus Stoll wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Just in case, I nominated Sam. > > > > Klaus > > > > On 6/25/2014 8:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> Just in case it is not clear? > >> > >> I nominated Milton. > >> > >> avri > >> > >> > >> On 25-Jun-14 08:26, Klaus Stoll wrote: > >>> Following the description of Avri, I think Sam is our man. > >>> > >>> Klaus > >>> > >>> On 6/25/2014 12:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >>>> talked to Jonathan. we just need to pick one and notify him. > >>>> > >>>> that was my action item > >>>> > >>>> Who? > >>>> > >>>> Milton? > >>>> > >>>> might be a case to deploy our toughest. > >>>> and someone who is up to date on all the issues > >>>> and who cares. > >>>> > >>>> if he has the time and inclination. > >>>> > >>>> 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 > >>> > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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: From aelsadr Wed Jun 25 13:13:57 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:13:57 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] iana transition coordination person In-Reply-To: References: <53AA08C5.9060205@acm.org> <53AA79B6.701@gkpfoundation.org> <53AA7E55.1000809@acm.org> <8AE86E03-5BA9-408B-B64E-DECCA312F05E@difference.com.au> Message-ID: Hi all, +1 to Milton. He's already done a lot of work on this topic on behalf of both the NCSG and the IGP. Thanks. Amr Sent from mobile > On Jun 25, 2014, at 10:28 AM, Magaly Pazello wrote: > > I also support the nomination of Milton who is the most qualified member among the people that have availability to take the job. > > Magaly > > On Wednesday, June 25, 2014, David Cake wrote: > > I second the nomination of Milton. > > He is clearly spent a lot of time on the IANA issue. > > > > David > > > > On 25 Jun 2014, at 8:46 am, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Just in case it is not clear? > > > > I nominated Milton. > > > > avri > > > > > > On 25-Jun-14 08:26, Klaus Stoll wrote: > > Following the description of Avri, I think Sam is our man. > > > > Klaus > > > > On 6/25/2014 12:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > talked to Jonathan. we just need to pick one and notify him. > > > > that was my action item > > > > Who? > > > > Milton? > > > > might be a case to deploy our toughest. > > and someone who is up to date on all the issues > > and who cares. > > > > if he has the time and inclination. > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > -- > Sent from my Mobile > > > > -- > Sent from my Mobile > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Wed Jun 25 13:30:51 2014 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 03:30:51 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed GNSO stmt on accountability In-Reply-To: References: <9BAE4C40-21D1-442F-870B-1C43BB537175@ipjustice.org> <53A9937C.6070901@acm.org> <087A6334-65BB-4E35-ACB7-40DC67F0AE26@ipjustice.org> <53A9A774.4070501@acm.org> <808B358E-6581-45D2-87E2-71FE597C936C@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <98A603A8-5AE6-4E4F-BB95-5F6672B61B6B@ipjustice.org> Here is the most recent version, with one edit to use ?IANA stewardship transition? instead of ?IANA transition? which is more correct. Thanks, Robin The entire GNSO join together today calling for the Board to support community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus across the entire ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral element of the IANA stewardship transition. True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community. As part of the IANA stewardship transition, the multi-stakeholder community has the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative. On Jun 24, 2014, at 9:55 AM, David Cake wrote: > I support this statement. > David > > On 24 Jun 2014, at 5:41 pm, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> So if there is no objections by tomorrow, Maria can declare consensus and then I will inform other C/SGs chairs. >> >> Rafik >> >> The text I got from Kristina >> >> The [entire GNSO] join together today calling for the Board to support community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus across the [entire] ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral element of the IANA transition. >> True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community. >> >> As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative. >> >> On Jun 24, 2014 5:37 PM, "Robin Gross" wrote: >> Will the other councilors please weigh in on this stmt? Thanks. >> >> > On Jun 24, 2014, at 5:29 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> > >> > still ok with me for NCSG to sign. >> > >> > avri >> > >> >> On 24-Jun-14 17:26, Maria Farrell wrote: >> >> Thanks, Robin. I support this statement. (Having read both, I think the >> >> second is clearer and reads better.) >> >> >> >> >> >> On 24 June 2014 17:06, Robin Gross > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Here is the latest draft of the community stmt. >> >> >> >> The entire GNSO join together today calling for the Board to support >> >> community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that >> >> provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by >> >> ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact >> >> with the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration >> >> - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus >> >> across the entire ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral >> >> element of the IANA transition. >> >> >> >> True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to >> >> itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean >> >> that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy >> >> subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be >> >> open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing >> >> and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent >> >> accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and >> >> various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing >> >> documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, >> >> and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance >> >> for the board, the staff, and the entire community. >> >> >> >> As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has >> >> the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful >> >> accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific >> >> accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and >> >> developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask >> >> the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support >> >> this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> On Jun 24, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Avri Doria > >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> >>> ok with me. >> >>> >> >>> avri >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> On 24-Jun-14 15:43, Robin Gross wrote: >> >>>> Folks, >> >>>> >> >>>> Here is the proposed draft statement from the GNSO (the 4 SG's) >> >> to the >> >>>> Board during the Public Forum on ICANN Accountability. I think we >> >>>> should support this statement and believe it would be a very powerful >> >>>> statement from the entire community. What do you think? I vote >> >> Hell Yes. >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks, >> >>>> Robin >> >>>> >> >>>> ?We stand before the ICANN Board and Staff today in a rare showing of >> >>>> unanimity among the GNSO. As such, the ICANN Board and Staff should >> >>>> take our statement with appropriate seriousness and consideration. >> >>>> >> >>>> We agree that ICANN has earned the trust of NTIA to operate the IANA >> >>>> functions under a contractual arrangement that could be rebid or >> >>>> terminated. ICANN has also earned the opportunity to convene the >> >>>> multi-stakeholder community to help determine future >> >>>> accountability/stewardship mechanisms. However, ICANN has NOT YET >> >>>> earned the trust of the ICANN community to operate the IANA functions >> >>>> absent new, meaningful and independent accountability structures >> >> for the >> >>>> entire organization. True accountability does not mean ICANN is >> >> only >> >>>> accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the >> >> world,? nor >> >>>> does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over >> >>>> community policy. >> >>>> >> >>>> The Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board >> >> cannot be >> >>>> in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We >> >> need an >> >>>> independent accountability structure?one that is identified and >> >> created >> >>>> by the community?that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various >> >>>> stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents and >> >>>> serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions. In >> >> addition, we >> >>>> need third-party independent annual operational and detailed >> >> financial >> >>>> audits from a respected firm. >> >>>> >> >>>> One of NTIA?s 4 principles is that the recommended IANA >> >> transition plan >> >>>> be multi-stakeholder, so the multi-stakeholder community has the >> >>>> opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability >> >>>> structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability >> >> issues. >> >>>> We the community are committed to coming together and developing >> >>>> recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN >> >>>> Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this >> >> community >> >>>> driven, multi-stakeholder initiative.? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- 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: From aelsadr Wed Jun 25 13:43:41 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:43:41 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed GNSO stmt on accountability In-Reply-To: <98A603A8-5AE6-4E4F-BB95-5F6672B61B6B@ipjustice.org> References: <9BAE4C40-21D1-442F-870B-1C43BB537175@ipjustice.org> <53A9937C.6070901@acm.org> <087A6334-65BB-4E35-ACB7-40DC67F0AE26@ipjustice.org> <53A9A774.4070501@acm.org> <808B358E-6581-45D2-87E2-71FE597C936C@ipjustice.org> <98A603A8-5AE6-4E4F-BB95-5F6672B61B6B@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Hi, I also support this statement, although I am not entirely sure what is meant by "in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community". Thanks Robin. Amr Sent from mobile > On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > > Here is the most recent version, with one edit to use ?IANA stewardship transition? instead of ?IANA transition? which is more correct. > > Thanks, > Robin > > The entire GNSO join together today calling for the Board to support community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus across the entire ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral element of the IANA stewardship transition. > True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community. > As part of the IANA stewardship transition, the multi-stakeholder community has the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative. > >> On Jun 24, 2014, at 9:55 AM, David Cake wrote: >> >> I support this statement. >> David >> >>> On 24 Jun 2014, at 5:41 pm, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> So if there is no objections by tomorrow, Maria can declare consensus and then I will inform other C/SGs chairs. >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> The text I got from Kristina >>> >>> The [entire GNSO] join together today calling for the Board to support community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus across the [entire] ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral element of the IANA transition. >>> True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community. >>> >>> As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative. >>> >>>> On Jun 24, 2014 5:37 PM, "Robin Gross" wrote: >>>> Will the other councilors please weigh in on this stmt? Thanks. >>>> >>>> > On Jun 24, 2014, at 5:29 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> > >>>> > still ok with me for NCSG to sign. >>>> > >>>> > avri >>>> > >>>> >> On 24-Jun-14 17:26, Maria Farrell wrote: >>>> >> Thanks, Robin. I support this statement. (Having read both, I think the >>>> >> second is clearer and reads better.) >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On 24 June 2014 17:06, Robin Gross >>> >> > wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Here is the latest draft of the community stmt. >>>> >> >>>> >> The entire GNSO join together today calling for the Board to support >>>> >> community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that >>>> >> provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by >>>> >> ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact >>>> >> with the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration >>>> >> - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus >>>> >> across the entire ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral >>>> >> element of the IANA transition. >>>> >> >>>> >> True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to >>>> >> itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean >>>> >> that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy >>>> >> subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be >>>> >> open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing >>>> >> and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent >>>> >> accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and >>>> >> various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing >>>> >> documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, >>>> >> and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance >>>> >> for the board, the staff, and the entire community. >>>> >> >>>> >> As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has >>>> >> the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful >>>> >> accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific >>>> >> accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and >>>> >> developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask >>>> >> the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support >>>> >> this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >>>> On Jun 24, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Avri Doria >>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>> >>>> >>> ok with me. >>>> >>> >>>> >>> avri >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> On 24-Jun-14 15:43, Robin Gross wrote: >>>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Here is the proposed draft statement from the GNSO (the 4 SG's) >>>> >> to the >>>> >>>> Board during the Public Forum on ICANN Accountability. I think we >>>> >>>> should support this statement and believe it would be a very powerful >>>> >>>> statement from the entire community. What do you think? I vote >>>> >> Hell Yes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Robin >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ?We stand before the ICANN Board and Staff today in a rare showing of >>>> >>>> unanimity among the GNSO. As such, the ICANN Board and Staff should >>>> >>>> take our statement with appropriate seriousness and consideration. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We agree that ICANN has earned the trust of NTIA to operate the IANA >>>> >>>> functions under a contractual arrangement that could be rebid or >>>> >>>> terminated. ICANN has also earned the opportunity to convene the >>>> >>>> multi-stakeholder community to help determine future >>>> >>>> accountability/stewardship mechanisms. However, ICANN has NOT YET >>>> >>>> earned the trust of the ICANN community to operate the IANA functions >>>> >>>> absent new, meaningful and independent accountability structures >>>> >> for the >>>> >>>> entire organization. True accountability does not mean ICANN is >>>> >> only >>>> >>>> accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the >>>> >> world,? nor >>>> >>>> does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over >>>> >>>> community policy. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board >>>> >> cannot be >>>> >>>> in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We >>>> >> need an >>>> >>>> independent accountability structure?one that is identified and >>>> >> created >>>> >>>> by the community?that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various >>>> >>>> stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents and >>>> >>>> serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions. In >>>> >> addition, we >>>> >>>> need third-party independent annual operational and detailed >>>> >> financial >>>> >>>> audits from a respected firm. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> One of NTIA?s 4 principles is that the recommended IANA >>>> >> transition plan >>>> >>>> be multi-stakeholder, so the multi-stakeholder community has the >>>> >>>> opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability >>>> >>>> structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability >>>> >> issues. >>>> >>>> We the community are committed to coming together and developing >>>> >>>> recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN >>>> >>>> Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this >>>> >> community >>>> >>>> driven, multi-stakeholder initiative.? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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: From rafik.dammak Wed Jun 25 14:09:41 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 20:09:41 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed GNSO stmt on accountability In-Reply-To: References: <9BAE4C40-21D1-442F-870B-1C43BB537175@ipjustice.org> <53A9937C.6070901@acm.org> <087A6334-65BB-4E35-ACB7-40DC67F0AE26@ipjustice.org> <53A9A774.4070501@acm.org> <808B358E-6581-45D2-87E2-71FE597C936C@ipjustice.org> <98A603A8-5AE6-4E4F-BB95-5F6672B61B6B@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Hi, Other groups are expressing their support to the statemwnt, I think that we should reach decision by today, Rafik On Jun 25, 2014 11:46 AM, "Amr Elsadr" wrote: > Hi, > > I also support this statement, although I am not entirely sure what is > meant by "in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community". > > Thanks Robin. > > Amr > > Sent from mobile > > On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > > Here is the most recent version, with one edit to use ?IANA stewardship > transition? instead of ?IANA transition? which is more correct. > > Thanks, > Robin > > The entire GNSO join together today calling for the Board to support > community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides > meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or > inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community. > This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not only does it reflect > an unprecedented level of consensus across the entire ICANN community, it > is a necessary and integral element of the IANA stewardship transition. > True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or > to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean that governments > should have the ultimate say over community policy subject to the rule of > law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the > Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own > decisions. We need an independent accountability structure that holds the > ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under > ICANN?s governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff > decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective > guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community. > As part of the IANA stewardship transition, the multi-stakeholder > community has the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful > accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific > accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and developing > recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board > and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community driven, > multi-stakeholder initiative. > > On Jun 24, 2014, at 9:55 AM, David Cake wrote: > > I support this statement. > David > > On 24 Jun 2014, at 5:41 pm, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > So if there is no objections by tomorrow, Maria can declare consensus and > then I will inform other C/SGs chairs. > > Rafik > > The text I got from Kristina > > The [entire GNSO] join together today calling for the Board to support > community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides > meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or > inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community. > This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not only does it reflect > an unprecedented level of consensus across the [entire] ICANN community, it > is a necessary and integral element of the IANA transition. > > True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or > to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean that governments > should have the ultimate say over community policy subject to the rule of > law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the > Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own > decisions. We need an independent accountability structure that holds the > ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under > ICANN?s governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff > decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective > guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community. > > As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has the > opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability > structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. We > are committed to coming together and developing recommendations for > creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill > their obligations and support this community driven, multi-stakeholder > initiative. > On Jun 24, 2014 5:37 PM, "Robin Gross" wrote: > >> Will the other councilors please weigh in on this stmt? Thanks. >> >> > On Jun 24, 2014, at 5:29 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >> > >> > still ok with me for NCSG to sign. >> > >> > avri >> > >> >> On 24-Jun-14 17:26, Maria Farrell wrote: >> >> Thanks, Robin. I support this statement. (Having read both, I think the >> >> second is clearer and reads better.) >> >> >> >> >> >> On 24 June 2014 17:06, Robin Gross > >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Here is the latest draft of the community stmt. >> >> >> >> The entire GNSO join together today calling for the Board to support >> >> community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that >> >> provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by >> >> ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact >> >> with the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration >> >> - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus >> >> across the entire ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral >> >> element of the IANA transition. >> >> >> >> True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to >> >> itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean >> >> that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy >> >> subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be >> >> open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing >> >> and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent >> >> accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and >> >> various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing >> >> documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, >> >> and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance >> >> for the board, the staff, and the entire community. >> >> >> >> As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has >> >> the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful >> >> accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific >> >> accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and >> >> developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask >> >> the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support >> >> this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>> On Jun 24, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Avri Doria > >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> >>> ok with me. >> >>> >> >>> avri >> >>> >> >>> >> >>>> On 24-Jun-14 15:43, Robin Gross wrote: >> >>>> Folks, >> >>>> >> >>>> Here is the proposed draft statement from the GNSO (the 4 SG's) >> >> to the >> >>>> Board during the Public Forum on ICANN Accountability. I think we >> >>>> should support this statement and believe it would be a very powerful >> >>>> statement from the entire community. What do you think? I vote >> >> Hell Yes. >> >>>> >> >>>> Thanks, >> >>>> Robin >> >>>> >> >>>> ?We stand before the ICANN Board and Staff today in a rare showing of >> >>>> unanimity among the GNSO. As such, the ICANN Board and Staff should >> >>>> take our statement with appropriate seriousness and consideration. >> >>>> >> >>>> We agree that ICANN has earned the trust of NTIA to operate the IANA >> >>>> functions under a contractual arrangement that could be rebid or >> >>>> terminated. ICANN has also earned the opportunity to convene the >> >>>> multi-stakeholder community to help determine future >> >>>> accountability/stewardship mechanisms. However, ICANN has NOT YET >> >>>> earned the trust of the ICANN community to operate the IANA functions >> >>>> absent new, meaningful and independent accountability structures >> >> for the >> >>>> entire organization. True accountability does not mean ICANN is >> >> only >> >>>> accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the >> >> world,? nor >> >>>> does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over >> >>>> community policy. >> >>>> >> >>>> The Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board >> >> cannot be >> >>>> in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We >> >> need an >> >>>> independent accountability structure?one that is identified and >> >> created >> >>>> by the community?that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various >> >>>> stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents and >> >>>> serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions. In >> >> addition, we >> >>>> need third-party independent annual operational and detailed >> >> financial >> >>>> audits from a respected firm. >> >>>> >> >>>> One of NTIA?s 4 principles is that the recommended IANA >> >> transition plan >> >>>> be multi-stakeholder, so the multi-stakeholder community has the >> >>>> opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability >> >>>> structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability >> >> issues. >> >>>> We the community are committed to coming together and developing >> >>>> recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN >> >>>> Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this >> >> community >> >>>> driven, multi-stakeholder initiative.? >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > _______________________________________________ > 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: From rudi.vansnick Wed Jun 25 14:37:25 2014 From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 12:37:25 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] iana transition coordination person In-Reply-To: <53AA8161.1070303@gkpfoundation.org> References: <53AA08C5.9060205@acm.org> <53AA79B6.701@gkpfoundation.org> <53AA7E55.1000809@acm.org> <53AA8161.1070303@gkpfoundation.org> Message-ID: <07311063-73C1-4A24-B0B7-1754EF211148@isoc.be> I?m supporting the proposal of Klaus nominating Sam for this position. I?m more than convinced Sam will be an ideal candidate, not only having the skills but also have the required time availability. Rudi Vansnick Op 25-jun.-2014, om 08:59 heeft Klaus Stoll het volgende geschreven: > Hi, > > Just in case, I nominated Sam. > > Klaus > > On 6/25/2014 8:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Just in case it is not clear? >> >> I nominated Milton. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 25-Jun-14 08:26, Klaus Stoll wrote: >>> Following the description of Avri, I think Sam is our man. >>> >>> Klaus >>> >>> On 6/25/2014 12:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >>>> talked to Jonathan. we just need to pick one and notify him. >>>> >>>> that was my action item >>>> >>>> Who? >>>> >>>> Milton? >>>> >>>> might be a case to deploy our toughest. >>>> and someone who is up to date on all the issues >>>> and who cares. >>>> >>>> if he has the time and inclination. >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: From mariliamaciel Wed Jun 25 15:08:40 2014 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 09:08:40 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] iana transition coordination person In-Reply-To: <07311063-73C1-4A24-B0B7-1754EF211148@isoc.be> References: <53AA08C5.9060205@acm.org> <53AA79B6.701@gkpfoundation.org> <53AA7E55.1000809@acm.org> <53AA8161.1070303@gkpfoundation.org> <07311063-73C1-4A24-B0B7-1754EF211148@isoc.be> Message-ID: I second Milton Mueller's nomination. His experience would be key in this moment and he presents all the characteristics we are looking for. Marilia On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > I?m supporting the proposal of Klaus nominating Sam for this position. I?m > more than convinced Sam will be an ideal candidate, not only having the > skills but also have the required time availability. > > Rudi Vansnick > > Op 25-jun.-2014, om 08:59 heeft Klaus Stoll > het volgende geschreven: > > Hi, > > Just in case, I nominated Sam. > > Klaus > > On 6/25/2014 8:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > Just in case it is not clear? > > I nominated Milton. > > avri > > > On 25-Jun-14 08:26, Klaus Stoll wrote: > > Following the description of Avri, I think Sam is our man. > > Klaus > > On 6/25/2014 12:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > talked to Jonathan. we just need to pick one and notify him. > > that was my action item > > Who? > > Milton? > > might be a case to deploy our toughest. > and someone who is up to date on all the issues > and who cares. > > if he has the time and inclination. > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Wed Jun 25 16:03:10 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:03:10 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] iana transition coordination person In-Reply-To: References: <53AA08C5.9060205@acm.org> <53AA79B6.701@gkpfoundation.org> <53AA7E55.1000809@acm.org> <53AA8161.1070303@gkpfoundation.org> <07311063-73C1-4A24-B0B7-1754EF211148@isoc.be> Message-ID: Thanks, everyone, for the nominations. The NCSG PC needs to decide on this. I'll confer with Rudi on how to move forward procedurally. All the best, Maria On 25 June 2014 13:08, Marilia Maciel wrote: > I second Milton Mueller's nomination. His experience would be key in this > moment and he presents all the characteristics we are looking for. > Marilia > > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Rudi Vansnick > wrote: > >> I?m supporting the proposal of Klaus nominating Sam for this position. >> I?m more than convinced Sam will be an ideal candidate, not only having the >> skills but also have the required time availability. >> >> Rudi Vansnick >> >> Op 25-jun.-2014, om 08:59 heeft Klaus Stoll < >> klaus.stoll at gkpfoundation.org> het volgende geschreven: >> >> Hi, >> >> Just in case, I nominated Sam. >> >> Klaus >> >> On 6/25/2014 8:46 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Just in case it is not clear? >> >> I nominated Milton. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 25-Jun-14 08:26, Klaus Stoll wrote: >> >> Following the description of Avri, I think Sam is our man. >> >> Klaus >> >> On 6/25/2014 12:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> talked to Jonathan. we just need to pick one and notify him. >> >> that was my action item >> >> Who? >> >> Milton? >> >> might be a case to deploy our toughest. >> and someone who is up to date on all the issues >> and who cares. >> >> if he has the time and inclination. >> >> 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > *Mar?lia Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law > School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ > Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - > http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Wed Jun 25 16:19:46 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:19:46 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] proposed GNSO stmt on accountability In-Reply-To: References: <9BAE4C40-21D1-442F-870B-1C43BB537175@ipjustice.org> <53A9937C.6070901@acm.org> <087A6334-65BB-4E35-ACB7-40DC67F0AE26@ipjustice.org> <53A9A774.4070501@acm.org> <808B358E-6581-45D2-87E2-71FE597C936C@ipjustice.org> <98A603A8-5AE6-4E4F-BB95-5F6672B61B6B@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Hi everyone, Thanks everyone. We are nearing consensus on this. If I don't hear any dissent by 1500, I will declare consensus and ask Rafik to inform the other chairs that the NCSG supports this statement. NPOC people, any support/concern? Tks, Maria On 25 June 2014 12:09, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > Other groups are expressing their support to the statemwnt, I think that > we should reach decision by today, > > Rafik > On Jun 25, 2014 11:46 AM, "Amr Elsadr" wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I also support this statement, although I am not entirely sure what is >> meant by "in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community". >> >> Thanks Robin. >> >> Amr >> >> Sent from mobile >> >> On Jun 25, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >> >> Here is the most recent version, with one edit to use ?IANA stewardship >> transition? instead of ?IANA transition? which is more correct. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >> The entire GNSO join together today calling for the Board to support >> community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides >> meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or >> inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community. >> This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not only does it reflect >> an unprecedented level of consensus across the entire ICANN community, it >> is a necessary and integral element of the IANA stewardship transition. >> True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or >> to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean that governments >> should have the ultimate say over community policy subject to the rule of >> law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the >> Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own >> decisions. We need an independent accountability structure that holds the >> ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under >> ICANN?s governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff >> decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective >> guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community. >> As part of the IANA stewardship transition, the multi-stakeholder >> community has the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful >> accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific >> accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and developing >> recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board >> and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community driven, >> multi-stakeholder initiative. >> >> On Jun 24, 2014, at 9:55 AM, David Cake wrote: >> >> I support this statement. >> David >> >> On 24 Jun 2014, at 5:41 pm, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> So if there is no objections by tomorrow, Maria can declare consensus and >> then I will inform other C/SGs chairs. >> >> Rafik >> >> The text I got from Kristina >> >> The [entire GNSO] join together today calling for the Board to support >> community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides >> meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or >> inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community. >> This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not only does it reflect >> an unprecedented level of consensus across the [entire] ICANN community, it >> is a necessary and integral element of the IANA transition. >> >> True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or >> to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it mean that governments >> should have the ultimate say over community policy subject to the rule of >> law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the >> Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own >> decisions. We need an independent accountability structure that holds the >> ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under >> ICANN?s governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff >> decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective >> guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community. >> >> As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has the >> opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability >> structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. We >> are committed to coming together and developing recommendations for >> creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill >> their obligations and support this community driven, multi-stakeholder >> initiative. >> On Jun 24, 2014 5:37 PM, "Robin Gross" wrote: >> >>> Will the other councilors please weigh in on this stmt? Thanks. >>> >>> > On Jun 24, 2014, at 5:29 PM, Avri Doria wrote: >>> > >>> > still ok with me for NCSG to sign. >>> > >>> > avri >>> > >>> >> On 24-Jun-14 17:26, Maria Farrell wrote: >>> >> Thanks, Robin. I support this statement. (Having read both, I think >>> the >>> >> second is clearer and reads better.) >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On 24 June 2014 17:06, Robin Gross >> >> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Here is the latest draft of the community stmt. >>> >> >>> >> The entire GNSO join together today calling for the Board to >>> support >>> >> community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that >>> >> provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by >>> >> ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact >>> >> with the community. This deserves the Board's serious >>> consideration >>> >> - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus >>> >> across the entire ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral >>> >> element of the IANA transition. >>> >> >>> >> True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to >>> >> itself, or to some vague definition of ?the world,? nor does it >>> mean >>> >> that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy >>> >> subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board?s decisions must be >>> >> open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of >>> reviewing >>> >> and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent >>> >> accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and >>> >> various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing >>> >> documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, >>> >> and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance >>> >> for the board, the staff, and the entire community. >>> >> >>> >> As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has >>> >> the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful >>> >> accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific >>> >> accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and >>> >> developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We >>> ask >>> >> the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support >>> >> this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative. >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >>>> On Jun 24, 2014, at 4:04 PM, Avri Doria >> >>> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> ok with me. >>> >>> >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 24-Jun-14 15:43, Robin Gross wrote: >>> >>>> Folks, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Here is the proposed draft statement from the GNSO (the 4 SG's) >>> >> to the >>> >>>> Board during the Public Forum on ICANN Accountability. I think we >>> >>>> should support this statement and believe it would be a very >>> powerful >>> >>>> statement from the entire community. What do you think? I vote >>> >> Hell Yes. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Thanks, >>> >>>> Robin >>> >>>> >>> >>>> ?We stand before the ICANN Board and Staff today in a rare showing >>> of >>> >>>> unanimity among the GNSO. As such, the ICANN Board and Staff should >>> >>>> take our statement with appropriate seriousness and consideration. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> We agree that ICANN has earned the trust of NTIA to operate the IANA >>> >>>> functions under a contractual arrangement that could be rebid or >>> >>>> terminated. ICANN has also earned the opportunity to convene the >>> >>>> multi-stakeholder community to help determine future >>> >>>> accountability/stewardship mechanisms. However, ICANN has NOT YET >>> >>>> earned the trust of the ICANN community to operate the IANA >>> functions >>> >>>> absent new, meaningful and independent accountability structures >>> >> for the >>> >>>> entire organization. True accountability does not mean ICANN is >>> >> only >>> >>>> accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of ?the >>> >> world,? nor >>> >>>> does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over >>> >>>> community policy. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> The Board?s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board >>> >> cannot be >>> >>>> in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We >>> >> need an >>> >>>> independent accountability structure?one that is identified and >>> >> created >>> >>>> by the community?that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various >>> >>>> stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN?s governing documents and >>> >>>> serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions. In >>> >> addition, we >>> >>>> need third-party independent annual operational and detailed >>> >> financial >>> >>>> audits from a respected firm. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> One of NTIA?s 4 principles is that the recommended IANA >>> >> transition plan >>> >>>> be multi-stakeholder, so the multi-stakeholder community has the >>> >>>> opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability >>> >>>> structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability >>> >> issues. >>> >>>> We the community are committed to coming together and developing >>> >>>> recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN >>> >>>> Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this >>> >> community >>> >>>> driven, multi-stakeholder initiative.? >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: From maria.farrell Wed Jun 25 16:28:59 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:28:59 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [council] Reminder - GNSO Liaison to the GAC In-Reply-To: <74EDC80E-5242-42D4-8911-ABF5765DBA3B@difference.com.au> References: <011f01cf9059$b55c2e00$20148a00$@afilias.info> <74EDC80E-5242-42D4-8911-ABF5765DBA3B@difference.com.au> Message-ID: FYI, PC colleagues - this position may or may not end up being within the NCSG purview - as David points out below. But if we do come to proposing a person from NCSG, the PC will need to be involved. NB this one is not as urgent as the CWG drafting group position or the IANA transition one. cheers, m ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Cake Date: 25 June 2014 10:53 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [council] Reminder - GNSO Liaison to the GAC To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu The GNSO council is seeking to appoint a GNSO liaison to the GAC. This person would be expected to liaise between GNSO working groups and the GAC, participate in a subset of GAC processes, and attend ICANN meetings (at which they would attend most GAC meetings and have the write to speak to provide information about the GNSO), and report back to council on GAC issues that interact with the GNSO. We are seeking to appoint a single person on behalf of the GNSO, so there is absolutely no presumption that this person would be from NCSG (though of course they could be), and is likely to consume a lot of that persons time at meetings. In discussions so far we have been saying that it is likely to be a former GNSO councillor and experienced WG participant. Suggestions on appropriate candidates, and criteria on which they should be selected, from NCSG colleagues are welcome. Regards David Begin forwarded message: *From: *"Jonathan Robinson" *Subject: **[council] Reminder - GNSO Liaison to the GAC* *Date: *25 June 2014 10:41:58 am GMT+1 *To: * *Reply-To: * All, Please recall that we would like to commence the recruitment and selection of a GNSO Liaison to the GAC as soon as possible. This item will be discussed under Item 10 in the GNSO Council meeting today. Please note that the GAC has already approved this at our meeting with them on Sunday. I have attached the slides from the presentation to the GAC for your information. I have also attached the draft specification. Thanks, Jonathan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GAC-GNSO CG London Slides - 19 June 2014.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 588929 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Liaison to the GAC-DRAFT 06 June 2014.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 74897 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 464 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.perrin Wed Jun 25 16:33:43 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 21:33:43 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [council] Reminder - GNSO Liaison to the GAC In-Reply-To: References: <011f01cf9059$b55c2e00$20148a00$@afilias.info> <74EDC80E-5242-42D4-8911-ABF5765DBA3B@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <53AACFB7.4020904@mail.utoronto.ca> If you decide that an ex govt person with international experience would be useful, and you tell me the salary, I might be interested :-) all kidding aside, this would be an enormous challenge, and potentially very very demanding. You want someone to actually volunteer to do this??? cheers steph On 2014-06-25, 9:28 PM, Maria Farrell wrote: > FYI, PC colleagues - this position may or may not end up being within > the NCSG purview - as David points out below. But if we do come to > proposing a person from NCSG, the PC will need to be involved. > > NB this one is not as urgent as the CWG drafting group position or the > IANA transition one. > > cheers, m > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *David Cake* > > Date: 25 June 2014 10:53 > Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [council] Reminder - GNSO Liaison to the GAC > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu > > > The GNSO council is seeking to appoint a GNSO liaison to the GAC. This > person would be expected to liaise between GNSO working groups and the > GAC, participate in a subset of GAC processes, and attend ICANN > meetings (at which they would attend most GAC meetings and have the > write to speak to provide information about the GNSO), and report back > to council on GAC issues that interact with the GNSO. > > We are seeking to appoint a single person on behalf of the GNSO, so > there is absolutely no presumption that this person would be from NCSG > (though of course they could be), and is likely to consume a lot of > that persons time at meetings. In discussions so far we have been > saying that it is likely to be a former GNSO councillor and > experienced WG participant. > > Suggestions on appropriate candidates, and criteria on which they > should be selected, from NCSG colleagues are welcome. > > Regards > > David > > Begin forwarded message: > >> *From: *"Jonathan Robinson" > > >> *Subject: **[council] Reminder - GNSO Liaison to the GAC* >> *Date: *25 June 2014 10:41:58 am GMT+1 >> *To: *> >> *Reply-To: *> >> >> All, >> Please recall that we would like to commence the recruitment and >> selection of a GNSO Liaison to the GAC as soon as possible. >> This item will be discussed under Item 10 in the GNSO Council meeting >> today. >> Please note that the GAC has already approved this at our meeting >> with them on Sunday. >> I have attached the slides from the presentation to the GAC for your >> information. >> I have also attached the draft specification. >> Thanks, >> >> Jonathan > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Wed Jun 25 16:37:17 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:37:17 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [council] Reminder - GNSO Liaison to the GAC In-Reply-To: <53AACFB7.4020904@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <011f01cf9059$b55c2e00$20148a00$@afilias.info> <74EDC80E-5242-42D4-8911-ABF5765DBA3B@difference.com.au> <53AACFB7.4020904@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: It's a huge one, I'll give you that. Actually in fairness to her, marilyn cade did a good job of spelling out more of the downsides to this one. god knows, it'll be a fascinating one, though! m On 25 June 2014 14:33, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > If you decide that an ex govt person with international experience would > be useful, and you tell me the salary, I might be interested :-) > all kidding aside, this would be an enormous challenge, and potentially > very very demanding. You want someone to actually volunteer to do this??? > cheers steph > > On 2014-06-25, 9:28 PM, Maria Farrell wrote: > > FYI, PC colleagues - this position may or may not end up being within > the NCSG purview - as David points out below. But if we do come to > proposing a person from NCSG, the PC will need to be involved. > > NB this one is not as urgent as the CWG drafting group position or the > IANA transition one. > > cheers, m > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: David Cake > Date: 25 June 2014 10:53 > Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [council] Reminder - GNSO Liaison to the GAC > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu > > > The GNSO council is seeking to appoint a GNSO liaison to the GAC. This > person would be expected to liaise between GNSO working groups and the GAC, > participate in a subset of GAC processes, and attend ICANN meetings (at > which they would attend most GAC meetings and have the write to speak to > provide information about the GNSO), and report back to council on GAC > issues that interact with the GNSO. > > We are seeking to appoint a single person on behalf of the GNSO, so > there is absolutely no presumption that this person would be from NCSG > (though of course they could be), and is likely to consume a lot of that > persons time at meetings. In discussions so far we have been saying that it > is likely to be a former GNSO councillor and experienced WG participant. > > Suggestions on appropriate candidates, and criteria on which they should > be selected, from NCSG colleagues are welcome. > > Regards > > David > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *"Jonathan Robinson" > *Subject: **[council] Reminder - GNSO Liaison to the GAC* > *Date: *25 June 2014 10:41:58 am GMT+1 > *To: * > *Reply-To: * > > All, > > Please recall that we would like to commence the recruitment and > selection of a GNSO Liaison to the GAC as soon as possible. > This item will be discussed under Item 10 in the GNSO Council meeting > today. > > Please note that the GAC has already approved this at our meeting with > them on Sunday. > > I have attached the slides from the presentation to the GAC for your > information. > I have also attached the draft specification. > > Thanks, > > > Jonathan > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dave Wed Jun 25 16:39:02 2014 From: dave (David Cake) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 14:39:02 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [council] Reminder - GNSO Liaison to the GAC In-Reply-To: <53AACFB7.4020904@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <011f01cf9059$b55c2e00$20148a00$@afilias.info> <74EDC80E-5242-42D4-8911-ABF5765DBA3B@difference.com.au> <53AACFB7.4020904@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <06C8D130-72ED-4F94-8D4A-CD89BD1BA26F@difference.com.au> Given that it is unpaid but comes with travel support, and involves a large amount of relatively thankless and mostly quite dull work, I think it is one for the true ICANN addicts. But there are a few of those... I want to make it clear that yes, this is not an NCSG appointed position, and most likely will not be an NCSG person (just on the numbers), and the GNSO leadership has not even come to a process for selection yet - just letting people know it is coming up, and to think about it as it may be hard to find the right candidate for the role. David On 25 Jun 2014, at 2:33 pm, Stephanie Perrin wrote: If you decide that an ex govt person with international experience would be useful, and you tell me the salary, I might be interested :-) all kidding aside, this would be an enormous challenge, and potentially very very demanding. You want someone to actually volunteer to do this??? cheers steph On 2014-06-25, 9:28 PM, Maria Farrell wrote: FYI, PC colleagues - this position may or may not end up being within the NCSG purview - as David points out below. But if we do come to proposing a person from NCSG, the PC will need to be involved. NB this one is not as urgent as the CWG drafting group position or the IANA transition one. cheers, m ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Cake Date: 25 June 2014 10:53 Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [council] Reminder - GNSO Liaison to the GAC To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu The GNSO council is seeking to appoint a GNSO liaison to the GAC. This person would be expected to liaise between GNSO working groups and the GAC, participate in a subset of GAC processes, and attend ICANN meetings (at which they would attend most GAC meetings and have the write to speak to provide information about the GNSO), and report back to council on GAC issues that interact with the GNSO. We are seeking to appoint a single person on behalf of the GNSO, so there is absolutely no presumption that this person would be from NCSG (though of course they could be), and is likely to consume a lot of that persons time at meetings. In discussions so far we have been saying that it is likely to be a former GNSO councillor and experienced WG participant. Suggestions on appropriate candidates, and criteria on which they should be selected, from NCSG colleagues are welcome. Regards David Begin forwarded message: From: "Jonathan Robinson" Subject: [council] Reminder - GNSO Liaison to the GAC Date: 25 June 2014 10:41:58 am GMT+1 To: Reply-To: All, Please recall that we would like to commence the recruitment and selection of a GNSO Liaison to the GAC as soon as possible. This item will be discussed under Item 10 in the GNSO Council meeting today. Please note that the GAC has already approved this at our meeting with them on Sunday. I have attached the slides from the presentation to the GAC for your information. I have also attached the draft specification. Thanks, Jonathan _______________________________________________ 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: -------------- 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: From stephanie.perrin Wed Jun 25 16:39:52 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 21:39:52 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [council] Reminder - GNSO Liaison to the GAC In-Reply-To: References: <011f01cf9059$b55c2e00$20148a00$@afilias.info> <74EDC80E-5242-42D4-8911-ABF5765DBA3B@difference.com.au> <53AACFB7.4020904@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <53AAD128.1000709@mail.utoronto.ca> Marilyn is very competent, she could do this job. Plenty of folks would utterly fail. I doubt she wants it.... stephanie On 2014-06-25, 9:37 PM, Maria Farrell wrote: > It's a huge one, I'll give you that. Actually in fairness to her, > marilyn cade did a good job of spelling out more of the downsides to > this one. god knows, it'll be a fascinating one, though! > > m > > > On 25 June 2014 14:33, Stephanie Perrin > > wrote: > > If you decide that an ex govt person with international experience > would be useful, and you tell me the salary, I might be interested :-) > all kidding aside, this would be an enormous challenge, and > potentially very very demanding. You want someone to actually > volunteer to do this??? > cheers steph > > On 2014-06-25, 9:28 PM, Maria Farrell wrote: >> FYI, PC colleagues - this position may or may not end up being >> within the NCSG purview - as David points out below. But if we do >> come to proposing a person from NCSG, the PC will need to be >> involved. >> >> NB this one is not as urgent as the CWG drafting group position >> or the IANA transition one. >> >> cheers, m >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: *David Cake* > > >> Date: 25 June 2014 10:53 >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [council] Reminder - GNSO Liaison to >> the GAC >> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >> >> >> >> The GNSO council is seeking to appoint a GNSO liaison to the GAC. >> This person would be expected to liaise between GNSO working >> groups and the GAC, participate in a subset of GAC processes, and >> attend ICANN meetings (at which they would attend most GAC >> meetings and have the write to speak to provide information about >> the GNSO), and report back to council on GAC issues that interact >> with the GNSO. >> >> We are seeking to appoint a single person on behalf of the GNSO, >> so there is absolutely no presumption that this person would be >> from NCSG (though of course they could be), and is likely to >> consume a lot of that persons time at meetings. In discussions so >> far we have been saying that it is likely to be a former GNSO >> councillor and experienced WG participant. >> >> Suggestions on appropriate candidates, and criteria on which they >> should be selected, from NCSG colleagues are welcome. >> >> Regards >> >> David >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> *From: *"Jonathan Robinson" >> > >>> *Subject: **[council] Reminder - GNSO Liaison to the GAC* >>> *Date: *25 June 2014 10:41:58 am GMT+1 >>> *To: *> >>> *Reply-To: *> >>> >>> All, >>> Please recall that we would like to commence the recruitment and >>> selection of a GNSO Liaison to the GAC as soon as possible. >>> This item will be discussed under Item 10 in the GNSO Council >>> meeting today. >>> Please note that the GAC has already approved this at our >>> meeting with them on Sunday. >>> I have attached the slides from the presentation to the GAC for >>> your information. >>> I have also attached the draft specification. >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jonathan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: From stephanie.perrin Wed Jun 25 16:41:58 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 21:41:58 +0800 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [council] Reminder - GNSO Liaison to the GAC In-Reply-To: <06C8D130-72ED-4F94-8D4A-CD89BD1BA26F@difference.com.au> References: <011f01cf9059$b55c2e00$20148a00$@afilias.info> <74EDC80E-5242-42D4-8911-ABF5765DBA3B@difference.com.au> <53AACFB7.4020904@mail.utoronto.ca> <06C8D130-72ED-4F94-8D4A-CD89BD1BA26F@difference.com.au> Message-ID: <53AAD1A6.4050603@mail.utoronto.ca> Don't leave out dealing with high level folks requiring hand holding and stroking, and multiple languages... On 2014-06-25, 9:39 PM, David Cake wrote: > Given that it is unpaid but comes with travel support, and involves a > large amount of relatively thankless and mostly quite dull work, I > think it is one for the true ICANN addicts. > But there are a few of those... > > I want to make it clear that yes, this is not an NCSG appointed > position, and most likely will not be an NCSG person (just on the > numbers), and the GNSO leadership has not even come to a process for > selection yet - just letting people know it is coming up, and to think > about it as it may be hard to find the right candidate for the role. > > David > > On 25 Jun 2014, at 2:33 pm, Stephanie Perrin > > wrote: > >> If you decide that an ex govt person with international experience >> would be useful, and you tell me the salary, I might be interested :-) >> all kidding aside, this would be an enormous challenge, and >> potentially very very demanding. You want someone to actually >> volunteer to do this??? >> cheers steph >> On 2014-06-25, 9:28 PM, Maria Farrell wrote: >>> FYI, PC colleagues - this position may or may not end up being >>> within the NCSG purview - as David points out below. But if we do >>> come to proposing a person from NCSG, the PC will need to be involved. >>> >>> NB this one is not as urgent as the CWG drafting group position or >>> the IANA transition one. >>> >>> cheers, m >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: *David Cake* >> > >>> Date: 25 June 2014 10:53 >>> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [council] Reminder - GNSO Liaison to >>> the GAC >>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu >>> >>> >>> The GNSO council is seeking to appoint a GNSO liaison to the GAC. >>> This person would be expected to liaise between GNSO working groups >>> and the GAC, participate in a subset of GAC processes, and attend >>> ICANN meetings (at which they would attend most GAC meetings and >>> have the write to speak to provide information about the GNSO), and >>> report back to council on GAC issues that interact with the GNSO. >>> >>> We are seeking to appoint a single person on behalf of the GNSO, so >>> there is absolutely no presumption that this person would be from >>> NCSG (though of course they could be), and is likely to consume a >>> lot of that persons time at meetings. In discussions so far we have >>> been saying that it is likely to be a former GNSO councillor and >>> experienced WG participant. >>> >>> Suggestions on appropriate candidates, and criteria on which they >>> should be selected, from NCSG colleagues are welcome. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> David >>> >>> Begin forwarded message: >>> >>>> *From: *"Jonathan Robinson" >>> > >>>> *Subject: **[council] Reminder - GNSO Liaison to the GAC* >>>> *Date: *25 June 2014 10:41:58 am GMT+1 >>>> *To: *> >>>> *Reply-To: *> >>>> >>>> All, >>>> Please recall that we would like to commence the recruitment and >>>> selection of a GNSO Liaison to the GAC as soon as possible. >>>> This item will be discussed under Item 10 in the GNSO Council >>>> meeting today. >>>> Please note that the GAC has already approved this at our meeting >>>> with them on Sunday. >>>> I have attached the slides from the presentation to the GAC for >>>> your information. >>>> I have also attached the draft specification. >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Jonathan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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: From maria.farrell Thu Jun 26 19:05:40 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 17:05:40 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Process for IANA stewardship transition steering group - NCSG member Message-ID: Hi all, Rudi and I talked today and agreed the following re. the selection process for this position: Nominations remain open until noon, GMT, Friday 26 June, i.e. tomorrow. We will open a ballot on Saturday 27th, winner will be a simple majority of the NCSG PC. Ballot will remain open till Monday morning, 0900 GMT. Rudi and I will send around the name of the successful candidate on Monday, and submit to the GNSO Council. Currently, the nominees are: Milton Mueller Names can be resubmitted if wished. All the best, Maria -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Sun Jun 29 15:58:50 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2014 13:58:50 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Accountability In-Reply-To: <53B009E4.8070705@acm.org> References: <53B009E4.8070705@acm.org> Message-ID: <53B00D8A.3000502@acm.org> Hi, Is there anything we can do to help this stmt get greater exposure and perhaps some endorsement? avri On 29-Jun-14 13:43, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > This is a very fine contribution. With lots of specifics. > I hope they listen. > > Glad you are still around and writing your treatises. > > > avri > > > On 28-Jun-14 01:33, Edward Morris wrote: >> Hi everybody, >> >> I've been spending a lot of time in places where the internet isn't >> freely available. I appreciate a lot more the stories Norbert has shared >> with us over the years. Access remains a major problem in many parts of >> the world. >> >> I've just submitted a comment at the very end of the Enhancing >> Accountability reply period. I note the great work done by so many here >> on the issue, particularly Robin and Avri. We all have a bit of a >> different take on things but any movement towards accountability and >> transparency is most welcome. >> >> My submission is attached. Comments / questions / criticisms are all >> welcome. >> >> Kind Regards, >> >> Ed Morris From maria.farrell Mon Jun 30 17:12:17 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 15:12:17 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Selection of NCSG rep on IANA transition coordination group Message-ID: Dear PC members, As we only had one confirmed and accepted nominee for the role of NCSG rep on the IANA transition coordination group, Milton Mueller, then there is no further decision-making / selection process for our committee to make. Milton Mueller will be our rep. Rudi is very kindly working on some thoughts for how we can guide the two-way process on communicating our views to Milton and having him keep the NCSG briefed. So that will be in circulation soon. Thanks, all, for the input during this process. Any questions? All the best, Maria -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: