From aelsadr  Sat Mar  1 15:12:04 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2014 14:12:04 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Response to the Privacy & Proxy Services
	Accreditations Issues (PPSAI) PDP WG Questions
Message-ID: <BE26BF46-13C8-4D8C-99FC-A0B22C71A77C@egyptig.org>

Hi all,

The PPSAI PDP WG has sent requests for input from the different SOs, ACs and GNSO SGs and constituencies on the working group?s charter questions. Kathy Kleiman has drafted a response to these questions and has received input from other members of the NCSG, including Roy Balleste who made some substantive additions. I?m sending copies of this email to both of them.

The response they?ve drafted is attached to this email, and I am asking for review and endorsement of this statement by the members of the PC to submit it as an NCSG response.

Thanks.

Amr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSGResponsetoQuestionsfromProxyPrivacyAccrediationWG.docx (00629345).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 29592 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140301/7d3d61ab/attachment-0001.docx>


From rafik.dammak  Sun Mar  2 15:27:55 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2014 22:27:55 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Response to the Privacy & Proxy Services
 Accreditations Issues (PPSAI) PDP WG Questions
In-Reply-To: <BE26BF46-13C8-4D8C-99FC-A0B22C71A77C@egyptig.org>
References: <BE26BF46-13C8-4D8C-99FC-A0B22C71A77C@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=qpWmk82g=s=O1SsV0kipos+SeC97dLWj-Sx6vmvV4OA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

thanks for sharing this,  I do think that NCSG PC will act in timely manner
and agree on the submission. we can make it and send the WG. since we
discussed about need to send the comment in the last NCSG call (in addition
to the comment on EWG and ATRT) , I  think that NCSG PC members can review
and make decision early this week .
on other hand, it seems that ALAC already sent its submission
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=47256656

Best Regards,

Rafik

2014-03-01 22:12 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi all,
>
> The PPSAI PDP WG has sent requests for input from the different SOs, ACs
> and GNSO SGs and constituencies on the working group?s charter questions.
> Kathy Kleiman has drafted a response to these questions and has received
> input from other members of the NCSG, including Roy Balleste who made some
> substantive additions. I?m sending copies of this email to both of them.
>
> The response they?ve drafted is attached to this email, and I am asking
> for review and endorsement of this statement by the members of the PC to
> submit it as an NCSG response.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140302/46af3e30/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Mar  3 16:04:00 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 23:04:00 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] WEBINAR: ICANN Strategy Panels -
	Draft Reports
In-Reply-To: <CF3A0F59.32506%alice.jansen@icann.org>
References: <CF3A0F59.32506%alice.jansen@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmo36yOD-i_Ao8Eu07ckL05DV3vasBrYySV0hLCo0YvNA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi PC members,

we have those reports from strategic panels and they are part of 5 years
strategic panels for ICANN, I do think that we should respond to them even
it is no necessary PDP but their proposals may have impact and we should
cope with that.
we are almost in way to respond to proxy service accreditation WG
questionnaire. we may respond during reply period to ATRT . I am not sure
if we can respond for EWG report and the RFI.
@Amr did you work on comment for the policy and implementation
questionnaire?

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>
Date: 2014-03-03 18:52 GMT+09:00
Subject: [Soac-infoalert] WEBINAR: ICANN Strategy Panels - Draft Reports
To: "soac-infoalert at icann.org" <soac-infoalert at icann.org>


Dear All,

You are invited<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-28feb14-en.htm>to
join Vint
Cerf, Nii Quaynor, Beth Noveck and Paul Mockapetris on *Tuesday, 11 March
2014 at **15:00-16:30 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/l458x7v
<http://tinyurl.com/l458x7v>) *for a webinar on Strategy Panels' draft
reports<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-25feb14-en.htm>
:


   - ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Ecosystem ? Draft
Report<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/governance-ecosystem/report-23feb14-en.pdf>
[PDF,
   2.14 MB];
   - Public Responsibility Framework ? Draft
Report<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/public-responsibility/outline-23feb14-en>
   ;
   - ICANN Multistakeholder Innovation ? Draft
Report<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/multistakeholder-innovation/quest-blueprint-30jan14-en.pdf>
[PDF,
   424 KB] (Proposals compiled
here<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/multistakeholder-innovation>
   );
   - Identifier Technology Innovation ? Draft
Report<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/identifier-technology/report-21feb14-en.pdf>
[PDF,
   1.76 MB].

The Strategy Panel Chairs wish to walk you through their panel's
preliminary recommendations and to seek your input, as panels fine-tune
their report and bring their work to a conclusion. This webinar will also
be an opportunity for you to ask questions.

The Strategy Panels draft reports are currently out for public comment - see
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/strategy-panels-25feb14-en.htm.
Your
feedback and contributions are key to this project and will be carefully
considered. Comments are invited through 30 April 2014.

Advisory in nature, ICANN Strategy Panels serve as an integral part of a
framework for cross-community dialogue on strategic matters. Designed to
concentrate on critical strategic areas identified by the community, Board,
and staff<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/conversation-input-24jun13-en.pdf>,
the work of Strategy Panels will inform a new, overarching vision and
five-year strategic plan. More information is available at:
http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement

We look forward to your participation in this webinar. Should you not be in
a position to attend the session, please note that the slides, recording
and transcript of the presentation will be made available following the
webinar at:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-28feb14-en.htm

Thanks,

Best regards

ICANN staff



--

http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-28feb14-en.htm




 WEBINAR: ICANN Strategy Panels ? Draft Reports


 28 February 2014

*Join the Strategy Panel Chairs for an update and interactive discussion.*

*Date: Tuesday, 11 March 2014*
*Time: 15:00-16:30 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/l458x7v
<http://tinyurl.com/l458x7v>)*

Vint Cerf, Nii Quaynor, Beth Noveck and Paul Mockapetris invite you to join
them on Tuesday, 11 March at 15:00-16:30 UTC (time converter:
http://tinyurl.com/l458x7v) for an overview of the draft recommendations
and report they respectively released earlier this month for public comment:

   - ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Ecosystem ? Draft
Report<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/governance-ecosystem/report-23feb14-en.pdf>
[PDF,
   2.14 MB];
   - Public Responsibility Framework ? Draft
Report<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/public-responsibility/outline-23feb14-en>
   ;
   - ICANN Multistakeholder Innovation ? Draft
Report<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/multistakeholder-innovation/quest-blueprint-30jan14-en.pdf>
[PDF,
   424 KB] (Proposals compiled
here<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/multistakeholder-innovation>
   );
   - Identifier Technology Innovation ? Draft
Report<http://www.icann.org/en/about/planning/strategic-engagement/identifier-technology/report-21feb14-en.pdf>
[PDF,
   1.76 MB].

The Strategy Panels serve as an integral part of a framework for
cross-community dialogue on strategic matters. Advisory in nature,
ICANN Strategy
Panels'<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-15jul13-en.htm>
quintessential
objective is to inform and support the development ofICANN's new,
overarching vision and five-year strategic plan.

The Chairs wish to walk you through their panel's preliminary
recommendations and to seek your input, as panels fine-tune their report
and bring their work to a conclusion. This webinar will also be an
opportunity for you to ask questions. Your feedback and contributions are
key to this project and will be carefully considered. Note that panels also
welcome input sent via their publicly archived mailing lists (see
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/strategy-panels-25feb14-en.htm for
full reference). Comments are invited through 30 April 2014.
Webinar Details

The webinar will be run in an Adobe Connect room with a slide presentation
along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. The session will be
conducted in English.

Participants will be given the opportunity to offer comments and to ask
questions during the Q&A section. During the course of the webinar,
questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you
cannot join the live session, the recording of the session will be made
available shortly after the meeting.

Please register via email to alice.jansen at icann.org by Monday, 10 March
2014 ? 23:59 UTC to receive the dial-in details. A reminder with log-in and
dial-in details will be sent to you prior to the call.


_______________________________________________
soac-infoalert mailing list
soac-infoalert at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140303/bc776c10/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Mar  4 17:25:15 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 16:25:15 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Response to the Privacy & Proxy Services
	Accreditations Issues (PPSAI) PDP WG Questions
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=qpWmk82g=s=O1SsV0kipos+SeC97dLWj-Sx6vmvV4OA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <BE26BF46-13C8-4D8C-99FC-A0B22C71A77C@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=qpWmk82g=s=O1SsV0kipos+SeC97dLWj-Sx6vmvV4OA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <04880186-38CF-48DA-883E-F0060AE4F7CE@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Can I get more feedback on this submission from the PC members? Can we submit this statement as one endorsed by the NCSG? Are there any reservations that we can discuss?

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 2, 2014, at 2:27 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> Hi Amr,
> 
> thanks for sharing this,  I do think that NCSG PC will act in timely manner and agree on the submission. we can make it and send the WG. since we discussed about need to send the comment in the last NCSG call (in addition to the comment on EWG and ATRT) , I  think that NCSG PC members can review and make decision early this week .
> on other hand, it seems that ALAC already sent its submission https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=47256656
>   
> Best Regards,
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 2014-03-01 22:12 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
> Hi all,
> 
> The PPSAI PDP WG has sent requests for input from the different SOs, ACs and GNSO SGs and constituencies on the working group?s charter questions. Kathy Kleiman has drafted a response to these questions and has received input from other members of the NCSG, including Roy Balleste who made some substantive additions. I?m sending copies of this email to both of them.
> 
> The response they?ve drafted is attached to this email, and I am asking for review and endorsement of this statement by the members of the PC to submit it as an NCSG response.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140304/13af738d/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Mar  4 17:46:34 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 15:46:34 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Response to the Privacy & Proxy Services
 Accreditations Issues (PPSAI) PDP WG Questions
In-Reply-To: <BE26BF46-13C8-4D8C-99FC-A0B22C71A77C@egyptig.org>
References: <BE26BF46-13C8-4D8C-99FC-A0B22C71A77C@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5315F55A.2000601@acm.org>

I am reading this now and do not understand what sort of the group sis 
thinking if.  What is this notion of a Proxy/Privacy service taking 
anything down.  What would they have responsibilities beyond  Notify and 
Reveal.

I started to review and I cannot make sense of the questions.

avri


On 01-Mar-14 13:12, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The PPSAI PDP WG has sent requests for input from the different SOs, ACs and GNSO SGs and constituencies on the working group?s charter questions. Kathy Kleiman has drafted a response to these questions and has received input from other members of the NCSG, including Roy Balleste who made some substantive additions. I?m sending copies of this email to both of them.
>
> The response they?ve drafted is attached to this email, and I am asking for review and endorsement of this statement by the members of the PC to submit it as an NCSG response.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



From aelsadr  Tue Mar  4 18:09:40 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 17:09:40 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Response to the Privacy & Proxy Services
	Accreditations Issues (PPSAI) PDP WG Questions
In-Reply-To: <5315F55A.2000601@acm.org>
References: <BE26BF46-13C8-4D8C-99FC-A0B22C71A77C@egyptig.org>
	<5315F55A.2000601@acm.org>
Message-ID: <ECAB27FF-45D3-4F24-9EF7-32CE38726FB2@egyptig.org>

The charter questions are pretty awful on this PDP. Voluntary takedown by the registrant as opposed to reveal is an option we have proposed as an accreditation clause.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 4, 2014, at 4:46 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> I am reading this now and do not understand what sort of the group sis thinking if.  What is this notion of a Proxy/Privacy service taking anything down.  What would they have responsibilities beyond  Notify and Reveal.
> 
> I started to review and I cannot make sense of the questions.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 01-Mar-14 13:12, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> The PPSAI PDP WG has sent requests for input from the different SOs, ACs and GNSO SGs and constituencies on the working group?s charter questions. Kathy Kleiman has drafted a response to these questions and has received input from other members of the NCSG, including Roy Balleste who made some substantive additions. I?m sending copies of this email to both of them.
>> 
>> The response they?ve drafted is attached to this email, and I am asking for review and endorsement of this statement by the members of the PC to submit it as an NCSG response.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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 Mar  4 18:22:51 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 16:22:51 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Response to the Privacy & Proxy Services
 Accreditations Issues (PPSAI) PDP WG Questions
In-Reply-To: <ECAB27FF-45D3-4F24-9EF7-32CE38726FB2@egyptig.org>
References: <BE26BF46-13C8-4D8C-99FC-A0B22C71A77C@egyptig.org>
	<5315F55A.2000601@acm.org>
	<ECAB27FF-45D3-4F24-9EF7-32CE38726FB2@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5315FDDB.2030405@acm.org>



On 04-Mar-14 16:09, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> The charter questions are pretty awful on this PDP. Voluntary
> takedown by the registrant as opposed to reveal is an option we have
> proposed as an accreditation clause.


sure, but that is voluntary by the registrant not the proxy/privacy 
service provider.

correct?

avri

>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 4, 2014, at 4:46 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> I am reading this now and do not understand what sort of the group
>> sis thinking if.  What is this notion of a Proxy/Privacy service
>> taking anything down.  What would they have responsibilities beyond
>> Notify and Reveal.
>>
>> I started to review and I cannot make sense of the questions.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 01-Mar-14 13:12, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> The PPSAI PDP WG has sent requests for input from the different
>>> SOs, ACs and GNSO SGs and constituencies on the working group?s
>>> charter questions. Kathy Kleiman has drafted a response to these
>>> questions and has received input from other members of the NCSG,
>>> including Roy Balleste who made some substantive additions. I?m
>>> sending copies of this email to both of them.
>>>
>>> The response they?ve drafted is attached to this email, and I am
>>> asking for review and endorsement of this statement by the
>>> members of the PC to submit it as an NCSG response.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>



From aelsadr  Tue Mar  4 18:37:26 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 17:37:26 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Response to the Privacy & Proxy Services
	Accreditations Issues (PPSAI) PDP WG Questions
In-Reply-To: <5315FDDB.2030405@acm.org>
References: <BE26BF46-13C8-4D8C-99FC-A0B22C71A77C@egyptig.org>
	<5315F55A.2000601@acm.org>
	<ECAB27FF-45D3-4F24-9EF7-32CE38726FB2@egyptig.org>
	<5315FDDB.2030405@acm.org>
Message-ID: <98731242-8A28-4C9C-96C7-9AA00C1E12A3@egyptig.org>

Yes. Exactly.

Amr

On Mar 4, 2014, at 5:22 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 04-Mar-14 16:09, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> The charter questions are pretty awful on this PDP. Voluntary
>> takedown by the registrant as opposed to reveal is an option we have
>> proposed as an accreditation clause.
> 
> 
> sure, but that is voluntary by the registrant not the proxy/privacy service provider.
> 
> correct?
> 
> avri
> 
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Mar 4, 2014, at 4:46 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> I am reading this now and do not understand what sort of the group
>>> sis thinking if.  What is this notion of a Proxy/Privacy service
>>> taking anything down.  What would they have responsibilities beyond
>>> Notify and Reveal.
>>> 
>>> I started to review and I cannot make sense of the questions.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 01-Mar-14 13:12, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> The PPSAI PDP WG has sent requests for input from the different
>>>> SOs, ACs and GNSO SGs and constituencies on the working group?s
>>>> charter questions. Kathy Kleiman has drafted a response to these
>>>> questions and has received input from other members of the NCSG,
>>>> including Roy Balleste who made some substantive additions. I?m
>>>> sending copies of this email to both of them.
>>>> 
>>>> The response they?ve drafted is attached to this email, and I am
>>>> asking for review and endorsement of this statement by the
>>>> members of the PC to submit it as an NCSG response.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>>>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140304/f127fb2b/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Tue Mar  4 18:37:41 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 11:37:41 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Response to the Privacy & Proxy Services
	Accreditations Issues (PPSAI) PDP WG Questions
In-Reply-To: <98731242-8A28-4C9C-96C7-9AA00C1E12A3@egyptig.org>
References: <BE26BF46-13C8-4D8C-99FC-A0B22C71A77C@egyptig.org>
	<5315F55A.2000601@acm.org>
	<ECAB27FF-45D3-4F24-9EF7-32CE38726FB2@egyptig.org>	<5315FDDB.2030405@acm.org>
	<98731242-8A28-4C9C-96C7-9AA00C1E12A3@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <312045EB-D4B1-4800-8B23-994B593B5B7D@mail.utoronto.ca>

One more thing that really I forgot to add to Kathy's draft on the EWG response.  I have been saying it non-stop at the EWG but they dont listen.  I just brought it up at the PPSAI.  It is a violation of applicable data protection law to demand that data be released in the WHOIS.  Full stop.  It is of course, as the DPAs have pointed out, a violation to escrow all the data including trafffic data bits, for 18 months after last contact.  iN many jurisdictions, ICANN could solve that problem by stating that the purpose of collection is to help law enforcement, but they woul dhave a hard time justifying solving intellectual property crime or arguments. I think the response to the EWG needs to point out that so far, ICANN is ignoring applicable data protection law. 
On 2014-03-04, at 11:37 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:

> Yes. Exactly.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Mar 4, 2014, at 5:22 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 04-Mar-14 16:09, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> The charter questions are pretty awful on this PDP. Voluntary
>>> takedown by the registrant as opposed to reveal is an option we have
>>> proposed as an accreditation clause.
>> 
>> 
>> sure, but that is voluntary by the registrant not the proxy/privacy service provider.
>> 
>> correct?
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> On Mar 4, 2014, at 4:46 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I am reading this now and do not understand what sort of the group
>>>> sis thinking if.  What is this notion of a Proxy/Privacy service
>>>> taking anything down.  What would they have responsibilities beyond
>>>> Notify and Reveal.
>>>> 
>>>> I started to review and I cannot make sense of the questions.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 01-Mar-14 13:12, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> The PPSAI PDP WG has sent requests for input from the different
>>>>> SOs, ACs and GNSO SGs and constituencies on the working group?s
>>>>> charter questions. Kathy Kleiman has drafted a response to these
>>>>> questions and has received input from other members of the NCSG,
>>>>> including Roy Balleste who made some substantive additions. I?m
>>>>> sending copies of this email to both of them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The response they?ve drafted is attached to this email, and I am
>>>>> asking for review and endorsement of this statement by the
>>>>> members of the PC to submit it as an NCSG response.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>>>>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>>>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140304/7d9f5dfd/attachment.html>


From robin  Tue Mar  4 19:18:36 2014
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:18:36 -0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] need for independent evaluation with ombudsman
References: <CC98D83A-3852-471B-8620-98DEA07A686B@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <B4BD10A9-BC62-4AB5-8F08-36744EBC0D1B@ipjustice.org>

Dear EC Members:

It would seem the best course for NCSG is to now file this request for an independent evaluation with ICANN's ombudsman over the issue of board-staff circumventing the process stated in ICANN's bylaws for making policy.  I propose we now do this.  Ed Morris is willing to continue to work with me to see this issue through so he and I will begin to prepare this request and perhaps we can make some progress in Singapore on this issue.

Thanks,
Robin

Begin forwarded message:

>> 
>> From: Chris LaHatte <chris.lahatte at icann.org>
>> Subject: RE: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue
>> Date: February 9, 2014 3:54:23 PM PST
>> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>> 
>> Hi Robin
>>  
>> Thank you for the reply. I believe the independent evaluation may be the best way to proceed on this matter, because if there is nothing further to discuss on the part of ICANN, then a mediation may be difficult. I was keen to promote this idea, if for no other reason than enabling each party to have a better understanding of their views, even if they did not agree. However ICANN legal were just not enthusiastic. I certainly can proceed to such an evaluation is that would involve an assessment of whether the procedure followed was fair, bringing this into my jurisdiction. I have suggested this to the legal Department and it may be the best way to take the next step. Could I trouble you to make a submission along those lines, to the effect that your view is that ICANN did not follow its corporate bylaws, and I will ask for a similar submission from legal. Once I have these I can consider the matter and make a determination.
>>  
>> Please contact me if you need to discuss this further.
>>  
>> Regards
>>  
>>  
>> Chris LaHatte
>> Ombudsman
>> Blog  https://omblog.icann.org/
>> Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>  
>>  
>> Confidentiality
>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.  The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint
>>  
>> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
>> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 11:20 AM
>> To: Chris LaHatte
>> Cc: Milton Mueller; Edward Morris; Rafik Dammak; Steve Crocker; Raymond Plzak
>> Subject: Re: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue
>>  
>> Thank you, Chris.
>>  
>> It is disappointing that ICANN legal dept takes the position that its decisions cannot be changed, even if found to violate the organization's bylaws.  We want an evaluation of what the bylaws require of ICANN when making policy compared with how this policy was adopted.  An evaluation that depends on the guidance of ICANN legal dept., as all evaluations have done just become circular.  This issue has not been before an independent evaluator and that is necessary to receive any kind of independent judgement.  ICANN legal's reassurance that it 'can do what it did and even if it can't, it's too late to do anything about it now' underscores the circular problem we are having and have been for a year now on this issue.  If policies that violate the bylaws REALLY can't be changed because they've already been adopted, then ICANN has an even bigger accountability issue on its hands.
>>  
>> We would like to go ahead with the mediation and try to get an independent evaluation from you on the key issue in question: violation of corporate bylaws.  What a proper remedy would be is a different question that I am happy to explore further.  But as I have said before, we would like to have a ruling on whether the corporate bylaws were violated in the adoption of this policy.  Are you able to investigate this issue even if ICANN legal does not wish for it to continue?
>>  
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>  
>>  
>> On Jan 30, 2014, at 4:54 PM, Chris LaHatte wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Robin
>>  
>> I have finally had a lengthy discussion with John Jeffries and Amy Stathos about this issue. The position is that they are unsure what they can offer by way of any concession at a mediation. As you may have predicted, they take the strong view that this was implementation and that there was adequate presentation of the case for an appropriate level for the Trademark Clearinghouse. Their view is that the decisions cannot now be unravelled and therefore they are unsure as to what can be offered at a mediation. After some discussion, and which I expressed my view that at least a principal aim should be to avoid conflict and to avoid the need for an Independent Review Panel, it was suggested that I should ask what your community would want out of such a mediation, given their view is that it is not possible to revisit the decisions at this stage. So if you can help me on this, I would be grateful.
>>  
>> Regards
>>  
>> Chris LaHatte
>> Ombudsman
>> Blog  https://omblog.icann.org/
>> Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>  
>>  
>> Confidentiality
>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.  The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint
>>  
>>  
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140304/441913b5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140304/441913b5/attachment-0001.sig>


From stephanie.perrin  Tue Mar  4 19:23:14 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 12:23:14 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] need for independent evaluation with ombudsman
In-Reply-To: <B4BD10A9-BC62-4AB5-8F08-36744EBC0D1B@ipjustice.org>
References: <CC98D83A-3852-471B-8620-98DEA07A686B@ipjustice.org>
	<B4BD10A9-BC62-4AB5-8F08-36744EBC0D1B@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <A27DECB4-0CA4-4681-B2BA-D147A93ED1A4@mail.utoronto.ca>

Makes sense to me.  Not that any of this makes any sense.  Mind-boggling, and as Avri said today on another topic, makes it hard to defend this model of Internet governance.
SP
On Mar 4, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Dear EC Members:
> 
> It would seem the best course for NCSG is to now file this request for an independent evaluation with ICANN's ombudsman over the issue of board-staff circumventing the process stated in ICANN's bylaws for making policy.  I propose we now do this.  Ed Morris is willing to continue to work with me to see this issue through so he and I will begin to prepare this request and perhaps we can make some progress in Singapore on this issue.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>>> 
>>> From: Chris LaHatte <chris.lahatte at icann.org>
>>> Subject: RE: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue
>>> Date: February 9, 2014 3:54:23 PM PST
>>> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>> 
>>> Hi Robin
>>>  
>>> Thank you for the reply. I believe the independent evaluation may be the best way to proceed on this matter, because if there is nothing further to discuss on the part of ICANN, then a mediation may be difficult. I was keen to promote this idea, if for no other reason than enabling each party to have a better understanding of their views, even if they did not agree. However ICANN legal were just not enthusiastic. I certainly can proceed to such an evaluation is that would involve an assessment of whether the procedure followed was fair, bringing this into my jurisdiction. I have suggested this to the legal Department and it may be the best way to take the next step. Could I trouble you to make a submission along those lines, to the effect that your view is that ICANN did not follow its corporate bylaws, and I will ask for a similar submission from legal. Once I have these I can consider the matter and make a determination.
>>>  
>>> Please contact me if you need to discuss this further.
>>>  
>>> Regards
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Chris LaHatte
>>> Ombudsman
>>> Blog  https://omblog.icann.org/
>>> Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Confidentiality
>>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.  The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint
>>>  
>>> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
>>> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 11:20 AM
>>> To: Chris LaHatte
>>> Cc: Milton Mueller; Edward Morris; Rafik Dammak; Steve Crocker; Raymond Plzak
>>> Subject: Re: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue
>>>  
>>> Thank you, Chris.
>>>  
>>> It is disappointing that ICANN legal dept takes the position that its decisions cannot be changed, even if found to violate the organization's bylaws.  We want an evaluation of what the bylaws require of ICANN when making policy compared with how this policy was adopted.  An evaluation that depends on the guidance of ICANN legal dept., as all evaluations have done just become circular.  This issue has not been before an independent evaluator and that is necessary to receive any kind of independent judgement.  ICANN legal's reassurance that it 'can do what it did and even if it can't, it's too late to do anything about it now' underscores the circular problem we are having and have been for a year now on this issue.  If policies that violate the bylaws REALLY can't be changed because they've already been adopted, then ICANN has an even bigger accountability issue on its hands.
>>>  
>>> We would like to go ahead with the mediation and try to get an independent evaluation from you on the key issue in question: violation of corporate bylaws.  What a proper remedy would be is a different question that I am happy to explore further.  But as I have said before, we would like to have a ruling on whether the corporate bylaws were violated in the adoption of this policy.  Are you able to investigate this issue even if ICANN legal does not wish for it to continue?
>>>  
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>>  
>>>  
>>> On Jan 30, 2014, at 4:54 PM, Chris LaHatte wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Robin
>>>  
>>> I have finally had a lengthy discussion with John Jeffries and Amy Stathos about this issue. The position is that they are unsure what they can offer by way of any concession at a mediation. As you may have predicted, they take the strong view that this was implementation and that there was adequate presentation of the case for an appropriate level for the Trademark Clearinghouse. Their view is that the decisions cannot now be unravelled and therefore they are unsure as to what can be offered at a mediation. After some discussion, and which I expressed my view that at least a principal aim should be to avoid conflict and to avoid the need for an Independent Review Panel, it was suggested that I should ask what your community would want out of such a mediation, given their view is that it is not possible to revisit the decisions at this stage. So if you can help me on this, I would be grateful.
>>>  
>>> Regards
>>>  
>>> Chris LaHatte
>>> Ombudsman
>>> Blog  https://omblog.icann.org/
>>> Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Confidentiality
>>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.  The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint
>>>  
>>>  
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140304/f8a2b83b/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Tue Mar  4 19:38:57 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 17:38:57 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] need for independent evaluation with ombudsman
In-Reply-To: <A27DECB4-0CA4-4681-B2BA-D147A93ED1A4@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <CC98D83A-3852-471B-8620-98DEA07A686B@ipjustice.org>	<B4BD10A9-BC62-4AB5-8F08-36744EBC0D1B@ipjustice.org>
	<A27DECB4-0CA4-4681-B2BA-D147A93ED1A4@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <53160FB1.4030000@acm.org>

makes sense to me too.

On 04-Mar-14 17:23, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> Makes sense to me.  Not that any of this makes any sense.
>   Mind-boggling, and as Avri said today on another topic, makes it hard
> to defend this model of Internet governance.
> SP
> On Mar 4, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>
>> Dear EC Members:
>>
>> It would seem the best course for NCSG is to now file this request for
>> an independent evaluation with ICANN's ombudsman over the issue of
>> board-staff circumventing the process stated in ICANN's bylaws for
>> making policy.  I propose we now do this.  Ed Morris is willing to
>> continue to work with me to see this issue through so he and I will
>> begin to prepare this request and perhaps we can make some progress in
>> Singapore on this issue.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>>> *
>>>> From: *Chris LaHatte <chris.lahatte at icann.org
>>>> <mailto:chris.lahatte at icann.org>>
>>>> *Subject: **RE: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue*
>>>> *Date: *February 9, 2014 3:54:23 PM PST
>>>> *To: *Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Robin
>>>> Thank you for the reply. I believe the independent evaluation may be
>>>> the best way to proceed on this matter, because if there is nothing
>>>> further to discuss on the part of ICANN, then a mediation may be
>>>> difficult. I was keen to promote this idea, if for no other reason
>>>> than enabling each party to have a better understanding of their
>>>> views, even if they did not agree. However ICANN legal were just not
>>>> enthusiastic. I certainly can proceed to such an evaluation is that
>>>> would involve an assessment of whether the procedure followed was
>>>> fair, bringing this into my jurisdiction. I have suggested this to
>>>> the legal Department and it may be the best way to take the next
>>>> step. Could I trouble you to make a submission along those lines, to
>>>> the effect that your view is that ICANN did not follow its corporate
>>>> bylaws, and I will ask for a similar submission from legal. Once I
>>>> have these I can consider the matter and make a determination.
>>>> Please contact me if you need to discuss this further.
>>>> Regards
>>>> Chris LaHatte
>>>> Ombudsman
>>>> Blog https://omblog.icann.org/
>>>> Webpagehttp://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>>> Confidentiality
>>>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as
>>>> confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps
>>>> necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those
>>>> parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the
>>>> Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise
>>>> staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a
>>>> complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.
>>>> The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure
>>>> that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and
>>>> identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential
>>>> nature of such information, except as necessary to further the
>>>> resolution of a complaint
>>>> *From:*Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
>>>> *Sent:*Saturday, February 08, 2014 11:20 AM
>>>> *To:*Chris LaHatte
>>>> *Cc:*Milton Mueller; Edward Morris; Rafik Dammak; Steve Crocker;
>>>> Raymond Plzak
>>>> *Subject:*Re: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue
>>>> Thank you, Chris.
>>>> It is disappointing that ICANN legal dept takes the position that
>>>> its decisions cannot be changed, even if found to violate the
>>>> organization's bylaws.  We want an evaluation of what the bylaws
>>>> require of ICANN when making policy compared with how this policy
>>>> was adopted.  An evaluation that depends on the guidance of ICANN
>>>> legal dept., as all evaluations have done just become circular.
>>>>  This issue has not been before an independent evaluator and that is
>>>> necessary to receive any kind of independent judgement.  ICANN
>>>> legal's reassurance that it 'can do what it did and even if it
>>>> can't, it's too late to do anything about it now' underscores the
>>>> circular problem we are having and have been for a year now on this
>>>> issue.  If policies that violate the bylaws REALLY can't be changed
>>>> because they've already been adopted, then ICANN has an even bigger
>>>> accountability issue on its hands.
>>>> We would like to go ahead with the mediation and try to get an
>>>> independent evaluation from you on the key issue in question:
>>>> violation of corporate bylaws.  What a proper remedy would be is a
>>>> different question that I am happy to explore further.  But as I
>>>> have said before, we would like to have a ruling on whether the
>>>> corporate bylaws were violated in the adoption of this policy.  Are
>>>> you able to investigate this issue even if ICANN legal does not wish
>>>> for it to continue?
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>> On Jan 30, 2014, at 4:54 PM, Chris LaHatte wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Robin
>>>> I have finally had a lengthy discussion with John Jeffries and Amy
>>>> Stathos about this issue. The position is that they are unsure what
>>>> they can offer by way of any concession at a mediation. As you may
>>>> have predicted, they take the strong view that this was
>>>> implementation and that there was adequate presentation of the case
>>>> for an appropriate level for the Trademark Clearinghouse. Their view
>>>> is that the decisions cannot now be unravelled and therefore they
>>>> are unsure as to what can be offered at a mediation. After some
>>>> discussion, and which I expressed my view that at least a principal
>>>> aim should be to avoid conflict and to avoid the need for an
>>>> Independent Review Panel, it was suggested that I should ask what
>>>> your community would want out of such a mediation, given their view
>>>> is that it is not possible to revisit the decisions at this stage.
>>>> So if you can help me on this, I would be grateful.
>>>> Regards
>>>> Chris LaHatte
>>>> Ombudsman
>>>> Blog https://omblog.icann.org/
>>>> Webpagehttp://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>>> Confidentiality
>>>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as
>>>> confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps
>>>> necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those
>>>> parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the
>>>> Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise
>>>> staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a
>>>> complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.
>>>> The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure
>>>> that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and
>>>> identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential
>>>> nature of such information, except as necessary to further the
>>>> resolution of a complaint
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



From aelsadr  Tue Mar  4 20:12:35 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:12:35 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] need for independent evaluation with ombudsman
In-Reply-To: <53160FB1.4030000@acm.org>
References: <CC98D83A-3852-471B-8620-98DEA07A686B@ipjustice.org>	<B4BD10A9-BC62-4AB5-8F08-36744EBC0D1B@ipjustice.org>
	<A27DECB4-0CA4-4681-B2BA-D147A93ED1A4@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<53160FB1.4030000@acm.org>
Message-ID: <12969CF5-ED4B-41F5-ADC2-924352276327@egyptig.org>

Hi,

There is a proposed initiative, ironically being championed by the BC, to crowdsource feedback on the CEO?s (Fadi?s) performance, specifically on his circumvention of the bottom-up MS process. If for any reason the ombudsman option doesn?t work out, we should draw attention to the TM+50 issue there. We should probably do that even if the ombuddy comes through for us. :)

In any case, yeah?, go for it, Robin. :)

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 4, 2014, at 6:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> makes sense to me too.
> 
> On 04-Mar-14 17:23, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> Makes sense to me.  Not that any of this makes any sense.
>>  Mind-boggling, and as Avri said today on another topic, makes it hard
>> to defend this model of Internet governance.
>> SP
>> On Mar 4, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Dear EC Members:
>>> 
>>> It would seem the best course for NCSG is to now file this request for
>>> an independent evaluation with ICANN's ombudsman over the issue of
>>> board-staff circumventing the process stated in ICANN's bylaws for
>>> making policy.  I propose we now do this.  Ed Morris is willing to
>>> continue to work with me to see this issue through so he and I will
>>> begin to prepare this request and perhaps we can make some progress in
>>> Singapore on this issue.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>>>> *
>>>>> From: *Chris LaHatte <chris.lahatte at icann.org
>>>>> <mailto:chris.lahatte at icann.org>>
>>>>> *Subject: **RE: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue*
>>>>> *Date: *February 9, 2014 3:54:23 PM PST
>>>>> *To: *Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Robin
>>>>> Thank you for the reply. I believe the independent evaluation may be
>>>>> the best way to proceed on this matter, because if there is nothing
>>>>> further to discuss on the part of ICANN, then a mediation may be
>>>>> difficult. I was keen to promote this idea, if for no other reason
>>>>> than enabling each party to have a better understanding of their
>>>>> views, even if they did not agree. However ICANN legal were just not
>>>>> enthusiastic. I certainly can proceed to such an evaluation is that
>>>>> would involve an assessment of whether the procedure followed was
>>>>> fair, bringing this into my jurisdiction. I have suggested this to
>>>>> the legal Department and it may be the best way to take the next
>>>>> step. Could I trouble you to make a submission along those lines, to
>>>>> the effect that your view is that ICANN did not follow its corporate
>>>>> bylaws, and I will ask for a similar submission from legal. Once I
>>>>> have these I can consider the matter and make a determination.
>>>>> Please contact me if you need to discuss this further.
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Chris LaHatte
>>>>> Ombudsman
>>>>> Blog https://omblog.icann.org/
>>>>> Webpagehttp://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>>>> Confidentiality
>>>>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as
>>>>> confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps
>>>>> necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those
>>>>> parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the
>>>>> Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise
>>>>> staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a
>>>>> complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.
>>>>> The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure
>>>>> that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and
>>>>> identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential
>>>>> nature of such information, except as necessary to further the
>>>>> resolution of a complaint
>>>>> *From:*Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
>>>>> *Sent:*Saturday, February 08, 2014 11:20 AM
>>>>> *To:*Chris LaHatte
>>>>> *Cc:*Milton Mueller; Edward Morris; Rafik Dammak; Steve Crocker;
>>>>> Raymond Plzak
>>>>> *Subject:*Re: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue
>>>>> Thank you, Chris.
>>>>> It is disappointing that ICANN legal dept takes the position that
>>>>> its decisions cannot be changed, even if found to violate the
>>>>> organization's bylaws.  We want an evaluation of what the bylaws
>>>>> require of ICANN when making policy compared with how this policy
>>>>> was adopted.  An evaluation that depends on the guidance of ICANN
>>>>> legal dept., as all evaluations have done just become circular.
>>>>> This issue has not been before an independent evaluator and that is
>>>>> necessary to receive any kind of independent judgement.  ICANN
>>>>> legal's reassurance that it 'can do what it did and even if it
>>>>> can't, it's too late to do anything about it now' underscores the
>>>>> circular problem we are having and have been for a year now on this
>>>>> issue.  If policies that violate the bylaws REALLY can't be changed
>>>>> because they've already been adopted, then ICANN has an even bigger
>>>>> accountability issue on its hands.
>>>>> We would like to go ahead with the mediation and try to get an
>>>>> independent evaluation from you on the key issue in question:
>>>>> violation of corporate bylaws.  What a proper remedy would be is a
>>>>> different question that I am happy to explore further.  But as I
>>>>> have said before, we would like to have a ruling on whether the
>>>>> corporate bylaws were violated in the adoption of this policy.  Are
>>>>> you able to investigate this issue even if ICANN legal does not wish
>>>>> for it to continue?
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>> On Jan 30, 2014, at 4:54 PM, Chris LaHatte wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Robin
>>>>> I have finally had a lengthy discussion with John Jeffries and Amy
>>>>> Stathos about this issue. The position is that they are unsure what
>>>>> they can offer by way of any concession at a mediation. As you may
>>>>> have predicted, they take the strong view that this was
>>>>> implementation and that there was adequate presentation of the case
>>>>> for an appropriate level for the Trademark Clearinghouse. Their view
>>>>> is that the decisions cannot now be unravelled and therefore they
>>>>> are unsure as to what can be offered at a mediation. After some
>>>>> discussion, and which I expressed my view that at least a principal
>>>>> aim should be to avoid conflict and to avoid the need for an
>>>>> Independent Review Panel, it was suggested that I should ask what
>>>>> your community would want out of such a mediation, given their view
>>>>> is that it is not possible to revisit the decisions at this stage.
>>>>> So if you can help me on this, I would be grateful.
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Chris LaHatte
>>>>> Ombudsman
>>>>> Blog https://omblog.icann.org/
>>>>> Webpagehttp://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>>>> Confidentiality
>>>>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as
>>>>> confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps
>>>>> necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those
>>>>> parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the
>>>>> Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise
>>>>> staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a
>>>>> complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.
>>>>> The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure
>>>>> that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and
>>>>> identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential
>>>>> nature of such information, except as necessary to further the
>>>>> resolution of a complaint
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140304/5668e928/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Tue Mar  4 20:19:59 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 18:19:59 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] need for independent evaluation with ombudsman
In-Reply-To: <12969CF5-ED4B-41F5-ADC2-924352276327@egyptig.org>
References: <CC98D83A-3852-471B-8620-98DEA07A686B@ipjustice.org>	<B4BD10A9-BC62-4AB5-8F08-36744EBC0D1B@ipjustice.org>
	<A27DECB4-0CA4-4681-B2BA-D147A93ED1A4@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<53160FB1.4030000@acm.org>
	<12969CF5-ED4B-41F5-ADC2-924352276327@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5316194F.5050205@acm.org>

Hi,

Yeah Amr, and I support that proposal, though I saw you didn't.

avri

On 04-Mar-14 18:12, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is a proposed initiative, ironically being championed by the BC,
> to crowdsource feedback on the CEO?s (Fadi?s) performance, specifically
> on his circumvention of the bottom-up MS process. If for any reason the
> ombudsman option doesn?t work out, we should draw attention to the TM+50
> issue there. We should probably do that even if the ombuddy comes
> through for us. :)
>
> In any case, yeah?, go for it, Robin. :)
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 4, 2014, at 6:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>> makes sense to me too.
>>
>> On 04-Mar-14 17:23, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>> Makes sense to me.  Not that any of this makes any sense.
>>>  Mind-boggling, and as Avri said today on another topic, makes it hard
>>> to defend this model of Internet governance.
>>> SP
>>> On Mar 4, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear EC Members:
>>>>
>>>> It would seem the best course for NCSG is to now file this request for
>>>> an independent evaluation with ICANN's ombudsman over the issue of
>>>> board-staff circumventing the process stated in ICANN's bylaws for
>>>> making policy.  I propose we now do this.  Ed Morris is willing to
>>>> continue to work with me to see this issue through so he and I will
>>>> begin to prepare this request and perhaps we can make some progress in
>>>> Singapore on this issue.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Robin
>>>>
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>>>> *
>>>>>> From: *Chris LaHatte <chris.lahatte at icann.org
>>>>>> <mailto:chris.lahatte at icann.org>
>>>>>> <mailto:chris.lahatte at icann.org>>
>>>>>> *Subject: **RE: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue*
>>>>>> *Date: *February 9, 2014 3:54:23 PM PST
>>>>>> *To: *Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org><mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Robin
>>>>>> Thank you for the reply. I believe the independent evaluation may be
>>>>>> the best way to proceed on this matter, because if there is nothing
>>>>>> further to discuss on the part of ICANN, then a mediation may be
>>>>>> difficult. I was keen to promote this idea, if for no other reason
>>>>>> than enabling each party to have a better understanding of their
>>>>>> views, even if they did not agree. However ICANN legal were just not
>>>>>> enthusiastic. I certainly can proceed to such an evaluation is that
>>>>>> would involve an assessment of whether the procedure followed was
>>>>>> fair, bringing this into my jurisdiction. I have suggested this to
>>>>>> the legal Department and it may be the best way to take the next
>>>>>> step. Could I trouble you to make a submission along those lines, to
>>>>>> the effect that your view is that ICANN did not follow its corporate
>>>>>> bylaws, and I will ask for a similar submission from legal. Once I
>>>>>> have these I can consider the matter and make a determination.
>>>>>> Please contact me if you need to discuss this further.
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Chris LaHatte
>>>>>> Ombudsman
>>>>>> Blog https://omblog.icann.org/
>>>>>> Webpagehttp://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>>>>> Confidentiality
>>>>>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as
>>>>>> confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps
>>>>>> necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those
>>>>>> parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the
>>>>>> Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise
>>>>>> staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a
>>>>>> complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.
>>>>>> The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure
>>>>>> that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and
>>>>>> identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential
>>>>>> nature of such information, except as necessary to further the
>>>>>> resolution of a complaint
>>>>>> *From:*Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
>>>>>> *Sent:*Saturday, February 08, 2014 11:20 AM
>>>>>> *To:*Chris LaHatte
>>>>>> *Cc:*Milton Mueller; Edward Morris; Rafik Dammak; Steve Crocker;
>>>>>> Raymond Plzak
>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue
>>>>>> Thank you, Chris.
>>>>>> It is disappointing that ICANN legal dept takes the position that
>>>>>> its decisions cannot be changed, even if found to violate the
>>>>>> organization's bylaws.  We want an evaluation of what the bylaws
>>>>>> require of ICANN when making policy compared with how this policy
>>>>>> was adopted.  An evaluation that depends on the guidance of ICANN
>>>>>> legal dept., as all evaluations have done just become circular.
>>>>>> This issue has not been before an independent evaluator and that is
>>>>>> necessary to receive any kind of independent judgement.  ICANN
>>>>>> legal's reassurance that it 'can do what it did and even if it
>>>>>> can't, it's too late to do anything about it now' underscores the
>>>>>> circular problem we are having and have been for a year now on this
>>>>>> issue.  If policies that violate the bylaws REALLY can't be changed
>>>>>> because they've already been adopted, then ICANN has an even bigger
>>>>>> accountability issue on its hands.
>>>>>> We would like to go ahead with the mediation and try to get an
>>>>>> independent evaluation from you on the key issue in question:
>>>>>> violation of corporate bylaws.  What a proper remedy would be is a
>>>>>> different question that I am happy to explore further.  But as I
>>>>>> have said before, we would like to have a ruling on whether the
>>>>>> corporate bylaws were violated in the adoption of this policy.  Are
>>>>>> you able to investigate this issue even if ICANN legal does not wish
>>>>>> for it to continue?
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2014, at 4:54 PM, Chris LaHatte wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Robin
>>>>>> I have finally had a lengthy discussion with John Jeffries and Amy
>>>>>> Stathos about this issue. The position is that they are unsure what
>>>>>> they can offer by way of any concession at a mediation. As you may
>>>>>> have predicted, they take the strong view that this was
>>>>>> implementation and that there was adequate presentation of the case
>>>>>> for an appropriate level for the Trademark Clearinghouse. Their view
>>>>>> is that the decisions cannot now be unravelled and therefore they
>>>>>> are unsure as to what can be offered at a mediation. After some
>>>>>> discussion, and which I expressed my view that at least a principal
>>>>>> aim should be to avoid conflict and to avoid the need for an
>>>>>> Independent Review Panel, it was suggested that I should ask what
>>>>>> your community would want out of such a mediation, given their view
>>>>>> is that it is not possible to revisit the decisions at this stage.
>>>>>> So if you can help me on this, I would be grateful.
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Chris LaHatte
>>>>>> Ombudsman
>>>>>> Blog https://omblog.icann.org/
>>>>>> Webpagehttp://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>>>>> Confidentiality
>>>>>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as
>>>>>> confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps
>>>>>> necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those
>>>>>> parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the
>>>>>> Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise
>>>>>> staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a
>>>>>> complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.
>>>>>> The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure
>>>>>> that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and
>>>>>> identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential
>>>>>> nature of such information, except as necessary to further the
>>>>>> resolution of a complaint
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



From aelsadr  Tue Mar  4 20:37:47 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 19:37:47 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] need for independent evaluation with ombudsman
In-Reply-To: <5316194F.5050205@acm.org>
References: <CC98D83A-3852-471B-8620-98DEA07A686B@ipjustice.org>	<B4BD10A9-BC62-4AB5-8F08-36744EBC0D1B@ipjustice.org>
	<A27DECB4-0CA4-4681-B2BA-D147A93ED1A4@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<53160FB1.4030000@acm.org>
	<12969CF5-ED4B-41F5-ADC2-924352276327@egyptig.org>
	<5316194F.5050205@acm.org>
Message-ID: <73C7E4D1-54D3-43DA-95AB-ABAABEA1650B@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I never thought the proposal was bad in principle. I just didn?t see how or why it should be a GNSO Council motion. I still don?t. I recommended the discussion be moved to the SO/AC leadership list (even with an informal recommendation from Council), and perhaps a CCWG that can develop a charter with input from all the different groups to see it through.

Was I unclear on that? I hope not.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 4, 2014, at 7:19 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Yeah Amr, and I support that proposal, though I saw you didn't.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 04-Mar-14 18:12, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> There is a proposed initiative, ironically being championed by the BC,
>> to crowdsource feedback on the CEO?s (Fadi?s) performance, specifically
>> on his circumvention of the bottom-up MS process. If for any reason the
>> ombudsman option doesn?t work out, we should draw attention to the TM+50
>> issue there. We should probably do that even if the ombuddy comes
>> through for us. :)
>> 
>> In any case, yeah?, go for it, Robin. :)
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Mar 4, 2014, at 6:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>> makes sense to me too.
>>> 
>>> On 04-Mar-14 17:23, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>> Makes sense to me.  Not that any of this makes any sense.
>>>> Mind-boggling, and as Avri said today on another topic, makes it hard
>>>> to defend this model of Internet governance.
>>>> SP
>>>> On Mar 4, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
>>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Dear EC Members:
>>>>> 
>>>>> It would seem the best course for NCSG is to now file this request for
>>>>> an independent evaluation with ICANN's ombudsman over the issue of
>>>>> board-staff circumventing the process stated in ICANN's bylaws for
>>>>> making policy.  I propose we now do this.  Ed Morris is willing to
>>>>> continue to work with me to see this issue through so he and I will
>>>>> begin to prepare this request and perhaps we can make some progress in
>>>>> Singapore on this issue.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robin
>>>>> 
>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>> From: *Chris LaHatte <chris.lahatte at icann.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:chris.lahatte at icann.org>
>>>>>>> <mailto:chris.lahatte at icann.org>>
>>>>>>> *Subject: **RE: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue*
>>>>>>> *Date: *February 9, 2014 3:54:23 PM PST
>>>>>>> *To: *Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org><mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Robin
>>>>>>> Thank you for the reply. I believe the independent evaluation may be
>>>>>>> the best way to proceed on this matter, because if there is nothing
>>>>>>> further to discuss on the part of ICANN, then a mediation may be
>>>>>>> difficult. I was keen to promote this idea, if for no other reason
>>>>>>> than enabling each party to have a better understanding of their
>>>>>>> views, even if they did not agree. However ICANN legal were just not
>>>>>>> enthusiastic. I certainly can proceed to such an evaluation is that
>>>>>>> would involve an assessment of whether the procedure followed was
>>>>>>> fair, bringing this into my jurisdiction. I have suggested this to
>>>>>>> the legal Department and it may be the best way to take the next
>>>>>>> step. Could I trouble you to make a submission along those lines, to
>>>>>>> the effect that your view is that ICANN did not follow its corporate
>>>>>>> bylaws, and I will ask for a similar submission from legal. Once I
>>>>>>> have these I can consider the matter and make a determination.
>>>>>>> Please contact me if you need to discuss this further.
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Chris LaHatte
>>>>>>> Ombudsman
>>>>>>> Blog https://omblog.icann.org/
>>>>>>> Webpagehttp://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>>>>>> Confidentiality
>>>>>>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as
>>>>>>> confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps
>>>>>>> necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those
>>>>>>> parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the
>>>>>>> Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise
>>>>>>> staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a
>>>>>>> complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.
>>>>>>> The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure
>>>>>>> that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and
>>>>>>> identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential
>>>>>>> nature of such information, except as necessary to further the
>>>>>>> resolution of a complaint
>>>>>>> *From:*Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
>>>>>>> *Sent:*Saturday, February 08, 2014 11:20 AM
>>>>>>> *To:*Chris LaHatte
>>>>>>> *Cc:*Milton Mueller; Edward Morris; Rafik Dammak; Steve Crocker;
>>>>>>> Raymond Plzak
>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue
>>>>>>> Thank you, Chris.
>>>>>>> It is disappointing that ICANN legal dept takes the position that
>>>>>>> its decisions cannot be changed, even if found to violate the
>>>>>>> organization's bylaws.  We want an evaluation of what the bylaws
>>>>>>> require of ICANN when making policy compared with how this policy
>>>>>>> was adopted.  An evaluation that depends on the guidance of ICANN
>>>>>>> legal dept., as all evaluations have done just become circular.
>>>>>>> This issue has not been before an independent evaluator and that is
>>>>>>> necessary to receive any kind of independent judgement.  ICANN
>>>>>>> legal's reassurance that it 'can do what it did and even if it
>>>>>>> can't, it's too late to do anything about it now' underscores the
>>>>>>> circular problem we are having and have been for a year now on this
>>>>>>> issue.  If policies that violate the bylaws REALLY can't be changed
>>>>>>> because they've already been adopted, then ICANN has an even bigger
>>>>>>> accountability issue on its hands.
>>>>>>> We would like to go ahead with the mediation and try to get an
>>>>>>> independent evaluation from you on the key issue in question:
>>>>>>> violation of corporate bylaws.  What a proper remedy would be is a
>>>>>>> different question that I am happy to explore further.  But as I
>>>>>>> have said before, we would like to have a ruling on whether the
>>>>>>> corporate bylaws were violated in the adoption of this policy.  Are
>>>>>>> you able to investigate this issue even if ICANN legal does not wish
>>>>>>> for it to continue?
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2014, at 4:54 PM, Chris LaHatte wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Robin
>>>>>>> I have finally had a lengthy discussion with John Jeffries and Amy
>>>>>>> Stathos about this issue. The position is that they are unsure what
>>>>>>> they can offer by way of any concession at a mediation. As you may
>>>>>>> have predicted, they take the strong view that this was
>>>>>>> implementation and that there was adequate presentation of the case
>>>>>>> for an appropriate level for the Trademark Clearinghouse. Their view
>>>>>>> is that the decisions cannot now be unravelled and therefore they
>>>>>>> are unsure as to what can be offered at a mediation. After some
>>>>>>> discussion, and which I expressed my view that at least a principal
>>>>>>> aim should be to avoid conflict and to avoid the need for an
>>>>>>> Independent Review Panel, it was suggested that I should ask what
>>>>>>> your community would want out of such a mediation, given their view
>>>>>>> is that it is not possible to revisit the decisions at this stage.
>>>>>>> So if you can help me on this, I would be grateful.
>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>> Chris LaHatte
>>>>>>> Ombudsman
>>>>>>> Blog https://omblog.icann.org/
>>>>>>> Webpagehttp://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>>>>>> Confidentiality
>>>>>>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as
>>>>>>> confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps
>>>>>>> necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those
>>>>>>> parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the
>>>>>>> Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise
>>>>>>> staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a
>>>>>>> complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.
>>>>>>> The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure
>>>>>>> that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and
>>>>>>> identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential
>>>>>>> nature of such information, except as necessary to further the
>>>>>>> resolution of a complaint
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140304/5220cbe1/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Tue Mar  4 20:44:10 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 18:44:10 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] need for independent evaluation with ombudsman
In-Reply-To: <73C7E4D1-54D3-43DA-95AB-ABAABEA1650B@egyptig.org>
References: <CC98D83A-3852-471B-8620-98DEA07A686B@ipjustice.org>	<B4BD10A9-BC62-4AB5-8F08-36744EBC0D1B@ipjustice.org>
	<A27DECB4-0CA4-4681-B2BA-D147A93ED1A4@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<53160FB1.4030000@acm.org>
	<12969CF5-ED4B-41F5-ADC2-924352276327@egyptig.org>
	<5316194F.5050205@acm.org>
	<73C7E4D1-54D3-43DA-95AB-ABAABEA1650B@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <53161EFA.6020801@acm.org>

hi,

We disagree.

I think the GNSO should speak up about the circumvention and offer the 
Board our recommendation on what they can do with the panels and the CEO 
who ordered them without asking first.

Besides I think it is a great idea.

avri


On 04-Mar-14 18:37, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I never thought the proposal was bad in principle. I just didn?t see how
> or why it should be a GNSO Council motion. I still don?t. I recommended
> the discussion be moved to the SO/AC leadership list (even with an
> informal recommendation from Council), and perhaps a CCWG that can
> develop a charter with input from all the different groups to see it
> through.
>
> Was I unclear on that? I hope not.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 4, 2014, at 7:19 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yeah Amr, and I support that proposal, though I saw you didn't.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> On 04-Mar-14 18:12, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> There is a proposed initiative, ironically being championed by the BC,
>>> to crowdsource feedback on the CEO?s (Fadi?s) performance, specifically
>>> on his circumvention of the bottom-up MS process. If for any reason the
>>> ombudsman option doesn?t work out, we should draw attention to the TM+50
>>> issue there. We should probably do that even if the ombuddy comes
>>> through for us. :)
>>>
>>> In any case, yeah?, go for it, Robin. :)
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Mar 4, 2014, at 6:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>
>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> makes sense to me too.
>>>>
>>>> On 04-Mar-14 17:23, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>> Makes sense to me.  Not that any of this makes any sense.
>>>>> Mind-boggling, and as Avri said today on another topic, makes it hard
>>>>> to defend this model of Internet governance.
>>>>> SP
>>>>> On Mar 4, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
>>>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear EC Members:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would seem the best course for NCSG is to now file this request for
>>>>>> an independent evaluation with ICANN's ombudsman over the issue of
>>>>>> board-staff circumventing the process stated in ICANN's bylaws for
>>>>>> making policy.  I propose we now do this.  Ed Morris is willing to
>>>>>> continue to work with me to see this issue through so he and I will
>>>>>> begin to prepare this request and perhaps we can make some progress in
>>>>>> Singapore on this issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>> From: *Chris LaHatte <chris.lahatte at icann.org
>>>>>>>> <mailto:chris.lahatte at icann.org>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:chris.lahatte at icann.org>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:chris.lahatte at icann.org>>
>>>>>>>> *Subject: **RE: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue*
>>>>>>>> *Date: *February 9, 2014 3:54:23 PM PST
>>>>>>>> *To: *Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org><mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Robin
>>>>>>>> Thank you for the reply. I believe the independent evaluation may be
>>>>>>>> the best way to proceed on this matter, because if there is nothing
>>>>>>>> further to discuss on the part of ICANN, then a mediation may be
>>>>>>>> difficult. I was keen to promote this idea, if for no other reason
>>>>>>>> than enabling each party to have a better understanding of their
>>>>>>>> views, even if they did not agree. However ICANN legal were just not
>>>>>>>> enthusiastic. I certainly can proceed to such an evaluation is that
>>>>>>>> would involve an assessment of whether the procedure followed was
>>>>>>>> fair, bringing this into my jurisdiction. I have suggested this to
>>>>>>>> the legal Department and it may be the best way to take the next
>>>>>>>> step. Could I trouble you to make a submission along those lines, to
>>>>>>>> the effect that your view is that ICANN did not follow its corporate
>>>>>>>> bylaws, and I will ask for a similar submission from legal. Once I
>>>>>>>> have these I can consider the matter and make a determination.
>>>>>>>> Please contact me if you need to discuss this further.
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> Chris LaHatte
>>>>>>>> Ombudsman
>>>>>>>> Bloghttps://omblog.icann.org/
>>>>>>>> Webpagehttp://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>>>>>>> <webpagehttp://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman>
>>>>>>>> Confidentiality
>>>>>>>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as
>>>>>>>> confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps
>>>>>>>> necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those
>>>>>>>> parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the
>>>>>>>> Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise
>>>>>>>> staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a
>>>>>>>> complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.
>>>>>>>> The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure
>>>>>>>> that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and
>>>>>>>> identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential
>>>>>>>> nature of such information, except as necessary to further the
>>>>>>>> resolution of a complaint
>>>>>>>> *From:*Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Saturday, February 08, 2014 11:20 AM
>>>>>>>> *To:*Chris LaHatte
>>>>>>>> *Cc:*Milton Mueller; Edward Morris; Rafik Dammak; Steve Crocker;
>>>>>>>> Raymond Plzak
>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue
>>>>>>>> Thank you, Chris.
>>>>>>>> It is disappointing that ICANN legal dept takes the position that
>>>>>>>> its decisions cannot be changed, even if found to violate the
>>>>>>>> organization's bylaws.  We want an evaluation of what the bylaws
>>>>>>>> require of ICANN when making policy compared with how this policy
>>>>>>>> was adopted.  An evaluation that depends on the guidance of ICANN
>>>>>>>> legal dept., as all evaluations have done just become circular.
>>>>>>>> This issue has not been before an independent evaluator and that is
>>>>>>>> necessary to receive any kind of independent judgement.  ICANN
>>>>>>>> legal's reassurance that it 'can do what it did and even if it
>>>>>>>> can't, it's too late to do anything about it now' underscores the
>>>>>>>> circular problem we are having and have been for a year now on this
>>>>>>>> issue.  If policies that violate the bylaws REALLY can't be changed
>>>>>>>> because they've already been adopted, then ICANN has an even bigger
>>>>>>>> accountability issue on its hands.
>>>>>>>> We would like to go ahead with the mediation and try to get an
>>>>>>>> independent evaluation from you on the key issue in question:
>>>>>>>> violation of corporate bylaws.  What a proper remedy would be is a
>>>>>>>> different question that I am happy to explore further.  But as I
>>>>>>>> have said before, we would like to have a ruling on whether the
>>>>>>>> corporate bylaws were violated in the adoption of this policy.  Are
>>>>>>>> you able to investigate this issue even if ICANN legal does not wish
>>>>>>>> for it to continue?
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2014, at 4:54 PM, Chris LaHatte wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Robin
>>>>>>>> I have finally had a lengthy discussion with John Jeffries and Amy
>>>>>>>> Stathos about this issue. The position is that they are unsure what
>>>>>>>> they can offer by way of any concession at a mediation. As you may
>>>>>>>> have predicted, they take the strong view that this was
>>>>>>>> implementation and that there was adequate presentation of the case
>>>>>>>> for an appropriate level for the Trademark Clearinghouse. Their view
>>>>>>>> is that the decisions cannot now be unravelled and therefore they
>>>>>>>> are unsure as to what can be offered at a mediation. After some
>>>>>>>> discussion, and which I expressed my view that at least a principal
>>>>>>>> aim should be to avoid conflict and to avoid the need for an
>>>>>>>> Independent Review Panel, it was suggested that I should ask what
>>>>>>>> your community would want out of such a mediation, given their view
>>>>>>>> is that it is not possible to revisit the decisions at this stage.
>>>>>>>> So if you can help me on this, I would be grateful.
>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>> Chris LaHatte
>>>>>>>> Ombudsman
>>>>>>>> Bloghttps://omblog.icann.org/
>>>>>>>> Webpagehttp://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>>>>>>> <webpagehttp://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman>
>>>>>>>> Confidentiality
>>>>>>>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as
>>>>>>>> confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps
>>>>>>>> necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those
>>>>>>>> parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the
>>>>>>>> Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise
>>>>>>>> staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a
>>>>>>>> complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.
>>>>>>>> The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure
>>>>>>>> that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and
>>>>>>>> identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential
>>>>>>>> nature of such information, except as necessary to further the
>>>>>>>> resolution of a complaint
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



From aelsadr  Tue Mar  4 21:21:19 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 20:21:19 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] need for independent evaluation with ombudsman
In-Reply-To: <53161EFA.6020801@acm.org>
References: <CC98D83A-3852-471B-8620-98DEA07A686B@ipjustice.org>	<B4BD10A9-BC62-4AB5-8F08-36744EBC0D1B@ipjustice.org>
	<A27DECB4-0CA4-4681-B2BA-D147A93ED1A4@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<53160FB1.4030000@acm.org>
	<12969CF5-ED4B-41F5-ADC2-924352276327@egyptig.org>
	<5316194F.5050205@acm.org>
	<73C7E4D1-54D3-43DA-95AB-ABAABEA1650B@egyptig.org>
	<53161EFA.6020801@acm.org>
Message-ID: <518D12CC-1F31-4982-B742-1ECBEA95E58B@egyptig.org>

Hi Avri,

My point is that the panels aren't something that solely affects the GNSO. They affect the entire bottom-up MSM of ICANN including all of its community. That?s why I feel this is an initiative more suitable to come out of a broader group than one only representing the four SGs of the GNSO.

If the panels were about gTLD policy, then that would be a different issue requiring a different response.

Still?, that doesn?t mean I think the idea is, in principle, a bad one. I just seem to disagree with you (and others) on the best way to go about getting it done.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 4, 2014, at 7:44 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> hi,
> 
> We disagree.
> 
> I think the GNSO should speak up about the circumvention and offer the Board our recommendation on what they can do with the panels and the CEO who ordered them without asking first.
> 
> Besides I think it is a great idea.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 04-Mar-14 18:37, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I never thought the proposal was bad in principle. I just didn?t see how
>> or why it should be a GNSO Council motion. I still don?t. I recommended
>> the discussion be moved to the SO/AC leadership list (even with an
>> informal recommendation from Council), and perhaps a CCWG that can
>> develop a charter with input from all the different groups to see it
>> through.
>> 
>> Was I unclear on that? I hope not.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Mar 4, 2014, at 7:19 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Yeah Amr, and I support that proposal, though I saw you didn't.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> On 04-Mar-14 18:12, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> There is a proposed initiative, ironically being championed by the BC,
>>>> to crowdsource feedback on the CEO?s (Fadi?s) performance, specifically
>>>> on his circumvention of the bottom-up MS process. If for any reason the
>>>> ombudsman option doesn?t work out, we should draw attention to the TM+50
>>>> issue there. We should probably do that even if the ombuddy comes
>>>> through for us. :)
>>>> 
>>>> In any case, yeah?, go for it, Robin. :)
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 4, 2014, at 6:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>
>>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> makes sense to me too.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 04-Mar-14 17:23, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>> Makes sense to me.  Not that any of this makes any sense.
>>>>>> Mind-boggling, and as Avri said today on another topic, makes it hard
>>>>>> to defend this model of Internet governance.
>>>>>> SP
>>>>>> On Mar 4, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dear EC Members:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It would seem the best course for NCSG is to now file this request for
>>>>>>> an independent evaluation with ICANN's ombudsman over the issue of
>>>>>>> board-staff circumventing the process stated in ICANN's bylaws for
>>>>>>> making policy.  I propose we now do this.  Ed Morris is willing to
>>>>>>> continue to work with me to see this issue through so he and I will
>>>>>>> begin to prepare this request and perhaps we can make some progress in
>>>>>>> Singapore on this issue.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>> From: *Chris LaHatte <chris.lahatte at icann.org
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:chris.lahatte at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:chris.lahatte at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:chris.lahatte at icann.org>>
>>>>>>>>> *Subject: **RE: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue*
>>>>>>>>> *Date: *February 9, 2014 3:54:23 PM PST
>>>>>>>>> *To: *Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org><mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi Robin
>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the reply. I believe the independent evaluation may be
>>>>>>>>> the best way to proceed on this matter, because if there is nothing
>>>>>>>>> further to discuss on the part of ICANN, then a mediation may be
>>>>>>>>> difficult. I was keen to promote this idea, if for no other reason
>>>>>>>>> than enabling each party to have a better understanding of their
>>>>>>>>> views, even if they did not agree. However ICANN legal were just not
>>>>>>>>> enthusiastic. I certainly can proceed to such an evaluation is that
>>>>>>>>> would involve an assessment of whether the procedure followed was
>>>>>>>>> fair, bringing this into my jurisdiction. I have suggested this to
>>>>>>>>> the legal Department and it may be the best way to take the next
>>>>>>>>> step. Could I trouble you to make a submission along those lines, to
>>>>>>>>> the effect that your view is that ICANN did not follow its corporate
>>>>>>>>> bylaws, and I will ask for a similar submission from legal. Once I
>>>>>>>>> have these I can consider the matter and make a determination.
>>>>>>>>> Please contact me if you need to discuss this further.
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> Chris LaHatte
>>>>>>>>> Ombudsman
>>>>>>>>> Bloghttps://omblog.icann.org/
>>>>>>>>> Webpagehttp://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>>>>>>>> <webpagehttp://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman>
>>>>>>>>> Confidentiality
>>>>>>>>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as
>>>>>>>>> confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps
>>>>>>>>> necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those
>>>>>>>>> parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the
>>>>>>>>> Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise
>>>>>>>>> staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a
>>>>>>>>> complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.
>>>>>>>>> The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure
>>>>>>>>> that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and
>>>>>>>>> identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential
>>>>>>>>> nature of such information, except as necessary to further the
>>>>>>>>> resolution of a complaint
>>>>>>>>> *From:*Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Saturday, February 08, 2014 11:20 AM
>>>>>>>>> *To:*Chris LaHatte
>>>>>>>>> *Cc:*Milton Mueller; Edward Morris; Rafik Dammak; Steve Crocker;
>>>>>>>>> Raymond Plzak
>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue
>>>>>>>>> Thank you, Chris.
>>>>>>>>> It is disappointing that ICANN legal dept takes the position that
>>>>>>>>> its decisions cannot be changed, even if found to violate the
>>>>>>>>> organization's bylaws.  We want an evaluation of what the bylaws
>>>>>>>>> require of ICANN when making policy compared with how this policy
>>>>>>>>> was adopted.  An evaluation that depends on the guidance of ICANN
>>>>>>>>> legal dept., as all evaluations have done just become circular.
>>>>>>>>> This issue has not been before an independent evaluator and that is
>>>>>>>>> necessary to receive any kind of independent judgement.  ICANN
>>>>>>>>> legal's reassurance that it 'can do what it did and even if it
>>>>>>>>> can't, it's too late to do anything about it now' underscores the
>>>>>>>>> circular problem we are having and have been for a year now on this
>>>>>>>>> issue.  If policies that violate the bylaws REALLY can't be changed
>>>>>>>>> because they've already been adopted, then ICANN has an even bigger
>>>>>>>>> accountability issue on its hands.
>>>>>>>>> We would like to go ahead with the mediation and try to get an
>>>>>>>>> independent evaluation from you on the key issue in question:
>>>>>>>>> violation of corporate bylaws.  What a proper remedy would be is a
>>>>>>>>> different question that I am happy to explore further.  But as I
>>>>>>>>> have said before, we would like to have a ruling on whether the
>>>>>>>>> corporate bylaws were violated in the adoption of this policy.  Are
>>>>>>>>> you able to investigate this issue even if ICANN legal does not wish
>>>>>>>>> for it to continue?
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2014, at 4:54 PM, Chris LaHatte wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi Robin
>>>>>>>>> I have finally had a lengthy discussion with John Jeffries and Amy
>>>>>>>>> Stathos about this issue. The position is that they are unsure what
>>>>>>>>> they can offer by way of any concession at a mediation. As you may
>>>>>>>>> have predicted, they take the strong view that this was
>>>>>>>>> implementation and that there was adequate presentation of the case
>>>>>>>>> for an appropriate level for the Trademark Clearinghouse. Their view
>>>>>>>>> is that the decisions cannot now be unravelled and therefore they
>>>>>>>>> are unsure as to what can be offered at a mediation. After some
>>>>>>>>> discussion, and which I expressed my view that at least a principal
>>>>>>>>> aim should be to avoid conflict and to avoid the need for an
>>>>>>>>> Independent Review Panel, it was suggested that I should ask what
>>>>>>>>> your community would want out of such a mediation, given their view
>>>>>>>>> is that it is not possible to revisit the decisions at this stage.
>>>>>>>>> So if you can help me on this, I would be grateful.
>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>> Chris LaHatte
>>>>>>>>> Ombudsman
>>>>>>>>> Bloghttps://omblog.icann.org/
>>>>>>>>> Webpagehttp://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>>>>>>>> <webpagehttp://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman>
>>>>>>>>> Confidentiality
>>>>>>>>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as
>>>>>>>>> confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps
>>>>>>>>> necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those
>>>>>>>>> parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the
>>>>>>>>> Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise
>>>>>>>>> staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a
>>>>>>>>> complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.
>>>>>>>>> The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure
>>>>>>>>> that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and
>>>>>>>>> identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential
>>>>>>>>> nature of such information, except as necessary to further the
>>>>>>>>> resolution of a complaint
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140304/0656cf16/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Mar  4 21:55:27 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 20:55:27 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Response to the RDS EWG Status Update Report
Message-ID: <53625BA4-D6BD-4DAA-BA97-C658E53FE136@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Attached to this email is a response to the gTLD Registration Directory Services (WHOIS) EWG?s status update report drafted for the most part by Kathy Kleiman with some additions from other members of the NCSG. I hope you all have the time to go through it, and let others know what you think of it, what you like, what you don?t, what you feel is missing, etc?

I am also seeking endorsement by the NCSG-PC to submit this as an NCSG statement as opposed to a statement by NCSG members. I personally think it?s a great statement addressing both pros and cons of the findings presented by the EWG. Looking forward to reading what others think.

Thanks.

Amr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Comments of the NCSG to EWG Status Report March 2014.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 38025 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140304/3a62ced2/attachment-0001.docx>


From wjdrake  Wed Mar  5 13:35:50 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 12:35:50 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] need for independent evaluation with ombudsman
In-Reply-To: <518D12CC-1F31-4982-B742-1ECBEA95E58B@egyptig.org>
References: <CC98D83A-3852-471B-8620-98DEA07A686B@ipjustice.org>	<B4BD10A9-BC62-4AB5-8F08-36744EBC0D1B@ipjustice.org>
	<A27DECB4-0CA4-4681-B2BA-D147A93ED1A4@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<53160FB1.4030000@acm.org>
	<12969CF5-ED4B-41F5-ADC2-924352276327@egyptig.org>
	<5316194F.5050205@acm.org>
	<73C7E4D1-54D3-43DA-95AB-ABAABEA1650B@egyptig.org>
	<53161EFA.6020801@acm.org>
	<518D12CC-1F31-4982-B742-1ECBEA95E58B@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <3301D376-DFC6-49E1-8353-FFC817151897@gmail.com>

A priori I agree with Amr.  Have people read the strategy panel reports?  I?ve only read the Vint panel?s.   Do you find in these reports proposals to circumvent the GNSO?s PDP process?  If so there?s a case for Council involvement, but if the argument is that they gut the entire bottom-up MSM of ICANN including all of its community, then I would indeed think the SO-AC would be the place for that.

Best

Bill


On Mar 4, 2014, at 8:21 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:

> Hi Avri,
> 
> My point is that the panels aren't something that solely affects the GNSO. They affect the entire bottom-up MSM of ICANN including all of its community. That?s why I feel this is an initiative more suitable to come out of a broader group than one only representing the four SGs of the GNSO.
> 
> If the panels were about gTLD policy, then that would be a different issue requiring a different response.
> 
> Still?, that doesn?t mean I think the idea is, in principle, a bad one. I just seem to disagree with you (and others) on the best way to go about getting it done.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Mar 4, 2014, at 7:44 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> hi,
>> 
>> We disagree.
>> 
>> I think the GNSO should speak up about the circumvention and offer the Board our recommendation on what they can do with the panels and the CEO who ordered them without asking first.
>> 
>> Besides I think it is a great idea.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> On 04-Mar-14 18:37, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I never thought the proposal was bad in principle. I just didn?t see how
>>> or why it should be a GNSO Council motion. I still don?t. I recommended
>>> the discussion be moved to the SO/AC leadership list (even with an
>>> informal recommendation from Council), and perhaps a CCWG that can
>>> develop a charter with input from all the different groups to see it
>>> through.
>>> 
>>> Was I unclear on that? I hope not.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> On Mar 4, 2014, at 7:19 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Yeah Amr, and I support that proposal, though I saw you didn't.
>>>> 
>>>> avri
>>>> 
>>>> On 04-Mar-14 18:12, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> There is a proposed initiative, ironically being championed by the BC,
>>>>> to crowdsource feedback on the CEO?s (Fadi?s) performance, specifically
>>>>> on his circumvention of the bottom-up MS process. If for any reason the
>>>>> ombudsman option doesn?t work out, we should draw attention to the TM+50
>>>>> issue there. We should probably do that even if the ombuddy comes
>>>>> through for us. :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> In any case, yeah?, go for it, Robin. :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 4, 2014, at 6:38 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>
>>>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> makes sense to me too.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 04-Mar-14 17:23, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>> Makes sense to me.  Not that any of this makes any sense.
>>>>>>> Mind-boggling, and as Avri said today on another topic, makes it hard
>>>>>>> to defend this model of Internet governance.
>>>>>>> SP
>>>>>>> On Mar 4, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Dear EC Members:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> It would seem the best course for NCSG is to now file this request for
>>>>>>>> an independent evaluation with ICANN's ombudsman over the issue of
>>>>>>>> board-staff circumventing the process stated in ICANN's bylaws for
>>>>>>>> making policy.  I propose we now do this.  Ed Morris is willing to
>>>>>>>> continue to work with me to see this issue through so he and I will
>>>>>>>> begin to prepare this request and perhaps we can make some progress in
>>>>>>>> Singapore on this issue.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>>> From: *Chris LaHatte <chris.lahatte at icann.org
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:chris.lahatte at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:chris.lahatte at icann.org>
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:chris.lahatte at icann.org>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Subject: **RE: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue*
>>>>>>>>>> *Date: *February 9, 2014 3:54:23 PM PST
>>>>>>>>>> *To: *Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org><mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Robin
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for the reply. I believe the independent evaluation may be
>>>>>>>>>> the best way to proceed on this matter, because if there is nothing
>>>>>>>>>> further to discuss on the part of ICANN, then a mediation may be
>>>>>>>>>> difficult. I was keen to promote this idea, if for no other reason
>>>>>>>>>> than enabling each party to have a better understanding of their
>>>>>>>>>> views, even if they did not agree. However ICANN legal were just not
>>>>>>>>>> enthusiastic. I certainly can proceed to such an evaluation is that
>>>>>>>>>> would involve an assessment of whether the procedure followed was
>>>>>>>>>> fair, bringing this into my jurisdiction. I have suggested this to
>>>>>>>>>> the legal Department and it may be the best way to take the next
>>>>>>>>>> step. Could I trouble you to make a submission along those lines, to
>>>>>>>>>> the effect that your view is that ICANN did not follow its corporate
>>>>>>>>>> bylaws, and I will ask for a similar submission from legal. Once I
>>>>>>>>>> have these I can consider the matter and make a determination.
>>>>>>>>>> Please contact me if you need to discuss this further.
>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>> Chris LaHatte
>>>>>>>>>> Ombudsman
>>>>>>>>>> Bloghttps://omblog.icann.org/
>>>>>>>>>> Webpagehttp://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>>>>>>>>> <webpagehttp://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman>
>>>>>>>>>> Confidentiality
>>>>>>>>>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as
>>>>>>>>>> confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps
>>>>>>>>>> necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those
>>>>>>>>>> parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the
>>>>>>>>>> Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise
>>>>>>>>>> staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a
>>>>>>>>>> complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.
>>>>>>>>>> The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure
>>>>>>>>>> that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and
>>>>>>>>>> identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential
>>>>>>>>>> nature of such information, except as necessary to further the
>>>>>>>>>> resolution of a complaint
>>>>>>>>>> *From:*Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Saturday, February 08, 2014 11:20 AM
>>>>>>>>>> *To:*Chris LaHatte
>>>>>>>>>> *Cc:*Milton Mueller; Edward Morris; Rafik Dammak; Steve Crocker;
>>>>>>>>>> Raymond Plzak
>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you, Chris.
>>>>>>>>>> It is disappointing that ICANN legal dept takes the position that
>>>>>>>>>> its decisions cannot be changed, even if found to violate the
>>>>>>>>>> organization's bylaws.  We want an evaluation of what the bylaws
>>>>>>>>>> require of ICANN when making policy compared with how this policy
>>>>>>>>>> was adopted.  An evaluation that depends on the guidance of ICANN
>>>>>>>>>> legal dept., as all evaluations have done just become circular.
>>>>>>>>>> This issue has not been before an independent evaluator and that is
>>>>>>>>>> necessary to receive any kind of independent judgement.  ICANN
>>>>>>>>>> legal's reassurance that it 'can do what it did and even if it
>>>>>>>>>> can't, it's too late to do anything about it now' underscores the
>>>>>>>>>> circular problem we are having and have been for a year now on this
>>>>>>>>>> issue.  If policies that violate the bylaws REALLY can't be changed
>>>>>>>>>> because they've already been adopted, then ICANN has an even bigger
>>>>>>>>>> accountability issue on its hands.
>>>>>>>>>> We would like to go ahead with the mediation and try to get an
>>>>>>>>>> independent evaluation from you on the key issue in question:
>>>>>>>>>> violation of corporate bylaws.  What a proper remedy would be is a
>>>>>>>>>> different question that I am happy to explore further.  But as I
>>>>>>>>>> have said before, we would like to have a ruling on whether the
>>>>>>>>>> corporate bylaws were violated in the adoption of this policy.  Are
>>>>>>>>>> you able to investigate this issue even if ICANN legal does not wish
>>>>>>>>>> for it to continue?
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Robin
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 30, 2014, at 4:54 PM, Chris LaHatte wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Robin
>>>>>>>>>> I have finally had a lengthy discussion with John Jeffries and Amy
>>>>>>>>>> Stathos about this issue. The position is that they are unsure what
>>>>>>>>>> they can offer by way of any concession at a mediation. As you may
>>>>>>>>>> have predicted, they take the strong view that this was
>>>>>>>>>> implementation and that there was adequate presentation of the case
>>>>>>>>>> for an appropriate level for the Trademark Clearinghouse. Their view
>>>>>>>>>> is that the decisions cannot now be unravelled and therefore they
>>>>>>>>>> are unsure as to what can be offered at a mediation. After some
>>>>>>>>>> discussion, and which I expressed my view that at least a principal
>>>>>>>>>> aim should be to avoid conflict and to avoid the need for an
>>>>>>>>>> Independent Review Panel, it was suggested that I should ask what
>>>>>>>>>> your community would want out of such a mediation, given their view
>>>>>>>>>> is that it is not possible to revisit the decisions at this stage.
>>>>>>>>>> So if you can help me on this, I would be grateful.
>>>>>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>>>>> Chris LaHatte
>>>>>>>>>> Ombudsman
>>>>>>>>>> Bloghttps://omblog.icann.org/
>>>>>>>>>> Webpagehttp://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>>>>>>>>> <webpagehttp://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman>
>>>>>>>>>> Confidentiality
>>>>>>>>>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as
>>>>>>>>>> confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps
>>>>>>>>>> necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those
>>>>>>>>>> parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the
>>>>>>>>>> Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise
>>>>>>>>>> staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a
>>>>>>>>>> complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.
>>>>>>>>>> The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure
>>>>>>>>>> that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and
>>>>>>>>>> identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential
>>>>>>>>>> nature of such information, except as necessary to further the
>>>>>>>>>> resolution of a complaint
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140305/2ef2b4b0/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Mar  5 14:17:31 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 21:17:31 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: :Publication of Initial Report IRTP Part D - Request
	for input
In-Reply-To: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F69846B2F@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F69846B2F@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkK85uCa9KGAUHT021KmrKKu_xsWi48C7T8GKDLMAZo2A@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

another public comment to handle.

Rafik


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
Date: 2014-03-04 23:34 GMT+09:00
Subject: :Publication of Initial Report IRTP Part D - Request for input
To: "marie-laure Lemineur (mllemineur at gmail.com)" <mllemineur at gmail.com>,
William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Cc: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann at icann.org>, "gnso-secs at icann.org" <
gnso-secs at icann.org>






Dear Marie-Laure, Bill and Rafik,



Please note that the GNSO Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Part D PDP
Working Group has published its Initial
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/transfers/irtp-d-initial-03mar14-en.pdf>-
now open for public comment -
http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/irtp-d-initial-03mar14-en.htm.



The comment period extends throughout the ICANN Meeting in Singapore (until
03 April 2014) and the reply period will close on 25 April 2014. Please
share this report with your respective group and, if possible, provide your
input and feedback on the various draft recommendation so that the Working
Group can take this into consideration when formulating its Final Report.



In addition, the Working Group will hold a public workshop during the
Singapore ICANN Meeting where it plans to present its preliminary
recommendation to the community and hopes to receive comments and feedback
from the community that will in turn help to finalize the Group's final
recommendations.



Many thanks and best wishes,



Glen de Saint G?ry
GNSO Secretariat
*gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org <gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>*
*http://gnso.icann.org <http://gnso.icann.org/>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140305/0f24d2e8/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Mar  5 14:49:55 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 21:49:55 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [EC-NCSG] need for independent evaluation with
	ombudsman
In-Reply-To: <B4BD10A9-BC62-4AB5-8F08-36744EBC0D1B@ipjustice.org>
References: <CC98D83A-3852-471B-8620-98DEA07A686B@ipjustice.org>
	<B4BD10A9-BC62-4AB5-8F08-36744EBC0D1B@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThk329aWYrSYfYtot8+mKUN5pyUfbQ0Vj5kReTtucKbmAw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Robin,

I think that is the option we have now. hopefully we can start such process
before singapore.
lets wait to see other EC members reactions, and if there is no objection
we can proceed.

Best,

Rafik

2014-03-05 2:18 GMT+09:00 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>:

> Dear EC Members:
>
> It would seem the best course for NCSG is to now file this request for an
> independent evaluation with ICANN's ombudsman over the issue of board-staff
> circumventing the process stated in ICANN's bylaws for making policy.  I
> propose we now do this.  Ed Morris is willing to continue to work with me
> to see this issue through so he and I will begin to prepare this request
> and perhaps we can make some progress in Singapore on this issue.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
> *From: *Chris LaHatte <chris.lahatte at icann.org>
> *Subject: **RE: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue*
> *Date: *February 9, 2014 3:54:23 PM PST
> *To: *Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>
> Hi Robin
>
> Thank you for the reply. I believe the independent evaluation may be the
> best way to proceed on this matter, because if there is nothing further to
> discuss on the part of ICANN, then a mediation may be difficult. I was keen
> to promote this idea, if for no other reason than enabling each party to
> have a better understanding of their views, even if they did not agree.
> However ICANN legal were just not enthusiastic. I certainly can proceed to
> such an evaluation is that would involve an assessment of whether the
> procedure followed was fair, bringing this into my jurisdiction. I have
> suggested this to the legal Department and it may be the best way to take
> the next step. Could I trouble you to make a submission along those lines,
> to the effect that your view is that ICANN did not follow its corporate
> bylaws, and I will ask for a similar submission from legal. Once I have
> these I can consider the matter and make a determination.
>
> Please contact me if you need to discuss this further.
>
> Regards
>
>
> Chris LaHatte
> Ombudsman
> Blog  https://omblog.icann.org/
> Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>
>
> Confidentiality
> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as
> confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary
> to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not
> involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman
> shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the
> existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution
> of the complaint.  The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary
> to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence
> and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential
> nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution
> of a complaint
>
>  *From:* Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org]
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 08, 2014 11:20 AM
> *To:* Chris LaHatte
> *Cc:* Milton Mueller; Edward Morris; Rafik Dammak; Steve Crocker; Raymond
> Plzak
> *Subject:* Re: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue
>
> Thank you, Chris.
>
> It is disappointing that ICANN legal dept takes the position that its
> decisions cannot be changed, even if found to violate the organization's
> bylaws.  We want an evaluation of what the bylaws require of ICANN when
> making policy compared with how this policy was adopted.  An evaluation
> that depends on the guidance of ICANN legal dept., as all evaluations have
> done just become circular.  This issue has not been before an independent
> evaluator and that is necessary to receive any kind of independent
> judgement.  ICANN legal's reassurance that it 'can do what it did and even
> if it can't, it's too late to do anything about it now' underscores the
> circular problem we are having and have been for a year now on this issue.
>  If policies that violate the bylaws REALLY can't be changed because
> they've already been adopted, then ICANN has an even bigger accountability
> issue on its hands.
>
> We would like to go ahead with the mediation and try to get an independent
> evaluation from you on the key issue in question: violation of corporate
> bylaws.  What a proper remedy would be is a different question that I am
> happy to explore further.  But as I have said before, we would like to have
> a ruling on whether the corporate bylaws were violated in the adoption of
> this policy.  Are you able to investigate this issue even if ICANN legal
> does not wish for it to continue?
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
>
> On Jan 30, 2014, at 4:54 PM, Chris LaHatte wrote:
>
>
>  Hi Robin
>
> I have finally had a lengthy discussion with John Jeffries and Amy Stathos
> about this issue. The position is that they are unsure what they can offer
> by way of any concession at a mediation. As you may have predicted, they
> take the strong view that this was implementation and that there was
> adequate presentation of the case for an appropriate level for the
> Trademark Clearinghouse. Their view is that the decisions cannot now be
> unravelled and therefore they are unsure as to what can be offered at a
> mediation. After some discussion, and which I expressed my view that at
> least a principal aim should be to avoid conflict and to avoid the need for
> an Independent Review Panel, it was suggested that I should ask what your
> community would want out of such a mediation, given their view is that it
> is not possible to revisit the decisions at this stage. So if you can help
> me on this, I would be grateful.
>
> Regards
>
> Chris LaHatte
> Ombudsman
> Blog  https://omblog.icann.org/
> Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>
>
> Confidentiality
> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as
> confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary
> to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not
> involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman
> shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the
> existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution
> of the complaint.  The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary
> to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence
> and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential
> nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution
> of a complaint
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140305/ba37bcbe/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Wed Mar  5 17:32:09 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2014 16:32:09 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Response to the Translation & Transliteration of
	Contact Information PDP WG
Message-ID: <0AC2E297-BDD1-409D-985C-7C6451E03175@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Here is yet another PDP WG requiring feedback from the ICANN community on its charter questions. This one is the translation and transliteration of contact information PDP WG. We have a relatively large number of NCSG members on this WG, so I hope to get some feedback on the responses I?ve provided.

We have a relatively large number of NCSG members on this working group. I find that appropriate considering the globally distributed nature of the NCSG membership. This PDP should should especially be one of importance to registrants coming from countries where the language used is not based on Latin script, but it is still one of importance to all registrants.

I am personally not a fan of this PDP going through to becoming policy, and haven?t been since first joining the charter drafting team, but I am under the impression that there may be opinions in the NCSG opposed to mine. To what extent this is true, I can?t be sure. However, if there are, I?d be especially grateful to hear them now.

Thanks.

Amr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG Response to T&T of Contact Info PDP WG Questions.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 53760 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140305/d55d6de8/attachment-0001.doc>


From aelsadr  Thu Mar  6 11:52:00 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 10:52:00 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
Message-ID: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>

Hi all,

I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:

1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG
2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG status update report
3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG

The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These are very important statements that constitute the NCSG's official contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a position on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.

I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that you support or don?t support them.

Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have not yet been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I missed any.

Thanks.

Amr


From rafik.dammak  Fri Mar  7 14:16:53 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 21:16:53 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate their
support or not to the statements. we have statements but they are waiting
approval!
I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think that we
can take more than one week to respond.

Best,

Rafik


2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi all,
>
> I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently awaiting
> NCSG-PC endorsement:
>
> 1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues
> PDP WG
> 2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG status update
> report
> 3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact
> Information PDP WG
>
> The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual statement
> endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs
> needs to be endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These
> are very important statements that constitute the NCSG's official
> contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a
> position on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>
> I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask questions
> or suggest changes, then either indicate that you support or don?t support
> them.
>
> Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have not yet
> been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and
> the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I missed any.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140307/f1d341fe/attachment.html>


From rudi.vansnick  Fri Mar  7 15:53:44 2014
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 13:53:44 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>

I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link to the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.

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 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:

> Hi Amr,
> 
> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate their support or not to the statements. we have statements but they are waiting approval!
> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think that we can take more than one week to respond.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 
> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
> Hi all,
> 
> I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
> 
> 1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG
> 2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG status update report
> 3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG
> 
> The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These are very important statements that constitute the NCSG's official contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a position on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
> 
> I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that you support or don?t support them.
> 
> Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have not yet been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I missed any.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140307/08e822d3/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Fri Mar  7 16:36:58 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 15:36:58 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
Message-ID: <01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>

Hi Rudi,

I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately, we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to review and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed, and we?ve been asking for extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to one of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others please give feedback on this list?

Thanks.

Amr


On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE> wrote:

> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link to the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
> 
> 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 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> Hi Amr,
>> 
>> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate their support or not to the statements. we have statements but they are waiting approval!
>> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think that we can take more than one week to respond.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik 
>> 
>> 
>> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>> 
>> 1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>> 2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG status update report
>> 3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG
>> 
>> The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These are very important statements that constitute the NCSG's official contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a position on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>> 
>> I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that you support or don?t support them.
>> 
>> Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have not yet been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I missed any.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140307/acbeb26f/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG Response to T&T of Contact Info PDP WG Questions.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 53760 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140307/acbeb26f/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140307/acbeb26f/attachment-0005.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSGResponsetoQuestionsfromProxyPrivacyAccrediationWG.docx (00629345).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 29592 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140307/acbeb26f/attachment-0002.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140307/acbeb26f/attachment-0006.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Comments of the NCSG to EWG Status Report March 2014.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 38025 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140307/acbeb26f/attachment-0003.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140307/acbeb26f/attachment-0007.html>


From maria.farrell  Fri Mar  7 16:58:06 2014
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 14:58:06 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I personally
support all of them and am sorry that my workload this week has been too
frantic to allow me to contribute.

I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy and proxy
document, details attached below in bold and strikethrough, if there is
time to revise them. (but these two points are not deal breakers if there
is not time.)

All the best, Maria





On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi Rudi,
>
> I've attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately, we
> don't have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to review
> and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed, and we've been
> asking for extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to one
> of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG) based
> on Kathy's feedback on the NCSG-list. They're the same comments Chris
> Dillon walked us through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others
> please give feedback on this list?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE> wrote:
>
> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link to
> the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so we can
> validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>
> 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 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> Hi Amr,
>
> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate their
> support or not to the statements. we have statements but they are waiting
> approval!
> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think that
> we can take more than one week to respond.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I don't enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently awaiting
>> NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>
>> 1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues
>> PDP WG
>> 2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG status update
>> report
>> 3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact
>> Information PDP WG
>>
>> The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual statement
>> endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs
>> needs to be endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These
>> are very important statements that constitute the NCSG's official
>> contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don't declare a
>> position on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>
>> I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask questions
>> or suggest changes, then either indicate that you support or don't support
>> them.
>>
>> Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have not yet
>> been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and
>> the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140307/0ecad867/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: maria farrell p&p comments.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 92718 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140307/0ecad867/attachment-0001.docx>


From aelsadr  Fri Mar  7 17:14:10 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 16:14:10 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <32C75DC4-E320-42A9-8B8A-A2056B3B8FCA@egyptig.org>

Thanks Maria,

You?re absolutely right on both counts!! No pun intended!! ;-) I?ll make the changes as suggested.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Mar 7, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I personally support all of them and am sorry that my workload this week has been too frantic to allow me to contribute. 
> 
> I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy and proxy document, details attached below in bold and strikethrough, if there is time to revise them. (but these two points are not deal breakers if there is not time.)
> 
> All the best, Maria
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> Hi Rudi,
> 
> I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately, we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to review and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed, and we?ve been asking for extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to one of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others please give feedback on this list?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE> wrote:
> 
>> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link to the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>> 
>> 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 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> Hi Amr,
>>> 
>>> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate their support or not to the statements. we have statements but they are waiting approval!
>>> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>> 
>>> 1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>> 2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG status update report
>>> 3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG
>>> 
>>> The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These are very important statements that constitute the NCSG's official contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a position on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>> 
>>> I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that you support or don?t support them.
>>> 
>>> Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have not yet been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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
> 
> 
> <maria farrell p&p comments.docx>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140307/8e2132cb/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Fri Mar  7 18:00:30 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 17:00:30 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <32C75DC4-E320-42A9-8B8A-A2056B3B8FCA@egyptig.org>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>
	<32C75DC4-E320-42A9-8B8A-A2056B3B8FCA@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <C318B14B-2AAF-47A3-AFDE-331884CD8B36@egyptig.org>

Here are the files again, with the updates by Kathy in the Translation/Transliteration statement and Maria?s revisions in the PPSAI statement.

Thanks.

Amr


On Mar 7, 2014, at 4:14 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Thanks Maria,
> 
> You?re absolutely right on both counts!! No pun intended!! ;-) I?ll make the changes as suggested.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Mar 7, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I personally support all of them and am sorry that my workload this week has been too frantic to allow me to contribute. 
>> 
>> I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy and proxy document, details attached below in bold and strikethrough, if there is time to revise them. (but these two points are not deal breakers if there is not time.)
>> 
>> All the best, Maria
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> Hi Rudi,
>> 
>> I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately, we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to review and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed, and we?ve been asking for extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to one of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others please give feedback on this list?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE> wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link to the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>>> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>> 
>>> 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 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>> 
>>>> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate their support or not to the statements. we have statements but they are waiting approval!
>>>> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>>> 2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG status update report
>>>> 3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG
>>>> 
>>>> The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These are very important statements that constitute the NCSG's official contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a position on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>>> 
>>>> I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that you support or don?t support them.
>>>> 
>>>> Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have not yet been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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
>> 
>> 
>> <maria farrell p&p comments.docx>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140307/ba66859b/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Comments of the NCSG to EWG Status Report March 2014.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 42076 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140307/ba66859b/attachment-0002.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140307/ba66859b/attachment-0005.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG Response to T&T of Contact Info PDP WG Questions + edits by KK.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 53760 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140307/ba66859b/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140307/ba66859b/attachment-0006.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSGResponsetoQuestionsfromProxyPrivacyAccrediationWG.docx (00629345) + edits by MF.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 37164 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140307/ba66859b/attachment-0003.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140307/ba66859b/attachment-0007.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Fri Mar  7 18:30:01 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 11:30:01 -0500
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <27CBE224-A020-4F49-9110-F04228297975@mail.utoronto.ca>

I have already supported the P/P questionnaire, and the EWG response, now I support the T&T position.  And thanks to all drafters!!!  the work never stops?.
Stephanie
On Mar 7, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi Rudi,
> 
> I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately, we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to review and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed, and we?ve been asking for extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to one of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others please give feedback on this list?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> <NCSG Response to T&T of Contact Info PDP WG Questions.doc>
> <NCSGResponsetoQuestionsfromProxyPrivacyAccrediationWG.docx (00629345).docx>
> <Comments of the NCSG to EWG Status Report March 2014.docx>
> 
> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE> wrote:
> 
>> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link to the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>> 
>> 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 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> Hi Amr,
>>> 
>>> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate their support or not to the statements. we have statements but they are waiting approval!
>>> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>> 
>>> 1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>> 2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG status update report
>>> 3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG
>>> 
>>> The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These are very important statements that constitute the NCSG's official contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a position on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>> 
>>> I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that you support or don?t support them.
>>> 
>>> Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have not yet been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140307/122f865e/attachment.html>


From robin  Mon Mar 10 04:10:14 2014
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 19:10:14 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [EC-NCSG] need for independent evaluation with
	ombudsman
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThk329aWYrSYfYtot8+mKUN5pyUfbQ0Vj5kReTtucKbmAw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CC98D83A-3852-471B-8620-98DEA07A686B@ipjustice.org>
	<B4BD10A9-BC62-4AB5-8F08-36744EBC0D1B@ipjustice.org>
	<CAH5sThk329aWYrSYfYtot8+mKUN5pyUfbQ0Vj5kReTtucKbmAw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F53919A3-066D-4997-9F1C-78BD2E87D9F6@ipjustice.org>

Thanks, Rafik.  Having heard no objections, we'll get the process underway now.  

Best,
Robin


On Mar 5, 2014, at 4:49 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:

> Hi Robin,
> 
> I think that is the option we have now. hopefully we can start such process before singapore.
> lets wait to see other EC members reactions, and if there is no objection we can proceed.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 2014-03-05 2:18 GMT+09:00 Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>:
> Dear EC Members:
> 
> It would seem the best course for NCSG is to now file this request for an independent evaluation with ICANN's ombudsman over the issue of board-staff circumventing the process stated in ICANN's bylaws for making policy.  I propose we now do this.  Ed Morris is willing to continue to work with me to see this issue through so he and I will begin to prepare this request and perhaps we can make some progress in Singapore on this issue.
> 
> Thanks,
> Robin
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>>> 
>>> From: Chris LaHatte <chris.lahatte at icann.org>
>>> Subject: RE: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue
>>> Date: February 9, 2014 3:54:23 PM PST
>>> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
>>> 
>>> Hi Robin
>>>  
>>> Thank you for the reply. I believe the independent evaluation may be the best way to proceed on this matter, because if there is nothing further to discuss on the part of ICANN, then a mediation may be difficult. I was keen to promote this idea, if for no other reason than enabling each party to have a better understanding of their views, even if they did not agree. However ICANN legal were just not enthusiastic. I certainly can proceed to such an evaluation is that would involve an assessment of whether the procedure followed was fair, bringing this into my jurisdiction. I have suggested this to the legal Department and it may be the best way to take the next step. Could I trouble you to make a submission along those lines, to the effect that your view is that ICANN did not follow its corporate bylaws, and I will ask for a similar submission from legal. Once I have these I can consider the matter and make a determination.
>>>  
>>> Please contact me if you need to discuss this further.
>>>  
>>> Regards
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Chris LaHatte
>>> Ombudsman
>>> Blog  https://omblog.icann.org/
>>> Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Confidentiality
>>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.  The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint
>>>  
>>> From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
>>> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2014 11:20 AM
>>> To: Chris LaHatte
>>> Cc: Milton Mueller; Edward Morris; Rafik Dammak; Steve Crocker; Raymond Plzak
>>> Subject: Re: NCSG Mediation TM 50 Issue
>>>  
>>> Thank you, Chris.
>>>  
>>> It is disappointing that ICANN legal dept takes the position that its decisions cannot be changed, even if found to violate the organization's bylaws.  We want an evaluation of what the bylaws require of ICANN when making policy compared with how this policy was adopted.  An evaluation that depends on the guidance of ICANN legal dept., as all evaluations have done just become circular.  This issue has not been before an independent evaluator and that is necessary to receive any kind of independent judgement.  ICANN legal's reassurance that it 'can do what it did and even if it can't, it's too late to do anything about it now' underscores the circular problem we are having and have been for a year now on this issue.  If policies that violate the bylaws REALLY can't be changed because they've already been adopted, then ICANN has an even bigger accountability issue on its hands.
>>>  
>>> We would like to go ahead with the mediation and try to get an independent evaluation from you on the key issue in question: violation of corporate bylaws.  What a proper remedy would be is a different question that I am happy to explore further.  But as I have said before, we would like to have a ruling on whether the corporate bylaws were violated in the adoption of this policy.  Are you able to investigate this issue even if ICANN legal does not wish for it to continue?
>>>  
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robin
>>>  
>>>  
>>> On Jan 30, 2014, at 4:54 PM, Chris LaHatte wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Robin
>>>  
>>> I have finally had a lengthy discussion with John Jeffries and Amy Stathos about this issue. The position is that they are unsure what they can offer by way of any concession at a mediation. As you may have predicted, they take the strong view that this was implementation and that there was adequate presentation of the case for an appropriate level for the Trademark Clearinghouse. Their view is that the decisions cannot now be unravelled and therefore they are unsure as to what can be offered at a mediation. After some discussion, and which I expressed my view that at least a principal aim should be to avoid conflict and to avoid the need for an Independent Review Panel, it was suggested that I should ask what your community would want out of such a mediation, given their view is that it is not possible to revisit the decisions at this stage. So if you can help me on this, I would be grateful.
>>>  
>>> Regards
>>>  
>>> Chris LaHatte
>>> Ombudsman
>>> Blog  https://omblog.icann.org/
>>> Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Confidentiality
>>> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.  The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint
>>>  
>>>  
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140309/b527b154/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140309/b527b154/attachment-0001.sig>


From aelsadr  Mon Mar 10 15:38:14 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:38:14 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <27CBE224-A020-4F49-9110-F04228297975@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
	<27CBE224-A020-4F49-9110-F04228297975@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <7E3C5522-E1C0-453C-A8B9-FC50C9B23C51@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Thanks to those who have responded and showed support for the statements. Unfortunately, we only got responses from three out of ten NCSG-PC members. I don?t believe this qualifies as ?rough consensus? as defined in the NCSG charter.

It?s rather a shame that NCSG members put their time into following these working groups and make an effort to draft comments when feedback is sought only to be ignored by the policy committee. I still believe it is important to submit the drafted comments, and so will seek endorsement by NCUC. I hope we have better luck with responses there than here.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 7, 2014, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> I have already supported the P/P questionnaire, and the EWG response, now I support the T&T position.  And thanks to all drafters!!!  the work never stops?.
> Stephanie
> On Mar 7, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Rudi,
>> 
>> I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately, we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to review and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed, and we?ve been asking for extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to one of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others please give feedback on this list?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> <NCSG Response to T&T of Contact Info PDP WG Questions.doc>
>> <NCSGResponsetoQuestionsfromProxyPrivacyAccrediationWG.docx (00629345).docx>
>> <Comments of the NCSG to EWG Status Report March 2014.docx>
>> 
>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE> wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link to the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>>> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>> 
>>> 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 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>> 
>>>> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate their support or not to the statements. we have statements but they are waiting approval!
>>>> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>>> 2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG status update report
>>>> 3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG
>>>> 
>>>> The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These are very important statements that constitute the NCSG's official contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a position on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>>> 
>>>> I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that you support or don?t support them.
>>>> 
>>>> Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have not yet been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140310/6815626c/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Mar 10 15:37:46 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 22:37:46 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <7E3C5522-E1C0-453C-A8B9-FC50C9B23C51@egyptig.org>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
	<27CBE224-A020-4F49-9110-F04228297975@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<7E3C5522-E1C0-453C-A8B9-FC50C9B23C51@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmERySNcSjMwU6bt5yupA0DOW7+0HsZi1iD7ShKyn1XAA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello ,

since the draft were sent few days ago , I think that PC members should
approve or object by today, we don't have so much time left .
please check the drafts quickly and tell us if you approve  or object that
the statements to be sent.

Best,

Rafik


2014-03-10 22:38 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks to those who have responded and showed support for the statements.
> Unfortunately, we only got responses from three out of ten NCSG-PC members.
> I don?t believe this qualifies as ?rough consensus? as defined in the NCSG
> charter.
>
> It?s rather a shame that NCSG members put their time into following these
> working groups and make an effort to draft comments when feedback is sought
> only to be ignored by the policy committee. I still believe it is important
> to submit the drafted comments, and so will seek endorsement by NCUC. I
> hope we have better luck with responses there than here.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 7, 2014, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>
> I have already supported the P/P questionnaire, and the EWG response, now
> I support the T&T position.  And thanks to all drafters!!!  the work never
> stops?.
> Stephanie
> On Mar 7, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Rudi,
>
> I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately, we
> don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to review
> and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed, and we?ve been
> asking for extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to one
> of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG) based
> on Kathy?s feedback on the NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris
> Dillon walked us through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others
> please give feedback on this list?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> <NCSG Response to T&T of Contact Info PDP WG Questions.doc>
> <NCSGResponsetoQuestionsfromProxyPrivacyAccrediationWG.docx
> (00629345).docx>
> <Comments of the NCSG to EWG Status Report March 2014.docx>
>
> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE> wrote:
>
> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link to
> the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so we can
> validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>
> 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 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> Hi Amr,
>
> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate their
> support or not to the statements. we have statements but they are waiting
> approval!
> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think that
> we can take more than one week to respond.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently awaiting
>> NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>
>> 1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues
>> PDP WG
>> 2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG status update
>> report
>> 3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact
>> Information PDP WG
>>
>> The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual statement
>> endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs
>> needs to be endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These
>> are very important statements that constitute the NCSG's official
>> contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a
>> position on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>
>> I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask questions
>> or suggest changes, then either indicate that you support or don?t support
>> them.
>>
>> Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have not yet
>> been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and
>> the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140310/6615daae/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Mon Mar 10 17:41:55 2014
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 08:41:55 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <7E3C5522-E1C0-453C-A8B9-FC50C9B23C51@egyptig.org>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
	<27CBE224-A020-4F49-9110-F04228297975@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<7E3C5522-E1C0-453C-A8B9-FC50C9B23C51@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <8202AFF3-EF06-4F95-9686-18EF995BFA18@ipjustice.org>

I can sympathize with frustration over needing to get comments in on behalf of NCSG, but having inadequate engagement from the individual representatives of NCSG PC to get the job done.

There are duties and responsibilities that come with being a representative of the NCSG PC - including engaging in the process to get comments in on behalf of our members.  That is what we members elect PC representatives to do on our behalf.  

If you are a NCSG PC representative, you have an affirmative obligation to read and comment on drafts that the PC is asked to endorse.

If PC representatives are not able to meet the responsibilities of being a representative on the NCSG PC, he or she should let the chair know, so alternative arrangements can be made and members can be represented.  We cannot go on with this low level of engagement from our PC.  It is not fair to our members or those who did the drafting.

My 2 cents,
Robin

On Mar 10, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Thanks to those who have responded and showed support for the statements. Unfortunately, we only got responses from three out of ten NCSG-PC members. I don?t believe this qualifies as ?rough consensus? as defined in the NCSG charter.
> 
> It?s rather a shame that NCSG members put their time into following these working groups and make an effort to draft comments when feedback is sought only to be ignored by the policy committee. I still believe it is important to submit the drafted comments, and so will seek endorsement by NCUC. I hope we have better luck with responses there than here.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Mar 7, 2014, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
>> I have already supported the P/P questionnaire, and the EWG response, now I support the T&T position.  And thanks to all drafters!!!  the work never stops?.
>> Stephanie
>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Rudi,
>>> 
>>> I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately, we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to review and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed, and we?ve been asking for extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to one of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others please give feedback on this list?
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> <NCSG Response to T&T of Contact Info PDP WG Questions.doc>
>>> <NCSGResponsetoQuestionsfromProxyPrivacyAccrediationWG.docx (00629345).docx>
>>> <Comments of the NCSG to EWG Status Report March 2014.docx>
>>> 
>>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link to the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>>>> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>>> 
>>>> 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 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate their support or not to the statements. we have statements but they are waiting approval!
>>>>> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>>>> 2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG status update report
>>>>> 3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG
>>>>> 
>>>>> The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These are very important statements that constitute the NCSG's official contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a position on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that you support or don?t support them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have not yet been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140310/2a3ba44a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140310/2a3ba44a/attachment.sig>


From avri  Mon Mar 10 17:56:31 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:56:31 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <8202AFF3-EF06-4F95-9686-18EF995BFA18@ipjustice.org>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>	<27CBE224-A020-4F49-9110-F04228297975@mail.utoronto.ca>	<7E3C5522-E1C0-453C-A8B9-FC50C9B23C51@egyptig.org>
	<8202AFF3-EF06-4F95-9686-18EF995BFA18@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <531DE0AF.4060305@acm.org>

Hi,

Wow a genuine dressing down.  I'm impressed.

I think there is also a responsibility of the leaders of the group to 
get these things.  Wendy and I failed to achieve it when it was my turn, 
and was hoping the new guys would be better at it.

So which are the 3 that responded.  If you are going to use shame, you 
might as well use name.

Just to indicate where I am at, started reading one of them got 
confused. Asked a question  and then got sidetracked to other things.

cheers,

avri



On 10-Mar-14 11:41, Robin Gross wrote:
> I can sympathize with frustration over needing to get comments in on
> behalf of NCSG, but having inadequate engagement from the individual
> representatives of NCSG PC to get the job done.
>
> There are duties and responsibilities that come with being a
> representative of the NCSG PC - including engaging in the process to get
> comments in on behalf of our members.  That is what we members elect PC
> representatives to do on our behalf.
>
> If you are a NCSG PC representative, you have an affirmative obligation
> to read and comment on drafts that the PC is asked to endorse.
>
> If PC representatives are not able to meet the responsibilities of being
> a representative on the NCSG PC, he or she should let the chair know, so
> alternative arrangements can be made and members can be represented.  We
> cannot go on with this low level of engagement from our PC.  It is not
> fair to our members or those who did the drafting.
>
> My 2 cents,
> Robin
>
> On Mar 10, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks to those who have responded and showed support for the
>> statements. Unfortunately, we only got responses from three out of ten
>> NCSG-PC members. I don?t believe this qualifies as ?rough consensus?
>> as defined in the NCSG charter.
>>
>> It?s rather a shame that NCSG members put their time into following
>> these working groups and make an effort to draft comments when
>> feedback is sought only to be ignored by the policy committee. I still
>> believe it is important to submit the drafted comments, and so will
>> seek endorsement by NCUC. I hope we have better luck with responses
>> there than here.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>
>>> I have already supported the P/P questionnaire, and the EWG response,
>>> now I support the T&T position.  And thanks to all drafters!!!  the
>>> work never stops?.
>>> Stephanie
>>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Rudi,
>>>>
>>>> I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately,
>>>> we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to
>>>> review and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed,
>>>> and we?ve been asking for extensions for all of them. There has only
>>>> been an update to one of them (Translation & Transliteration of
>>>> Contact Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the
>>>> NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us through
>>>> during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others please give
>>>> feedback on this list?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>>
>>>> <NCSG Response to T&T of Contact Info PDP WG Questions.doc>
>>>> <NCSGResponsetoQuestionsfromProxyPrivacyAccrediationWG.docx
>>>> (00629345).docx>
>>>> <Comments of the NCSG to EWG Status Report March 2014.docx>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE
>>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a
>>>>> link to the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>>>>> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so
>>>>> we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rudi Vansnick
>>>>> NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>>> NPOC treasurer
>>>>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>>>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>>>>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Op 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and
>>>>>> indicate their support or not to the statements. we have
>>>>>> statements but they are waiting approval!
>>>>>> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't
>>>>>> think that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements
>>>>>>     currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services
>>>>>>     Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>>>>>     2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG
>>>>>>     status update report
>>>>>>     3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of
>>>>>>     Contact Information PDP WG
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual
>>>>>>     statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the
>>>>>>     responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be endorsed by either an
>>>>>>     SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These are very important
>>>>>>     statements that constitute the NCSG's official contribution to
>>>>>>     PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a
>>>>>>     position on them only because we fail to endorse statements
>>>>>>     already drafted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     I urge you all to read through all three of the statements,
>>>>>>     ask questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that
>>>>>>     you support or don?t support them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Note: There are still more requests for input pending that
>>>>>>     have not yet been drafted including the Policy and
>>>>>>     Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial
>>>>>>     report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Amr
>>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



From avri  Mon Mar 10 18:05:44 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:05:44 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <7E3C5522-E1C0-453C-A8B9-FC50C9B23C51@egyptig.org>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>	<27CBE224-A020-4F49-9110-F04228297975@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<7E3C5522-E1C0-453C-A8B9-FC50C9B23C51@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <531DE2D8.4070006@acm.org>


is there a convenient place to find these?

avri


On 10-Mar-14 09:38, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks to those who have responded and showed support for the
> statements. Unfortunately, we only got responses from three out of ten
> NCSG-PC members. I don?t believe this qualifies as ?rough consensus? as
> defined in the NCSG charter.
>
> It?s rather a shame that NCSG members put their time into following
> these working groups and make an effort to draft comments when feedback
> is sought only to be ignored by the policy committee. I still believe it
> is important to submit the drafted comments, and so will seek
> endorsement by NCUC. I hope we have better luck with responses there
> than here.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 7, 2014, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
>> I have already supported the P/P questionnaire, and the EWG response,
>> now I support the T&T position.  And thanks to all drafters!!!  the
>> work never stops?.
>> Stephanie
>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Rudi,
>>>
>>> I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately,
>>> we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to
>>> review and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed,
>>> and we?ve been asking for extensions for all of them. There has only
>>> been an update to one of them (Translation & Transliteration of
>>> Contact Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the
>>> NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us through
>>> during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others please give
>>> feedback on this list?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> <NCSG Response to T&T of Contact Info PDP WG Questions.doc>
>>> <NCSGResponsetoQuestionsfromProxyPrivacyAccrediationWG.docx
>>> (00629345).docx>
>>> <Comments of the NCSG to EWG Status Report March 2014.docx>
>>>
>>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE
>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link
>>>> to the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>>>> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so
>>>> we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Rudi Vansnick
>>>> NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>> NPOC treasurer
>>>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>>>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>
>>>> Op 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate
>>>>> their support or not to the statements. we have statements but they
>>>>> are waiting approval!
>>>>> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think
>>>>> that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>>>>
>>>>>     Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>>     I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently
>>>>>     awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>>>
>>>>>     1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services
>>>>>     Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>>>>     2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG
>>>>>     status update report
>>>>>     3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of
>>>>>     Contact Information PDP WG
>>>>>
>>>>>     The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual
>>>>>     statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the
>>>>>     responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be endorsed by either an
>>>>>     SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These are very important
>>>>>     statements that constitute the NCSG's official contribution to
>>>>>     PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a position
>>>>>     on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>>>>
>>>>>     I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask
>>>>>     questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that you
>>>>>     support or don?t support them.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have
>>>>>     not yet been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG
>>>>>     (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I
>>>>>     missed any.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>     Amr
>>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



From aelsadr  Mon Mar 10 18:07:24 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:07:24 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <531DE0AF.4060305@acm.org>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
	<27CBE224-A020-4F49-9110-F04228297975@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<7E3C5522-E1C0-453C-A8B9-FC50C9B23C51@egyptig.org>
	<8202AFF3-EF06-4F95-9686-18EF995BFA18@ipjustice.org>
	<531DE0AF.4060305@acm.org>
Message-ID: <A29F6FE4-FDB8-4C03-974E-CC62E6D0E8D7@egyptig.org>

Hi Avri,

I noted your question on the response to the PPSAI PDP WG. I figured some folks were busy with the NetMundial submission deadline, but still agree that there is an obligation to be fulfilled by this committee. 

So far, the three responses (all in support of the comments) were by Maria, Stephanie and myself. 

Thanks. 

Amr

Sent from mobile

> On Mar 10, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Wow a genuine dressing down.  I'm impressed.
> 
> I think there is also a responsibility of the leaders of the group to get these things.  Wendy and I failed to achieve it when it was my turn, and was hoping the new guys would be better at it.
> 
> So which are the 3 that responded.  If you are going to use shame, you might as well use name.
> 
> Just to indicate where I am at, started reading one of them got confused. Asked a question  and then got sidetracked to other things.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
>> On 10-Mar-14 11:41, Robin Gross wrote:
>> I can sympathize with frustration over needing to get comments in on
>> behalf of NCSG, but having inadequate engagement from the individual
>> representatives of NCSG PC to get the job done.
>> 
>> There are duties and responsibilities that come with being a
>> representative of the NCSG PC - including engaging in the process to get
>> comments in on behalf of our members.  That is what we members elect PC
>> representatives to do on our behalf.
>> 
>> If you are a NCSG PC representative, you have an affirmative obligation
>> to read and comment on drafts that the PC is asked to endorse.
>> 
>> If PC representatives are not able to meet the responsibilities of being
>> a representative on the NCSG PC, he or she should let the chair know, so
>> alternative arrangements can be made and members can be represented.  We



From aelsadr  Mon Mar 10 18:09:24 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 17:09:24 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <531DE2D8.4070006@acm.org>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
	<27CBE224-A020-4F49-9110-F04228297975@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<7E3C5522-E1C0-453C-A8B9-FC50C9B23C51@egyptig.org>
	<531DE2D8.4070006@acm.org>
Message-ID: <74AB0D22-463B-4BC9-BB52-6FCC3164120A@egyptig.org>

There is an email on this thread with all three documents attached. I can resend them in a bit, but am on a bus right now. 

Thanks. 

Amr

Sent from mobile

> On Mar 10, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> is there a convenient place to find these?
> 
> avri
> 
> 
>> On 10-Mar-14 09:38, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Thanks to those who have responded and showed support for the
>> statements. Unfortunately, we only got responses from three out of ten
>> NCSG-PC members. I don?t believe this qualifies as ?rough consensus? as
>> defined in the NCSG charter.
>> 
>> It?s rather a shame that NCSG members put their time into following
>> these working groups and make an effort to draft comments when feedback
>> is sought only to be ignored by the policy committee. I still believe it
>> is important to submit the drafted comments, and so will seek
>> endorsement by NCUC. I hope we have better luck with responses there
>> than here.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>> 
>>> I have already supported the P/P questionnaire, and the EWG response,
>>> now I support the T&T position.  And thanks to all drafters!!!  the
>>> work never stops?.
>>> Stephanie
>>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Rudi,
>>>> 
>>>> I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately,
>>>> we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to
>>>> review and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed,
>>>> and we?ve been asking for extensions for all of them. There has only
>>>> been an update to one of them (Translation & Transliteration of
>>>> Contact Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the
>>>> NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us through
>>>> during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others please give
>>>> feedback on this list?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> <NCSG Response to T&T of Contact Info PDP WG Questions.doc>
>>>> <NCSGResponsetoQuestionsfromProxyPrivacyAccrediationWG.docx
>>>> (00629345).docx>
>>>> <Comments of the NCSG to EWG Status Report March 2014.docx>
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE
>>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link
>>>>> to the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>>>>> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so
>>>>> we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rudi Vansnick
>>>>> NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>>> NPOC treasurer
>>>>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>>>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>>>>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Op 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate
>>>>>> their support or not to the statements. we have statements but they
>>>>>> are waiting approval!
>>>>>> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think
>>>>>> that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    Hi all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently
>>>>>>    awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services
>>>>>>    Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>>>>>    2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG
>>>>>>    status update report
>>>>>>    3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of
>>>>>>    Contact Information PDP WG
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual
>>>>>>    statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the
>>>>>>    responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be endorsed by either an
>>>>>>    SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These are very important
>>>>>>    statements that constitute the NCSG's official contribution to
>>>>>>    PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a position
>>>>>>    on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask
>>>>>>    questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that you
>>>>>>    support or don?t support them.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have
>>>>>>    not yet been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG
>>>>>>    (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I
>>>>>>    missed any.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    Thanks.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    Amr
>>>>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>>>>    PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>    PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>    http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From avri  Mon Mar 10 18:56:54 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 12:56:54 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Response to the RDS EWG Status Update Report
In-Reply-To: <53625BA4-D6BD-4DAA-BA97-C658E53FE136@egyptig.org>
References: <53625BA4-D6BD-4DAA-BA97-C658E53FE136@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <531DEED6.90004@acm.org>

apologies
+1 for ncsg submission
thanks

avri


On 04-Mar-14 14:55, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached to this email is a response to the gTLD Registration Directory Services (WHOIS) EWG?s status update report drafted for the most part by Kathy Kleiman with some additions from other members of the NCSG. I hope you all have the time to go through it, and let others know what you think of it, what you like, what you don?t, what you feel is missing, etc?
>
> I am also seeking endorsement by the NCSG-PC to submit this as an NCSG statement as opposed to a statement by NCSG members. I personally think it?s a great statement addressing both pros and cons of the findings presented by the EWG. Looking forward to reading what others think.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



From aelsadr  Mon Mar 10 19:13:39 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 18:13:39 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Response to the RDS EWG Status Update Report
In-Reply-To: <531DEED6.90004@acm.org>
References: <53625BA4-D6BD-4DAA-BA97-C658E53FE136@egyptig.org>
	<531DEED6.90004@acm.org>
Message-ID: <5AA168B6-0624-4933-8F93-5ECAC32322EA@egyptig.org>

Thanks Avri. Any other takers? As per Rafik?s earlier email, I hope we can resolve this here today.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Mar 10, 2014, at 5:56 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> apologies
> +1 for ncsg submission
> thanks
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 04-Mar-14 14:55, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Attached to this email is a response to the gTLD Registration Directory Services (WHOIS) EWG?s status update report drafted for the most part by Kathy Kleiman with some additions from other members of the NCSG. I hope you all have the time to go through it, and let others know what you think of it, what you like, what you don?t, what you feel is missing, etc?
>> 
>> I am also seeking endorsement by the NCSG-PC to submit this as an NCSG statement as opposed to a statement by NCSG members. I personally think it?s a great statement addressing both pros and cons of the findings presented by the EWG. Looking forward to reading what others think.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140310/250d3b01/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Mar 10 19:14:57 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 18:14:57 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <74AB0D22-463B-4BC9-BB52-6FCC3164120A@egyptig.org>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
	<27CBE224-A020-4F49-9110-F04228297975@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<7E3C5522-E1C0-453C-A8B9-FC50C9B23C51@egyptig.org>
	<531DE2D8.4070006@acm.org>
	<74AB0D22-463B-4BC9-BB52-6FCC3164120A@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <B35C7A08-DBF0-47BE-9D28-7B008EE5EB0F@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I?ve attached the three statements to this email for ease of access.

Thanks.

Amr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Comments of the NCSG to EWG Status Report March 2014.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 42076 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140310/ab77151f/attachment-0002.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG Response to T&T of Contact Info PDP WG Questions + edits by KK.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 53760 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140310/ab77151f/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSGResponsetoQuestionsfromProxyPrivacyAccrediationWG.docx (00629345) + edits by MF.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 37164 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140310/ab77151f/attachment-0003.docx>
-------------- next part --------------

On Mar 10, 2014, at 5:09 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> There is an email on this thread with all three documents attached. I can resend them in a bit, but am on a bus right now. 
> 
> Thanks. 
> 
> Amr
> 
> Sent from mobile
> 
>> On Mar 10, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> is there a convenient place to find these?
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>>> On 10-Mar-14 09:38, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Thanks to those who have responded and showed support for the
>>> statements. Unfortunately, we only got responses from three out of ten
>>> NCSG-PC members. I don?t believe this qualifies as ?rough consensus? as
>>> defined in the NCSG charter.
>>> 
>>> It?s rather a shame that NCSG members put their time into following
>>> these working groups and make an effort to draft comments when feedback
>>> is sought only to be ignored by the policy committee. I still believe it
>>> is important to submit the drafted comments, and so will seek
>>> endorsement by NCUC. I hope we have better luck with responses there
>>> than here.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I have already supported the P/P questionnaire, and the EWG response,
>>>> now I support the T&T position.  And thanks to all drafters!!!  the
>>>> work never stops?.
>>>> Stephanie
>>>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Rudi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately,
>>>>> we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to
>>>>> review and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed,
>>>>> and we?ve been asking for extensions for all of them. There has only
>>>>> been an update to one of them (Translation & Transliteration of
>>>>> Contact Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the
>>>>> NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us through
>>>>> during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others please give
>>>>> feedback on this list?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> 
>>>>> <NCSG Response to T&T of Contact Info PDP WG Questions.doc>
>>>>> <NCSGResponsetoQuestionsfromProxyPrivacyAccrediationWG.docx
>>>>> (00629345).docx>
>>>>> <Comments of the NCSG to EWG Status Report March 2014.docx>
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE
>>>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link
>>>>>> to the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>>>>>> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so
>>>>>> we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rudi Vansnick
>>>>>> NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>>>> NPOC treasurer
>>>>>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>>>>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>>>>>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Op 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate
>>>>>>> their support or not to the statements. we have statements but they
>>>>>>> are waiting approval!
>>>>>>> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think
>>>>>>> that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   Hi all,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently
>>>>>>>   awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services
>>>>>>>   Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>>>>>>   2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG
>>>>>>>   status update report
>>>>>>>   3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of
>>>>>>>   Contact Information PDP WG
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual
>>>>>>>   statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the
>>>>>>>   responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be endorsed by either an
>>>>>>>   SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These are very important
>>>>>>>   statements that constitute the NCSG's official contribution to
>>>>>>>   PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a position
>>>>>>>   on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask
>>>>>>>   questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that you
>>>>>>>   support or don?t support them.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have
>>>>>>>   not yet been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG
>>>>>>>   (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I
>>>>>>>   missed any.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   Thanks.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>   Amr
>>>>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>   PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>   PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>   http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From avri  Mon Mar 10 19:07:46 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:07:46 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Response to the Translation & Transliteration of
 Contact Information PDP WG
In-Reply-To: <0AC2E297-BDD1-409D-985C-7C6451E03175@egyptig.org>
References: <0AC2E297-BDD1-409D-985C-7C6451E03175@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <531DF162.2060201@acm.org>

Hi,

Again apologies.

I do not understand all of the positions in this.

For example: deciding that Registrant decides who pays seems to indicate 
that there is a possibility they might have to pay.  Isn't the expense 
being talked about for development of translations mechanisms.  If this 
happens, why would it be anyone other than the Registrars 
responsibility? As to whether they pass that on to the registrants, that 
is a market differentiators.  The good ones wouldn't.  the profits 
before people ones might just pass it on.

But it is not enough for me to say no.

I accept a rough consensus for sending it.

avri

On 05-Mar-14 10:32, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is yet another PDP WG requiring feedback from the ICANN community on its charter questions. This one is the translation and transliteration of contact information PDP WG. We have a relatively large number of NCSG members on this WG, so I hope to get some feedback on the responses I?ve provided.
>
> We have a relatively large number of NCSG members on this working group. I find that appropriate considering the globally distributed nature of the NCSG membership. This PDP should should especially be one of importance to registrants coming from countries where the language used is not based on Latin script, but it is still one of importance to all registrants.
>
> I am personally not a fan of this PDP going through to becoming policy, and haven?t been since first joining the charter drafting team, but I am under the impression that there may be opinions in the NCSG opposed to mine. To what extent this is true, I can?t be sure. However, if there are, I?d be especially grateful to hear them now.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



From avri  Mon Mar 10 19:20:59 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:20:59 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Response to the Privacy & Proxy Services
 Accreditations Issues (PPSAI) PDP WG Questions
In-Reply-To: <BE26BF46-13C8-4D8C-99FC-A0B22C71A77C@egyptig.org>
References: <BE26BF46-13C8-4D8C-99FC-A0B22C71A77C@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <531DF47B.2030105@acm.org>

Hi,

Apologies, yet again.

I like the use of 'Absolutely not'  in an response. and "Again, 
absolutely not."

Support for NCSG status.
avri

On 01-Mar-14 08:12, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The PPSAI PDP WG has sent requests for input from the different SOs,
> ACs and GNSO SGs and constituencies on the working group?s charter
> questions. Kathy Kleiman has drafted a response to these questions
> and has received input from other members of the NCSG, including Roy
> Balleste who made some substantive additions. I?m sending copies of
> this email to both of them.
>
> The response they?ve drafted is attached to this email, and I am
> asking for review and endorsement of this statement by the members of
> the PC to submit it as an NCSG response.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



From aelsadr  Mon Mar 10 19:30:33 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 18:30:33 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Response to the Translation & Transliteration of
	Contact Information PDP WG
In-Reply-To: <531DF162.2060201@acm.org>
References: <0AC2E297-BDD1-409D-985C-7C6451E03175@egyptig.org>
	<531DF162.2060201@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CCD9C41F-DF51-47F0-90EE-D1249401F9DA@egyptig.org>

Hi Avri,

You?re right. I think the point I was trying to make is not very clear here. I should probably make it so.

My point was that, if the registrant chooses, he/she/it could opt to translate/transliterate the necessary contact info before submitting it during domain name registration, and thus bearing the cost. This would be possible to do without a policy being put in place requiring translation/transliteration as the status quo.

I?ll try to change the language making that point clearer, but does the explanation change your mind about the position at all? If you have other reservations, I?d be happy to discuss them.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 10, 2014, at 6:07 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Again apologies.
> 
> I do not understand all of the positions in this.
> 
> For example: deciding that Registrant decides who pays seems to indicate that there is a possibility they might have to pay.  Isn't the expense being talked about for development of translations mechanisms.  If this happens, why would it be anyone other than the Registrars responsibility? As to whether they pass that on to the registrants, that is a market differentiators.  The good ones wouldn't.  the profits before people ones might just pass it on.
> 
> But it is not enough for me to say no.
> 
> I accept a rough consensus for sending it.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 05-Mar-14 10:32, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Here is yet another PDP WG requiring feedback from the ICANN community on its charter questions. This one is the translation and transliteration of contact information PDP WG. We have a relatively large number of NCSG members on this WG, so I hope to get some feedback on the responses I?ve provided.
>> 
>> We have a relatively large number of NCSG members on this working group. I find that appropriate considering the globally distributed nature of the NCSG membership. This PDP should should especially be one of importance to registrants coming from countries where the language used is not based on Latin script, but it is still one of importance to all registrants.
>> 
>> I am personally not a fan of this PDP going through to becoming policy, and haven?t been since first joining the charter drafting team, but I am under the impression that there may be opinions in the NCSG opposed to mine. To what extent this is true, I can?t be sure. However, if there are, I?d be especially grateful to hear them now.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140310/0b7c63ad/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Mar 10 19:32:36 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 18:32:36 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Response to the Privacy & Proxy Services
	Accreditations Issues (PPSAI) PDP WG Questions
In-Reply-To: <531DF47B.2030105@acm.org>
References: <BE26BF46-13C8-4D8C-99FC-A0B22C71A77C@egyptig.org>
	<531DF47B.2030105@acm.org>
Message-ID: <089C35B6-B48B-48C8-B223-98446987C4A3@egyptig.org>

Thanks. I?ll keep that in mind for future reference. :)

Amr

On Mar 10, 2014, at 6:20 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Apologies, yet again.
> 
> I like the use of 'Absolutely not'  in an response. and "Again, absolutely not."
> 
> Support for NCSG status.
> avri
> 
> On 01-Mar-14 08:12, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> The PPSAI PDP WG has sent requests for input from the different SOs,
>> ACs and GNSO SGs and constituencies on the working group?s charter
>> questions. Kathy Kleiman has drafted a response to these questions
>> and has received input from other members of the NCSG, including Roy
>> Balleste who made some substantive additions. I?m sending copies of
>> this email to both of them.
>> 
>> The response they?ve drafted is attached to this email, and I am
>> asking for review and endorsement of this statement by the members of
>> the PC to submit it as an NCSG response.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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 rudi.vansnick  Mon Mar 10 19:39:18 2014
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 18:39:18 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EF69717C-DF6F-464A-B32D-A88CCECA3AD0@isoc.be>

NPOC?s policy committee is reviewing the documents. So far, we did not see important changes to the presented position statements. 
Being involved in the Translation/transliteration WG, we have delayed the responses for a few extra weeks as we are still expecting a lot of replies to our query.

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 7-mrt.-2014, om 15:58 heeft Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM> het volgende geschreven:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I personally support all of them and am sorry that my workload this week has been too frantic to allow me to contribute. 
> 
> I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy and proxy document, details attached below in bold and strikethrough, if there is time to revise them. (but these two points are not deal breakers if there is not time.)
> 
> All the best, Maria
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> Hi Rudi,
> 
> I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately, we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to review and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed, and we?ve been asking for extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to one of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others please give feedback on this list?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE> wrote:
> 
>> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link to the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>> 
>> 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 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> Hi Amr,
>>> 
>>> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate their support or not to the statements. we have statements but they are waiting approval!
>>> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>> 
>>> 1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>> 2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG status update report
>>> 3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG
>>> 
>>> The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These are very important statements that constitute the NCSG's official contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a position on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>> 
>>> I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that you support or don?t support them.
>>> 
>>> Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have not yet been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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
> 
> 
> <maria farrell p&p comments.docx>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140310/74daf45c/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Mon Mar 10 19:45:52 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 13:45:52 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <531DE0AF.4060305@acm.org>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
	<27CBE224-A020-4F49-9110-F04228297975@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<7E3C5522-E1C0-453C-A8B9-FC50C9B23C51@egyptig.org>
	<8202AFF3-EF06-4F95-9686-18EF995BFA18@ipjustice.org>
	<531DE0AF.4060305@acm.org>
Message-ID: <2B2E0F8E-CFE8-46F3-9609-80AD25957F60@mail.utoronto.ca>

I responded and I also did some of the drafting, so I feel a little self congratulatory, particularly since I wrote some of the chunks of the EWG report to which we are responding.  So my conscience is clear as a policy committee member, from a contribution side, but maybe not from a conflict of interest side :-)
Stephanie
On 2014-03-10, at 11:56 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Wow a genuine dressing down.  I'm impressed.
> 
> I think there is also a responsibility of the leaders of the group to get these things.  Wendy and I failed to achieve it when it was my turn, and was hoping the new guys would be better at it.
> 
> So which are the 3 that responded.  If you are going to use shame, you might as well use name.
> 
> Just to indicate where I am at, started reading one of them got confused. Asked a question  and then got sidetracked to other things.
> 
> cheers,
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 10-Mar-14 11:41, Robin Gross wrote:
>> I can sympathize with frustration over needing to get comments in on
>> behalf of NCSG, but having inadequate engagement from the individual
>> representatives of NCSG PC to get the job done.
>> 
>> There are duties and responsibilities that come with being a
>> representative of the NCSG PC - including engaging in the process to get
>> comments in on behalf of our members.  That is what we members elect PC
>> representatives to do on our behalf.
>> 
>> If you are a NCSG PC representative, you have an affirmative obligation
>> to read and comment on drafts that the PC is asked to endorse.
>> 
>> If PC representatives are not able to meet the responsibilities of being
>> a representative on the NCSG PC, he or she should let the chair know, so
>> alternative arrangements can be made and members can be represented.  We
>> cannot go on with this low level of engagement from our PC.  It is not
>> fair to our members or those who did the drafting.
>> 
>> My 2 cents,
>> Robin
>> 
>> On Mar 10, 2014, at 6:38 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Thanks to those who have responded and showed support for the
>>> statements. Unfortunately, we only got responses from three out of ten
>>> NCSG-PC members. I don?t believe this qualifies as ?rough consensus?
>>> as defined in the NCSG charter.
>>> 
>>> It?s rather a shame that NCSG members put their time into following
>>> these working groups and make an effort to draft comments when
>>> feedback is sought only to be ignored by the policy committee. I still
>>> believe it is important to submit the drafted comments, and so will
>>> seek endorsement by NCUC. I hope we have better luck with responses
>>> there than here.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 5:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I have already supported the P/P questionnaire, and the EWG response,
>>>> now I support the T&T position.  And thanks to all drafters!!!  the
>>>> work never stops?.
>>>> Stephanie
>>>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Rudi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately,
>>>>> we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to
>>>>> review and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed,
>>>>> and we?ve been asking for extensions for all of them. There has only
>>>>> been an update to one of them (Translation & Transliteration of
>>>>> Contact Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the
>>>>> NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us through
>>>>> during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others please give
>>>>> feedback on this list?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> 
>>>>> <NCSG Response to T&T of Contact Info PDP WG Questions.doc>
>>>>> <NCSGResponsetoQuestionsfromProxyPrivacyAccrediationWG.docx
>>>>> (00629345).docx>
>>>>> <Comments of the NCSG to EWG Status Report March 2014.docx>
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE
>>>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a
>>>>>> link to the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>>>>>> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so
>>>>>> we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rudi Vansnick
>>>>>> NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>>>> NPOC treasurer
>>>>>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>>>>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>>>>>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Op 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and
>>>>>>> indicate their support or not to the statements. we have
>>>>>>> statements but they are waiting approval!
>>>>>>> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't
>>>>>>> think that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    Hi all,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements
>>>>>>>    currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services
>>>>>>>    Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>>>>>>    2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG
>>>>>>>    status update report
>>>>>>>    3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of
>>>>>>>    Contact Information PDP WG
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual
>>>>>>>    statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the
>>>>>>>    responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be endorsed by either an
>>>>>>>    SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These are very important
>>>>>>>    statements that constitute the NCSG's official contribution to
>>>>>>>    PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a
>>>>>>>    position on them only because we fail to endorse statements
>>>>>>>    already drafted.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    I urge you all to read through all three of the statements,
>>>>>>>    ask questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that
>>>>>>>    you support or don?t support them.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    Note: There are still more requests for input pending that
>>>>>>>    have not yet been drafted including the Policy and
>>>>>>>    Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial
>>>>>>>    report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    Thanks.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>    Amr
>>>>>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>    PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>    PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>    http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Mon Mar 10 19:56:45 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2014 18:56:45 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <EF69717C-DF6F-464A-B32D-A88CCECA3AD0@isoc.be>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>
	<EF69717C-DF6F-464A-B32D-A88CCECA3AD0@isoc.be>
Message-ID: <B126D1F1-95ED-470E-94AC-237D48A2337C@egyptig.org>

Hi Rudi,

Are you saying we can take a little more time with the T&T statement? I know the WG hasn?t received all the responses it was hoping for, but we have already started going through the ones that have been submitted.

Since you?re co-chairing that WG, and if you feel it?s OK to take some more time, then cool. Still?, if you could move along the feedback on the other two statements before tomorrow, that?d be great. We?re way behind on those.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 10, 2014, at 6:39 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be> wrote:

> NPOC?s policy committee is reviewing the documents. So far, we did not see important changes to the presented position statements. 
> Being involved in the Translation/transliteration WG, we have delayed the responses for a few extra weeks as we are still expecting a lot of replies to our query.
> 
> 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 7-mrt.-2014, om 15:58 heeft Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM> het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I personally support all of them and am sorry that my workload this week has been too frantic to allow me to contribute. 
>> 
>> I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy and proxy document, details attached below in bold and strikethrough, if there is time to revise them. (but these two points are not deal breakers if there is not time.)
>> 
>> All the best, Maria
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> Hi Rudi,
>> 
>> I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately, we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to review and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed, and we?ve been asking for extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to one of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others please give feedback on this list?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE> wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link to the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>>> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>> 
>>> 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 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>> 
>>>> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate their support or not to the statements. we have statements but they are waiting approval!
>>>> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>>> 2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG status update report
>>>> 3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG
>>>> 
>>>> The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These are very important statements that constitute the NCSG's official contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a position on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>>> 
>>>> I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that you support or don?t support them.
>>>> 
>>>> Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have not yet been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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
>> 
>> 
>> <maria farrell p&p comments.docx>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140310/8164587b/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Mar 11 15:08:09 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 22:08:09 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <EF69717C-DF6F-464A-B32D-A88CCECA3AD0@isoc.be>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>
	<EF69717C-DF6F-464A-B32D-A88CCECA3AD0@isoc.be>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmymat7eaxD8Hat07c_0LuXvHWjbaZfuNNNimCgkgU+mA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Rudi,

I am really confused by your response:

NPOC?s policy committee is reviewing the documents. So far, we did not see
> important changes to the presented position statements.
>

what kind of changes you were expecting? do you mean that you already made
some comments to the drafts?
we have 3 statements drafted which were shared , and we need to submit them
asap since we are already after the deadline . when the NPOC PC will
respond exactly?

Being involved in the Translation/transliteration WG, we have delayed the
> responses for a few extra weeks as we are still expecting a lot of replies
> to our query.
>

I thought that any WG want to get answers quickly from community to get
guidance, so delaying doesn't make so much sense IMHO. or do you mean that
WG extended the questionnaire period? because I didn't see any announcement
on that matter.

Best,

Rafik



>  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 7-mrt.-2014, om 15:58 heeft Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM>
> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I personally
> support all of them and am sorry that my workload this week has been too
> frantic to allow me to contribute.
>
> I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy and proxy
> document, details attached below in bold and strikethrough, if there is
> time to revise them. (but these two points are not deal breakers if there
> is not time.)
>
> All the best, Maria
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Rudi,
>>
>> I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately, we
>> don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to review
>> and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed, and we?ve been
>> asking for extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to one
>> of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG) based
>> on Kathy?s feedback on the NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris
>> Dillon walked us through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others
>> please give feedback on this list?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE> wrote:
>>
>> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link to
>> the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so we can
>> validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>
>> 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 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het
>> volgende geschreven:
>>
>> Hi Amr,
>>
>> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate their
>> support or not to the statements. we have statements but they are waiting
>> approval!
>> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think that
>> we can take more than one week to respond.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently awaiting
>>> NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>
>>> 1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues
>>> PDP WG
>>> 2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG status
>>> update report
>>> 3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact
>>> Information PDP WG
>>>
>>> The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual statement
>>> endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs
>>> needs to be endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These
>>> are very important statements that constitute the NCSG's official
>>> contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a
>>> position on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>>
>>> I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask
>>> questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that you support or
>>> don?t support them.
>>>
>>> Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have not yet
>>> been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and
>>> the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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
>>
>>
> <maria farrell p&p comments.docx>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/a7da1b6a/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Mar 11 15:12:30 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 22:12:30 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnA+Sevs7nW7W_m4uKw6ybYdN5UgZTvyzS-=nCkykiMBQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Maria,

I suggested y to get views from PC members by monday since we need to send
the drafts and know if PC members approve or disagree with statements.
is it possible to make the last call and get response from the PC members
who didn't respond?
Thanks to Avri, Stephanie, Amr and you who replied already.

Best,

Rafik


2014-03-07 23:58 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com>:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I personally
> support all of them and am sorry that my workload this week has been too
> frantic to allow me to contribute.
>
> I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy and proxy
> document, details attached below in bold and strikethrough, if there is
> time to revise them. (but these two points are not deal breakers if there
> is not time.)
>
> All the best, Maria
>
>
>
>
>
> On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Rudi,
>>
>> I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately, we
>> don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to review
>> and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed, and we?ve been
>> asking for extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to one
>> of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG) based
>> on Kathy?s feedback on the NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris
>> Dillon walked us through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others
>> please give feedback on this list?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE> wrote:
>>
>> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link to
>> the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so we can
>> validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>
>> 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 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het
>> volgende geschreven:
>>
>> Hi Amr,
>>
>> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate their
>> support or not to the statements. we have statements but they are waiting
>> approval!
>> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think that
>> we can take more than one week to respond.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently awaiting
>>> NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>
>>> 1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues
>>> PDP WG
>>> 2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG status
>>> update report
>>> 3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact
>>> Information PDP WG
>>>
>>> The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual statement
>>> endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs
>>> needs to be endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These
>>> are very important statements that constitute the NCSG's official
>>> contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a
>>> position on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>>
>>> I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask
>>> questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that you support or
>>> don?t support them.
>>>
>>> Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have not yet
>>> been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and
>>> the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/10778b52/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Mar 11 15:48:48 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:48:48 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnA+Sevs7nW7W_m4uKw6ybYdN5UgZTvyzS-=nCkykiMBQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThnA+Sevs7nW7W_m4uKw6ybYdN5UgZTvyzS-=nCkykiMBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <97A115D9-3E33-4198-95D4-85764FE0E179@egyptig.org>

Hi,

Thanks Rafik. I would appreciate hearing views on wether NCSG-PC members feel that we have achieved rough consensus, or not. I?m a little confused by how ?rough consensus? is defined in the NCSG charter. It states that:

"while all members do not need to agree and that no single member can veto a decision, all views must be heard and considered. Any minority views must be recorded along with the rough consensus position."

This definition doesn?t exactly make it easy in the event that no view is provided at all. It also does not clearly define a period of time or deadlines for response. Does no view at this point = no objection? If it does, then I would like to go ahead and ask the NCSG Chair or the NCSG-PC Chair to submit the statements as NCSG statements. If not, I would like to know so that I could proceed to attempt to seek NCUC endorsement.

I have attached the latest drafts to this email.

Thanks.

Amr


On Mar 11, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Maria,
> 
> I suggested y to get views from PC members by monday since we need to send the drafts and know if PC members approve or disagree with statements.
> is it possible to make the last call and get response from the PC members who didn't respond?
> Thanks to Avri, Stephanie, Amr and you who replied already.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 
> 2014-03-07 23:58 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com>:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I personally support all of them and am sorry that my workload this week has been too frantic to allow me to contribute. 
> 
> I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy and proxy document, details attached below in bold and strikethrough, if there is time to revise them. (but these two points are not deal breakers if there is not time.)
> 
> All the best, Maria
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> Hi Rudi,
> 
> I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately, we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to review and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed, and we?ve been asking for extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to one of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others please give feedback on this list?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE> wrote:
> 
>> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link to the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>> 
>> 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 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> Hi Amr,
>>> 
>>> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate their support or not to the statements. we have statements but they are waiting approval!
>>> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>> Hi all,
>>> 
>>> I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>> 
>>> 1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>> 2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG status update report
>>> 3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG
>>> 
>>> The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These are very important statements that constitute the NCSG's official contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a position on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>> 
>>> I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that you support or don?t support them.
>>> 
>>> Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have not yet been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/46eafc54/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG Response to T&T of Contact Info PDP WG Questions.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 55296 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/46eafc54/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/46eafc54/attachment-0005.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSGResponsetoQuestionsfromProxyPrivacyAccrediationWG.docx (00629345).docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 37164 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/46eafc54/attachment-0002.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/46eafc54/attachment-0006.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Comments of the NCSG to EWG Status Report March 2014.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 42076 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/46eafc54/attachment-0003.docx>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/46eafc54/attachment-0007.html>


From wendy  Tue Mar 11 15:48:01 2014
From: wendy (Wendy Seltzer)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:48:01 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <97A115D9-3E33-4198-95D4-85764FE0E179@egyptig.org>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAH5sThnA+Sevs7nW7W_m4uKw6ybYdN5UgZTvyzS-=nCkykiMBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<97A115D9-3E33-4198-95D4-85764FE0E179@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <531F1411.2010401@seltzer.com>

I don't even know whether I'm a member of the PC or just an observer...
but hearing all the calls for input, I support these statements.

--Wendy

On 03/11/2014 09:48 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks Rafik. I would appreciate hearing views on wether NCSG-PC members feel 
> that we have achieved rough consensus, or not. I?m a little confused by how 
> ?rough consensus? is defined in the NCSG charter. It states that:
> 
> /"while all members do not need to agree and that no single member can veto a 
> decision, all views must be heard and considered. Any minority views must be 
> recorded along with the rough consensus position."/
> 
> This definition doesn?t exactly make it easy in the event that no view is 
> provided at all. It also does not clearly define a period of time or deadlines 
> for response. Does no view at this point = no objection? If it does, then I 
> would like to go ahead and ask the NCSG Chair or the NCSG-PC Chair to submit the 
> statements as NCSG statements. If not, I would like to know so that I could 
> proceed to attempt to seek NCUC endorsement.
> 
> I have attached the latest drafts to this email.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 11, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com 
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Maria,
>>
>> I suggested y to get views from PC members by monday since we need to send the 
>> drafts and know if PC members approve or disagree with statements.
>> is it possible to make the last call and get response from the PC members who 
>> didn't respond?
>> Thanks to Avri, Stephanie, Amr and you who replied already.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2014-03-07 23:58 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>>:
>>
>>     Hi everyone,
>>
>>     Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I personally
>>     support all of them and am sorry that my workload this week has been too
>>     frantic to allow me to contribute.
>>
>>     I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy and proxy
>>     document, details attached below in bold and strikethrough, if there is
>>     time to revise them. (but these two points are not deal breakers if there
>>     is not time.)
>>
>>     All the best, Maria
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>     <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>
>>         Hi Rudi,
>>
>>         I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately,
>>         we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to
>>         review and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed,
>>         and we?ve been asking for extensions for all of them. There has only
>>         been an update to one of them (Translation & Transliteration of
>>         Contact Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the
>>         NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us through
>>         during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others please give
>>         feedback on this list?
>>
>>         Thanks.
>>
>>         Amr
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE
>>         <mailto:rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE>> wrote:
>>
>>>         I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link
>>>         to the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>>>         I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so we
>>>         can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>>
>>>         Kind regards,
>>>
>>>         Rudi Vansnick
>>>         NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>         NPOC treasurer
>>>         rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>>         Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>>         Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>>>         www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>
>>>         Op 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>         <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>>>         Hi Amr,
>>>>
>>>>         thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate
>>>>         their support or not to the statements. we have statements but they
>>>>         are waiting approval!
>>>>         I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think
>>>>         that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>>
>>>>         Best,
>>>>
>>>>         Rafik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>         <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>>>
>>>>             Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>             I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently
>>>>             awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>>
>>>>             1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation
>>>>             Issues PDP WG
>>>>             2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG
>>>>             status update report
>>>>             3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of
>>>>             Contact Information PDP WG
>>>>
>>>>             The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual
>>>>             statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the
>>>>             responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be endorsed by either an
>>>>             SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These are very important
>>>>             statements that constitute the NCSG's official contribution to
>>>>             PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a position
>>>>             on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>>>
>>>>             I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask
>>>>             questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that you
>>>>             support or don?t support them.
>>>>
>>>>             Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have
>>>>             not yet been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG
>>>>             (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I
>>>>             missed any.
>>>>
>>>>             Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>             Amr
>>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>             PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>             PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>             http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 


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



From avri  Tue Mar 11 16:48:04 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:48:04 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <531F1411.2010401@seltzer.com>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAH5sThnA+Sevs7nW7W_m4uKw6ybYdN5UgZTvyzS-=nCkykiMBQ@mail.gmail.com>	<97A115D9-3E33-4198-95D4-85764FE0E179@egyptig.org>
	<531F1411.2010401@seltzer.com>
Message-ID: <531F2224.9030905@acm.org>



On 11-Mar-14 09:48, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
> I don't even know whether I'm a member of the PC or just an
> observer...


while the charter says that past council members can be invited.  given 
our level of activity, i would think that any ex-council member who was 
willing to do anything would be welcome.  especially an ex-chair of the PC.

avri



From avri  Tue Mar 11 16:52:55 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:52:55 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <97A115D9-3E33-4198-95D4-85764FE0E179@egyptig.org>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAH5sThnA+Sevs7nW7W_m4uKw6ybYdN5UgZTvyzS-=nCkykiMBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<97A115D9-3E33-4198-95D4-85764FE0E179@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <531F2347.1040208@acm.org>

Hi,


For the last year I tried to interpret/implement it as:

- It has been floated on the NCSG discuss

- At least one person (other than me - as alt-chair i tried to be more 
NCSG neutral than NCUC) from each Constituency says 'for it.'

- No one was screaming against

- and a 24-48+ hours 'speak now if you object'  last call had been held

avri



On 11-Mar-14 09:48, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks Rafik. I would appreciate hearing views on wether NCSG-PC members
> feel that we have achieved rough consensus, or not. I?m a little
> confused by how ?rough consensus? is defined in the NCSG charter. It
> states that:
>
> /"while all members do not need to agree and that no single member can
> veto a decision, all views must be heard and considered. Any minority
> views must be recorded along with the rough consensus position."/
>
> This definition doesn?t exactly make it easy in the event that no view
> is provided at all. It also does not clearly define a period of time or
> deadlines for response. Does no view at this point = no objection? If it
> does, then I would like to go ahead and ask the NCSG Chair or the
> NCSG-PC Chair to submit the statements as NCSG statements. If not, I
> would like to know so that I could proceed to attempt to seek NCUC
> endorsement.
>
> I have attached the latest drafts to this email.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Maria,
>>
>> I suggested y to get views from PC members by monday since we need to
>> send the drafts and know if PC members approve or disagree with
>> statements.
>> is it possible to make the last call and get response from the PC
>> members who didn't respond?
>> Thanks to Avri, Stephanie, Amr and you who replied already.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> 2014-03-07 23:58 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com
>> <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>>:
>>
>>     Hi everyone,
>>
>>     Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I
>>     personally support all of them and am sorry that my workload this
>>     week has been too frantic to allow me to contribute.
>>
>>     I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy and
>>     proxy document, details attached below in bold and strikethrough,
>>     if there is time to revise them. (but these two points are not
>>     deal breakers if there is not time.)
>>
>>     All the best, Maria
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>     <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>
>>         Hi Rudi,
>>
>>         I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but
>>         unfortunately, we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we
>>         have an NCSG-PC call to review and submit them.The deadlines
>>         for these have already passed, and we?ve been asking for
>>         extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to
>>         one of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact
>>         Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the
>>         NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us
>>         through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others
>>         please give feedback on this list?
>>
>>         Thanks.
>>
>>         Amr
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick
>>         <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE <mailto:rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE>> wrote:
>>
>>>         I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have
>>>         a link to the statements as they are today so we do not use
>>>         wrong ones ?
>>>         I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online
>>>         meeting so we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>>
>>>         Kind regards,
>>>
>>>         Rudi Vansnick
>>>         NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>         NPOC treasurer
>>>         rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>>         Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>>         Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>         <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>>>         www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>
>>>         Op 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak
>>>         <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> het
>>>         volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>>>         Hi Amr,
>>>>
>>>>         thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and
>>>>         indicate their support or not to the statements. we have
>>>>         statements but they are waiting approval!
>>>>         I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I
>>>>         don't think that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>>
>>>>         Best,
>>>>
>>>>         Rafik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>         <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>>>
>>>>             Hi all,
>>>>
>>>>             I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements
>>>>             currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>>
>>>>             1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services
>>>>             Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>>>             2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services
>>>>             EWG status update report
>>>>             3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration
>>>>             of Contact Information PDP WG
>>>>
>>>>             The response to the EWG can always be sent as an
>>>>             individual statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign
>>>>             it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be
>>>>             endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency.
>>>>             These are very important statements that constitute the
>>>>             NCSG's official contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be
>>>>             a shame if we don?t declare a position on them only
>>>>             because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>>>
>>>>             I urge you all to read through all three of the
>>>>             statements, ask questions or suggest changes, then
>>>>             either indicate that you support or don?t support them.
>>>>
>>>>             Note: There are still more requests for input pending
>>>>             that have not yet been drafted including the Policy and
>>>>             Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial
>>>>             report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>>>
>>>>             Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>             Amr
>>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>             PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>             PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>             http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



From aelsadr  Tue Mar 11 17:26:30 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:26:30 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <531F2347.1040208@acm.org>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAH5sThnA+Sevs7nW7W_m4uKw6ybYdN5UgZTvyzS-=nCkykiMBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<97A115D9-3E33-4198-95D4-85764FE0E179@egyptig.org>
	<531F2347.1040208@acm.org>
Message-ID: <394E05D5-7482-4141-9B1B-43F27E56201F@egyptig.org>

Thanks Avri,

Maybe we should discuss this at more length either here or at the PC meeting in Singapore.

We do have support from one NCUC-appointed PC member (Stephanie), but none from NPOC. So if we use that method to achieve consensus, we don?t have it yet, with no guarantees of having it soon.

The documents have been submitted for over a week now. I?m personally only willing to wait a few more hours, but then plan to float the comments on the NCUC list for endorsement later this evening.

I wish folks who have been silent would speak up and let us know how we could make this process easier in the future.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Mar 11, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> 
> For the last year I tried to interpret/implement it as:
> 
> - It has been floated on the NCSG discuss
> 
> - At least one person (other than me - as alt-chair i tried to be more NCSG neutral than NCUC) from each Constituency says 'for it.'
> 
> - No one was screaming against
> 
> - and a 24-48+ hours 'speak now if you object'  last call had been held
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 11-Mar-14 09:48, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Thanks Rafik. I would appreciate hearing views on wether NCSG-PC members
>> feel that we have achieved rough consensus, or not. I?m a little
>> confused by how ?rough consensus? is defined in the NCSG charter. It
>> states that:
>> 
>> /"while all members do not need to agree and that no single member can
>> veto a decision, all views must be heard and considered. Any minority
>> views must be recorded along with the rough consensus position."/
>> 
>> This definition doesn?t exactly make it easy in the event that no view
>> is provided at all. It also does not clearly define a period of time or
>> deadlines for response. Does no view at this point = no objection? If it
>> does, then I would like to go ahead and ask the NCSG Chair or the
>> NCSG-PC Chair to submit the statements as NCSG statements. If not, I
>> would like to know so that I could proceed to attempt to seek NCUC
>> endorsement.
>> 
>> I have attached the latest drafts to this email.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 11, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Maria,
>>> 
>>> I suggested y to get views from PC members by monday since we need to
>>> send the drafts and know if PC members approve or disagree with
>>> statements.
>>> is it possible to make the last call and get response from the PC
>>> members who didn't respond?
>>> Thanks to Avri, Stephanie, Amr and you who replied already.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2014-03-07 23:58 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>>:
>>> 
>>>    Hi everyone,
>>> 
>>>    Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I
>>>    personally support all of them and am sorry that my workload this
>>>    week has been too frantic to allow me to contribute.
>>> 
>>>    I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy and
>>>    proxy document, details attached below in bold and strikethrough,
>>>    if there is time to revise them. (but these two points are not
>>>    deal breakers if there is not time.)
>>> 
>>>    All the best, Maria
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>    <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>        Hi Rudi,
>>> 
>>>        I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but
>>>        unfortunately, we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we
>>>        have an NCSG-PC call to review and submit them.The deadlines
>>>        for these have already passed, and we?ve been asking for
>>>        extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to
>>>        one of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact
>>>        Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the
>>>        NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us
>>>        through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others
>>>        please give feedback on this list?
>>> 
>>>        Thanks.
>>> 
>>>        Amr
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>        On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick
>>>        <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE <mailto:rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>        I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have
>>>>        a link to the statements as they are today so we do not use
>>>>        wrong ones ?
>>>>        I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online
>>>>        meeting so we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>>> 
>>>>        Kind regards,
>>>> 
>>>>        Rudi Vansnick
>>>>        NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>>        NPOC treasurer
>>>>        rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>>>        Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>>>        Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>>        <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>>>>        www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>> 
>>>>        Op 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak
>>>>        <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> het
>>>>        volgende geschreven:
>>>> 
>>>>>        Hi Amr,
>>>>> 
>>>>>        thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and
>>>>>        indicate their support or not to the statements. we have
>>>>>        statements but they are waiting approval!
>>>>>        I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I
>>>>>        don't think that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>>> 
>>>>>        Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>>        Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>        2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>>        <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>>>> 
>>>>>            Hi all,
>>>>> 
>>>>>            I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements
>>>>>            currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>>> 
>>>>>            1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services
>>>>>            Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>>>>            2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services
>>>>>            EWG status update report
>>>>>            3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration
>>>>>            of Contact Information PDP WG
>>>>> 
>>>>>            The response to the EWG can always be sent as an
>>>>>            individual statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign
>>>>>            it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be
>>>>>            endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency.
>>>>>            These are very important statements that constitute the
>>>>>            NCSG's official contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be
>>>>>            a shame if we don?t declare a position on them only
>>>>>            because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>>>> 
>>>>>            I urge you all to read through all three of the
>>>>>            statements, ask questions or suggest changes, then
>>>>>            either indicate that you support or don?t support them.
>>>>> 
>>>>>            Note: There are still more requests for input pending
>>>>>            that have not yet been drafted including the Policy and
>>>>>            Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial
>>>>>            report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>>>> 
>>>>>            Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>>            Amr
>>>>>            _______________________________________________
>>>>>            PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>            PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>            http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>        _______________________________________________
>>>>>        PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>        PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>        http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>        _______________________________________________
>>>        PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>        PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>        http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>    PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>    PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>    http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/b2020e05/attachment-0001.html>


From robin  Tue Mar 11 17:24:39 2014
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 08:24:39 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <531F2347.1040208@acm.org>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAH5sThnA+Sevs7nW7W_m4uKw6ybYdN5UgZTvyzS-=nCkykiMBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<97A115D9-3E33-4198-95D4-85764FE0E179@egyptig.org>
	<531F2347.1040208@acm.org>
Message-ID: <A42A204A-911A-484C-8B71-46F07A1B494B@ipjustice.org>

Given lack of engagement, we should discuss if this practice makes sense or if it is unduly hampering the SG's ability to get its work done:

> - At least one person (other than me - as alt-chair i tried to be more NCSG neutral than NCUC) from each Constituency says 'for it.'



On Mar 11, 2014, at 7:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> 
> For the last year I tried to interpret/implement it as:
> 
> - It has been floated on the NCSG discuss
> 
> - At least one person (other than me - as alt-chair i tried to be more NCSG neutral than NCUC) from each Constituency says 'for it.'
> 
> - No one was screaming against
> 
> - and a 24-48+ hours 'speak now if you object'  last call had been held
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 11-Mar-14 09:48, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Thanks Rafik. I would appreciate hearing views on wether NCSG-PC members
>> feel that we have achieved rough consensus, or not. I?m a little
>> confused by how ?rough consensus? is defined in the NCSG charter. It
>> states that:
>> 
>> /"while all members do not need to agree and that no single member can
>> veto a decision, all views must be heard and considered. Any minority
>> views must be recorded along with the rough consensus position."/
>> 
>> This definition doesn?t exactly make it easy in the event that no view
>> is provided at all. It also does not clearly define a period of time or
>> deadlines for response. Does no view at this point = no objection? If it
>> does, then I would like to go ahead and ask the NCSG Chair or the
>> NCSG-PC Chair to submit the statements as NCSG statements. If not, I
>> would like to know so that I could proceed to attempt to seek NCUC
>> endorsement.
>> 
>> I have attached the latest drafts to this email.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 11, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Maria,
>>> 
>>> I suggested y to get views from PC members by monday since we need to
>>> send the drafts and know if PC members approve or disagree with
>>> statements.
>>> is it possible to make the last call and get response from the PC
>>> members who didn't respond?
>>> Thanks to Avri, Stephanie, Amr and you who replied already.
>>> 
>>> Best,
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2014-03-07 23:58 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>>:
>>> 
>>>    Hi everyone,
>>> 
>>>    Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I
>>>    personally support all of them and am sorry that my workload this
>>>    week has been too frantic to allow me to contribute.
>>> 
>>>    I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy and
>>>    proxy document, details attached below in bold and strikethrough,
>>>    if there is time to revise them. (but these two points are not
>>>    deal breakers if there is not time.)
>>> 
>>>    All the best, Maria
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>    <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>        Hi Rudi,
>>> 
>>>        I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but
>>>        unfortunately, we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we
>>>        have an NCSG-PC call to review and submit them.The deadlines
>>>        for these have already passed, and we?ve been asking for
>>>        extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to
>>>        one of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact
>>>        Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the
>>>        NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us
>>>        through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others
>>>        please give feedback on this list?
>>> 
>>>        Thanks.
>>> 
>>>        Amr
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>        On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick
>>>        <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE <mailto:rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>        I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have
>>>>        a link to the statements as they are today so we do not use
>>>>        wrong ones ?
>>>>        I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online
>>>>        meeting so we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>>> 
>>>>        Kind regards,
>>>> 
>>>>        Rudi Vansnick
>>>>        NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>>        NPOC treasurer
>>>>        rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>>>        Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>>>        Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>>        <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>>>>        www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>> 
>>>>        Op 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak
>>>>        <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> het
>>>>        volgende geschreven:
>>>> 
>>>>>        Hi Amr,
>>>>> 
>>>>>        thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and
>>>>>        indicate their support or not to the statements. we have
>>>>>        statements but they are waiting approval!
>>>>>        I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I
>>>>>        don't think that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>>> 
>>>>>        Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>>        Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>        2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>>        <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>>>> 
>>>>>            Hi all,
>>>>> 
>>>>>            I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements
>>>>>            currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>>> 
>>>>>            1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services
>>>>>            Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>>>>            2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services
>>>>>            EWG status update report
>>>>>            3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration
>>>>>            of Contact Information PDP WG
>>>>> 
>>>>>            The response to the EWG can always be sent as an
>>>>>            individual statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign
>>>>>            it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be
>>>>>            endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency.
>>>>>            These are very important statements that constitute the
>>>>>            NCSG's official contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be
>>>>>            a shame if we don?t declare a position on them only
>>>>>            because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>>>> 
>>>>>            I urge you all to read through all three of the
>>>>>            statements, ask questions or suggest changes, then
>>>>>            either indicate that you support or don?t support them.
>>>>> 
>>>>>            Note: There are still more requests for input pending
>>>>>            that have not yet been drafted including the Policy and
>>>>>            Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial
>>>>>            report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>>>> 
>>>>>            Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>>            Amr
>>>>>            _______________________________________________
>>>>>            PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>            PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>            http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>        _______________________________________________
>>>>>        PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>        PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>        http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>        _______________________________________________
>>>        PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>        PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>        http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>    PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>    PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>    http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/4169d3b6/attachment.sig>


From avri  Tue Mar 11 17:28:42 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 11:28:42 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <394E05D5-7482-4141-9B1B-43F27E56201F@egyptig.org>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAH5sThnA+Sevs7nW7W_m4uKw6ybYdN5UgZTvyzS-=nCkykiMBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<97A115D9-3E33-4198-95D4-85764FE0E179@egyptig.org>
	<531F2347.1040208@acm.org>
	<394E05D5-7482-4141-9B1B-43F27E56201F@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <531F2BAA.3060103@acm.org>

Hi,

Someone has to drive the process for it to work.  And I failed lots of 
times, but did manage to get support.

i do recommend you get NCUC support using whatever mechanism NCUC uses 
these days.

I think it is always good to do them in parallel.

avri


On 11-Mar-14 11:26, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Thanks Avri,
>
> Maybe we should discuss this at more length either here or at the PC
> meeting in Singapore.
>
> We do have support from one NCUC-appointed PC member (Stephanie), but
> none from NPOC. So if we use that method to achieve consensus, we don?t
> have it yet, with no guarantees of having it soon.
>
> The documents have been submitted for over a week now. I?m personally
> only willing to wait a few more hours, but then plan to float the
> comments on the NCUC list for endorsement later this evening.
>
> I wish folks who have been silent would speak up and let us know how we
> could make this process easier in the future.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 11, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG
> <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> For the last year I tried to interpret/implement it as:
>>
>> - It has been floated on the NCSG discuss
>>
>> - At least one person (other than me - as alt-chair i tried to be more
>> NCSG neutral than NCUC) from each Constituency says 'for it.'
>>
>> - No one was screaming against
>>
>> - and a 24-48+ hours 'speak now if you object'  last call had been held
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11-Mar-14 09:48, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks Rafik. I would appreciate hearing views on wether NCSG-PC members
>>> feel that we have achieved rough consensus, or not. I?m a little
>>> confused by how ?rough consensus? is defined in the NCSG charter. It
>>> states that:
>>>
>>> /"while all members do not need to agree and that no single member can
>>> veto a decision, all views must be heard and considered. Any minority
>>> views must be recorded along with the rough consensus position."/
>>>
>>> This definition doesn?t exactly make it easy in the event that no view
>>> is provided at all. It also does not clearly define a period of time or
>>> deadlines for response. Does no view at this point = no objection? If it
>>> does, then I would like to go ahead and ask the NCSG Chair or the
>>> NCSG-PC Chair to submit the statements as NCSG statements. If not, I
>>> would like to know so that I could proceed to attempt to seek NCUC
>>> endorsement.
>>>
>>> I have attached the latest drafts to this email.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 11, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Maria,
>>>>
>>>> I suggested y to get views from PC members by monday since we need to
>>>> send the drafts and know if PC members approve or disagree with
>>>> statements.
>>>> is it possible to make the last call and get response from the PC
>>>> members who didn't respond?
>>>> Thanks to Avri, Stephanie, Amr and you who replied already.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2014-03-07 23:58 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>
>>>> <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>>:
>>>>
>>>>    Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>>    Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I
>>>>    personally support all of them and am sorry that my workload this
>>>>    week has been too frantic to allow me to contribute.
>>>>
>>>>    I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy and
>>>>    proxy document, details attached below in bold and strikethrough,
>>>>    if there is time to revise them. (but these two points are not
>>>>    deal breakers if there is not time.)
>>>>
>>>>    All the best, Maria
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>>>    <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>        Hi Rudi,
>>>>
>>>>        I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but
>>>>        unfortunately, we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we
>>>>        have an NCSG-PC call to review and submit them.The deadlines
>>>>        for these have already passed, and we?ve been asking for
>>>>        extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to
>>>>        one of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact
>>>>        Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the
>>>>        NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us
>>>>        through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others
>>>>        please give feedback on this list?
>>>>
>>>>        Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>        Amr
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick
>>>>        <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE
>>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE><mailto:rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>        I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have
>>>>>        a link to the statements as they are today so we do not use
>>>>>        wrong ones ?
>>>>>        I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online
>>>>>        meeting so we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>>>>
>>>>>        Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>        Rudi Vansnick
>>>>>        NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>>>        NPOC treasurer
>>>>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
>>>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org><mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>>>>        Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>>>>        Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>>>        <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>>>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/><http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>>        Op 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak
>>>>>        <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> het
>>>>>        volgende geschreven:
>>>>>
>>>>>>        Hi Amr,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and
>>>>>>        indicate their support or not to the statements. we have
>>>>>>        statements but they are waiting approval!
>>>>>>        I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I
>>>>>>        don't think that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        Rafik
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>>>>>        <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements
>>>>>>            currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services
>>>>>>            Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>>>>>            2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services
>>>>>>            EWG status update report
>>>>>>            3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration
>>>>>>            of Contact Information PDP WG
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            The response to the EWG can always be sent as an
>>>>>>            individual statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign
>>>>>>            it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be
>>>>>>            endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency.
>>>>>>            These are very important statements that constitute the
>>>>>>            NCSG's official contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be
>>>>>>            a shame if we don?t declare a position on them only
>>>>>>            because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            I urge you all to read through all three of the
>>>>>>            statements, ask questions or suggest changes, then
>>>>>>            either indicate that you support or don?t support them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            Note: There are still more requests for input pending
>>>>>>            that have not yet been drafted including the Policy and
>>>>>>            Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial
>>>>>>            report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            Amr
>>>>>>            _______________________________________________
>>>>>>            PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>        _______________________________________________
>>>>>>        PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        _______________________________________________
>>>>        PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>>    PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



From stephanie.perrin  Tue Mar 11 17:43:19 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 11:43:19 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <531F2BAA.3060103@acm.org>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThnA+Sevs7nW7W_m4uKw6ybYdN5UgZTvyzS-=nCkykiMBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<97A115D9-3E33-4198-95D4-85764FE0E179@egyptig.org>
	<531F2347.1040208@acm.org>	<394E05D5-7482-4141-9B1B-43F27E56201F@egyptig.org>
	<531F2BAA.3060103@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20CD6E48-D05A-41D3-B919-71BB2E169162@mail.utoronto.ca>

As I have said many times since retirement, there are only two things I miss about working in govt, the cheque and my administrative assistant.  I find it hard to keep up with the workload....I think it would help klutzes like me (and it would appear I am in good company here) to have a dashboard of some kind running....
Comments due:  ddmmyy		OUr brief due:     	REsponses due:                Silence=consent
Principal readers:  Joe Smith and Mary Jones
I never go to confluence between calls, but if someone tells me that is how to keep up with this I am willing to try....the email flood I am trying to digest at the moment is simply over the top, way over my capacity to keep up. 
But it is very clear that this organization relies on the written word, and if we dont get comments in, we are irrelevant.  Nobody cares what we say at the meetings...it is what goes into the documents and contracts that counts.  I am in the midst of poring through institutional ethnography techniques, and it appears this has been well studied.  So we have only ourselves to blame if we are not on top of it.....forget just getting the briefs in, we need to do analysis of how staff are tossing aside our comments in their summaries.  We dont appear to be there yet...unless somebody can point to something that is absolutely brilliant and will cheer me up on this score....
cheers steph

On 2014-03-11, at 11:28 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Someone has to drive the process for it to work.  And I failed lots of times, but did manage to get support.
> 
> i do recommend you get NCUC support using whatever mechanism NCUC uses these days.
> 
> I think it is always good to do them in parallel.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 11-Mar-14 11:26, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Thanks Avri,
>> 
>> Maybe we should discuss this at more length either here or at the PC
>> meeting in Singapore.
>> 
>> We do have support from one NCUC-appointed PC member (Stephanie), but
>> none from NPOC. So if we use that method to achieve consensus, we don?t
>> have it yet, with no guarantees of having it soon.
>> 
>> The documents have been submitted for over a week now. I?m personally
>> only willing to wait a few more hours, but then plan to float the
>> comments on the NCUC list for endorsement later this evening.
>> 
>> I wish folks who have been silent would speak up and let us know how we
>> could make this process easier in the future.
>> 
>> Thanks again.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> On Mar 11, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG
>> <mailto:avri at ACM.ORG>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> For the last year I tried to interpret/implement it as:
>>> 
>>> - It has been floated on the NCSG discuss
>>> 
>>> - At least one person (other than me - as alt-chair i tried to be more
>>> NCSG neutral than NCUC) from each Constituency says 'for it.'
>>> 
>>> - No one was screaming against
>>> 
>>> - and a 24-48+ hours 'speak now if you object'  last call had been held
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 11-Mar-14 09:48, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks Rafik. I would appreciate hearing views on wether NCSG-PC members
>>>> feel that we have achieved rough consensus, or not. I?m a little
>>>> confused by how ?rough consensus? is defined in the NCSG charter. It
>>>> states that:
>>>> 
>>>> /"while all members do not need to agree and that no single member can
>>>> veto a decision, all views must be heard and considered. Any minority
>>>> views must be recorded along with the rough consensus position."/
>>>> 
>>>> This definition doesn?t exactly make it easy in the event that no view
>>>> is provided at all. It also does not clearly define a period of time or
>>>> deadlines for response. Does no view at this point = no objection? If it
>>>> does, then I would like to go ahead and ask the NCSG Chair or the
>>>> NCSG-PC Chair to submit the statements as NCSG statements. If not, I
>>>> would like to know so that I could proceed to attempt to seek NCUC
>>>> endorsement.
>>>> 
>>>> I have attached the latest drafts to this email.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 11, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Maria,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I suggested y to get views from PC members by monday since we need to
>>>>> send the drafts and know if PC members approve or disagree with
>>>>> statements.
>>>>> is it possible to make the last call and get response from the PC
>>>>> members who didn't respond?
>>>>> Thanks to Avri, Stephanie, Amr and you who replied already.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2014-03-07 23:58 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>
>>>>> <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>>:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Hi everyone,
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I
>>>>>   personally support all of them and am sorry that my workload this
>>>>>   week has been too frantic to allow me to contribute.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy and
>>>>>   proxy document, details attached below in bold and strikethrough,
>>>>>   if there is time to revise them. (but these two points are not
>>>>>   deal breakers if there is not time.)
>>>>> 
>>>>>   All the best, Maria
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>   On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>>>>   <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>       Hi Rudi,
>>>>> 
>>>>>       I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but
>>>>>       unfortunately, we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we
>>>>>       have an NCSG-PC call to review and submit them.The deadlines
>>>>>       for these have already passed, and we?ve been asking for
>>>>>       extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to
>>>>>       one of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact
>>>>>       Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the
>>>>>       NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us
>>>>>       through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others
>>>>>       please give feedback on this list?
>>>>> 
>>>>>       Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>>       Amr
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>       On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick
>>>>>       <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE
>>>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE><mailto:rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>       I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have
>>>>>>       a link to the statements as they are today so we do not use
>>>>>>       wrong ones ?
>>>>>>       I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online
>>>>>>       meeting so we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>       Kind regards,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>       Rudi Vansnick
>>>>>>       NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>>>>       NPOC treasurer
>>>>>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org
>>>>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org><mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>>>>>       Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>>>>>       Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>>>>       <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>>>>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/><http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>       Op 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak
>>>>>>       <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com><mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> het
>>>>>>       volgende geschreven:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>       Hi Amr,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>       thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and
>>>>>>>       indicate their support or not to the statements. we have
>>>>>>>       statements but they are waiting approval!
>>>>>>>       I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I
>>>>>>>       don't think that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>       Best,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>       Rafik
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>       2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>
>>>>>>>       <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>           Hi all,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>           I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements
>>>>>>>           currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>           1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services
>>>>>>>           Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>>>>>>           2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services
>>>>>>>           EWG status update report
>>>>>>>           3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration
>>>>>>>           of Contact Information PDP WG
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>           The response to the EWG can always be sent as an
>>>>>>>           individual statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign
>>>>>>>           it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be
>>>>>>>           endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency.
>>>>>>>           These are very important statements that constitute the
>>>>>>>           NCSG's official contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be
>>>>>>>           a shame if we don?t declare a position on them only
>>>>>>>           because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>           I urge you all to read through all three of the
>>>>>>>           statements, ask questions or suggest changes, then
>>>>>>>           either indicate that you support or don?t support them.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>           Note: There are still more requests for input pending
>>>>>>>           that have not yet been drafted including the Policy and
>>>>>>>           Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial
>>>>>>>           report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>           Thanks.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>           Amr
>>>>>>>           _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>           PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>       _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>       PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>       _______________________________________________
>>>>>       PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>>>   PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org><mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From aelsadr  Tue Mar 11 17:56:11 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 16:56:11 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <A42A204A-911A-484C-8B71-46F07A1B494B@ipjustice.org>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAH5sThnA+Sevs7nW7W_m4uKw6ybYdN5UgZTvyzS-=nCkykiMBQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<97A115D9-3E33-4198-95D4-85764FE0E179@egyptig.org>
	<531F2347.1040208@acm.org>
	<A42A204A-911A-484C-8B71-46F07A1B494B@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <C5B7A32F-6136-4E2B-8A30-B1375149AA80@egyptig.org>

+1

Amr

On Mar 11, 2014, at 4:24 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Given lack of engagement, we should discuss if this practice makes sense or if it is unduly hampering the SG's ability to get its work done:
> 
>> - At least one person (other than me - as alt-chair i tried to be more NCSG neutral than NCUC) from each Constituency says 'for it.'
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 11, 2014, at 7:52 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> 
>> For the last year I tried to interpret/implement it as:
>> 
>> - It has been floated on the NCSG discuss
>> 
>> - At least one person (other than me - as alt-chair i tried to be more NCSG neutral than NCUC) from each Constituency says 'for it.'
>> 
>> - No one was screaming against
>> 
>> - and a 24-48+ hours 'speak now if you object'  last call had been held
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 11-Mar-14 09:48, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Thanks Rafik. I would appreciate hearing views on wether NCSG-PC members
>>> feel that we have achieved rough consensus, or not. I?m a little
>>> confused by how ?rough consensus? is defined in the NCSG charter. It
>>> states that:
>>> 
>>> /"while all members do not need to agree and that no single member can
>>> veto a decision, all views must be heard and considered. Any minority
>>> views must be recorded along with the rough consensus position."/
>>> 
>>> This definition doesn?t exactly make it easy in the event that no view
>>> is provided at all. It also does not clearly define a period of time or
>>> deadlines for response. Does no view at this point = no objection? If it
>>> does, then I would like to go ahead and ask the NCSG Chair or the
>>> NCSG-PC Chair to submit the statements as NCSG statements. If not, I
>>> would like to know so that I could proceed to attempt to seek NCUC
>>> endorsement.
>>> 
>>> I have attached the latest drafts to this email.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mar 11, 2014, at 2:12 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Maria,
>>>> 
>>>> I suggested y to get views from PC members by monday since we need to
>>>> send the drafts and know if PC members approve or disagree with
>>>> statements.
>>>> is it possible to make the last call and get response from the PC
>>>> members who didn't respond?
>>>> Thanks to Avri, Stephanie, Amr and you who replied already.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2014-03-07 23:58 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>>:
>>>> 
>>>>   Hi everyone,
>>>> 
>>>>   Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I
>>>>   personally support all of them and am sorry that my workload this
>>>>   week has been too frantic to allow me to contribute.
>>>> 
>>>>   I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy and
>>>>   proxy document, details attached below in bold and strikethrough,
>>>>   if there is time to revise them. (but these two points are not
>>>>   deal breakers if there is not time.)
>>>> 
>>>>   All the best, Maria
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>   On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>   <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>       Hi Rudi,
>>>> 
>>>>       I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but
>>>>       unfortunately, we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we
>>>>       have an NCSG-PC call to review and submit them.The deadlines
>>>>       for these have already passed, and we?ve been asking for
>>>>       extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to
>>>>       one of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact
>>>>       Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the
>>>>       NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us
>>>>       through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others
>>>>       please give feedback on this list?
>>>> 
>>>>       Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>>       Amr
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>       On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick
>>>>       <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE <mailto:rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>       I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have
>>>>>       a link to the statements as they are today so we do not use
>>>>>       wrong ones ?
>>>>>       I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online
>>>>>       meeting so we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>>>> 
>>>>>       Kind regards,
>>>>> 
>>>>>       Rudi Vansnick
>>>>>       NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>>>       NPOC treasurer
>>>>>       rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>>>>       Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>>>>       Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>>>       <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>>>>>       www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>> 
>>>>>       Op 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak
>>>>>       <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> het
>>>>>       volgende geschreven:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>       Hi Amr,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>       thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and
>>>>>>       indicate their support or not to the statements. we have
>>>>>>       statements but they are waiting approval!
>>>>>>       I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I
>>>>>>       don't think that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>       Best,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>       Rafik
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>       2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>>>       <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>           Hi all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>           I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements
>>>>>>           currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>           1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services
>>>>>>           Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>>>>>           2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services
>>>>>>           EWG status update report
>>>>>>           3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration
>>>>>>           of Contact Information PDP WG
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>           The response to the EWG can always be sent as an
>>>>>>           individual statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign
>>>>>>           it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be
>>>>>>           endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency.
>>>>>>           These are very important statements that constitute the
>>>>>>           NCSG's official contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be
>>>>>>           a shame if we don?t declare a position on them only
>>>>>>           because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>           I urge you all to read through all three of the
>>>>>>           statements, ask questions or suggest changes, then
>>>>>>           either indicate that you support or don?t support them.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>           Note: There are still more requests for input pending
>>>>>>           that have not yet been drafted including the Policy and
>>>>>>           Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial
>>>>>>           report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>           Thanks.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>           Amr
>>>>>>           _______________________________________________
>>>>>>           PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>           PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>           http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>       _______________________________________________
>>>>>>       PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>       PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>       http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>       _______________________________________________
>>>>       PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>       PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>       http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>>   PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>   PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>   http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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 rudi.vansnick  Tue Mar 11 19:28:40 2014
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:28:40 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmymat7eaxD8Hat07c_0LuXvHWjbaZfuNNNimCgkgU+mA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>
	<EF69717C-DF6F-464A-B32D-A88CCECA3AD0@isoc.be>
	<CAH5sThmymat7eaxD8Hat07c_0LuXvHWjbaZfuNNNimCgkgU+mA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <66B77381-0AAE-49DC-A458-7240CEECA001@isoc.be>

Hi Rafik,

I can confirm NPOC supports the 3 NCSG statements as they were lastly attached to a message.

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 11-mrt.-2014, om 14:08 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:

> Hi Rudi,
> 
> I am really confused by your response:
> 
> NPOC?s policy committee is reviewing the documents. So far, we did not see important changes to the presented position statements. 
> 
> what kind of changes you were expecting? do you mean that you already made some comments to the drafts?
> we have 3 statements drafted which were shared , and we need to submit them asap since we are already after the deadline . when the NPOC PC will respond exactly?
> 
> Being involved in the Translation/transliteration WG, we have delayed the responses for a few extra weeks as we are still expecting a lot of replies to our query.
> 
> I thought that any WG want to get answers quickly from community to get guidance, so delaying doesn't make so much sense IMHO. or do you mean that WG extended the questionnaire period? because I didn't see any announcement on that matter. 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
>  
> 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 7-mrt.-2014, om 15:58 heeft Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM> het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I personally support all of them and am sorry that my workload this week has been too frantic to allow me to contribute. 
>> 
>> I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy and proxy document, details attached below in bold and strikethrough, if there is time to revise them. (but these two points are not deal breakers if there is not time.)
>> 
>> All the best, Maria
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>> Hi Rudi,
>> 
>> I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately, we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to review and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed, and we?ve been asking for extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to one of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others please give feedback on this list?
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE> wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link to the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>>> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>> 
>>> 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 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>> 
>>>> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate their support or not to the statements. we have statements but they are waiting approval!
>>>> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>>> 2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG status update report
>>>> 3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG
>>>> 
>>>> The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These are very important statements that constitute the NCSG's official contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a position on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>>> 
>>>> I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that you support or don?t support them.
>>>> 
>>>> Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have not yet been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Amr
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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
>> 
>> 
>> <maria farrell p&p comments.docx>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/9a560103/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Tue Mar 11 19:51:14 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:51:14 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <66B77381-0AAE-49DC-A458-7240CEECA001@isoc.be>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>
	<EF69717C-DF6F-464A-B32D-A88CCECA3AD0@isoc.be>
	<CAH5sThmymat7eaxD8Hat07c_0LuXvHWjbaZfuNNNimCgkgU+mA@mail.gmail.com>
	<66B77381-0AAE-49DC-A458-7240CEECA001@isoc.be>
Message-ID: <D98C8D98-54AE-4732-9327-396B58C99309@egyptig.org>

Thanks Rudi. In that case, I assume it would be safe for Rafik or Maria to send these out as NCSG comments. I?ve attached them all again in PDF.

Thanks to all.

Amr


On Mar 11, 2014, at 6:28 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be> wrote:

> Hi Rafik,
> 
> I can confirm NPOC supports the 3 NCSG statements as they were lastly attached to a message.
> 
> 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 11-mrt.-2014, om 14:08 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> Hi Rudi,
>> 
>> I am really confused by your response:
>> 
>> NPOC?s policy committee is reviewing the documents. So far, we did not see important changes to the presented position statements. 
>> 
>> what kind of changes you were expecting? do you mean that you already made some comments to the drafts?
>> we have 3 statements drafted which were shared , and we need to submit them asap since we are already after the deadline . when the NPOC PC will respond exactly?
>> 
>> Being involved in the Translation/transliteration WG, we have delayed the responses for a few extra weeks as we are still expecting a lot of replies to our query.
>> 
>> I thought that any WG want to get answers quickly from community to get guidance, so delaying doesn't make so much sense IMHO. or do you mean that WG extended the questionnaire period? because I didn't see any announcement on that matter. 
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>>  
>> 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 7-mrt.-2014, om 15:58 heeft Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM> het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> 
>>> Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I personally support all of them and am sorry that my workload this week has been too frantic to allow me to contribute. 
>>> 
>>> I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy and proxy document, details attached below in bold and strikethrough, if there is time to revise them. (but these two points are not deal breakers if there is not time.)
>>> 
>>> All the best, Maria
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Rudi,
>>> 
>>> I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately, we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to review and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed, and we?ve been asking for extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to one of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others please give feedback on this list?
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link to the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>>>> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>>> 
>>>> 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 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>> 
>>>>> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate their support or not to the statements. we have statements but they are waiting approval!
>>>>> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rafik 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>>>> 2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG status update report
>>>>> 3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG
>>>>> 
>>>>> The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These are very important statements that constitute the NCSG's official contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a position on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that you support or don?t support them.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have not yet been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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
>>> 
>>> 
>>> <maria farrell p&p comments.docx>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/4a21f233/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG Response to T&T of Contact Info PDP WG Questions.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 72284 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/4a21f233/attachment-0003.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/4a21f233/attachment-0005.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Comments of the NCSG to EWG Status Report March 2014.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 165344 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/4a21f233/attachment-0004.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/4a21f233/attachment-0006.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSGResponsetoQuestionsfromProxyPrivacyAccrediationWG.docx (00629345).pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 136351 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/4a21f233/attachment-0005.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140311/4a21f233/attachment-0007.html>


From avri  Tue Mar 11 20:56:20 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:56:20 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <D98C8D98-54AE-4732-9327-396B58C99309@egyptig.org>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>	<EF69717C-DF6F-464A-B32D-A88CCECA3AD0@isoc.be>	<CAH5sThmymat7eaxD8Hat07c_0LuXvHWjbaZfuNNNimCgkgU+mA@mail.gmail.com>	<66B77381-0AAE-49DC-A458-7240CEECA001@isoc.be>
	<D98C8D98-54AE-4732-9327-396B58C99309@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <531F5C54.8060108@acm.org>


agree

avri


On 11-Mar-14 13:51, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Thanks Rudi. In that case, I assume it would be safe for Rafik or Maria
> to send these out as NCSG comments. I?ve attached them all again in PDF.
>
> Thanks to all.
>
> Amr
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2014, at 6:28 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Rafik,
>>
>> I can confirm NPOC supports the 3 NCSG statements as they were lastly
>> attached to a message.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Rudi Vansnick
>> NPOC chair Policy Committee
>> NPOC treasurer
>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>
>> Op 11-mrt.-2014, om 14:08 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>> Hi Rudi,
>>>
>>> I am really confused by your response:
>>>
>>>     NPOC?s policy committee is reviewing the documents. So far, we
>>>     did not see important changes to the presented position statements.
>>>
>>>
>>> what kind of changes you were expecting? do you mean that you already
>>> made some comments to the drafts?
>>> we have 3 statements drafted which were shared , and we need to
>>> submit them asap since we are already after the deadline . when the
>>> NPOC PC will respond exactly?
>>>
>>>     Being involved in the Translation/transliteration WG, we have
>>>     delayed the responses for a few extra weeks as we are still
>>>     expecting a lot of replies to our query.
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought that any WG want to get answers quickly from community to
>>> get guidance, so delaying doesn't make so much sense IMHO. or do you
>>> mean that WG extended the questionnaire period? because I didn't see
>>> any announcement on that matter.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>     NPOC treasurer
>>>     rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>>     Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>>     Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>>>     www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>
>>>     Op 7-mrt.-2014, om 15:58 heeft Maria Farrell
>>>     <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM <mailto:maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM>> het
>>>     volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>>>     Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>>     Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I
>>>>     personally support all of them and am sorry that my workload
>>>>     this week has been too frantic to allow me to contribute.
>>>>
>>>>     I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy
>>>>     and proxy document, details attached below in bold and
>>>>     strikethrough, if there is time to revise them. (but these two
>>>>     points are not deal breakers if there is not time.)
>>>>
>>>>     All the best, Maria
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>     <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         Hi Rudi,
>>>>
>>>>         I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but
>>>>         unfortunately, we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we
>>>>         have an NCSG-PC call to review and submit them.The deadlines
>>>>         for these have already passed, and we?ve been asking for
>>>>         extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to
>>>>         one of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact
>>>>         Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the
>>>>         NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us
>>>>         through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others
>>>>         please give feedback on this list?
>>>>
>>>>         Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>         Amr
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick
>>>>         <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE <mailto:rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>         I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we
>>>>>         have a link to the statements as they are today so we do
>>>>>         not use wrong ones ?
>>>>>         I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online
>>>>>         meeting so we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>>>>
>>>>>         Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>         Rudi Vansnick
>>>>>         NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>>>         NPOC treasurer
>>>>>         rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>>>>         Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>>>>         Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>>>         <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>>>>>         www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>>         Op 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak
>>>>>         <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>>>>         het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>
>>>>>>         Hi Amr,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and
>>>>>>         indicate their support or not to the statements. we have
>>>>>>         statements but they are waiting approval!
>>>>>>         I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I
>>>>>>         don't think that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Rafik
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>>>         <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements
>>>>>>             currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services
>>>>>>             Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>>>>>             2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data
>>>>>>             Services EWG status update report
>>>>>>             3. NCSG response to the Translation and
>>>>>>             Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             The response to the EWG can always be sent as an
>>>>>>             individual statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign
>>>>>>             it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be
>>>>>>             endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a
>>>>>>             constituency. These are very important statements that
>>>>>>             constitute the NCSG's official contribution to PDP
>>>>>>             WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a
>>>>>>             position on them only because we fail to endorse
>>>>>>             statements already drafted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             I urge you all to read through all three of the
>>>>>>             statements, ask questions or suggest changes, then
>>>>>>             either indicate that you support or don?t support them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             Note: There are still more requests for input pending
>>>>>>             that have not yet been drafted including the Policy
>>>>>>             and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D
>>>>>>             initial report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             Amr
>>>>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>>>             PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>             PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>             http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     <maria farrell p&p comments.docx>
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



From avri  Tue Mar 11 20:56:52 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:56:52 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <531F5C54.8060108@acm.org>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>	<EF69717C-DF6F-464A-B32D-A88CCECA3AD0@isoc.be>	<CAH5sThmymat7eaxD8Hat07c_0LuXvHWjbaZfuNNNimCgkgU+mA@mail.gmail.com>	<66B77381-0AAE-49DC-A458-7240CEECA001@isoc.be>
	<D98C8D98-54AE-4732-9327-396B58C99309@egyptig.org>
	<531F5C54.8060108@acm.org>
Message-ID: <531F5C74.3030306@acm.org>

or even Rudi as alt-chair

avri


On 11-Mar-14 14:56, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> agree
>
> avri
>
>
> On 11-Mar-14 13:51, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Thanks Rudi. In that case, I assume it would be safe for Rafik or Maria
>> to send these out as NCSG comments. I?ve attached them all again in PDF.
>>
>> Thanks to all.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 11, 2014, at 6:28 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>
>>> I can confirm NPOC supports the 3 NCSG statements as they were lastly
>>> attached to a message.
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Rudi Vansnick
>>> NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>> NPOC treasurer
>>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>
>>> Op 11-mrt.-2014, om 14:08 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>>> Hi Rudi,
>>>>
>>>> I am really confused by your response:
>>>>
>>>>     NPOC?s policy committee is reviewing the documents. So far, we
>>>>     did not see important changes to the presented position statements.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> what kind of changes you were expecting? do you mean that you already
>>>> made some comments to the drafts?
>>>> we have 3 statements drafted which were shared , and we need to
>>>> submit them asap since we are already after the deadline . when the
>>>> NPOC PC will respond exactly?
>>>>
>>>>     Being involved in the Translation/transliteration WG, we have
>>>>     delayed the responses for a few extra weeks as we are still
>>>>     expecting a lot of replies to our query.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I thought that any WG want to get answers quickly from community to
>>>> get guidance, so delaying doesn't make so much sense IMHO. or do you
>>>> mean that WG extended the questionnaire period? because I didn't see
>>>> any announcement on that matter.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>>     NPOC treasurer
>>>>     rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>>>     Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>>>     Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>> <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>>>>     www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>
>>>>     Op 7-mrt.-2014, om 15:58 heeft Maria Farrell
>>>>     <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM <mailto:maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM>> het
>>>>     volgende geschreven:
>>>>
>>>>>     Hi everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>>     Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I
>>>>>     personally support all of them and am sorry that my workload
>>>>>     this week has been too frantic to allow me to contribute.
>>>>>
>>>>>     I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy
>>>>>     and proxy document, details attached below in bold and
>>>>>     strikethrough, if there is time to revise them. (but these two
>>>>>     points are not deal breakers if there is not time.)
>>>>>
>>>>>     All the best, Maria
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>>     <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>         Hi Rudi,
>>>>>
>>>>>         I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but
>>>>>         unfortunately, we don?t have the luxury of waiting until we
>>>>>         have an NCSG-PC call to review and submit them.The deadlines
>>>>>         for these have already passed, and we?ve been asking for
>>>>>         extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to
>>>>>         one of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact
>>>>>         Information PDP WG) based on Kathy?s feedback on the
>>>>>         NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris Dillon walked us
>>>>>         through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others
>>>>>         please give feedback on this list?
>>>>>
>>>>>         Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>         Amr
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick
>>>>>         <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE <mailto:rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>         I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we
>>>>>>         have a link to the statements as they are today so we do
>>>>>>         not use wrong ones ?
>>>>>>         I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online
>>>>>>         meeting so we can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Kind regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Rudi Vansnick
>>>>>>         NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>>>>         NPOC treasurer
>>>>>>         rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>>>>>         Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>>>>>> <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>>>>>         Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>>>>         <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>>>>>>         www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>         Op 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak
>>>>>>         <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>         het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Hi Amr,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and
>>>>>>>         indicate their support or not to the statements. we have
>>>>>>>         statements but they are waiting approval!
>>>>>>>         I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I
>>>>>>>         don't think that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         Rafik
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>>>>         <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements
>>>>>>>             currently awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services
>>>>>>>             Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>>>>>>             2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data
>>>>>>>             Services EWG status update report
>>>>>>>             3. NCSG response to the Translation and
>>>>>>>             Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             The response to the EWG can always be sent as an
>>>>>>>             individual statement endorsed by whoever cares to sign
>>>>>>>             it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs needs to be
>>>>>>>             endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a
>>>>>>>             constituency. These are very important statements that
>>>>>>>             constitute the NCSG's official contribution to PDP
>>>>>>>             WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a
>>>>>>>             position on them only because we fail to endorse
>>>>>>>             statements already drafted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             I urge you all to read through all three of the
>>>>>>>             statements, ask questions or suggest changes, then
>>>>>>>             either indicate that you support or don?t support them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             Note: There are still more requests for input pending
>>>>>>>             that have not yet been drafted including the Policy
>>>>>>>             and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D
>>>>>>>             initial report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             Thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>             Amr
>>>>>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>             PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>             PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>             http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     <maria farrell p&p comments.docx>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>



From rafik.dammak  Tue Mar 11 22:03:54 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 05:03:54 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <D98C8D98-54AE-4732-9327-396B58C99309@egyptig.org>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>
	<EF69717C-DF6F-464A-B32D-A88CCECA3AD0@isoc.be>
	<CAH5sThmymat7eaxD8Hat07c_0LuXvHWjbaZfuNNNimCgkgU+mA@mail.gmail.com>
	<66B77381-0AAE-49DC-A458-7240CEECA001@isoc.be>
	<D98C8D98-54AE-4732-9327-396B58C99309@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThk2V8FrmhO-o59Soprm3vg=OTqAf205xdZfsVTmfc6eUQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

Yes, I will send them.

Rafik
On Mar 12, 2014 2:43 AM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Thanks Rudi. In that case, I assume it would be safe for Rafik or Maria to
> send these out as NCSG comments. I?ve attached them all again in PDF.
>
> Thanks to all.
>
> Amr
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 11, 2014, at 6:28 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be> wrote:
>
> Hi Rafik,
>
> I can confirm NPOC supports the 3 NCSG statements as they were lastly
> attached to a message.
>
> 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 11-mrt.-2014, om 14:08 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> Hi Rudi,
>
> I am really confused by your response:
>
> NPOC?s policy committee is reviewing the documents. So far, we did not see
>> important changes to the presented position statements.
>>
>
> what kind of changes you were expecting? do you mean that you already made
> some comments to the drafts?
> we have 3 statements drafted which were shared , and we need to submit
> them asap since we are already after the deadline . when the NPOC PC will
> respond exactly?
>
> Being involved in the Translation/transliteration WG, we have delayed the
>> responses for a few extra weeks as we are still expecting a lot of replies
>> to our query.
>>
>
> I thought that any WG want to get answers quickly from community to get
> guidance, so delaying doesn't make so much sense IMHO. or do you mean that
> WG extended the questionnaire period? because I didn't see any announcement
> on that matter.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
>>  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 7-mrt.-2014, om 15:58 heeft Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM>
>> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I personally
>> support all of them and am sorry that my workload this week has been too
>> frantic to allow me to contribute.
>>
>> I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy and proxy
>> document, details attached below in bold and strikethrough, if there is
>> time to revise them. (but these two points are not deal breakers if there
>> is not time.)
>>
>> All the best, Maria
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Rudi,
>>>
>>> I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately, we
>>> don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to review
>>> and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed, and we?ve been
>>> asking for extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to one
>>> of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG) based
>>> on Kathy?s feedback on the NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris
>>> Dillon walked us through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others
>>> please give feedback on this list?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link to
>>> the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>>> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so we
>>> can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>>
>>> 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 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>> Hi Amr,
>>>
>>> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate
>>> their support or not to the statements. we have statements but they are
>>> waiting approval!
>>> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think that
>>> we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently
>>>> awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>>
>>>> 1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues
>>>> PDP WG
>>>> 2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG status
>>>> update report
>>>> 3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact
>>>> Information PDP WG
>>>>
>>>> The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual statement
>>>> endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs
>>>> needs to be endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These
>>>> are very important statements that constitute the NCSG's official
>>>> contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a
>>>> position on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>>>
>>>> I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask
>>>> questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that you support or
>>>> don?t support them.
>>>>
>>>> Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have not yet
>>>> been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and
>>>> the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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
>>>
>>>
>> <maria farrell p&p comments.docx>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140312/3b6436a2/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Mar 11 22:07:16 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 05:07:16 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <66B77381-0AAE-49DC-A458-7240CEECA001@isoc.be>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>
	<EF69717C-DF6F-464A-B32D-A88CCECA3AD0@isoc.be>
	<CAH5sThmymat7eaxD8Hat07c_0LuXvHWjbaZfuNNNimCgkgU+mA@mail.gmail.com>
	<66B77381-0AAE-49DC-A458-7240CEECA001@isoc.be>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThk_vZOL_RWTKTDFv4TF612fYqT-8JoriC+6C8iSF3ka5w@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Rudi

Rafik
On Mar 12, 2014 2:28 AM, "Rudi Vansnick" <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be> wrote:

> Hi Rafik,
>
> I can confirm NPOC supports the 3 NCSG statements as they were lastly
> attached to a message.
>
> 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 11-mrt.-2014, om 14:08 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het
> volgende geschreven:
>
> Hi Rudi,
>
> I am really confused by your response:
>
> NPOC?s policy committee is reviewing the documents. So far, we did not see
>> important changes to the presented position statements.
>>
>
> what kind of changes you were expecting? do you mean that you already made
> some comments to the drafts?
> we have 3 statements drafted which were shared , and we need to submit
> them asap since we are already after the deadline . when the NPOC PC will
> respond exactly?
>
> Being involved in the Translation/transliteration WG, we have delayed the
>> responses for a few extra weeks as we are still expecting a lot of replies
>> to our query.
>>
>
> I thought that any WG want to get answers quickly from community to get
> guidance, so delaying doesn't make so much sense IMHO. or do you mean that
> WG extended the questionnaire period? because I didn't see any announcement
> on that matter.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
>>  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 7-mrt.-2014, om 15:58 heeft Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM>
>> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I personally
>> support all of them and am sorry that my workload this week has been too
>> frantic to allow me to contribute.
>>
>> I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy and proxy
>> document, details attached below in bold and strikethrough, if there is
>> time to revise them. (but these two points are not deal breakers if there
>> is not time.)
>>
>> All the best, Maria
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Rudi,
>>>
>>> I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately, we
>>> don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to review
>>> and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed, and we?ve been
>>> asking for extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to one
>>> of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG) based
>>> on Kathy?s feedback on the NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris
>>> Dillon walked us through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others
>>> please give feedback on this list?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link to
>>> the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>>> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so we
>>> can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>>
>>> 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 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>> Hi Amr,
>>>
>>> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate
>>> their support or not to the statements. we have statements but they are
>>> waiting approval!
>>> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think that
>>> we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently
>>>> awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>>
>>>> 1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues
>>>> PDP WG
>>>> 2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG status
>>>> update report
>>>> 3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact
>>>> Information PDP WG
>>>>
>>>> The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual statement
>>>> endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs
>>>> needs to be endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These
>>>> are very important statements that constitute the NCSG's official
>>>> contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a
>>>> position on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>>>
>>>> I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask
>>>> questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that you support or
>>>> don?t support them.
>>>>
>>>> Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have not yet
>>>> been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG) and
>>>> the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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
>>>
>>>
>> <maria farrell p&p comments.docx>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140312/94301ab5/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Mar 12 02:35:21 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 09:35:21 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThk2V8FrmhO-o59Soprm3vg=OTqAf205xdZfsVTmfc6eUQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>
	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>
	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>
	<EF69717C-DF6F-464A-B32D-A88CCECA3AD0@isoc.be>
	<CAH5sThmymat7eaxD8Hat07c_0LuXvHWjbaZfuNNNimCgkgU+mA@mail.gmail.com>
	<66B77381-0AAE-49DC-A458-7240CEECA001@isoc.be>
	<D98C8D98-54AE-4732-9327-396B58C99309@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sThk2V8FrmhO-o59Soprm3vg=OTqAf205xdZfsVTmfc6eUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThm24R89BrpidtL5YNSCtwJfxyJq-jJQr8pg65q+XEQWcw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks to everybody, we made it at the end, I think that I safely submitted
the statements and waiting for acknowledgment .
I think that we should discuss in singapore meeting how we can improve the
process and make it more smooth.
we have some open comments coming soon. @Maria @Rudi is it possible to list
those public comments (in confluence to track them), the deadline and the
person in charge to lead the draft effort?maybe we need to think about
prioritization (some memories for former gnso councillors :))
For example we have the strategic panels reports and that is important to
respond to.

Best,

Rafik

2014-03-12 5:03 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>:

> Hi Amr,
>
> Yes, I will send them.
>
> Rafik
> On Mar 12, 2014 2:43 AM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Rudi. In that case, I assume it would be safe for Rafik or Maria
>> to send these out as NCSG comments. I?ve attached them all again in PDF.
>>
>> Thanks to all.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 11, 2014, at 6:28 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Rafik,
>>
>> I can confirm NPOC supports the 3 NCSG statements as they were lastly
>> attached to a message.
>>
>> 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 11-mrt.-2014, om 14:08 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>> Hi Rudi,
>>
>> I am really confused by your response:
>>
>> NPOC?s policy committee is reviewing the documents. So far, we did not
>>> see important changes to the presented position statements.
>>>
>>
>> what kind of changes you were expecting? do you mean that you already
>> made some comments to the drafts?
>> we have 3 statements drafted which were shared , and we need to submit
>> them asap since we are already after the deadline . when the NPOC PC will
>> respond exactly?
>>
>> Being involved in the Translation/transliteration WG, we have delayed the
>>> responses for a few extra weeks as we are still expecting a lot of replies
>>> to our query.
>>>
>>
>> I thought that any WG want to get answers quickly from community to get
>> guidance, so delaying doesn't make so much sense IMHO. or do you mean that
>> WG extended the questionnaire period? because I didn't see any announcement
>> on that matter.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>>
>>>  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 7-mrt.-2014, om 15:58 heeft Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM>
>>> het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent positions. I
>>> personally support all of them and am sorry that my workload this week has
>>> been too frantic to allow me to contribute.
>>>
>>> I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the privacy and proxy
>>> document, details attached below in bold and strikethrough, if there is
>>> time to revise them. (but these two points are not deal breakers if there
>>> is not time.)
>>>
>>> All the best, Maria
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Rudi,
>>>>
>>>> I?ve attached the three statements to this email, but unfortunately, we
>>>> don?t have the luxury of waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to review
>>>> and submit them.The deadlines for these have already passed, and we?ve been
>>>> asking for extensions for all of them. There has only been an update to one
>>>> of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG) based
>>>> on Kathy?s feedback on the NCSG-list. They?re the same comments Chris
>>>> Dillon walked us through during the WG call yesterday. Could you and others
>>>> please give feedback on this list?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC. Can we have a link to
>>>> the statements as they are today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>>>> I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an online meeting so we
>>>> can validate NCSG-PC positions on this.
>>>>
>>>> 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 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Amr,
>>>>
>>>> thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should review and indicate
>>>> their support or not to the statements. we have statements but they are
>>>> waiting approval!
>>>> I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire but I don't think
>>>> that we can take more than one week to respond.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I don?t enjoy nagging, but there are three statements currently
>>>>> awaiting NCSG-PC endorsement:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation
>>>>> Issues PDP WG
>>>>> 2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration Data Services EWG status
>>>>> update report
>>>>> 3. NCSG response to the Translation and Transliteration of Contact
>>>>> Information PDP WG
>>>>>
>>>>> The response to the EWG can always be sent as an individual statement
>>>>> endorsed by whoever cares to sign it, but the responses to the two PDP WGs
>>>>> needs to be endorsed by either an SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These
>>>>> are very important statements that constitute the NCSG's official
>>>>> contribution to PDP WGs, and it would be a shame if we don?t declare a
>>>>> position on them only because we fail to endorse statements already drafted.
>>>>>
>>>>> I urge you all to read through all three of the statements, ask
>>>>> questions or suggest changes, then either indicate that you support or
>>>>> don?t support them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: There are still more requests for input pending that have not
>>>>> yet been drafted including the Policy and Implementation WG (a non-PDP WG)
>>>>> and the IRTP-D initial report. Not sure if I missed any.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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
>>>>
>>>>
>>> <maria farrell p&p comments.docx>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140312/ce740e05/attachment.html>


From joy  Wed Mar 12 03:23:47 2014
From: joy (joy)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 14:23:47 +1300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] URGENT: Pending NCSG Statements
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThm24R89BrpidtL5YNSCtwJfxyJq-jJQr8pg65q+XEQWcw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <985C7241-D343-4836-B99D-5FF390E27C7A@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sThnUV447a=8cYwuscSAaCYc8CLZqpNR8cZQCO-Zjc2YDNQ@mail.gmail.com>	<57B079E0-FE80-4C86-8434-6CEF78B1266B@isoc.be>	<01EAD8CF-D76A-4C8B-8DF1-DFC7D81C7034@egyptig.org>	<CAC7qwdBg+UCRkoaTSvOiw=cxa0v66ViL=GSg7irTjafwEU04Pg@mail.gmail.com>	<EF69717C-DF6F-464A-B32D-A88CCECA3AD0@isoc.be>	<CAH5sThmymat7eaxD8Hat07c_0LuXvHWjbaZfuNNNimCgkgU+mA@mail.gmail.com>	<66B77381-0AAE-49DC-A458-7240CEECA001@isoc.be>	<D98C8D98-54AE-4732-9327-396B58C99309@egyptig.org>	<CAH5sThk2V8FrmhO-o59Soprm3vg=OTqAf205xdZfsVTmfc6eUQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThm24R89BrpidtL5YNSCtwJfxyJq-jJQr8pg65q+XEQWcw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <531FB723.2000100@apc.org>

thanks Rafik!
On 12/03/2014 1:35 p.m., Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Thanks to everybody, we made it at the end, I think that I safely
> submitted the statements and waiting for acknowledgment .
> I think that we should discuss in singapore meeting how we can improve
> the process and make it more smooth.
> we have some open comments coming soon. @Maria @Rudi is it possible to
> list those public comments (in confluence to track them), the deadline
> and the person in charge to lead the draft effort?maybe we need to
> think about prioritization (some memories for former gnso councillors :)) 
> For example we have the strategic panels reports and that is important
> to respond to. 
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2014-03-12 5:03 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>:
>
>     Hi Amr,
>
>     Yes, I will send them.
>
>     Rafik
>
>     On Mar 12, 2014 2:43 AM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>     <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>
>         Thanks Rudi. In that case, I assume it would be safe for Rafik
>         or Maria to send these out as NCSG comments. I've attached
>         them all again in PDF.
>
>         Thanks to all.
>
>         Amr
>
>
>
>
>
>         On Mar 11, 2014, at 6:28 PM, Rudi Vansnick
>         <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>> wrote:
>
>>         Hi Rafik,
>>
>>         I can confirm NPOC supports the 3 NCSG statements as they
>>         were lastly attached to a message.
>>
>>         Kind regards,
>>
>>         Rudi Vansnick
>>         NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>         NPOC treasurer
>>         rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>         Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>         Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>         <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>>         www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>
>>         Op 11-mrt.-2014, om 14:08 heeft Rafik Dammak
>>         <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> het
>>         volgende geschreven:
>>
>>>         Hi Rudi,
>>>
>>>         I am really confused by your response:
>>>
>>>             NPOC's policy committee is reviewing the documents. So
>>>             far, we did not see important changes to the presented
>>>             position statements. 
>>>
>>>
>>>         what kind of changes you were expecting? do you mean that
>>>         you already made some comments to the drafts?
>>>         we have 3 statements drafted which were shared , and we need
>>>         to submit them asap since we are already after the deadline
>>>         . when the NPOC PC will respond exactly?
>>>
>>>             Being involved in the Translation/transliteration WG, we
>>>             have delayed the responses for a few extra weeks as we
>>>             are still expecting a lot of replies to our query.
>>>
>>>
>>>         I thought that any WG want to get answers quickly from
>>>         community to get guidance, so delaying doesn't make so much
>>>         sense IMHO. or do you mean that WG extended the
>>>         questionnaire period? because I didn't see any announcement
>>>         on that matter. 
>>>
>>>         Best,
>>>
>>>         Rafik
>>>
>>>          
>>>
>>>             NPOC treasurer
>>>             rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>>             Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>>>             <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>>             Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>             <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>>>             www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>
>>>             Op 7-mrt.-2014, om 15:58 heeft Maria Farrell
>>>             <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM
>>>             <mailto:maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM>> het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>>>             Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>>             Thanks so much to the drafters of these excellent
>>>>             positions. I personally support all of them and am
>>>>             sorry that my workload this week has been too frantic
>>>>             to allow me to contribute.
>>>>
>>>>             I just spotted a typo and one textual ambiguity in the
>>>>             privacy and proxy document, details attached below in
>>>>             bold and strikethrough, if there is time to revise
>>>>             them. (but these two points are not deal breakers if
>>>>             there is not time.)
>>>>
>>>>             All the best, Maria
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             On 7 March 2014 14:36, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>>>>             <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>                 Hi Rudi,
>>>>
>>>>                 I've attached the three statements to this email,
>>>>                 but unfortunately, we don't have the luxury of
>>>>                 waiting until we have an NCSG-PC call to review and
>>>>                 submit them.The deadlines for these have already
>>>>                 passed, and we've been asking for extensions for
>>>>                 all of them. There has only been an update to one
>>>>                 of them (Translation & Transliteration of Contact
>>>>                 Information PDP WG) based on Kathy's feedback on
>>>>                 the NCSG-list. They're the same comments Chris
>>>>                 Dillon walked us through during the WG call
>>>>                 yesterday. Could you and others please give
>>>>                 feedback on this list?
>>>>
>>>>                 Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>                 Amr
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                 On Mar 7, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Rudi Vansnick
>>>>                 <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE
>>>>                 <mailto:rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>                 I agree we need to start do some work in NCSG-PC.
>>>>>                 Can we have a link to the statements as they are
>>>>>                 today so we do not use wrong ones ?
>>>>>                 I would call on the NCSG-PC chair to schedule an
>>>>>                 online meeting so we can validate NCSG-PC
>>>>>                 positions on this.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Rudi Vansnick
>>>>>                 NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>>>                 NPOC treasurer
>>>>>                 rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>>>>                 Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>>>>>                 <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>>>>                 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>>>                 <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>>>>>                 www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>>                 Op 7-mrt.-2014, om 12:16 heeft Rafik Dammak
>>>>>                 <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>                 <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> het volgende
>>>>>                 geschreven:
>>>>>
>>>>>>                 Hi Amr,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                 thanks for the reminder, NCSG PC members should
>>>>>>                 review and indicate their support or not to the
>>>>>>                 statements. we have statements but they are
>>>>>>                 waiting approval!
>>>>>>                 I asked for extension for the PPSAI questionnaire
>>>>>>                 but I don't think that we can take more than one
>>>>>>                 week to respond.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                 Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                 Rafik 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                 2014-03-06 18:52 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr
>>>>>>                 <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                     Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                     I don't enjoy nagging, but there are three
>>>>>>                     statements currently awaiting NCSG-PC
>>>>>>                     endorsement:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                     1. NCSG response to the Privacy and Proxy
>>>>>>                     Services Accreditation Issues PDP WG
>>>>>>                     2. NCSG response to the gTLD Registration
>>>>>>                     Data Services EWG status update report
>>>>>>                     3. NCSG response to the Translation and
>>>>>>                     Transliteration of Contact Information PDP WG
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                     The response to the EWG can always be sent as
>>>>>>                     an individual statement endorsed by whoever
>>>>>>                     cares to sign it, but the responses to the
>>>>>>                     two PDP WGs needs to be endorsed by either an
>>>>>>                     SO, an AC, a SG or a constituency. These are
>>>>>>                     very important statements that constitute the
>>>>>>                     NCSG's official contribution to PDP WGs, and
>>>>>>                     it would be a shame if we don't declare a
>>>>>>                     position on them only because we fail to
>>>>>>                     endorse statements already drafted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                     I urge you all to read through all three of
>>>>>>                     the statements, ask questions or suggest
>>>>>>                     changes, then either indicate that you
>>>>>>                     support or don't support them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                     Note: There are still more requests for input
>>>>>>                     pending that have not yet been drafted
>>>>>>                     including the Policy and Implementation WG (a
>>>>>>                     non-PDP WG) and the IRTP-D initial report.
>>>>>>                     Not sure if I missed any.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                     Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                     Amr
>>>>>>                     _______________________________________________
>>>>>>                     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>                     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>>                     <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>                     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>                 _______________________________________________
>>>>>>                 PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>>                 PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>>                 http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>                 _______________________________________________
>>>>                 PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>                 PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>                 http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>             <maria farrell p&p comments.docx>
>>>
>>>
>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>             PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>             PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>             http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         PC-NCSG mailing list
>>         PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>         http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140312/78b6ae81/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: joy.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 229 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140312/78b6ae81/attachment-0001.vcf>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Mar 12 15:05:11 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 22:05:11 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] Input Request:Preliminary Issue Report
 on Access by IGOs and INGOs to the Curative Rights Protections of the UDRP
 and URS
In-Reply-To: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F69846FBF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <C4B5E5D7461AB54B875986D2919CBB5F017F69846FBF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkz5dTO_HY8JPWPpmEs214bH36h=2zgEegr5eXm3Bh_iQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Everyone,

a topic that involved several NCSG members who participated in the working
group. better to have someone who take the lead for drafting.

Best Regards,

Rafik
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Glen de Saint G?ry <Glen at icann.org>
Date: 2014-03-12 20:34 GMT+09:00
Subject: [liaison6c] Input Request:Preliminary Issue Report on Access by
IGOs and INGOs to the Curative Rights Protections of the UDRP and URS
To: liaison6c <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>


https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-10mar14-en.htm
Preliminary Issue Report on Access by IGOs and INGOs to the Curative Rights
Protections of the UDRP and URS

Comment / Reply Periods (*)

Comment Open Date: 10 March 2014

Comment Close Date: 14 April 2014 - 23:59 UTC

Reply Open Date: 15 April 2014

Reply Close Date: 6 May 2014 - 23:59 UTC

Important Information Links

Public Comment Announcement<https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-10mar14-en.htm>

To Submit Your Comments (Forum)<comments-igo-ingo-crp-prelim-10mar14 at icann.org>

View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-prelim-10mar14/>

Brief Overview

Originating Organization: GNSO

Categories/Tags:

   - Contracted Party Agreements
   - Policy Processes

Purpose (Brief):

To obtain community input on the Preliminary Issue Report requested by the
GNSO Council concerning possible amendments to the Uniform Dispute
Resolution Policy and Uniform Rapid Suspension procedure, to enable access
to them by protected International Governmental Organizations and
International Non-Governmental Organizations.

Current Status:

The GNSO Council unanimously approved the IGO-INGO PDP Working Group's
consensus recommendations on 20 November 2013, as contained in the WG's Final
Report <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf>[PDF,
645 KB]. One of these recommendations was for an Issue Report on
amending the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy and Uniform Rapid Suspension
procedure to enable their use by protected IGOs and INGOs. As required by
the ICANN Bylaws, public notice is hereby provided of the publication of
the requested Preliminary Issue
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-crp-prelim-10mar14-en.pdf>[PDF,
288 KB] and of the opportunity to comment on it.

Next Steps:

ICANN Staff will prepare a summary of the public comments received that
will be submitted to the GNSO Council along with the Final Issue Report.
The GNSO Council will then vote on whether or not to initiate.

Staff Contact:

Mary Wong

Email Staff Contact<policy-staff at icann.org?subject=More%20information%20on%20the%20Preliminary%20Issue%20Report%20on%20Access%20by%20IGOs%20and%20INGOs%20to%20the%20Curative%20Rights%20Protections%20of%20the%20UDRP%20and%20URS%20public%20comment%20period>

Detailed Information

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose:

The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) unanimously approved at
its meeting on 20 November 2013 the consensus recommendations of the
IGO-INGO PDP Working Group, which are now pending Board action. The
detailed recommendations can be found in the Final
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf>[PDF,
644 KB], with a summary provided within the GNSO
Council motion <http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2>.
One of the recommendations adopted was for the GNSO Council to request an
Issue Report, preceding a possible Policy Development Process (PDP), to
examine International Governmental Organization (IGO) and International
Non-Governmental Organization (INGO) access to curative rights protection
mechanisms such as the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and Uniform
Rapid Suspension procedure (URS).

Section II: Background:

For a detailed background and history of the issue on whether to protect
certain IGO and INGO identifiers prior to the initiation of the IGO-INGO
PDP, please see the Final GNSO Issue
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/protection-igo-names-final-issue-report-01oct12-en.pdf>[PDF,
675 KB] on the Protection of International Organization Names in New
gTLDs. The IGO-INGO PDP Working Group (WG) was formed on 31 October 2012
and the WG Charter approved by the GNSO Council on 15 November 2012.  On 10
November 2013 the WG published its Final
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf>[PDF,
644 KB] and sent it to the GNSO Council, incorporating feedback
received in response to its draft Final Report.  The WG's Final Report
includes supplemental documentation in the form of Minority Statements from
various WG members and their respective constituencies, including IGOs and
INGOs who may be affected by the recommendations under consideration.

The WG's consensus recommendations were unanimously
approved<http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20131120-2>by
the GNSO Council on 20 November 2013 and sent to the ICANN Board for
its
consideration. One of the recommendations adopted was for the GNSO Council
to request an Issue Report, preceding a possible PDP, to examine possible
amendments to the UDRP and URS to enable access by protected IGOs and INGOs
to these curative rights protection mechanisms. ICANN staff has prepared
the requested Preliminary Issue
Report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-crp-prelim-10mar14-en.pdf>[PDF,
288 KB] and is posting it for public comment prior to preparing the
Final Issue Report for the GNSO Council's consideration and vote.

Section III: Document and Resource Links:

   - Final Report on Protection of IGO and INGO Identifiers in All
gTLDs<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-10nov13-en.pdf>[PDF,
645 KB]
      - Supplement A ? Minority
Positions<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-minority-positions-10nov13-en.pdf>[PDF,
216 KB]
      - Supplement B ? WG Consensus Call
Tool<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-consensus-call-13nov13-en.pdf>[PDF,
203 KB]
      - Supplement C ? Public Comment Review
Tool<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-public-comment-review-08nov13-en.pdf>[PDF,
385 KB]
      - Supplement D ? Red Cross Red Crescent Societies Identifier
List<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/igo-ingo-final-rcrc-scope-names-10nov13-en.pdf>[PDF,
616 KB]
   - GNSO Council Report to the ICANN
Board<http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/council-board-igo-ingo-21jan14-en.pdf>[PDF,
705 KB]

Section IV: Additional Information:

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

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





Glen de Saint G?ry

GNSO Secretariat

gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org

http://gnso.icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140312/fb3ecc2d/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Sun Mar 16 16:41:17 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 23:41:17 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] US Government Announcement about
 transfer IANA functions stewardship
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThntE6oZjNekUEcETLhL_kNuVRjmQ+AQwupuv4pkZpCn6w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThmaFAQYDpdi3yeh--Vxe8fqNgxe0Czv4zCi+Y5p=du18Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<791CD4BF-4CB4-4F5F-BF8D-D5A00F95DC48@gmail.com>
	<WC20140315193139.45030C@milk.toast.net>
	<DDE09CF0-0B3C-466B-B45E-F043BDCC3875@uzh.ch>
	<5325957F.3000102@acm.org>
	<67472B9B-9BDF-46DC-9421-D8069774C12E@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThntE6oZjNekUEcETLhL_kNuVRjmQ+AQwupuv4pkZpCn6w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkurZEr_MKq3wtXhdkN_d5AUbroz4f5tp+Rwo8qycMYmw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Everyone,

I think that PC should follow with this too, while Bill suggested statement
and I supported that in the main list, it will be great PC members to be
involved in drafting. we have few days to make it before singapore and show
our support by clear statement.

Best,

Rafik

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Date: 2014-03-16 22:05 GMT+09:00
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] US Government Announcement about transfer IANA
functions stewardship
To: William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>
Cc: "NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu" <NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>


Hi Bill,

for statement we need people to volunteer to draft that and ask membership
for endorsement in the next 2 or 3 days. I do think that is feasible. can
you draft something ?

It doesn't need to be long but should include the fact that we support such
transition aligned with our long time positions and also stress the
principles that should guide the consultation process.

NCSG will develop its positions and proposals for the transition process ,
the mechanisms for consultation, in fact we are starting now and we have
some members contributions to netmundial that can be used as straw-man.

Best Regards,

Rafik


2014-03-16 21:46 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>:

Hi
>
> On Mar 16, 2014, at 1:13 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>
> While it looks like NCSG already endorsed the Brenden and Milton plan, I
> don't remember us doing so,
>
>
> Where does it look like this?  I don?t remember it either.
>
> In any event, at this stage I don?t think it?s imperative that we all have
> a shared model of precisely how the institutional arrangements of the
> future might be configured.  There will be push back or at least a
> unmissable lack of enthusiasm from some actors and probably a campaign to
> twist this into a domestic US political issue in advance of elections.  In
> that context, I?d think it?d be sufficient to at least stand up and say
> clearly that we support denationalization/globalization, congratulate the
> USG on looking forward, expect an inclusive multistakeholder process of
> working options for going forward, etc.
>
> Other civil society networks are already drafting and releasing
> statements.  It would be a real pity if the civil society actors who
> actually work within ICANN and have long advocated change fail to do
> something in parallel.  I don?t care if it goes out at the constituency or
> stakeholder group level but we ought to say something.
>
> Bill
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140316/adcf66db/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Mar 17 03:52:33 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:52:33 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on US Government Announcement about
 transfer IANA functions stewardship
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=e+5XHMH7STb2Hu5ko+05Jqusnzo5Y5e6AL_zJOE98-A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Everyone,

(cc NCSG-PC)

Milton volunteered and drafted this statement regarding the NTIA
announcement. we should be able to discuss (commenting here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VAkGj39ou5YkypFt0Vwqvyd1FTK31Ojm29s_gX-Ugrw/edit?usp=sharing)
and endorse it asap before Singapore meeting to show support and
indicate
our initial positions .

Best Regards,

Rafik


----------statement----------------

NCSG Statement on the globalization of the IANA functions

The Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) welcomes the 13 March 2014
statement from the U.S. Commerce Department announcing its intention to
?transition key Internet domain name functions to the global
multistakeholder community.? We support this move because an Internet
governance regime that gives one national government exclusive powers over
a global resource is bound to be politically biased, divisive and promote
tendencies toward Internet fragmentation. This change is long overdue.

NCSG supports all 5 of the principles NTIA proposed to guide the
transition. We agree that the transition should:

? Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;

? Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;

? Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of
the IANA services;

? Maintain the openness of the Internet;

? Not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental
organization.

It is very important to replace the current system with a carefully
considered, well-designed alternative. We note that noncommercial
stakeholders have been leaders in developing plans for the proposed
transition. Submissions to the Netmundial conference from two NCSG members,
the Internet Governance Project and Avri Doria, have set out specific
blueprints for the transition.

Consistent with both of these proposals, NCSG proposes an additional
principle to guide the transition. The transition should:

? Enhance the accountability of ICANN through structural separation of the
DNS root zone management functions from ICANN?s policy making functions

The root zone management functions, which are currently performed by
Verisign, Inc. and IANA under contracts with the U.S. government, are
clerical, technical and operational, The policy making functions of ICANN,
on the other hand, are highly political. NCSG believes that those two
aspects of DNS governance must be kept apart, in separate organizations.
Separating them ensures that those with policy and political objectives
must win support for their ideas in a fair and open policy development
process, and cannot arbitrarily impose them upon Internet users and service
providers by virtue of their control of the operational levers of the
global domain name system.

The existing IANA contract attempts to keep the two separate; however, if
ICANN simply absorbs the IANA and Verisign functions without any oversight
from the U.S. government, there is a danger that the two could become
integrated and intermingled in unhealthy ways. That is why the NCSG, along
with supporters from other stakeholder groups, will insist on this new
principle of separation during the transition process.

The Department of Commerce has asked ICANN to ?conven[e] stakeholders
across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition
plan.? Unfortunately, ICANN?s management seems to have interpreted this as
a mandate to implement its own transition plan, in which it would simply
take over the IANA functions with no oversight. NCSG wishes to remind ICANN
that it has been charged with convening a process, not with controlling it.
The transition will not work unless ICANN runs a truly open and
deliberative process that allows the all ideas to be considered and the
best ideas to win.

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 Non-Profit Operational Constituencies (
http://www.npoc.org)
----------end of statement-------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140317/e13b227d/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Preview.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 54413 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140317/e13b227d/attachment-0001.pdf>


From avri  Mon Mar 17 05:52:18 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 23:52:18 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on US Government Announcement about
 transfer IANA functions stewardship
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=e+5XHMH7STb2Hu5ko+05Jqusnzo5Y5e6AL_zJOE98-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=e+5XHMH7STb2Hu5ko+05Jqusnzo5Y5e6AL_zJOE98-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <53267172.1030706@acm.org>

i am comfortable with that statement.

avri


On 16-Mar-14 21:52, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> (cc NCSG-PC)
>
> Milton volunteered and drafted this statement regarding the NTIA
> announcement. we should be able to discuss (commenting here
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VAkGj39ou5YkypFt0Vwqvyd1FTK31Ojm29s_gX-Ugrw/edit?usp=sharing
> ) and endorse it asap before Singapore meeting to show support and
> indicate our initial positions .
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> ----------statement----------------
>
> NCSG Statement on the globalization of the IANA functions
>
> The Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) welcomes the 13 March 2014
> statement from the U.S. Commerce Department announcing its intention to
> ?transition key Internet domain name functions to the global
> multistakeholder community.? We support this move because an Internet
> governance regime that gives one national government exclusive powers
> over a global resource is bound to be politically biased, divisive and
> promote tendencies toward Internet fragmentation. This change is long
> overdue.
>
> NCSG supports all 5 of the principles NTIA proposed to guide the
> transition. We agree that the transition should:
>
> ? Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
>
> ? Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
>
> ? Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of
> the IANA services;
>
> ? Maintain the openness of the Internet;
>
> ? Not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an
> inter-governmental organization.
>
> It is very important to replace the current system with a carefully
> considered, well-designed alternative. We note that noncommercial
> stakeholders have been leaders in developing plans for the proposed
> transition. Submissions to the Netmundial conference from two NCSG
> members, the Internet Governance Project and Avri Doria, have set out
> specific blueprints for the transition.
>
> Consistent with both of these proposals, NCSG proposes an additional
> principle to guide the transition. The transition should:
>
> ? Enhance the accountability of ICANN through structural separation of
> the DNS root zone management functions from ICANN?s policy making functions
>
> The root zone management functions, which are currently performed by
> Verisign, Inc. and IANA under contracts with the U.S. government, are
> clerical, technical and operational, The policy making functions of
> ICANN, on the other hand, are highly political. NCSG believes that those
> two aspects of DNS governance must be kept apart, in separate
> organizations. Separating them ensures that those with policy and
> political objectives must win support for their ideas in a fair and open
> policy development process, and cannot arbitrarily impose them upon
> Internet users and service providers by virtue of their control of the
> operational levers of the global domain name system.
>
> The existing IANA contract attempts to keep the two separate; however,
> if ICANN simply absorbs the IANA and Verisign functions without any
> oversight from the U.S. government, there is a danger that the two could
> become integrated and intermingled in unhealthy ways. That is why the
> NCSG, along with supporters from other stakeholder groups, will insist
> on this new principle of separation during the transition process.
>
> The Department of Commerce has asked ICANN to ?conven[e] stakeholders
> across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition
> plan.? Unfortunately, ICANN?s management seems to have interpreted this
> as a mandate to implement its own transition plan, in which it would
> simply take over the IANA functions with no oversight. NCSG wishes to
> remind ICANN that it has been charged with convening a process, not with
> controlling it. The transition will not work unless ICANN runs a truly
> open and deliberative process that allows the all ideas to be considered
> and the best ideas to win.
>
> 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 Non-Profit Operational
> Constituencies (http://www.npoc.org)
>
> ----------end of statement-------
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



From aelsadr  Mon Mar 17 11:54:52 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:54:52 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on US Government Announcement about
	transfer IANA functions stewardship
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=e+5XHMH7STb2Hu5ko+05Jqusnzo5Y5e6AL_zJOE98-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=e+5XHMH7STb2Hu5ko+05Jqusnzo5Y5e6AL_zJOE98-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3AD35A31-5242-4406-9E0B-60975BBDE836@egyptig.org>

Great statement, and a great principle. I hope it receives wide support within the NCSG and NCSG PC for endorsement.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 17, 2014, at 2:52 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
> 
> (cc NCSG-PC)
> 
> Milton volunteered and drafted this statement regarding the NTIA announcement. we should be able to discuss (commenting here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VAkGj39ou5YkypFt0Vwqvyd1FTK31Ojm29s_gX-Ugrw/edit?usp=sharing ) and endorse it asap before Singapore meeting to show support and indicate our initial positions . 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> 
> ----------statement----------------
> NCSG Statement on the globalization of the IANA functions
> 
> The Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) welcomes the 13 March 2014 statement from the U.S. Commerce Department announcing its intention to ?transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community.? We support this move because an Internet governance regime that gives one national government exclusive powers over a global resource is bound to be politically biased, divisive and promote tendencies toward Internet fragmentation. This change is long overdue.
> 
> NCSG supports all 5 of the principles NTIA proposed to guide the transition. We agree that the transition should:
> 
> ? Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
> 
> ? Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
> 
> ? Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services;
> 
> ? Maintain the openness of the Internet;
> 
> ? Not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization.
> 
> It is very important to replace the current system with a carefully considered, well-designed alternative. We note that noncommercial stakeholders have been leaders in developing plans for the proposed transition. Submissions to the Netmundial conference from two NCSG members, the Internet Governance Project and Avri Doria, have set out specific blueprints for the transition.
> 
> Consistent with both of these proposals, NCSG proposes an additional principle to guide the transition. The transition should:
> 
> ? Enhance the accountability of ICANN through structural separation of the DNS root zone management functions from ICANN?s policy making functions
> 
> The root zone management functions, which are currently performed by Verisign, Inc. and IANA under contracts with the U.S. government, are clerical, technical and operational, The policy making functions of ICANN, on the other hand, are highly political. NCSG believes that those two aspects of DNS governance must be kept apart, in separate organizations. Separating them ensures that those with policy and political objectives must win support for their ideas in a fair and open policy development process, and cannot arbitrarily impose them upon Internet users and service providers by virtue of their control of the operational levers of the global domain name system.
> 
> The existing IANA contract attempts to keep the two separate; however, if ICANN simply absorbs the IANA and Verisign functions without any oversight from the U.S. government, there is a danger that the two could become integrated and intermingled in unhealthy ways. That is why the NCSG, along with supporters from other stakeholder groups, will insist on this new principle of separation during the transition process.
> 
> The Department of Commerce has asked ICANN to ?conven[e] stakeholders across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition plan.? Unfortunately, ICANN?s management seems to have interpreted this as a mandate to implement its own transition plan, in which it would simply take over the IANA functions with no oversight. NCSG wishes to remind ICANN that it has been charged with convening a process, not with controlling it. The transition will not work unless ICANN runs a truly open and deliberative process that allows the all ideas to be considered and the best ideas to win.
> 
> 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 Non-Profit Operational Constituencies (http://www.npoc.org)
> 
> ----------end of statement-------
> 
> 
> <Preview.pdf>_______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140317/0a3e2bb1/attachment.html>


From avri  Mon Mar 17 12:59:41 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 06:59:41 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on US Government Announcement about
 transfer IANA functions stewardship
In-Reply-To: <3AD35A31-5242-4406-9E0B-60975BBDE836@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sTh=e+5XHMH7STb2Hu5ko+05Jqusnzo5Y5e6AL_zJOE98-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<3AD35A31-5242-4406-9E0B-60975BBDE836@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <5326D59D.3080507@acm.org>


Hi,

So did NPOC get its statement out before NCSG?

Efficient.

avri



From avri  Mon Mar 17 13:13:19 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 07:13:19 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on US Government Announcement about
 transfer IANA functions stewardship
In-Reply-To: <5326D59D.3080507@acm.org>
References: <CAH5sTh=e+5XHMH7STb2Hu5ko+05Jqusnzo5Y5e6AL_zJOE98-A@mail.gmail.com>	<3AD35A31-5242-4406-9E0B-60975BBDE836@egyptig.org>
	<5326D59D.3080507@acm.org>
Message-ID: <5326D8CF.6060701@acm.org>

Hi Leadership,

What's is happening with the NCSG statement.
Has the PC approved it.

I do.

avri


On 17-Mar-14 06:59, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> So did NPOC get its statement out before NCSG?
>
> Efficient.
>
> avri
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>



From rafik.dammak  Mon Mar 17 14:08:10 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 21:08:10 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on US Government Announcement about
 transfer IANA functions stewardship
In-Reply-To: <5326D59D.3080507@acm.org>
References: <CAH5sTh=e+5XHMH7STb2Hu5ko+05Jqusnzo5Y5e6AL_zJOE98-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<3AD35A31-5242-4406-9E0B-60975BBDE836@egyptig.org>
	<5326D59D.3080507@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThk9fzfm2xOE-7U5hhsnAG=xYZJt=3no8X04vBSvApC2+Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Rudi,

thanks for sharing the NPOC statement, any feedback on the NCSG statement?

Best

Rafik


2014-03-17 19:59 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

>
> Hi,
>
> So did NPOC get its statement out before NCSG?
>
> Efficient.
>
> avri
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140317/27b21cde/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Mar 17 14:32:53 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:32:53 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on US Government Announcement about
	transfer IANA functions stewardship
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThk9fzfm2xOE-7U5hhsnAG=xYZJt=3no8X04vBSvApC2+Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=e+5XHMH7STb2Hu5ko+05Jqusnzo5Y5e6AL_zJOE98-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<3AD35A31-5242-4406-9E0B-60975BBDE836@egyptig.org>
	<5326D59D.3080507@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThk9fzfm2xOE-7U5hhsnAG=xYZJt=3no8X04vBSvApC2+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6D571200-F051-4E8E-9E73-34CD62269CE3@egyptig.org>

Hi,

So far, Avri, Klaus and I have accepted endorsing the NCSG statement drafted by Milton.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 17, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Rudi,
> 
> thanks for sharing the NPOC statement, any feedback on the NCSG statement?
> 
> Best
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 
> 2014-03-17 19:59 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> So did NPOC get its statement out before NCSG?
> 
> Efficient.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140317/39542a3b/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Mar 17 14:28:47 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 21:28:47 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on US Government Announcement about
 transfer IANA functions stewardship
In-Reply-To: <3AD35A31-5242-4406-9E0B-60975BBDE836@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sTh=e+5XHMH7STb2Hu5ko+05Jqusnzo5Y5e6AL_zJOE98-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<3AD35A31-5242-4406-9E0B-60975BBDE836@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=sfDt611ymK4jLPmO-nYi82JLCg-8s+CopNjk2ESRLQA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

thanks  for sharing your opinions,
I saw that in other thread, Bill is suggesting a short version. in such
case or when there is any proposal for change or amendment  , it is better
to provide specific rewording and get support others because we don't have
so much time.

best,

Rafik


2014-03-17 18:54 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org>:

> Great statement, and a great principle. I hope it receives wide support
> within the NCSG and NCSG PC for endorsement.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 2:52 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> (cc NCSG-PC)
>
> Milton volunteered and drafted this statement regarding the NTIA
> announcement. we should be able to discuss (commenting here
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VAkGj39ou5YkypFt0Vwqvyd1FTK31Ojm29s_gX-Ugrw/edit?usp=sharing) and endorse it asap before Singapore meeting to show support and indicate
> our initial positions .
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> ----------statement----------------
>
> NCSG Statement on the globalization of the IANA functions
>
> The Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) welcomes the 13 March 2014
> statement from the U.S. Commerce Department announcing its intention to
> ?transition key Internet domain name functions to the global
> multistakeholder community.? We support this move because an Internet
> governance regime that gives one national government exclusive powers over
> a global resource is bound to be politically biased, divisive and promote
> tendencies toward Internet fragmentation. This change is long overdue.
>
> NCSG supports all 5 of the principles NTIA proposed to guide the
> transition. We agree that the transition should:
>
> ? Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
>
> ? Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
>
> ? Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of
> the IANA services;
>
> ? Maintain the openness of the Internet;
>
> ? Not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental
> organization.
>
> It is very important to replace the current system with a carefully
> considered, well-designed alternative. We note that noncommercial
> stakeholders have been leaders in developing plans for the proposed
> transition. Submissions to the Netmundial conference from two NCSG members,
> the Internet Governance Project and Avri Doria, have set out specific
> blueprints for the transition.
>
> Consistent with both of these proposals, NCSG proposes an additional
> principle to guide the transition. The transition should:
>
> ? Enhance the accountability of ICANN through structural separation of the
> DNS root zone management functions from ICANN?s policy making functions
>
> The root zone management functions, which are currently performed by
> Verisign, Inc. and IANA under contracts with the U.S. government, are
> clerical, technical and operational, The policy making functions of ICANN,
> on the other hand, are highly political. NCSG believes that those two
> aspects of DNS governance must be kept apart, in separate organizations.
> Separating them ensures that those with policy and political objectives
> must win support for their ideas in a fair and open policy development
> process, and cannot arbitrarily impose them upon Internet users and service
> providers by virtue of their control of the operational levers of the
> global domain name system.
>
> The existing IANA contract attempts to keep the two separate; however, if
> ICANN simply absorbs the IANA and Verisign functions without any oversight
> from the U.S. government, there is a danger that the two could become
> integrated and intermingled in unhealthy ways. That is why the NCSG, along
> with supporters from other stakeholder groups, will insist on this new
> principle of separation during the transition process.
>
> The Department of Commerce has asked ICANN to ?conven[e] stakeholders
> across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition
> plan.? Unfortunately, ICANN?s management seems to have interpreted this as
> a mandate to implement its own transition plan, in which it would simply
> take over the IANA functions with no oversight. NCSG wishes to remind ICANN
> that it has been charged with convening a process, not with controlling it.
> The transition will not work unless ICANN runs a truly open and
> deliberative process that allows the all ideas to be considered and the
> best ideas to win.
>
> 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 Non-Profit Operational Constituencies (
> http://www.npoc.org)
> ----------end of statement-------
>
>
> <Preview.pdf>_______________________________________________
>
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140317/4f015392/attachment.html>


From rudi.vansnick  Mon Mar 17 15:48:28 2014
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 14:48:28 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on US Government Announcement about
	transfer IANA functions stewardship
In-Reply-To: <6D571200-F051-4E8E-9E73-34CD62269CE3@egyptig.org>
References: <CAH5sTh=e+5XHMH7STb2Hu5ko+05Jqusnzo5Y5e6AL_zJOE98-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<3AD35A31-5242-4406-9E0B-60975BBDE836@egyptig.org>
	<5326D59D.3080507@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThk9fzfm2xOE-7U5hhsnAG=xYZJt=3no8X04vBSvApC2+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<6D571200-F051-4E8E-9E73-34CD62269CE3@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <95E55882-DEB1-4900-B692-D8BC23D2C43B@isoc.be>

And you may add NPOC?s support to the NCSG statement ..

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

Op 17-mrt.-2014, om 13:32 heeft Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> het volgende geschreven:

> Hi,
> 
> So far, Avri, Klaus and I have accepted endorsing the NCSG statement drafted by Milton.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Rudi,
>> 
>> thanks for sharing the NPOC statement, any feedback on the NCSG statement?
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Rafik 
>> 
>> 
>> 2014-03-17 19:59 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> So did NPOC get its statement out before NCSG?
>> 
>> Efficient.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140317/6cfdd862/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Mon Mar 17 16:13:24 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:13:24 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on US Government Announcement about
 transfer IANA functions stewardship
In-Reply-To: <95E55882-DEB1-4900-B692-D8BC23D2C43B@isoc.be>
References: <CAH5sTh=e+5XHMH7STb2Hu5ko+05Jqusnzo5Y5e6AL_zJOE98-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<3AD35A31-5242-4406-9E0B-60975BBDE836@egyptig.org>
	<5326D59D.3080507@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThk9fzfm2xOE-7U5hhsnAG=xYZJt=3no8X04vBSvApC2+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<6D571200-F051-4E8E-9E73-34CD62269CE3@egyptig.org>
	<95E55882-DEB1-4900-B692-D8BC23D2C43B@isoc.be>
Message-ID: <53270304.3010902@acm.org>

Fantastic.

Do we have endorsement from NCUC too.  what a great day that would be.

Though there may already enough NCUC voices, with no member voices 
against, that we may be able to call it rough consensus and one of our 
leaders can put it out!

avri


On 17-Mar-14 09:48, Rudi Vansnick wrote:
> And you may add NPOC?s support to the NCSG statement ..
>
> Rudi Vansnick
> NPOC chair Policy Committee
> NPOC treasurer
> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
>
> Op 17-mrt.-2014, om 13:32 heeft Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> het volgende geschreven:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> So far, Avri, Klaus and I have accepted endorsing the NCSG statement
>> drafted by Milton.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Rudi,
>>>
>>> thanks for sharing the NPOC statement, any feedback on the NCSG
>>> statement?
>>>
>>> Best
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>> 2014-03-17 19:59 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>>>
>>>
>>>     Hi,
>>>
>>>     So did NPOC get its statement out before NCSG?
>>>
>>>     Efficient.
>>>
>>>     avri
>>>
>>>
>>>     _________________________________________________
>>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/__listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>     <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>



From rafik.dammak  Mon Mar 17 16:52:21 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 23:52:21 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on US Government Announcement about
 transfer IANA functions stewardship
In-Reply-To: <53270304.3010902@acm.org>
References: <CAH5sTh=e+5XHMH7STb2Hu5ko+05Jqusnzo5Y5e6AL_zJOE98-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<3AD35A31-5242-4406-9E0B-60975BBDE836@egyptig.org>
	<5326D59D.3080507@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThk9fzfm2xOE-7U5hhsnAG=xYZJt=3no8X04vBSvApC2+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<6D571200-F051-4E8E-9E73-34CD62269CE3@egyptig.org>
	<95E55882-DEB1-4900-B692-D8BC23D2C43B@isoc.be>
	<53270304.3010902@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=HqOXBTrYEaw0YJn3jRaiGXuYO0rS9xqPrGT82TGVrsg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

I will be happy to send it, just waiting to see that we have the  support.

Best,

Rafik


2014-03-17 23:13 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:

> Fantastic.
>
> Do we have endorsement from NCUC too.  what a great day that would be.
>
> Though there may already enough NCUC voices, with no member voices
> against, that we may be able to call it rough consensus and one of our
> leaders can put it out!
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 17-Mar-14 09:48, Rudi Vansnick wrote:
>
>> And you may add NPOC?s support to the NCSG statement ..
>>
>> Rudi Vansnick
>> NPOC chair Policy Committee
>> NPOC treasurer
>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>
>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
>>
>>
>> Op 17-mrt.-2014, om 13:32 heeft Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> So far, Avri, Klaus and I have accepted endorsing the NCSG statement
>>> drafted by Milton.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi Rudi,
>>>>
>>>> thanks for sharing the NPOC statement, any feedback on the NCSG
>>>> statement?
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2014-03-17 19:59 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Hi,
>>>>
>>>>     So did NPOC get its statement out before NCSG?
>>>>
>>>>     Efficient.
>>>>
>>>>     avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     _________________________________________________
>>>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/__listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>>     <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140317/a56352e6/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Mar 17 17:43:34 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 00:43:34 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
	Globalization Progress?
In-Reply-To: <CF4CCB38.31754%david.olive@icann.org>
References: <CF4BD953.3155C%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CF4CCB38.31754%david.olive@icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkng2PmKX5ziwxDyXeHTu+OJajejYRf1aMxiMHe1KFgSw@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,

proposal for statement to be signed by SO/AC/SG "leaders" . reviewing it, I
think that I can sign it and hope to get support from you on this matter.
we will need the cross-community work in the coming months.

Best Regards,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140318/f2854491/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Joint Statement - IANA Globalization - 17 March 2014[1].doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 26624 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140318/f2854491/attachment-0001.doc>


From mllemineur  Mon Mar 17 17:53:55 2014
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:53:55 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
 Globalization Progress?
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkng2PmKX5ziwxDyXeHTu+OJajejYRf1aMxiMHe1KFgSw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CF4BD953.3155C%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CF4CCB38.31754%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThkng2PmKX5ziwxDyXeHTu+OJajejYRf1aMxiMHe1KFgSw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqFR-2MqGRzNSuL6vMj=ZrvUbs_cwfOMt7F-taatusv0XQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

We need to discuss this at our excom level. But I think we will join, since
we already issued a statement, if we want to be consistent we should also
support this statement.

I will let you know in the course of the day-.
best,

mll


On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello,
>
> proposal for statement to be signed by SO/AC/SG "leaders" . reviewing it,
> I think that I can sign it and hope to get support from you on this matter.
> we will need the cross-community work in the coming months.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140317/a961aefc/attachment.html>


From avri  Mon Mar 17 18:24:21 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 12:24:21 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
 Globalization Progress?
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkng2PmKX5ziwxDyXeHTu+OJajejYRf1aMxiMHe1KFgSw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CF4BD953.3155C%david.olive@icann.org>	<CF4CCB38.31754%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThkng2PmKX5ziwxDyXeHTu+OJajejYRf1aMxiMHe1KFgSw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <532721B5.10100@acm.org>

seems signable.

avri


On 17-Mar-14 11:43, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hello,
>
> proposal for statement to be signed by SO/AC/SG "leaders" . reviewing
> it, I think that I can sign it and hope to get support from you on this
> matter. we will need the cross-community work in the coming months.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



From rafik.dammak  Mon Mar 17 18:26:55 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 01:26:55 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
 Globalization Progress?
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqFR-2MqGRzNSuL6vMj=ZrvUbs_cwfOMt7F-taatusv0XQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CF4BD953.3155C%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CF4CCB38.31754%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThkng2PmKX5ziwxDyXeHTu+OJajejYRf1aMxiMHe1KFgSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqFR-2MqGRzNSuL6vMj=ZrvUbs_cwfOMt7F-taatusv0XQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmhw_EzfaMq2=wnu5AuU3QjfTw8BW5WYxdeTUxYyh9HgA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Marie-Laure,

Thanks,
Hope we got endorsement soon, also being synchronized.

Best,

Rafik
 On Mar 18, 2014 12:53 AM, "marie-laure Lemineur" <mllemineur at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We need to discuss this at our excom level. But I think we will join,
> since we already issued a statement, if we want to be consistent we should
> also support this statement.
>
> I will let you know in the course of the day-.
> best,
>
> mll
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> proposal for statement to be signed by SO/AC/SG "leaders" . reviewing it,
>> I think that I can sign it and hope to get support from you on this matter.
>> we will need the cross-community work in the coming months.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140318/47d3bfed/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Mar 17 19:16:09 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 18:16:09 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
	Globalization Progress?
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThmhw_EzfaMq2=wnu5AuU3QjfTw8BW5WYxdeTUxYyh9HgA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CF4BD953.3155C%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CF4CCB38.31754%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThkng2PmKX5ziwxDyXeHTu+OJajejYRf1aMxiMHe1KFgSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqFR-2MqGRzNSuL6vMj=ZrvUbs_cwfOMt7F-taatusv0XQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmhw_EzfaMq2=wnu5AuU3QjfTw8BW5WYxdeTUxYyh9HgA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D36B8C76-4759-4A99-BE40-20D92963531E@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I have a question. The first paragraph stating that:

> We, the signatories to this statement, welcome the announcement by the U.S. Commerce Department?s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community, a development that was envisaged since the early days of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract.


Isn?t this a little different than saying that we welcome the announcement, and the opportunity for the global mulistakeholder community to collectively develop a proposal/plan for the transition, rather than a transition TO THE global multistakeholder community?

Just wondering if I?m reading it right or not.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Marie-Laure,
> 
> Thanks, 
> Hope we got endorsement soon, also being synchronized.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> On Mar 18, 2014 12:53 AM, "marie-laure Lemineur" <mllemineur at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> We need to discuss this at our excom level. But I think we will join, since we already issued a statement, if we want to be consistent we should also support this statement.  
> 
> I will let you know in the course of the day-.
> best,
> 
> mll
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> proposal for statement to be signed by SO/AC/SG "leaders" . reviewing it, I think that I can sign it and hope to get support from you on this matter. we will need the cross-community work in the coming months.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> 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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140317/87e64272/attachment-0001.html>


From wjdrake  Mon Mar 17 20:52:20 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 19:52:20 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
	Globalization Progress?
In-Reply-To: <D36B8C76-4759-4A99-BE40-20D92963531E@egyptig.org>
References: <CF4BD953.3155C%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CF4CCB38.31754%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThkng2PmKX5ziwxDyXeHTu+OJajejYRf1aMxiMHe1KFgSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqFR-2MqGRzNSuL6vMj=ZrvUbs_cwfOMt7F-taatusv0XQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmhw_EzfaMq2=wnu5AuU3QjfTw8BW5WYxdeTUxYyh9HgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<D36B8C76-4759-4A99-BE40-20D92963531E@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <777E4548-57A7-4642-A147-FDF5340E1AF9@gmail.com>

Hi

I think Amr?s right about the thinking behind "transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community.?  

Insofar as this statement could be read as at odds with the one being pushed within NCSG, I?m not clear how we could endorse both.  In any event, you might want to hold of and see how things evolve rather than rush; the world doesn?t need to hear from us before anyone else.  Different groups in the SO/AC are proposing amendments and the text is not stable.

Bill

On Mar 17, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I have a question. The first paragraph stating that:
> 
>> We, the signatories to this statement, welcome the announcement by the U.S. Commerce Department?s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community, a development that was envisaged since the early days of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract.
> 
> 
> Isn?t this a little different than saying that we welcome the announcement, and the opportunity for the global mulistakeholder community to collectively develop a proposal/plan for the transition, rather than a transition TO THE global multistakeholder community?
> 
> Just wondering if I?m reading it right or not.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Marie-Laure,
>> 
>> Thanks, 
>> Hope we got endorsement soon, also being synchronized.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> On Mar 18, 2014 12:53 AM, "marie-laure Lemineur" <mllemineur at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> We need to discuss this at our excom level. But I think we will join, since we already issued a statement, if we want to be consistent we should also support this statement.  
>> 
>> I will let you know in the course of the day-.
>> best,
>> 
>> mll
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> proposal for statement to be signed by SO/AC/SG "leaders" . reviewing it, I think that I can sign it and hope to get support from you on this matter. we will need the cross-community work in the coming months.
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> 
>> __
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140317/ac4ddb0f/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Mon Mar 17 21:02:05 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:02:05 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
 Globalization Progress?
In-Reply-To: <777E4548-57A7-4642-A147-FDF5340E1AF9@gmail.com>
References: <CF4BD953.3155C%david.olive@icann.org>	<CF4CCB38.31754%david.olive@icann.org>	<CAH5sThkng2PmKX5ziwxDyXeHTu+OJajejYRf1aMxiMHe1KFgSw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAD3sNqFR-2MqGRzNSuL6vMj=ZrvUbs_cwfOMt7F-taatusv0XQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAH5sThmhw_EzfaMq2=wnu5AuU3QjfTw8BW5WYxdeTUxYyh9HgA@mail.gmail.com>	<D36B8C76-4759-4A99-BE40-20D92963531E@egyptig.org>
	<777E4548-57A7-4642-A147-FDF5340E1AF9@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <532746AD.6080708@acm.org>



I think it is more important to get an NCSG stmt out than to wait for 
the Leaders to do one.

And i think it is more important to make the extra point thant to accept 
the lowest common denominator.

So if the idea is to wait until the leaders have made up their mind, and 
thus delay, I say never mind, just send the NCSG stmt.

And if Amr is right, then don't bother signing the Leader's stmt.  I did 
not see the issue.

avri


On 17-Mar-14 14:52, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
>
> I think Amr?s right about the thinking behind "transition key Internet
> domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community.?
>
> Insofar as this statement could be read as at odds with the one being
> pushed within NCSG, I?m not clear how we could endorse both.  In any
> event, you might want to hold of and see how things evolve rather than
> rush; the world doesn?t need to hear from us before anyone else.
>   Different groups in the SO/AC are proposing amendments and the text is
> not stable.
>
> Bill
>
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG
> <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a question. The first paragraph stating that:
>>
>>> We, the signatories to this statement, welcome the announcement by
>>> the U.S. Commerce Department?s National Telecommunications and
>>> Information Administration (NTIA) to transition key Internet domain
>>> name functions to the global multistakeholder community, a
>>> development that was envisaged since the early days of the Internet
>>> Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract.
>>
>> Isn?t this a little different than saying that we welcome the
>> announcement, and the opportunity for the global mulistakeholder
>> community to collectively develop a proposal/plan for the transition,
>> rather than a transition TO THE global multistakeholder community?
>>
>> Just wondering if I?m reading it right or not.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Marie-Laure,
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Hope we got endorsement soon, also being synchronized.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> On Mar 18, 2014 12:53 AM, "marie-laure Lemineur"
>>> <mllemineur at gmail.com <mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Hi,
>>>
>>>     We need to discuss this at our excom level. But I think we will
>>>     join, since we already issued a statement, if we want to be
>>>     consistent we should also support this statement.
>>>
>>>     I will let you know in the course of the day-.
>>>     best,
>>>
>>>     mll
>>>
>>>
>>>     On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>>     <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>         Hello,
>>>
>>>         proposal for statement to be signed by SO/AC/SG "leaders" .
>>>         reviewing it, I think that I can sign it and hope to get
>>>         support from you on this matter. we will need the
>>>         cross-community work in the coming months.
>>>
>>>         Best Regards,
>>>
>>>         Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>>         __
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>



From wjdrake  Mon Mar 17 21:48:26 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:48:26 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
	Globalization Progress?
In-Reply-To: <532746AD.6080708@acm.org>
References: <CF4BD953.3155C%david.olive@icann.org>	<CF4CCB38.31754%david.olive@icann.org>	<CAH5sThkng2PmKX5ziwxDyXeHTu+OJajejYRf1aMxiMHe1KFgSw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAD3sNqFR-2MqGRzNSuL6vMj=ZrvUbs_cwfOMt7F-taatusv0XQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAH5sThmhw_EzfaMq2=wnu5AuU3QjfTw8BW5WYxdeTUxYyh9HgA@mail.gmail.com>	<D36B8C76-4759-4A99-BE40-20D92963531E@egyptig.org>
	<777E4548-57A7-4642-A147-FDF5340E1AF9@gmail.com>
	<532746AD.6080708@acm.org>
Message-ID: <E8CBF267-ED36-4CC0-874E-556560932940@gmail.com>


On Mar 17, 2014, at 8:02 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> I think it is more important to get an NCSG stmt out than to wait for the Leaders to do one.

The silo leads are consulting with their respective groups on language, which is how it should be, and in response proposing revisions.  I?d like to see the same thing happening here, frankly. Nobody reads the PC list, including it seems some of the PC.   An issue of this magnitude should not be handled in the same manner as a council motion on procedural arcana etc.  We should consult more broadly rather than just going off what and doing what a few people want.  

I don?t see the argument for rushing, especially since the vast majority of our members probably have not read and thought through the relevant proposals.  It?s a moment that be leveraged to try to get broader engagement and buy in, and there?s no pressure to be the first silo into the pool.
> 
> And i think it is more important to make the extra point thant to accept the lowest common denominator.

If so, then why not propose language to that effect into the SOAC process in the same way the others are?  See if there?s support for it.
> 
> So if the idea is to wait until the leaders have made up their mind, and thus delay, I say never mind, just send the NCSG stmt.

Misconstruction of the process.
> 
> And if Amr is right, then don't bother signing the Leader's stmt.  I did not see the issue.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 17-Mar-14 14:52, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> I think Amr?s right about the thinking behind "transition key Internet
>> domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community.?
>> 
>> Insofar as this statement could be read as at odds with the one being
>> pushed within NCSG, I?m not clear how we could endorse both.  In any
>> event, you might want to hold of and see how things evolve rather than
>> rush; the world doesn?t need to hear from us before anyone else.
>>  Different groups in the SO/AC are proposing amendments and the text is
>> not stable.
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG
>> <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I have a question. The first paragraph stating that:
>>> 
>>>> We, the signatories to this statement, welcome the announcement by
>>>> the U.S. Commerce Department?s National Telecommunications and
>>>> Information Administration (NTIA) to transition key Internet domain
>>>> name functions to the global multistakeholder community, a
>>>> development that was envisaged since the early days of the Internet
>>>> Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract.
>>> 
>>> Isn?t this a little different than saying that we welcome the
>>> announcement, and the opportunity for the global mulistakeholder
>>> community to collectively develop a proposal/plan for the transition,
>>> rather than a transition TO THE global multistakeholder community?
>>> 
>>> Just wondering if I?m reading it right or not.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Marie-Laure,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Hope we got endorsement soon, also being synchronized.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 18, 2014 12:53 AM, "marie-laure Lemineur"
>>>> <mllemineur at gmail.com <mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>    Hi,
>>>> 
>>>>    We need to discuss this at our excom level. But I think we will
>>>>    join, since we already issued a statement, if we want to be
>>>>    consistent we should also support this statement.
>>>> 
>>>>    I will let you know in the course of the day-.
>>>>    best,
>>>> 
>>>>    mll
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>>>    <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>        Hello,
>>>> 
>>>>        proposal for statement to be signed by SO/AC/SG "leaders" .
>>>>        reviewing it, I think that I can sign it and hope to get
>>>>        support from you on this matter. we will need the
>>>>        cross-community work in the coming months.
>>>> 
>>>>        Best Regards,
>>>> 
>>>>        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




From avri  Mon Mar 17 22:15:36 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:15:36 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
 Globalization Progress?
In-Reply-To: <E8CBF267-ED36-4CC0-874E-556560932940@gmail.com>
References: <CF4BD953.3155C%david.olive@icann.org>	<CF4CCB38.31754%david.olive@icann.org>	<CAH5sThkng2PmKX5ziwxDyXeHTu+OJajejYRf1aMxiMHe1KFgSw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAD3sNqFR-2MqGRzNSuL6vMj=ZrvUbs_cwfOMt7F-taatusv0XQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAH5sThmhw_EzfaMq2=wnu5AuU3QjfTw8BW5WYxdeTUxYyh9HgA@mail.gmail.com>	<D36B8C76-4759-4A99-BE40-20D92963531E@egyptig.org>
	<777E4548-57A7-4642-A147-FDF5340E1AF9@gmail.com>
	<532746AD.6080708@acm.org>
	<E8CBF267-ED36-4CC0-874E-556560932940@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <532757E8.3010904@acm.org>

Hi,

Do you disagree with the stmt?  It that what you are saying.

So, at the point that you see something as important, you want to take 
the decision away from the PC.

Having rethought things, I agree, we must withhold approval of the 
Leaders stmt until the wording is satisfactory.  On rereading I am also 
troubled that it may be indicating that only those 4 priunciples are 
needed, and that I simply cannot agree with.  I would need some Inter 
alia sort of wording on the principles.

So please, ignore my previous agrement with the stmt. I had a weak 
moment as was just go along with the leaders.  I am thankful the error 
of my ways has been illustrated.

avri

On 17-Mar-14 15:48, William Drake wrote:
>
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 8:02 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> I think it is more important to get an NCSG stmt out than to wait for the Leaders to do one.
>
> The silo leads are consulting with their respective groups on language, which is how it should be, and in response proposing revisions.  I?d like to see the same thing happening here, frankly. Nobody reads the PC list, including it seems some of the PC.   An issue of this magnitude should not be handled in the same manner as a council motion on procedural arcana etc.  We should consult more broadly rather than just going off what and doing what a few people want.
>
> I don?t see the argument for rushing, especially since the vast majority of our members probably have not read and thought through the relevant proposals.  It?s a moment that be leveraged to try to get broader engagement and buy in, and there?s no pressure to be the first silo into the pool.
>>
>> And i think it is more important to make the extra point thant to accept the lowest common denominator.
>
> If so, then why not propose language to that effect into the SOAC process in the same way the others are?  See if there?s support for it.
>>
>> So if the idea is to wait until the leaders have made up their mind, and thus delay, I say never mind, just send the NCSG stmt.
>
> Misconstruction of the process.
>>
>> And if Amr is right, then don't bother signing the Leader's stmt.  I did not see the issue.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 17-Mar-14 14:52, William Drake wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> I think Amr?s right about the thinking behind "transition key Internet
>>> domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community.?
>>>
>>> Insofar as this statement could be read as at odds with the one being
>>> pushed within NCSG, I?m not clear how we could endorse both.  In any
>>> event, you might want to hold of and see how things evolve rather than
>>> rush; the world doesn?t need to hear from us before anyone else.
>>>   Different groups in the SO/AC are proposing amendments and the text is
>>> not stable.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG
>>> <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have a question. The first paragraph stating that:
>>>>
>>>>> We, the signatories to this statement, welcome the announcement by
>>>>> the U.S. Commerce Department?s National Telecommunications and
>>>>> Information Administration (NTIA) to transition key Internet domain
>>>>> name functions to the global multistakeholder community, a
>>>>> development that was envisaged since the early days of the Internet
>>>>> Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract.
>>>>
>>>> Isn?t this a little different than saying that we welcome the
>>>> announcement, and the opportunity for the global mulistakeholder
>>>> community to collectively develop a proposal/plan for the transition,
>>>> rather than a transition TO THE global multistakeholder community?
>>>>
>>>> Just wondering if I?m reading it right or not.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Amr
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Marie-Laure,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Hope we got endorsement soon, also being synchronized.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 18, 2014 12:53 AM, "marie-laure Lemineur"
>>>>> <mllemineur at gmail.com <mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>     Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>     We need to discuss this at our excom level. But I think we will
>>>>>     join, since we already issued a statement, if we want to be
>>>>>     consistent we should also support this statement.
>>>>>
>>>>>     I will let you know in the course of the day-.
>>>>>     best,
>>>>>
>>>>>     mll
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>>>>     <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>         Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>>         proposal for statement to be signed by SO/AC/SG "leaders" .
>>>>>         reviewing it, I think that I can sign it and hope to get
>>>>>         support from you on this matter. we will need the
>>>>>         cross-community work in the coming months.
>>>>>
>>>>>         Best Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>>         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
>
>
>



From rafik.dammak  Mon Mar 17 22:19:25 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 05:19:25 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
 Globalization Progress?
In-Reply-To: <E8CBF267-ED36-4CC0-874E-556560932940@gmail.com>
References: <CF4BD953.3155C%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CF4CCB38.31754%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThkng2PmKX5ziwxDyXeHTu+OJajejYRf1aMxiMHe1KFgSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqFR-2MqGRzNSuL6vMj=ZrvUbs_cwfOMt7F-taatusv0XQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmhw_EzfaMq2=wnu5AuU3QjfTw8BW5WYxdeTUxYyh9HgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<D36B8C76-4759-4A99-BE40-20D92963531E@egyptig.org>
	<777E4548-57A7-4642-A147-FDF5340E1AF9@gmail.com>
	<532746AD.6080708@acm.org>
	<E8CBF267-ED36-4CC0-874E-556560932940@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThn8iQZjjTVKhaVJ_Canxg4xeF5i0XEXwTyy-0h-zC+cyA@mail.gmail.com>

Bill,

The proposal was shared with membership and PC, so yes we are consulting
broadly.

Rafik

On Mar 18, 2014 4:48 AM, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 8:02 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
> > I think it is more important to get an NCSG stmt out than to wait for
the Leaders to do one.
>
> The silo leads are consulting with their respective groups on language,
which is how it should be, and in response proposing revisions.  I?d like
to see the same thing happening here, frankly. Nobody reads the PC list,
including it seems some of the PC.   An issue of this magnitude should not
be handled in the same manner as a council motion on procedural arcana etc.
 We should consult more broadly rather than just going off what and doing
what a few people want.
>
> I don?t see the argument for rushing, especially since the vast majority
of our members probably have not read and thought through the relevant
proposals.  It?s a moment that be leveraged to try to get broader
engagement and buy in, and there?s no pressure to be the first silo into
the pool.
> >
> > And i think it is more important to make the extra point thant to
accept the lowest common denominator.
>
> If so, then why not propose language to that effect into the SOAC process
in the same way the others are?  See if there?s support for it.
> >
> > So if the idea is to wait until the leaders have made up their mind,
and thus delay, I say never mind, just send the NCSG stmt.
>
> Misconstruction of the process.
> >
> > And if Amr is right, then don't bother signing the Leader's stmt.  I
did not see the issue.
> >
> > avri
> >
> >
> > On 17-Mar-14 14:52, William Drake wrote:
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> I think Amr?s right about the thinking behind "transition key Internet
> >> domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community.?
> >>
> >> Insofar as this statement could be read as at odds with the one being
> >> pushed within NCSG, I?m not clear how we could endorse both.  In any
> >> event, you might want to hold of and see how things evolve rather than
> >> rush; the world doesn?t need to hear from us before anyone else.
> >>  Different groups in the SO/AC are proposing amendments and the text is
> >> not stable.
> >>
> >> Bill
> >>
> >> On Mar 17, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG
> >> <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I have a question. The first paragraph stating that:
> >>>
> >>>> We, the signatories to this statement, welcome the announcement by
> >>>> the U.S. Commerce Department?s National Telecommunications and
> >>>> Information Administration (NTIA) to transition key Internet domain
> >>>> name functions to the global multistakeholder community, a
> >>>> development that was envisaged since the early days of the Internet
> >>>> Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract.
> >>>
> >>> Isn?t this a little different than saying that we welcome the
> >>> announcement, and the opportunity for the global mulistakeholder
> >>> community to collectively develop a proposal/plan for the transition,
> >>> rather than a transition TO THE global multistakeholder community?
> >>>
> >>> Just wondering if I?m reading it right or not.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> Amr
> >>>
> >>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> >>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Marie-Laure,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Hope we got endorsement soon, also being synchronized.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best,
> >>>>
> >>>> Rafik
> >>>>
> >>>> On Mar 18, 2014 12:53 AM, "marie-laure Lemineur"
> >>>> <mllemineur at gmail.com <mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>    Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>>    We need to discuss this at our excom level. But I think we will
> >>>>    join, since we already issued a statement, if we want to be
> >>>>    consistent we should also support this statement.
> >>>>
> >>>>    I will let you know in the course of the day-.
> >>>>    best,
> >>>>
> >>>>    mll
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>    On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Rafik Dammak
> >>>>    <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>        Hello,
> >>>>
> >>>>        proposal for statement to be signed by SO/AC/SG "leaders" .
> >>>>        reviewing it, I think that I can sign it and hope to get
> >>>>        support from you on this matter. we will need the
> >>>>        cross-community work in the coming months.
> >>>>
> >>>>        Best Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>>        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: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140318/42fdc207/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Mar 17 22:49:32 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 21:49:32 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
	Globalization Progress?
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThn8iQZjjTVKhaVJ_Canxg4xeF5i0XEXwTyy-0h-zC+cyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CF4BD953.3155C%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CF4CCB38.31754%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThkng2PmKX5ziwxDyXeHTu+OJajejYRf1aMxiMHe1KFgSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqFR-2MqGRzNSuL6vMj=ZrvUbs_cwfOMt7F-taatusv0XQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmhw_EzfaMq2=wnu5AuU3QjfTw8BW5WYxdeTUxYyh9HgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<D36B8C76-4759-4A99-BE40-20D92963531E@egyptig.org>
	<777E4548-57A7-4642-A147-FDF5340E1AF9@gmail.com>
	<532746AD.6080708@acm.org>
	<E8CBF267-ED36-4CC0-874E-556560932940@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn8iQZjjTVKhaVJ_Canxg4xeF5i0XEXwTyy-0h-zC+cyA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ED537C3D-0575-4F87-B56C-D8F5A70C2AA1@egyptig.org>

Hi,

I think it might actually be a good idea to move this conversation to the NCSG-list. It would be OK to hold it here if we were simply talking about endorsing the statement or not, but if we are suggesting amendments, that discussion should be with everybody else.

Better yet, I would imagine that this calls for a cross-community coordinated effort. Perhaps a Google doc that all the SOs/ACs/Constituencies are able to view, edit and discuss. Why not make that suggestion on the SO/AC leadership list? We could use a Google doc. That might save time and effort if the community is serious about a unified statement. That is assuming others feel the need for a substantive change in the statement as we might.

BTW?, the statement was sent to the Council list by Jonathan, and there have been no replies so far. I?m guessing everybody else is having similar discussions elsewhere. It would be more productive if we all did this together.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

Amr

PS: In any case, we should probably proceed with the NCSG statement regardless of others being prepped. It has already gained significant support on the NCSG list, but it would be great to hear from some other NCSG-PC members, including the NCUC appointed folks.

On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:19 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Bill,
> 
> The proposal was shared with membership and PC, so yes we are consulting broadly.
> 
> Rafik
> 
> On Mar 18, 2014 4:48 AM, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mar 17, 2014, at 8:02 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I think it is more important to get an NCSG stmt out than to wait for the Leaders to do one.
> >
> > The silo leads are consulting with their respective groups on language, which is how it should be, and in response proposing revisions.  I?d like to see the same thing happening here, frankly. Nobody reads the PC list, including it seems some of the PC.   An issue of this magnitude should not be handled in the same manner as a council motion on procedural arcana etc.  We should consult more broadly rather than just going off what and doing what a few people want.
> >
> > I don?t see the argument for rushing, especially since the vast majority of our members probably have not read and thought through the relevant proposals.  It?s a moment that be leveraged to try to get broader engagement and buy in, and there?s no pressure to be the first silo into the pool.
> > >
> > > And i think it is more important to make the extra point thant to accept the lowest common denominator.
> >
> > If so, then why not propose language to that effect into the SOAC process in the same way the others are?  See if there?s support for it.
> > >
> > > So if the idea is to wait until the leaders have made up their mind, and thus delay, I say never mind, just send the NCSG stmt.
> >
> > Misconstruction of the process.
> > >
> > > And if Amr is right, then don't bother signing the Leader's stmt.  I did not see the issue.
> > >
> > > avri
> > >
> > >
> > > On 17-Mar-14 14:52, William Drake wrote:
> > >> Hi
> > >>
> > >> I think Amr?s right about the thinking behind "transition key Internet
> > >> domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community.?
> > >>
> > >> Insofar as this statement could be read as at odds with the one being
> > >> pushed within NCSG, I?m not clear how we could endorse both.  In any
> > >> event, you might want to hold of and see how things evolve rather than
> > >> rush; the world doesn?t need to hear from us before anyone else.
> > >>  Different groups in the SO/AC are proposing amendments and the text is
> > >> not stable.
> > >>
> > >> Bill
> > >>
> > >> On Mar 17, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG
> > >> <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> I have a question. The first paragraph stating that:
> > >>>
> > >>>> We, the signatories to this statement, welcome the announcement by
> > >>>> the U.S. Commerce Department?s National Telecommunications and
> > >>>> Information Administration (NTIA) to transition key Internet domain
> > >>>> name functions to the global multistakeholder community, a
> > >>>> development that was envisaged since the early days of the Internet
> > >>>> Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract.
> > >>>
> > >>> Isn?t this a little different than saying that we welcome the
> > >>> announcement, and the opportunity for the global mulistakeholder
> > >>> community to collectively develop a proposal/plan for the transition,
> > >>> rather than a transition TO THE global multistakeholder community?
> > >>>
> > >>> Just wondering if I?m reading it right or not.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks.
> > >>>
> > >>> Amr
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> > >>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi Marie-Laure,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Hope we got endorsement soon, also being synchronized.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Best,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Rafik
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mar 18, 2014 12:53 AM, "marie-laure Lemineur"
> > >>>> <mllemineur at gmail.com <mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>    Hi,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>    We need to discuss this at our excom level. But I think we will
> > >>>>    join, since we already issued a statement, if we want to be
> > >>>>    consistent we should also support this statement.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>    I will let you know in the course of the day-.
> > >>>>    best,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>    mll
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>    On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Rafik Dammak
> > >>>>    <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>        Hello,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>        proposal for statement to be signed by SO/AC/SG "leaders" .
> > >>>>        reviewing it, I think that I can sign it and hope to get
> > >>>>        support from you on this matter. we will need the
> > >>>>        cross-community work in the coming months.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>        Best Regards,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>        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
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140317/3ad81ec0/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Mon Mar 17 22:47:52 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 05:47:52 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
 Globalization Progress?
In-Reply-To: <ED537C3D-0575-4F87-B56C-D8F5A70C2AA1@egyptig.org>
References: <CF4BD953.3155C%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CF4CCB38.31754%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThkng2PmKX5ziwxDyXeHTu+OJajejYRf1aMxiMHe1KFgSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqFR-2MqGRzNSuL6vMj=ZrvUbs_cwfOMt7F-taatusv0XQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmhw_EzfaMq2=wnu5AuU3QjfTw8BW5WYxdeTUxYyh9HgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<D36B8C76-4759-4A99-BE40-20D92963531E@egyptig.org>
	<777E4548-57A7-4642-A147-FDF5340E1AF9@gmail.com>
	<532746AD.6080708@acm.org>
	<E8CBF267-ED36-4CC0-874E-556560932940@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn8iQZjjTVKhaVJ_Canxg4xeF5i0XEXwTyy-0h-zC+cyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<ED537C3D-0575-4F87-B56C-D8F5A70C2AA1@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=BBBnm0OM+y-MXLQZ8uh=27J2BCn6neOQaaD=NdzdjAQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Amr,

I already suggested collaborative tool like google doc in the discussion in
leadership list  where several are thinking about several amendments, in
order to be sync. Waiting for response to the proposal .

Rafik
 On Mar 18, 2014 5:42 AM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I think it might actually be a good idea to move this conversation to the
> NCSG-list. It would be OK to hold it here if we were simply talking about
> endorsing the statement or not, but if we are suggesting amendments, that
> discussion should be with everybody else.
>
> Better yet, I would imagine that this calls for a cross-community
> coordinated effort. Perhaps a Google doc that all the
> SOs/ACs/Constituencies are able to view, edit and discuss. Why not make
> that suggestion on the SO/AC leadership list? We could use a Google doc.
> That might save time and effort if the community is serious about a unified
> statement. That is assuming others feel the need for a substantive change
> in the statement as we might.
>
> BTW?, the statement was sent to the Council list by Jonathan, and there
> have been no replies so far. I?m guessing everybody else is having similar
> discussions elsewhere. It would be more productive if we all did this
> together.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> PS: In any case, we should probably proceed with the NCSG statement
> regardless of others being prepped. It has already gained significant
> support on the NCSG list, but it would be great to hear from some other
> NCSG-PC members, including the NCUC appointed folks.
>
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:19 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> The proposal was shared with membership and PC, so yes we are consulting
> broadly.
>
> Rafik
>
> On Mar 18, 2014 4:48 AM, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mar 17, 2014, at 8:02 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I think it is more important to get an NCSG stmt out than to wait for
> the Leaders to do one.
> >
> > The silo leads are consulting with their respective groups on language,
> which is how it should be, and in response proposing revisions.  I?d like
> to see the same thing happening here, frankly. Nobody reads the PC list,
> including it seems some of the PC.   An issue of this magnitude should not
> be handled in the same manner as a council motion on procedural arcana etc.
>  We should consult more broadly rather than just going off what and doing
> what a few people want.
> >
> > I don?t see the argument for rushing, especially since the vast majority
> of our members probably have not read and thought through the relevant
> proposals.  It?s a moment that be leveraged to try to get broader
> engagement and buy in, and there?s no pressure to be the first silo into
> the pool.
> > >
> > > And i think it is more important to make the extra point thant to
> accept the lowest common denominator.
> >
> > If so, then why not propose language to that effect into the SOAC
> process in the same way the others are?  See if there?s support for it.
> > >
> > > So if the idea is to wait until the leaders have made up their mind,
> and thus delay, I say never mind, just send the NCSG stmt.
> >
> > Misconstruction of the process.
> > >
> > > And if Amr is right, then don't bother signing the Leader's stmt.  I
> did not see the issue.
> > >
> > > avri
> > >
> > >
> > > On 17-Mar-14 14:52, William Drake wrote:
> > >> Hi
> > >>
> > >> I think Amr?s right about the thinking behind "transition key Internet
> > >> domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community.?
> > >>
> > >> Insofar as this statement could be read as at odds with the one being
> > >> pushed within NCSG, I?m not clear how we could endorse both.  In any
> > >> event, you might want to hold of and see how things evolve rather than
> > >> rush; the world doesn?t need to hear from us before anyone else.
> > >>  Different groups in the SO/AC are proposing amendments and the text
> is
> > >> not stable.
> > >>
> > >> Bill
> > >>
> > >> On Mar 17, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG
> > >> <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> I have a question. The first paragraph stating that:
> > >>>
> > >>>> We, the signatories to this statement, welcome the announcement by
> > >>>> the U.S. Commerce Department?s National Telecommunications and
> > >>>> Information Administration (NTIA) to transition key Internet domain
> > >>>> name functions to the global multistakeholder community, a
> > >>>> development that was envisaged since the early days of the Internet
> > >>>> Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract.
> > >>>
> > >>> Isn?t this a little different than saying that we welcome the
> > >>> announcement, and the opportunity for the global mulistakeholder
> > >>> community to collectively develop a proposal/plan for the transition,
> > >>> rather than a transition TO THE global multistakeholder community?
> > >>>
> > >>> Just wondering if I?m reading it right or not.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks.
> > >>>
> > >>> Amr
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> > >>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi Marie-Laure,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Hope we got endorsement soon, also being synchronized.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Best,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Rafik
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mar 18, 2014 12:53 AM, "marie-laure Lemineur"
> > >>>> <mllemineur at gmail.com <mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>    Hi,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>    We need to discuss this at our excom level. But I think we will
> > >>>>    join, since we already issued a statement, if we want to be
> > >>>>    consistent we should also support this statement.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>    I will let you know in the course of the day-.
> > >>>>    best,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>    mll
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>    On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Rafik Dammak
> > >>>>    <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>        Hello,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>        proposal for statement to be signed by SO/AC/SG "leaders" .
> > >>>>        reviewing it, I think that I can sign it and hope to get
> > >>>>        support from you on this matter. we will need the
> > >>>>        cross-community work in the coming months.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>        Best Regards,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>        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
>  _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140318/18579154/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Mon Mar 17 22:58:06 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 21:58:06 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
	Globalization Progress?
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=BBBnm0OM+y-MXLQZ8uh=27J2BCn6neOQaaD=NdzdjAQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CF4BD953.3155C%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CF4CCB38.31754%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThkng2PmKX5ziwxDyXeHTu+OJajejYRf1aMxiMHe1KFgSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqFR-2MqGRzNSuL6vMj=ZrvUbs_cwfOMt7F-taatusv0XQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmhw_EzfaMq2=wnu5AuU3QjfTw8BW5WYxdeTUxYyh9HgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<D36B8C76-4759-4A99-BE40-20D92963531E@egyptig.org>
	<777E4548-57A7-4642-A147-FDF5340E1AF9@gmail.com>
	<532746AD.6080708@acm.org>
	<E8CBF267-ED36-4CC0-874E-556560932940@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn8iQZjjTVKhaVJ_Canxg4xeF5i0XEXwTyy-0h-zC+cyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<ED537C3D-0575-4F87-B56C-D8F5A70C2AA1@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=BBBnm0OM+y-MXLQZ8uh=27J2BCn6neOQaaD=NdzdjAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7B3DBCBC-A7B5-4081-8D2E-DD53FF9D0BC2@egyptig.org>

Great. It would make sense instead of groups having lengthy discussions to come to separate conclusions that will need to be renegotiated.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:47 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Amr,
> 
> I already suggested collaborative tool like google doc in the discussion in leadership list  where several are thinking about several amendments, in order to be sync. Waiting for response to the proposal .
> Rafik
> On Mar 18, 2014 5:42 AM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I think it might actually be a good idea to move this conversation to the NCSG-list. It would be OK to hold it here if we were simply talking about endorsing the statement or not, but if we are suggesting amendments, that discussion should be with everybody else.
> 
> Better yet, I would imagine that this calls for a cross-community coordinated effort. Perhaps a Google doc that all the SOs/ACs/Constituencies are able to view, edit and discuss. Why not make that suggestion on the SO/AC leadership list? We could use a Google doc. That might save time and effort if the community is serious about a unified statement. That is assuming others feel the need for a substantive change in the statement as we might.
> 
> BTW?, the statement was sent to the Council list by Jonathan, and there have been no replies so far. I?m guessing everybody else is having similar discussions elsewhere. It would be more productive if we all did this together.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> PS: In any case, we should probably proceed with the NCSG statement regardless of others being prepped. It has already gained significant support on the NCSG list, but it would be great to hear from some other NCSG-PC members, including the NCUC appointed folks.
> 
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:19 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Bill,
>> 
>> The proposal was shared with membership and PC, so yes we are consulting broadly.
>> 
>> Rafik
>> 
>> On Mar 18, 2014 4:48 AM, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mar 17, 2014, at 8:02 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I think it is more important to get an NCSG stmt out than to wait for the Leaders to do one.
>> >
>> > The silo leads are consulting with their respective groups on language, which is how it should be, and in response proposing revisions.  I?d like to see the same thing happening here, frankly. Nobody reads the PC list, including it seems some of the PC.   An issue of this magnitude should not be handled in the same manner as a council motion on procedural arcana etc.  We should consult more broadly rather than just going off what and doing what a few people want.
>> >
>> > I don?t see the argument for rushing, especially since the vast majority of our members probably have not read and thought through the relevant proposals.  It?s a moment that be leveraged to try to get broader engagement and buy in, and there?s no pressure to be the first silo into the pool.
>> > >
>> > > And i think it is more important to make the extra point thant to accept the lowest common denominator.
>> >
>> > If so, then why not propose language to that effect into the SOAC process in the same way the others are?  See if there?s support for it.
>> > >
>> > > So if the idea is to wait until the leaders have made up their mind, and thus delay, I say never mind, just send the NCSG stmt.
>> >
>> > Misconstruction of the process.
>> > >
>> > > And if Amr is right, then don't bother signing the Leader's stmt.  I did not see the issue.
>> > >
>> > > avri
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 17-Mar-14 14:52, William Drake wrote:
>> > >> Hi
>> > >>
>> > >> I think Amr?s right about the thinking behind "transition key Internet
>> > >> domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community.?
>> > >>
>> > >> Insofar as this statement could be read as at odds with the one being
>> > >> pushed within NCSG, I?m not clear how we could endorse both.  In any
>> > >> event, you might want to hold of and see how things evolve rather than
>> > >> rush; the world doesn?t need to hear from us before anyone else.
>> > >>  Different groups in the SO/AC are proposing amendments and the text is
>> > >> not stable.
>> > >>
>> > >> Bill
>> > >>
>> > >> On Mar 17, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG
>> > >> <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Hi,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I have a question. The first paragraph stating that:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> We, the signatories to this statement, welcome the announcement by
>> > >>>> the U.S. Commerce Department?s National Telecommunications and
>> > >>>> Information Administration (NTIA) to transition key Internet domain
>> > >>>> name functions to the global multistakeholder community, a
>> > >>>> development that was envisaged since the early days of the Internet
>> > >>>> Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Isn?t this a little different than saying that we welcome the
>> > >>> announcement, and the opportunity for the global mulistakeholder
>> > >>> community to collectively develop a proposal/plan for the transition,
>> > >>> rather than a transition TO THE global multistakeholder community?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Just wondering if I?m reading it right or not.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Thanks.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Amr
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> > >>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> Hi Marie-Laure,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Thanks,
>> > >>>> Hope we got endorsement soon, also being synchronized.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Best,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Rafik
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> On Mar 18, 2014 12:53 AM, "marie-laure Lemineur"
>> > >>>> <mllemineur at gmail.com <mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>    Hi,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>    We need to discuss this at our excom level. But I think we will
>> > >>>>    join, since we already issued a statement, if we want to be
>> > >>>>    consistent we should also support this statement.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>    I will let you know in the course of the day-.
>> > >>>>    best,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>    mll
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>    On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Rafik Dammak
>> > >>>>    <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>        Hello,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>        proposal for statement to be signed by SO/AC/SG "leaders" .
>> > >>>>        reviewing it, I think that I can sign it and hope to get
>> > >>>>        support from you on this matter. we will need the
>> > >>>>        cross-community work in the coming months.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>        Best Regards,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>        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
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140317/fd1e54ac/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Tue Mar 18 00:21:46 2014
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 19:21:46 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
 Globalization Progress?
In-Reply-To: <7B3DBCBC-A7B5-4081-8D2E-DD53FF9D0BC2@egyptig.org>
References: <CF4BD953.3155C%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CF4CCB38.31754%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThkng2PmKX5ziwxDyXeHTu+OJajejYRf1aMxiMHe1KFgSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqFR-2MqGRzNSuL6vMj=ZrvUbs_cwfOMt7F-taatusv0XQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmhw_EzfaMq2=wnu5AuU3QjfTw8BW5WYxdeTUxYyh9HgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<D36B8C76-4759-4A99-BE40-20D92963531E@egyptig.org>
	<777E4548-57A7-4642-A147-FDF5340E1AF9@gmail.com>
	<532746AD.6080708@acm.org>
	<E8CBF267-ED36-4CC0-874E-556560932940@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn8iQZjjTVKhaVJ_Canxg4xeF5i0XEXwTyy-0h-zC+cyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<ED537C3D-0575-4F87-B56C-D8F5A70C2AA1@egyptig.org>
	<CAH5sTh=BBBnm0OM+y-MXLQZ8uh=27J2BCn6neOQaaD=NdzdjAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<7B3DBCBC-A7B5-4081-8D2E-DD53FF9D0BC2@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK1CGbNckk64Cuni1v6Q6v3MyNZsxsTFdifw=UV033C-qQ@mail.gmail.com>

Also agree with Amr's proposal.
Mar?lia


On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Great. It would make sense instead of groups having lengthy discussions to
> come to separate conclusions that will need to be renegotiated.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:47 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Amr,
>
> I already suggested collaborative tool like google doc in the discussion
> in leadership list  where several are thinking about several amendments, in
> order to be sync. Waiting for response to the proposal .
>
> Rafik
>  On Mar 18, 2014 5:42 AM, "Amr Elsadr" <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think it might actually be a good idea to move this conversation to the
>> NCSG-list. It would be OK to hold it here if we were simply talking about
>> endorsing the statement or not, but if we are suggesting amendments, that
>> discussion should be with everybody else.
>>
>> Better yet, I would imagine that this calls for a cross-community
>> coordinated effort. Perhaps a Google doc that all the
>> SOs/ACs/Constituencies are able to view, edit and discuss. Why not make
>> that suggestion on the SO/AC leadership list? We could use a Google doc.
>> That might save time and effort if the community is serious about a unified
>> statement. That is assuming others feel the need for a substantive change
>> in the statement as we might.
>>
>> BTW..., the statement was sent to the Council list by Jonathan, and there
>> have been no replies so far. I'm guessing everybody else is having similar
>> discussions elsewhere. It would be more productive if we all did this
>> together.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> PS: In any case, we should probably proceed with the NCSG statement
>> regardless of others being prepped. It has already gained significant
>> support on the NCSG list, but it would be great to hear from some other
>> NCSG-PC members, including the NCUC appointed folks.
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:19 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Bill,
>>
>> The proposal was shared with membership and PC, so yes we are consulting
>> broadly.
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2014 4:48 AM, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mar 17, 2014, at 8:02 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I think it is more important to get an NCSG stmt out than to wait for
>> the Leaders to do one.
>> >
>> > The silo leads are consulting with their respective groups on language,
>> which is how it should be, and in response proposing revisions.  I'd like
>> to see the same thing happening here, frankly. Nobody reads the PC list,
>> including it seems some of the PC.   An issue of this magnitude should not
>> be handled in the same manner as a council motion on procedural arcana etc.
>>  We should consult more broadly rather than just going off what and doing
>> what a few people want.
>> >
>> > I don't see the argument for rushing, especially since the vast
>> majority of our members probably have not read and thought through the
>> relevant proposals.  It's a moment that be leveraged to try to get broader
>> engagement and buy in, and there's no pressure to be the first silo into
>> the pool.
>> > >
>> > > And i think it is more important to make the extra point thant to
>> accept the lowest common denominator.
>> >
>> > If so, then why not propose language to that effect into the SOAC
>> process in the same way the others are?  See if there's support for it.
>> > >
>> > > So if the idea is to wait until the leaders have made up their mind,
>> and thus delay, I say never mind, just send the NCSG stmt.
>> >
>> > Misconstruction of the process.
>> > >
>> > > And if Amr is right, then don't bother signing the Leader's stmt.  I
>> did not see the issue.
>> > >
>> > > avri
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 17-Mar-14 14:52, William Drake wrote:
>> > >> Hi
>> > >>
>> > >> I think Amr's right about the thinking behind "transition key
>> Internet
>> > >> domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community."
>> > >>
>> > >> Insofar as this statement could be read as at odds with the one being
>> > >> pushed within NCSG, I'm not clear how we could endorse both.  In any
>> > >> event, you might want to hold of and see how things evolve rather
>> than
>> > >> rush; the world doesn't need to hear from us before anyone else.
>> > >>  Different groups in the SO/AC are proposing amendments and the text
>> is
>> > >> not stable.
>> > >>
>> > >> Bill
>> > >>
>> > >> On Mar 17, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG
>> > >> <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Hi,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I have a question. The first paragraph stating that:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> We, the signatories to this statement, welcome the announcement by
>> > >>>> the U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
>> > >>>> Information Administration (NTIA) to transition key Internet domain
>> > >>>> name functions to the global multistakeholder community, a
>> > >>>> development that was envisaged since the early days of the Internet
>> > >>>> Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Isn't this a little different than saying that we welcome the
>> > >>> announcement, and the opportunity for the global mulistakeholder
>> > >>> community to collectively develop a proposal/plan for the
>> transition,
>> > >>> rather than a transition TO THE global multistakeholder community?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Just wondering if I'm reading it right or not.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Thanks.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Amr
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> > >>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> Hi Marie-Laure,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Thanks,
>> > >>>> Hope we got endorsement soon, also being synchronized.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Best,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Rafik
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> On Mar 18, 2014 12:53 AM, "marie-laure Lemineur"
>> > >>>> <mllemineur at gmail.com <mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>    Hi,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>    We need to discuss this at our excom level. But I think we will
>> > >>>>    join, since we already issued a statement, if we want to be
>> > >>>>    consistent we should also support this statement.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>    I will let you know in the course of the day-.
>> > >>>>    best,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>    mll
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>    On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Rafik Dammak
>> > >>>>    <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>        Hello,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>        proposal for statement to be signed by SO/AC/SG "leaders" .
>> > >>>>        reviewing it, I think that I can sign it and hope to get
>> > >>>>        support from you on this matter. we will need the
>> > >>>>        cross-community work in the coming months.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>        Best Regards,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>        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
>>  _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


-- 
*Mar?lia Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio

Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate
www.diplomacy.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140317/73d14bdb/attachment-0001.html>


From mllemineur  Tue Mar 18 04:00:57 2014
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:00:57 -0600
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
 Globalization Progress?
In-Reply-To: <ED537C3D-0575-4F87-B56C-D8F5A70C2AA1@egyptig.org>
References: <CF4BD953.3155C%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CF4CCB38.31754%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThkng2PmKX5ziwxDyXeHTu+OJajejYRf1aMxiMHe1KFgSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqFR-2MqGRzNSuL6vMj=ZrvUbs_cwfOMt7F-taatusv0XQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmhw_EzfaMq2=wnu5AuU3QjfTw8BW5WYxdeTUxYyh9HgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<D36B8C76-4759-4A99-BE40-20D92963531E@egyptig.org>
	<777E4548-57A7-4642-A147-FDF5340E1AF9@gmail.com>
	<532746AD.6080708@acm.org>
	<E8CBF267-ED36-4CC0-874E-556560932940@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn8iQZjjTVKhaVJ_Canxg4xeF5i0XEXwTyy-0h-zC+cyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<ED537C3D-0575-4F87-B56C-D8F5A70C2AA1@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqHLNZvH_hyGcrP4vuv84kueGK9etiQBoL+aB-QMjA+=qA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

I also agree that having a more in-depth discussion could be useful  but
let?s be realistic, this is bad moment for some of us (PC members)  who are
flying either tomorrow or the day after to Singapore. Other NCSG members
are free,  of course, to  feed in the discussion, but due to this traveling
situation, I would suggest that what has not been done/concluded/wrapped up
so far, has to be done during the Singapore meeting. Maybe even after we
attend the session after the inauguration, so that we get even more inputs
from ICANN. My two cents.

best,
marie-laure


On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I think it might actually be a good idea to move this conversation to the
> NCSG-list. It would be OK to hold it here if we were simply talking about
> endorsing the statement or not, but if we are suggesting amendments, that
> discussion should be with everybody else.
>
> Better yet, I would imagine that this calls for a cross-community
> coordinated effort. Perhaps a Google doc that all the
> SOs/ACs/Constituencies are able to view, edit and discuss. Why not make
> that suggestion on the SO/AC leadership list? We could use a Google doc.
> That might save time and effort if the community is serious about a unified
> statement. That is assuming others feel the need for a substantive change
> in the statement as we might.
>
> BTW..., the statement was sent to the Council list by Jonathan, and there
> have been no replies so far. I'm guessing everybody else is having similar
> discussions elsewhere. It would be more productive if we all did this
> together.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> PS: In any case, we should probably proceed with the NCSG statement
> regardless of others being prepped. It has already gained significant
> support on the NCSG list, but it would be great to hear from some other
> NCSG-PC members, including the NCUC appointed folks.
>
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:19 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> The proposal was shared with membership and PC, so yes we are consulting
> broadly.
>
> Rafik
>
> On Mar 18, 2014 4:48 AM, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mar 17, 2014, at 8:02 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I think it is more important to get an NCSG stmt out than to wait for
> the Leaders to do one.
> >
> > The silo leads are consulting with their respective groups on language,
> which is how it should be, and in response proposing revisions.  I'd like
> to see the same thing happening here, frankly. Nobody reads the PC list,
> including it seems some of the PC.   An issue of this magnitude should not
> be handled in the same manner as a council motion on procedural arcana etc.
>  We should consult more broadly rather than just going off what and doing
> what a few people want.
> >
> > I don't see the argument for rushing, especially since the vast majority
> of our members probably have not read and thought through the relevant
> proposals.  It's a moment that be leveraged to try to get broader
> engagement and buy in, and there's no pressure to be the first silo into
> the pool.
> > >
> > > And i think it is more important to make the extra point thant to
> accept the lowest common denominator.
> >
> > If so, then why not propose language to that effect into the SOAC
> process in the same way the others are?  See if there's support for it.
> > >
> > > So if the idea is to wait until the leaders have made up their mind,
> and thus delay, I say never mind, just send the NCSG stmt.
> >
> > Misconstruction of the process.
> > >
> > > And if Amr is right, then don't bother signing the Leader's stmt.  I
> did not see the issue.
> > >
> > > avri
> > >
> > >
> > > On 17-Mar-14 14:52, William Drake wrote:
> > >> Hi
> > >>
> > >> I think Amr's right about the thinking behind "transition key Internet
> > >> domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community."
> > >>
> > >> Insofar as this statement could be read as at odds with the one being
> > >> pushed within NCSG, I'm not clear how we could endorse both.  In any
> > >> event, you might want to hold of and see how things evolve rather than
> > >> rush; the world doesn't need to hear from us before anyone else.
> > >>  Different groups in the SO/AC are proposing amendments and the text
> is
> > >> not stable.
> > >>
> > >> Bill
> > >>
> > >> On Mar 17, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG
> > >> <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> I have a question. The first paragraph stating that:
> > >>>
> > >>>> We, the signatories to this statement, welcome the announcement by
> > >>>> the U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
> > >>>> Information Administration (NTIA) to transition key Internet domain
> > >>>> name functions to the global multistakeholder community, a
> > >>>> development that was envisaged since the early days of the Internet
> > >>>> Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract.
> > >>>
> > >>> Isn't this a little different than saying that we welcome the
> > >>> announcement, and the opportunity for the global mulistakeholder
> > >>> community to collectively develop a proposal/plan for the transition,
> > >>> rather than a transition TO THE global multistakeholder community?
> > >>>
> > >>> Just wondering if I'm reading it right or not.
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks.
> > >>>
> > >>> Amr
> > >>>
> > >>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> > >>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi Marie-Laure,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>> Hope we got endorsement soon, also being synchronized.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Best,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Rafik
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mar 18, 2014 12:53 AM, "marie-laure Lemineur"
> > >>>> <mllemineur at gmail.com <mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>    Hi,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>    We need to discuss this at our excom level. But I think we will
> > >>>>    join, since we already issued a statement, if we want to be
> > >>>>    consistent we should also support this statement.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>    I will let you know in the course of the day-.
> > >>>>    best,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>    mll
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>    On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Rafik Dammak
> > >>>>    <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>        Hello,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>        proposal for statement to be signed by SO/AC/SG "leaders" .
> > >>>>        reviewing it, I think that I can sign it and hope to get
> > >>>>        support from you on this matter. we will need the
> > >>>>        cross-community work in the coming months.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>        Best Regards,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>        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
>  _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140317/a9f6a9fc/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Mar 18 04:09:03 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 11:09:03 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
 Globalization Progress?
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqHLNZvH_hyGcrP4vuv84kueGK9etiQBoL+aB-QMjA+=qA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CF4BD953.3155C%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CF4CCB38.31754%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CAH5sThkng2PmKX5ziwxDyXeHTu+OJajejYRf1aMxiMHe1KFgSw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqFR-2MqGRzNSuL6vMj=ZrvUbs_cwfOMt7F-taatusv0XQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmhw_EzfaMq2=wnu5AuU3QjfTw8BW5WYxdeTUxYyh9HgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<D36B8C76-4759-4A99-BE40-20D92963531E@egyptig.org>
	<777E4548-57A7-4642-A147-FDF5340E1AF9@gmail.com>
	<532746AD.6080708@acm.org>
	<E8CBF267-ED36-4CC0-874E-556560932940@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn8iQZjjTVKhaVJ_Canxg4xeF5i0XEXwTyy-0h-zC+cyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<ED537C3D-0575-4F87-B56C-D8F5A70C2AA1@egyptig.org>
	<CAD3sNqHLNZvH_hyGcrP4vuv84kueGK9etiQBoL+aB-QMjA+=qA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=+OWV75kcSEQbHJ_FUbc8czU6MjShuu=0bf65vs=jbww@mail.gmail.com>

hi Marie-Laure,

the cross-community statement is still under discussion and we don't have a
consolidated version yet. we are not necessarily in hurry for that. I am
also not sure how we can handle that during SIngapore meeting.
for public session, it is format may raise some questions since only
"impacted parties" will be in the stage if I understood correctly.

Best,

Rafik


2014-03-18 11:00 GMT+09:00 marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> I also agree that having a more in-depth discussion could be useful  but
> let?s be realistic, this is bad moment for some of us (PC members)  who are
> flying either tomorrow or the day after to Singapore. Other NCSG members
> are free,  of course, to  feed in the discussion, but due to this traveling
> situation, I would suggest that what has not been done/concluded/wrapped up
> so far, has to be done during the Singapore meeting. Maybe even after we
> attend the session after the inauguration, so that we get even more inputs
> from ICANN. My two cents.
>
> best,
> marie-laure
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think it might actually be a good idea to move this conversation to the
>> NCSG-list. It would be OK to hold it here if we were simply talking about
>> endorsing the statement or not, but if we are suggesting amendments, that
>> discussion should be with everybody else.
>>
>> Better yet, I would imagine that this calls for a cross-community
>> coordinated effort. Perhaps a Google doc that all the
>> SOs/ACs/Constituencies are able to view, edit and discuss. Why not make
>> that suggestion on the SO/AC leadership list? We could use a Google doc.
>> That might save time and effort if the community is serious about a unified
>> statement. That is assuming others feel the need for a substantive change
>> in the statement as we might.
>>
>> BTW?, the statement was sent to the Council list by Jonathan, and there
>> have been no replies so far. I?m guessing everybody else is having similar
>> discussions elsewhere. It would be more productive if we all did this
>> together.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> PS: In any case, we should probably proceed with the NCSG statement
>> regardless of others being prepped. It has already gained significant
>> support on the NCSG list, but it would be great to hear from some other
>> NCSG-PC members, including the NCUC appointed folks.
>>
>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:19 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Bill,
>>
>> The proposal was shared with membership and PC, so yes we are consulting
>> broadly.
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> On Mar 18, 2014 4:48 AM, "William Drake" <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mar 17, 2014, at 8:02 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I think it is more important to get an NCSG stmt out than to wait for
>> the Leaders to do one.
>> >
>> > The silo leads are consulting with their respective groups on language,
>> which is how it should be, and in response proposing revisions.  I?d like
>> to see the same thing happening here, frankly. Nobody reads the PC list,
>> including it seems some of the PC.   An issue of this magnitude should not
>> be handled in the same manner as a council motion on procedural arcana etc.
>>  We should consult more broadly rather than just going off what and doing
>> what a few people want.
>> >
>> > I don?t see the argument for rushing, especially since the vast
>> majority of our members probably have not read and thought through the
>> relevant proposals.  It?s a moment that be leveraged to try to get broader
>> engagement and buy in, and there?s no pressure to be the first silo into
>> the pool.
>> > >
>> > > And i think it is more important to make the extra point thant to
>> accept the lowest common denominator.
>> >
>> > If so, then why not propose language to that effect into the SOAC
>> process in the same way the others are?  See if there?s support for it.
>> > >
>> > > So if the idea is to wait until the leaders have made up their mind,
>> and thus delay, I say never mind, just send the NCSG stmt.
>> >
>> > Misconstruction of the process.
>> > >
>> > > And if Amr is right, then don't bother signing the Leader's stmt.  I
>> did not see the issue.
>> > >
>> > > avri
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On 17-Mar-14 14:52, William Drake wrote:
>> > >> Hi
>> > >>
>> > >> I think Amr?s right about the thinking behind "transition key
>> Internet
>> > >> domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community.?
>> > >>
>> > >> Insofar as this statement could be read as at odds with the one being
>> > >> pushed within NCSG, I?m not clear how we could endorse both.  In any
>> > >> event, you might want to hold of and see how things evolve rather
>> than
>> > >> rush; the world doesn?t need to hear from us before anyone else.
>> > >>  Different groups in the SO/AC are proposing amendments and the text
>> is
>> > >> not stable.
>> > >>
>> > >> Bill
>> > >>
>> > >> On Mar 17, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG
>> > >> <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> Hi,
>> > >>>
>> > >>> I have a question. The first paragraph stating that:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> We, the signatories to this statement, welcome the announcement by
>> > >>>> the U.S. Commerce Department?s National Telecommunications and
>> > >>>> Information Administration (NTIA) to transition key Internet domain
>> > >>>> name functions to the global multistakeholder community, a
>> > >>>> development that was envisaged since the early days of the Internet
>> > >>>> Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Isn?t this a little different than saying that we welcome the
>> > >>> announcement, and the opportunity for the global mulistakeholder
>> > >>> community to collectively develop a proposal/plan for the
>> transition,
>> > >>> rather than a transition TO THE global multistakeholder community?
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Just wondering if I?m reading it right or not.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Thanks.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Amr
>> > >>>
>> > >>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> > >>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > >>>
>> > >>>> Hi Marie-Laure,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Thanks,
>> > >>>> Hope we got endorsement soon, also being synchronized.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Best,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Rafik
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> On Mar 18, 2014 12:53 AM, "marie-laure Lemineur"
>> > >>>> <mllemineur at gmail.com <mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>    Hi,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>    We need to discuss this at our excom level. But I think we will
>> > >>>>    join, since we already issued a statement, if we want to be
>> > >>>>    consistent we should also support this statement.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>    I will let you know in the course of the day-.
>> > >>>>    best,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>    mll
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>    On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Rafik Dammak
>> > >>>>    <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>        Hello,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>        proposal for statement to be signed by SO/AC/SG "leaders" .
>> > >>>>        reviewing it, I think that I can sign it and hope to get
>> > >>>>        support from you on this matter. we will need the
>> > >>>>        cross-community work in the coming months.
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>        Best Regards,
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>        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
>>  _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140318/24421e96/attachment-0001.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Tue Mar 18 04:09:05 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (stephanie perrin)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 02:09:05 +0000
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
 Globalization Progress?
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqHLNZvH_hyGcrP4vuv84kueGK9etiQBoL+aB-QMjA+=qA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CF4BD953.3155C%david.olive@icann.org>
	<CAD3sNqFR-2MqGRzNSuL6vMj=ZrvUbs_cwfOMt7F-taatusv0XQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThmhw_EzfaMq2=wnu5AuU3QjfTw8BW5WYxdeTUxYyh9HgA@mail.gmail.com>
	<D36B8C76-4759-4A99-BE40-20D92963531E@egyptig.org>
	<777E4548-57A7-4642-A147-FDF5340E1AF9@gmail.com>
	<532746AD.6080708@acm.org>
	<E8CBF267-ED36-4CC0-874E-556560932940@gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThn8iQZjjTVKhaVJ_Canxg4xeF5i0XEXwTyy-0h-zC+cyA@mail.gmail.com>
	<ED537C3D-0575-4F87-B56C-D8F5A70C2AA1@egyptig.org>
	<CAD3sNqHLNZvH_hyGcrP4vuv84kueGK9etiQBoL+aB-QMjA+=qA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <322d8832-e899-4269-85a2-b1a33c5acc12@BL2PRD0310HT002.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140318/319dd73c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
PC-NCSG mailing list
PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg


From wjdrake  Tue Mar 18 12:24:08 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 11:24:08 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
	Globalization Progress?
In-Reply-To: <532757E8.3010904@acm.org>
References: <CF4BD953.3155C%david.olive@icann.org>	<CF4CCB38.31754%david.olive@icann.org>	<CAH5sThkng2PmKX5ziwxDyXeHTu+OJajejYRf1aMxiMHe1KFgSw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAD3sNqFR-2MqGRzNSuL6vMj=ZrvUbs_cwfOMt7F-taatusv0XQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAH5sThmhw_EzfaMq2=wnu5AuU3QjfTw8BW5WYxdeTUxYyh9HgA@mail.gmail.com>	<D36B8C76-4759-4A99-BE40-20D92963531E@egyptig.org>
	<777E4548-57A7-4642-A147-FDF5340E1AF9@gmail.com>
	<532746AD.6080708@acm.org>
	<E8CBF267-ED36-4CC0-874E-556560932940@gmail.com>
	<532757E8.3010904@acm.org>
Message-ID: <E5B2A2D7-1049-45A5-9F78-B3A8DB1AB3ED@gmail.com>

Hi

On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:15 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Do you disagree with the stmt?

As I said on the list I?d have thought it more strategic to hold off on pushing the new principle until we get into discussions of how, as there is still a lot of discontent about whether in other silos and this ups the ante ex ante. And I?d have lost some of the tone that I know will be poorly received in some quarters, don?t see the value. But whatever, if everyone else thinks it?s good to do it this way, I don?t have the bandwidth to debate it, I?m flying today.  Anyway I?m just a constituency chair and have no vote on the PC.

>  It that what you are saying.

I was addressing the procedural more than the substantive.
> 
> So, at the point that you see something as important, you want to take the decision away from the PC.

This of course is not what I?m saying.  I said it?d be nice to include the wider membership in the discussion before deciding.

> Having rethought things, I agree, we must withhold approval of the Leaders stmt until the wording is satisfactory.

If by leaders you mean the rest of the ICANN community then ok.

>  On rereading I am also troubled that it may be indicating that only those 4 priunciples are needed, and that I simply cannot agree with.  I would need some Inter alia sort of wording on the principles.
> 
> So please, ignore my previous agrement with the stmt. I had a weak moment as was just go along with the leaders.  I am thankful the error of my ways has been illustrated.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 17-Mar-14 15:48, William Drake wrote:
>> 
>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 8:02 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> I think it is more important to get an NCSG stmt out than to wait for the Leaders to do one.
>> 
>> The silo leads are consulting with their respective groups on language, which is how it should be, and in response proposing revisions.  I?d like to see the same thing happening here, frankly. Nobody reads the PC list, including it seems some of the PC.   An issue of this magnitude should not be handled in the same manner as a council motion on procedural arcana etc.  We should consult more broadly rather than just going off what and doing what a few people want.
>> 
>> I don?t see the argument for rushing, especially since the vast majority of our members probably have not read and thought through the relevant proposals.  It?s a moment that be leveraged to try to get broader engagement and buy in, and there?s no pressure to be the first silo into the pool.
>>> 
>>> And i think it is more important to make the extra point thant to accept the lowest common denominator.
>> 
>> If so, then why not propose language to that effect into the SOAC process in the same way the others are?  See if there?s support for it.
>>> 
>>> So if the idea is to wait until the leaders have made up their mind, and thus delay, I say never mind, just send the NCSG stmt.
>> 
>> Misconstruction of the process.
>>> 
>>> And if Amr is right, then don't bother signing the Leader's stmt.  I did not see the issue.
>>> 
>>> avri
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 17-Mar-14 14:52, William Drake wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>> 
>>>> I think Amr?s right about the thinking behind "transition key Internet
>>>> domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community.?
>>>> 
>>>> Insofar as this statement could be read as at odds with the one being
>>>> pushed within NCSG, I?m not clear how we could endorse both.  In any
>>>> event, you might want to hold of and see how things evolve rather than
>>>> rush; the world doesn?t need to hear from us before anyone else.
>>>>  Different groups in the SO/AC are proposing amendments and the text is
>>>> not stable.
>>>> 
>>>> Bill
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG
>>>> <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I have a question. The first paragraph stating that:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> We, the signatories to this statement, welcome the announcement by
>>>>>> the U.S. Commerce Department?s National Telecommunications and
>>>>>> Information Administration (NTIA) to transition key Internet domain
>>>>>> name functions to the global multistakeholder community, a
>>>>>> development that was envisaged since the early days of the Internet
>>>>>> Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Isn?t this a little different than saying that we welcome the
>>>>> announcement, and the opportunity for the global mulistakeholder
>>>>> community to collectively develop a proposal/plan for the transition,
>>>>> rather than a transition TO THE global multistakeholder community?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Just wondering if I?m reading it right or not.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amr
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Marie-Laure,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Hope we got endorsement soon, also being synchronized.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2014 12:53 AM, "marie-laure Lemineur"
>>>>>> <mllemineur at gmail.com <mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    We need to discuss this at our excom level. But I think we will
>>>>>>    join, since we already issued a statement, if we want to be
>>>>>>    consistent we should also support this statement.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    I will let you know in the course of the day-.
>>>>>>    best,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    mll
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>    On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>>>>>    <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        Hello,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        proposal for statement to be signed by SO/AC/SG "leaders" .
>>>>>>        reviewing it, I think that I can sign it and hope to get
>>>>>>        support from you on this matter. we will need the
>>>>>>        cross-community work in the coming months.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        Best Regards,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>        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

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




From wjdrake  Tue Mar 18 12:27:18 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 11:27:18 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
	Globalization Progress?
References: <CF4DE52C.31910%david.olive@icann.org>
Message-ID: <D1A6254F-116A-4F3D-908A-23242017EB5D@gmail.com>



Begin forwarded message:

> From: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA Globalization Progress?
> Date: March 18, 2014 at 11:03:29 AM GMT+1
> To: marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl at gih.com)" <ocl at gih.com>, "Drazek, Keith (kdrazek at verisign.com)" <kdrazek at verisign.com>, "liman at netnod.se" <liman at netnod.se>, Patrik F?ltstr?m <paf at netnod.se>, "adiel at afrinic.net" <adiel at afrinic.net>, "'Byron Holland' (byron.holland at cira.ca)" <byron.holland at cira.ca>, "Kristina Rosette (krosette at cov.com)" <krosette at cov.com>, "wjdrake at gmail.com" <wjdrake at gmail.com>, "Tony Holmes (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com)" <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "junsec at wide.ad.jp" <junsec at wide.ad.jp>, "louie at louie.net" <louie at louie.net>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>, "Elisa Cooper (elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com)" <elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>, "heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca" <heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> 
> Dear SO-AC/SG Leaders:
> 
> Please find attached revised redline version which incorporates Patrik's proposed edits, as well as Michele's suggestion. 
> 
> How best to  focus on getting agreement on a high level statement so this could go out before Singapore (as people will have already started traveling).
> 
>  Any further detailed statement from SO/AC/SG/C can always follow.
> 
> Best regards,         David
> 
> --
> David A. Olive
> Vice President, Policy Development Support
> General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul
> 
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
> Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5
> 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey 
> 
> Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1. 202.341.3611
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, March 17, 2014 10:23 PM
> To: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>
> Cc: marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl at gih.com)" <ocl at gih.com>, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com>, Lars-Johan Liman <liman at netnod.se>, Patrik F?ltstr?m <paf at netnod.se>, "adiel at afrinic.net" <adiel at afrinic.net>, Byron Holland <byron.holland at cira.ca>, "Kristina Rosette (krosette at cov.com)" <krosette at cov.com>, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>, tony holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, Jun Murai <junsec at wide.ad.jp>, "louie at louie.net" <louie at louie.net>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>, "Elisa Cooper (elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com)" <elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>, Heather Dryden <Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>
> Subject: Re: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA Globalization Progress?
> 
> Hi David,
> With feedback from different groups,  is it possible to get an updated version of the statement ? Maybe time to use collaborative tool, at least something like google doc. Otherwise we won't be synchronized.
> Rafik
> On Mar 18, 2014 2:52 AM, "David Olive" <david.olive at icann.org> wrote:
>> Thanks, everyone for your cooperation thus far.
>> 
>> Regards,      David
>> 
>> --
>> David A. Olive
>> Vice President, Policy Development Support
>> General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul
>> 
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>> 
>> Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5
>> 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey
>> 
>> Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1. 202.341.3611
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/17/14 7:12 PM, "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <michele at blacknight.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >What Mr Falstrom said (sorry - can't do the funky accents on this
>> >keyboard easily)
>> >
>> >I've also had some input from the Registrar ExCom which I'll try to share
>> >ASAP
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Mr Michele Neylon
>> >Blacknight Solutions
>> >Hosting & Colocation, Domains
>> >http://www.blacknight.co/
>> >http://blog.blacknight.com/
>> >http://www.technology.ie
>> >Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
>> >Locall: 1850 929 929
>> >Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>> >Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
>> >Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
>> >-------------------------------
>> >Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
>> >Park,Sleaty
>> >Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Patrik F?ltstr?m [mailto:paf at netnod.se]
>> >Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 5:10 PM
>> >To: David Olive; liman at netnod.se; 'Byron Holland'
>> >(byron.holland at cira.ca); Drazek, Keith (kdrazek at verisign.com); Olivier MJ
>> >Crepin-Leblond (ocl at gih.com); Kristina Rosette (krosette at cov.com);
>> >wjdrake at gmail.com; Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com); Elisa Cooper
>> >(elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com); junsec at wide.ad.jp; adiel at afrinic.net;
>> >louie at louie.net; Jonathan Robinson (jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com); Tony
>> >Holmes (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com); heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca;
>> >marie-laure Lemineur (mllemineur at gmail.com); Michele Neylon - Blacknight
>> >Subject: Re: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA Globalization
>> >Progress?
>> >
>> >Another comment...then I leave my office :-)
>> >
>> >I know NTIA wrote "Key Internet Domain Name Functions", but do remember
>> >that:
>> >
>> >ICANN != IANA
>> >
>> >IANA != DNS
>> >
>> >DNS != Internet
>> >
>> >So, please, please, please try to find a way not to continue the
>> >maddening habit of referring interchangeably to the IANA functions, the
>> >DNS, and the Internet.
>> >
>> >This draft speaks of the intention "to transition key Internet domain
>> >name functions to the global multistakeholder community," a transition
>> >plan needing to "maintain..the Internet DNS," and the IANA functions as
>> >necessary "to ensure the continued security, stability and resiliency of
>> >the Internet." There's a reference to "global customers and partners of
>> >the IANA services" but it's ambiguous.
>> >
>> >   Patrik
>> >
>> >On 2014-03-17 14:58, David Olive wrote:
>> >> Dear SO/AC/SG Leaders:
>> >>
>> >> Just to add to my earlier note.    Attached is a rough draft which may
>> >> help to facilitate a joint statement.
>> >>
>> >> Comments are welcomed.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,       David
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> David A. Olive
>> >> *Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN
>> >> Regional Headquarters -Istanbul*
>> >> *
>> >> *
>> >> *Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>> >> *
>> >> *Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5*
>> >> *34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey *
>> >> *
>> >> *
>> >> *Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1.
>> >> 202.341.3611*
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org
>> >> <mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>
>> >> Date: Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:42 PM
>> >> To: Lars-Johan Liman <liman at netnod.se <mailto:liman at netnod.se>>, Byron
>> >> Holland <byron.holland at cira.ca <mailto:byron.holland at cira.ca>>,
>> >> "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>,
>> >> "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>)"
>> >> <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>>, "Kristina Rosette
>> >> (krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>)" <krosette at cov.com
>> >> <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>> >> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, "Elisa Cooper
>> >> (elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com <mailto:elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>)"
>> >> <elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com <mailto:elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>>,
>> >> Jun Murai <junsec at wide.ad.jp <mailto:junsec at wide.ad.jp>>, Patrik
>> >> F?ltstr?m <paf at netnod.se <mailto:paf at netnod.se>>, "adiel at afrinic.net
>> >> <mailto:adiel at afrinic.net>" <adiel at afrinic.net
>> >> <mailto:adiel at afrinic.net>>, "louie at louie.net <mailto:louie at louie.net>"
>> >> <louie at louie.net <mailto:louie at louie.net>>, Jonathan Robinson
>> >> <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
>> >> <mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>>,
>> >> tony holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com
>> >> <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>, Heather Dryden
>> >> <Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca <mailto:Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>>,
>> >> marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com
>> >> <mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight
>> >> <michele at blacknight.com <mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>
>> >> Subject: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA Globalization
>> >> Progress?
>> >>
>> >> Dear SO/AC/SG Leaders:
>> >>
>> >> In light of our recent conversations about this announcement,  might
>> >> it be appropriate for a short joint SO/AC/SG leaders'  statement
>> >> welcoming the US Government's announcement of the suggested changes
>> >> related to the IANA functions contract.
>> >>
>> >> Such a statement  could be an impressive demonstration of ICANN's
>> >> multistakeholder Community working together and willing to be involved
>> >> in next steps.   This document could be shared in Singapore, maybe at
>> >> the Monday session.
>> >>
>> >> An example might be found in the statement by the  "Internet Technical
>> >> Leaders Welcome IANA Globalization Progress"  - attached.
>> >>
>> >> Please let me know if there would be any support for drafting  such a
>> >> statement.  I would be ready to assist you in this task, if needed.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,        David
>> >> --
>> >> David A. Olive
>> >> *Vice President, Policy Development Supportthe General Manager, ICANN
>> >> Regional Headquarters -Istanbul*
>> >> *
>> >> *
>> >> *Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>> >> *
>> >> *Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5*
>> >> *34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey *
>> >> *
>> >> *
>> >> *Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1.
>> >> 202.341.3611*
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140318/f040202b/attachment-0004.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1C3073A1-FE98-4F72-BD32-7973F4034728[160].png
Type: image/png
Size: 2793 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140318/f040202b/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140318/f040202b/attachment-0005.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140318/f040202b/attachment-0006.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Joint Statement - IANA Globalization - updated 18 March 2014[2].doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 29696 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140318/f040202b/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140318/f040202b/attachment-0007.html>


From bkuerbis  Tue Mar 18 12:36:35 2014
From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 06:36:35 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on US Government Announcement about
 transfer IANA functions stewardship
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=e+5XHMH7STb2Hu5ko+05Jqusnzo5Y5e6AL_zJOE98-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=e+5XHMH7STb2Hu5ko+05Jqusnzo5Y5e6AL_zJOE98-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CANwsP3A7cuqfgY6Cn2V1s-o+XKTWmKc+Z=S6+fUyRtuRKvPpEw@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Rafik and Milton, I support this statement.

- Brenden
On Mar 16, 2014 9:52 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> (cc NCSG-PC)
>
> Milton volunteered and drafted this statement regarding the NTIA
> announcement. we should be able to discuss (commenting here
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VAkGj39ou5YkypFt0Vwqvyd1FTK31Ojm29s_gX-Ugrw/edit?usp=sharing) and endorse it asap before Singapore meeting to show support and indicate
> our initial positions .
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
>
> ----------statement----------------
>
> NCSG Statement on the globalization of the IANA functions
>
> The Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) welcomes the 13 March 2014
> statement from the U.S. Commerce Department announcing its intention to
> ?transition key Internet domain name functions to the global
> multistakeholder community.? We support this move because an Internet
> governance regime that gives one national government exclusive powers over
> a global resource is bound to be politically biased, divisive and promote
> tendencies toward Internet fragmentation. This change is long overdue.
>
> NCSG supports all 5 of the principles NTIA proposed to guide the
> transition. We agree that the transition should:
>
> ? Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
>
> ? Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
>
> ? Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of
> the IANA services;
>
> ? Maintain the openness of the Internet;
>
> ? Not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental
> organization.
>
> It is very important to replace the current system with a carefully
> considered, well-designed alternative. We note that noncommercial
> stakeholders have been leaders in developing plans for the proposed
> transition. Submissions to the Netmundial conference from two NCSG members,
> the Internet Governance Project and Avri Doria, have set out specific
> blueprints for the transition.
>
> Consistent with both of these proposals, NCSG proposes an additional
> principle to guide the transition. The transition should:
>
> ? Enhance the accountability of ICANN through structural separation of the
> DNS root zone management functions from ICANN?s policy making functions
>
> The root zone management functions, which are currently performed by
> Verisign, Inc. and IANA under contracts with the U.S. government, are
> clerical, technical and operational, The policy making functions of ICANN,
> on the other hand, are highly political. NCSG believes that those two
> aspects of DNS governance must be kept apart, in separate organizations.
> Separating them ensures that those with policy and political objectives
> must win support for their ideas in a fair and open policy development
> process, and cannot arbitrarily impose them upon Internet users and service
> providers by virtue of their control of the operational levers of the
> global domain name system.
>
> The existing IANA contract attempts to keep the two separate; however, if
> ICANN simply absorbs the IANA and Verisign functions without any oversight
> from the U.S. government, there is a danger that the two could become
> integrated and intermingled in unhealthy ways. That is why the NCSG, along
> with supporters from other stakeholder groups, will insist on this new
> principle of separation during the transition process.
>
> The Department of Commerce has asked ICANN to ?conven[e] stakeholders
> across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition
> plan.? Unfortunately, ICANN?s management seems to have interpreted this as
> a mandate to implement its own transition plan, in which it would simply
> take over the IANA functions with no oversight. NCSG wishes to remind ICANN
> that it has been charged with convening a process, not with controlling it.
> The transition will not work unless ICANN runs a truly open and
> deliberative process that allows the all ideas to be considered and the
> best ideas to win.
>
> 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 Non-Profit Operational Constituencies (
> http://www.npoc.org)
> ----------end of statement-------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140318/f2f96dfc/attachment.html>


From avri  Tue Mar 18 12:47:14 2014
From: avri (avri doria)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 06:47:14 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the
	IANA	Globalization Progress?
Message-ID: <2a9uc388gglb5c616dr7phdt.1395139634677@email.android.com>

They are not only proposing a statement, they are pushing it.


avri

Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device

-------- Original message --------
From: William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> 
Date:03/18/2014  06:27  (GMT-05:00) 
To: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org> 
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA	Globalization Progress? 



Begin forwarded message:

From: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>
Subject: Re: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA Globalization Progress?
Date: March 18, 2014 at 11:03:29 AM GMT+1
To: marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl at gih.com)" <ocl at gih.com>, "Drazek, Keith (kdrazek at verisign.com)" <kdrazek at verisign.com>, "liman at netnod.se" <liman at netnod.se>, Patrik F?ltstr?m <paf at netnod.se>, "adiel at afrinic.net" <adiel at afrinic.net>, "'Byron Holland' (byron.holland at cira.ca)" <byron.holland at cira.ca>, "Kristina Rosette (krosette at cov.com)" <krosette at cov.com>, "wjdrake at gmail.com" <wjdrake at gmail.com>, "Tony Holmes (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com)" <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "junsec at wide.ad.jp" <junsec at wide.ad.jp>, "louie at louie.net" <louie at louie.net>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>, "Elisa Cooper (elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com)" <elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>, "heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca" <heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>

Dear SO-AC/SG Leaders:

Please find attached revised redline version which incorporates Patrik's proposed edits, as well as Michele's suggestion.?

How best to ?focus on getting agreement on a high level statement so this could go out before Singapore (as people will have already started traveling).

?Any further detailed statement from SO/AC/SG/C can always follow.

Best regards, ? ? ? ? David

--
David A. Olive
Vice President, Policy Development Support
General Manager, ICANN?Regional Headquarters??Istanbul

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C?K:5
34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey?

Tel: +90.212.381.8727 -?Fax: +90.212.381.8731 -?Mobile: +1. 202.341.3611







From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Date: Monday, March 17, 2014 10:23 PM
To: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>
Cc: marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl at gih.com)" <ocl at gih.com>, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com>, Lars-Johan Liman <liman at netnod.se>, Patrik F?ltstr?m <paf at netnod.se>, "adiel at afrinic.net" <adiel at afrinic.net>, Byron Holland <byron.holland at cira.ca>, "Kristina Rosette (krosette at cov.com)" <krosette at cov.com>, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>, tony holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, Jun Murai <junsec at wide.ad.jp>, "louie at louie.net" <louie at louie.net>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>, "Elisa Cooper (elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com)" <elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>, Heather Dryden <Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>
Subject: Re: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA Globalization Progress?

Hi David,
With feedback from different groups,? is it possible to get an updated version of the statement ? Maybe time to use collaborative tool, at least something like google doc. Otherwise we won't be synchronized.
Rafik
On Mar 18, 2014 2:52 AM, "David Olive" <david.olive at icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, everyone for your cooperation thus far.

Regards, ? ? ?David

--
David A. Olive
Vice President, Policy Development Support
General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5
34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey

Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1. 202.341.3611










On 3/17/14 7:12 PM, "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <michele at blacknight.com>
wrote:

>What Mr Falstrom said (sorry - can't do the funky accents on this
>keyboard easily)
>
>I've also had some input from the Registrar ExCom which I'll try to share
>ASAP
>
>
>
>--
>Mr Michele Neylon
>Blacknight Solutions
>Hosting & Colocation, Domains
>http://www.blacknight.co/
>http://blog.blacknight.com/
>http://www.technology.ie
>Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
>Locall: 1850 929 929
>Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
>Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
>-------------------------------
>Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
>Park,Sleaty
>Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland ?Company No.: 370845
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Patrik F?ltstr?m [mailto:paf at netnod.se]
>Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 5:10 PM
>To: David Olive; liman at netnod.se; 'Byron Holland'
>(byron.holland at cira.ca); Drazek, Keith (kdrazek at verisign.com); Olivier MJ
>Crepin-Leblond (ocl at gih.com); Kristina Rosette (krosette at cov.com);
>wjdrake at gmail.com; Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com); Elisa Cooper
>(elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com); junsec at wide.ad.jp; adiel at afrinic.net;
>louie at louie.net; Jonathan Robinson (jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com); Tony
>Holmes (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com); heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca;
>marie-laure Lemineur (mllemineur at gmail.com); Michele Neylon - Blacknight
>Subject: Re: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA Globalization
>Progress?
>
>Another comment...then I leave my office :-)
>
>I know NTIA wrote "Key Internet Domain Name Functions", but do remember
>that:
>
>ICANN != IANA
>
>IANA != DNS
>
>DNS != Internet
>
>So, please, please, please try to find a way not to continue the
>maddening habit of referring interchangeably to the IANA functions, the
>DNS, and the Internet.
>
>This draft speaks of the intention "to transition key Internet domain
>name functions to the global multistakeholder community," a transition
>plan needing to "maintain..the Internet DNS," and the IANA functions as
>necessary "to ensure the continued security, stability and resiliency of
>the Internet." There's a reference to "global customers and partners of
>the IANA services" but it's ambiguous.
>
> ? Patrik
>
>On 2014-03-17 14:58, David Olive wrote:
>> Dear SO/AC/SG Leaders:
>>
>> Just to add to my earlier note. ? ?Attached is a rough draft which may
>> help to facilitate a joint statement.
>>
>> Comments are welcomed.
>>
>> Regards, ? ? ? David
>>
>> --
>> David A. Olive
>> *Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN
>> Regional Headquarters -Istanbul*
>> *
>> *
>> *Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>> *
>> *Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5*
>> *34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey *
>> *
>> *
>> *Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1.
>> 202.341.3611*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org
>> <mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>
>> Date: Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:42 PM
>> To: Lars-Johan Liman <liman at netnod.se <mailto:liman at netnod.se>>, Byron
>> Holland <byron.holland at cira.ca <mailto:byron.holland at cira.ca>>,
>> "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>,
>> "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>)"
>> <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>>, "Kristina Rosette
>> (krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>)" <krosette at cov.com
>> <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, "Elisa Cooper
>> (elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com <mailto:elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>)"
>> <elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com <mailto:elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>>,
>> Jun Murai <junsec at wide.ad.jp <mailto:junsec at wide.ad.jp>>, Patrik
>> F?ltstr?m <paf at netnod.se <mailto:paf at netnod.se>>, "adiel at afrinic.net
>> <mailto:adiel at afrinic.net>" <adiel at afrinic.net
>> <mailto:adiel at afrinic.net>>, "louie at louie.net <mailto:louie at louie.net>"
>> <louie at louie.net <mailto:louie at louie.net>>, Jonathan Robinson
>> <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
>> <mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>>,
>> tony holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com
>> <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>, Heather Dryden
>> <Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca <mailto:Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>>,
>> marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com
>> <mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight
>> <michele at blacknight.com <mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>
>> Subject: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA Globalization
>> Progress?
>>
>> Dear SO/AC/SG Leaders:
>>
>> In light of our recent conversations about this announcement, ?might
>> it be appropriate for a short joint SO/AC/SG leaders' ?statement
>> welcoming the US Government's announcement of the suggested changes
>> related to the IANA functions contract.
>>
>> Such a statement ?could be an impressive demonstration of ICANN's
>> multistakeholder Community working together and willing to be involved
>> in next steps. ? This document could be shared in Singapore, maybe at
>> the Monday session.
>>
>> An example might be found in the statement by the ?"Internet Technical
>> Leaders Welcome IANA Globalization Progress" ?- attached.
>>
>> Please let me know if there would be any support for drafting ?such a
>> statement. ?I would be ready to assist you in this task, if needed.
>>
>> Regards, ? ? ? ?David
>> --
>> David A. Olive
>> *Vice President, Policy Development Supportthe General Manager, ICANN
>> Regional Headquarters -Istanbul*
>> *
>> *
>> *Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>> *
>> *Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5*
>> *34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey *
>> *
>> *
>> *Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1.
>> 202.341.3611*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140318/341c59bc/attachment-0001.html>


From wjdrake  Tue Mar 18 13:28:58 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:28:58 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
	Globalization Progress?
In-Reply-To: <2a9uc388gglb5c616dr7phdt.1395139634677@email.android.com>
References: <2a9uc388gglb5c616dr7phdt.1395139634677@email.android.com>
Message-ID: <EC4F52C3-D095-46CC-924A-5BB90111B79C@gmail.com>

Just spoke with David Olive, he will write to CCWG clarifying intent.

On Mar 18, 2014, at 11:47 AM, avri doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:

> They are not only proposing a statement, they are pushing it.
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
> 
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: William Drake 
> Date:03/18/2014 06:27 (GMT-05:00) 
> To: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy 
> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA	Globalization Progress? 
> 
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>
>> Subject: Re: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA Globalization Progress?
>> Date: March 18, 2014 at 11:03:29 AM GMT+1
>> To: marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl at gih.com)" <ocl at gih.com>, "Drazek, Keith (kdrazek at verisign.com)" <kdrazek at verisign.com>, "liman at netnod.se" <liman at netnod.se>, Patrik F?ltstr?m <paf at netnod.se>, "adiel at afrinic.net" <adiel at afrinic.net>, "'Byron Holland' (byron.holland at cira.ca)" <byron.holland at cira.ca>, "Kristina Rosette (krosette at cov.com)" <krosette at cov.com>, "wjdrake at gmail.com" <wjdrake at gmail.com>, "Tony Holmes (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com)" <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "junsec at wide.ad.jp" <junsec at wide.ad.jp>, "louie at louie.net" <louie at louie.net>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>, "Elisa Cooper (elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com)" <elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>, "heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca" <heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> 
>> Dear SO-AC/SG Leaders:
>> 
>> Please find attached revised redline version which incorporates Patrik's proposed edits, as well as Michele's suggestion. 
>> 
>> How best to  focus on getting agreement on a high level statement so this could go out before Singapore (as people will have already started traveling).
>> 
>>  Any further detailed statement from SO/AC/SG/C can always follow.
>> 
>> Best regards,         David
>> 
>> --
>> David A. Olive
>> Vice President, Policy Development Support
>> General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul
>> 
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>> Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5
>> 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey 
>> 
>> Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1. 202.341.3611
>> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>> Date: Monday, March 17, 2014 10:23 PM
>> To: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>
>> Cc: marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>, Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl at gih.com)" <ocl at gih.com>, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com>, Lars-Johan Liman <liman at netnod.se>, Patrik F?ltstr?m <paf at netnod.se>, "adiel at afrinic.net" <adiel at afrinic.net>, Byron Holland <byron.holland at cira.ca>, "Kristina Rosette (krosette at cov.com)" <krosette at cov.com>, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>, tony holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, Jun Murai <junsec at wide.ad.jp>, "louie at louie.net" <louie at louie.net>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>, "Elisa Cooper (elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com)" <elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>, Heather Dryden <Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>
>> Subject: Re: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA Globalization Progress?
>> 
>> Hi David,
>> With feedback from different groups,  is it possible to get an updated version of the statement ? Maybe time to use collaborative tool, at least something like google doc. Otherwise we won't be synchronized.
>> Rafik
>> On Mar 18, 2014 2:52 AM, "David Olive" <david.olive at icann.org> wrote:
>>> Thanks, everyone for your cooperation thus far.
>>> 
>>> Regards,      David
>>> 
>>> --
>>> David A. Olive
>>> Vice President, Policy Development Support
>>> General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul
>>> 
>>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>> 
>>> Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5
>>> 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey
>>> 
>>> Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1. 202.341.3611
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 3/17/14 7:12 PM, "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <michele at blacknight.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> >What Mr Falstrom said (sorry - can't do the funky accents on this
>>> >keyboard easily)
>>> >
>>> >I've also had some input from the Registrar ExCom which I'll try to share
>>> >ASAP
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >--
>>> >Mr Michele Neylon
>>> >Blacknight Solutions
>>> >Hosting & Colocation, Domains
>>> >http://www.blacknight.co/
>>> >http://blog.blacknight.com/
>>> >http://www.technology.ie
>>> >Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
>>> >Locall: 1850 929 929
>>> >Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>>> >Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
>>> >Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
>>> >-------------------------------
>>> >Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
>>> >Park,Sleaty
>>> >Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>>> >
>>> >-----Original Message-----
>>> >From: Patrik F?ltstr?m [mailto:paf at netnod.se]
>>> >Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 5:10 PM
>>> >To: David Olive; liman at netnod.se; 'Byron Holland'
>>> >(byron.holland at cira.ca); Drazek, Keith (kdrazek at verisign.com); Olivier MJ
>>> >Crepin-Leblond (ocl at gih.com); Kristina Rosette (krosette at cov.com);
>>> >wjdrake at gmail.com; Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com); Elisa Cooper
>>> >(elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com); junsec at wide.ad.jp; adiel at afrinic.net;
>>> >louie at louie.net; Jonathan Robinson (jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com); Tony
>>> >Holmes (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com); heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca;
>>> >marie-laure Lemineur (mllemineur at gmail.com); Michele Neylon - Blacknight
>>> >Subject: Re: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA Globalization
>>> >Progress?
>>> >
>>> >Another comment...then I leave my office :-)
>>> >
>>> >I know NTIA wrote "Key Internet Domain Name Functions", but do remember
>>> >that:
>>> >
>>> >ICANN != IANA
>>> >
>>> >IANA != DNS
>>> >
>>> >DNS != Internet
>>> >
>>> >So, please, please, please try to find a way not to continue the
>>> >maddening habit of referring interchangeably to the IANA functions, the
>>> >DNS, and the Internet.
>>> >
>>> >This draft speaks of the intention "to transition key Internet domain
>>> >name functions to the global multistakeholder community," a transition
>>> >plan needing to "maintain..the Internet DNS," and the IANA functions as
>>> >necessary "to ensure the continued security, stability and resiliency of
>>> >the Internet." There's a reference to "global customers and partners of
>>> >the IANA services" but it's ambiguous.
>>> >
>>> >   Patrik
>>> >
>>> >On 2014-03-17 14:58, David Olive wrote:
>>> >> Dear SO/AC/SG Leaders:
>>> >>
>>> >> Just to add to my earlier note.    Attached is a rough draft which may
>>> >> help to facilitate a joint statement.
>>> >>
>>> >> Comments are welcomed.
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards,       David
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> David A. Olive
>>> >> *Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN
>>> >> Regional Headquarters -Istanbul*
>>> >> *
>>> >> *
>>> >> *Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>> >> *
>>> >> *Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5*
>>> >> *34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey *
>>> >> *
>>> >> *
>>> >> *Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1.
>>> >> 202.341.3611*
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> From: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org
>>> >> <mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>
>>> >> Date: Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:42 PM
>>> >> To: Lars-Johan Liman <liman at netnod.se <mailto:liman at netnod.se>>, Byron
>>> >> Holland <byron.holland at cira.ca <mailto:byron.holland at cira.ca>>,
>>> >> "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>,
>>> >> "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>)"
>>> >> <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>>, "Kristina Rosette
>>> >> (krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>)" <krosette at cov.com
>>> >> <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>>> >> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>> >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, "Elisa Cooper
>>> >> (elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com <mailto:elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>)"
>>> >> <elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com <mailto:elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>>,
>>> >> Jun Murai <junsec at wide.ad.jp <mailto:junsec at wide.ad.jp>>, Patrik
>>> >> F?ltstr?m <paf at netnod.se <mailto:paf at netnod.se>>, "adiel at afrinic.net
>>> >> <mailto:adiel at afrinic.net>" <adiel at afrinic.net
>>> >> <mailto:adiel at afrinic.net>>, "louie at louie.net <mailto:louie at louie.net>"
>>> >> <louie at louie.net <mailto:louie at louie.net>>, Jonathan Robinson
>>> >> <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
>>> >> <mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>>,
>>> >> tony holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com
>>> >> <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>, Heather Dryden
>>> >> <Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca <mailto:Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>>,
>>> >> marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com
>>> >> <mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight
>>> >> <michele at blacknight.com <mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>
>>> >> Subject: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA Globalization
>>> >> Progress?
>>> >>
>>> >> Dear SO/AC/SG Leaders:
>>> >>
>>> >> In light of our recent conversations about this announcement,  might
>>> >> it be appropriate for a short joint SO/AC/SG leaders'  statement
>>> >> welcoming the US Government's announcement of the suggested changes
>>> >> related to the IANA functions contract.
>>> >>
>>> >> Such a statement  could be an impressive demonstration of ICANN's
>>> >> multistakeholder Community working together and willing to be involved
>>> >> in next steps.   This document could be shared in Singapore, maybe at
>>> >> the Monday session.
>>> >>
>>> >> An example might be found in the statement by the  "Internet Technical
>>> >> Leaders Welcome IANA Globalization Progress"  - attached.
>>> >>
>>> >> Please let me know if there would be any support for drafting  such a
>>> >> statement.  I would be ready to assist you in this task, if needed.
>>> >>
>>> >> Regards,        David
>>> >> --
>>> >> David A. Olive
>>> >> *Vice President, Policy Development Supportthe General Manager, ICANN
>>> >> Regional Headquarters -Istanbul*
>>> >> *
>>> >> *
>>> >> *Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>> >> *
>>> >> *Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5*
>>> >> *34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey *
>>> >> *
>>> >> *
>>> >> *Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1.
>>> >> 202.341.3611*
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
> 
> 
> 
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************
> 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140318/0a171a4a/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Tue Mar 18 13:56:44 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 20:56:44 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
 Globalization Progress?
In-Reply-To: <EC4F52C3-D095-46CC-924A-5BB90111B79C@gmail.com>
References: <2a9uc388gglb5c616dr7phdt.1395139634677@email.android.com>
	<EC4F52C3-D095-46CC-924A-5BB90111B79C@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThmz6fugowZy7V1f5TwMLMCQCcMx8V7YTgHrUbHARUZD_A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Bill,

I am not sure why he will write to CCWG, if because the same person we have
in mind then that person is not going to be convinced anyway. yesterday
call was another  proof, the discussion in the CCWG mailing list too.

Rafik


2014-03-18 20:28 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>:

> Just spoke with David Olive, he will write to CCWG clarifying intent.
>
> On Mar 18, 2014, at 11:47 AM, avri doria <avri at ella.com> wrote:
>
> They are not only proposing a statement, they are pushing it.
>
>
> avri
>
> Sent from a T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: William Drake
> Date:03/18/2014 06:27 (GMT-05:00)
> To: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy
> Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
> Globalization Progress?
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>
> *Subject: **Re: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
> Globalization Progress?*
> *Date: *March 18, 2014 at 11:03:29 AM GMT+1
> *To: *marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>, Jonathan Robinson <
> jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl at gih.com)"
> <ocl at gih.com>, "Drazek, Keith (kdrazek at verisign.com)" <
> kdrazek at verisign.com>, "liman at netnod.se" <liman at netnod.se>, Patrik
> F?ltstr?m <paf at netnod.se>, "adiel at afrinic.net" <adiel at afrinic.net>,
> "'Byron Holland' (byron.holland at cira.ca)" <byron.holland at cira.ca>,
> "Kristina Rosette (krosette at cov.com)" <krosette at cov.com>, "
> wjdrake at gmail.com" <wjdrake at gmail.com>, "Tony Holmes (
> tonyarholmes at btinternet.com)" <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, "
> junsec at wide.ad.jp" <junsec at wide.ad.jp>, "louie at louie.net" <louie at louie.net>,
> Michele Neylon - Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>, "Elisa Cooper (
> elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com)" <elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>, "
> heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca" <heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca>, Rafik Dammak <
> rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>
> Dear SO-AC/SG Leaders:
>
> Please find attached revised redline version which incorporates Patrik's
> proposed edits, as well as Michele's suggestion.
>
> How best to  focus on getting agreement on a high level statement so this
> could go out before Singapore (as people will have already started
> traveling).
>
>  Any further detailed statement from SO/AC/SG/C can always follow.
>
> Best regards,         David
>
> --
> David A. Olive
>
> *Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager,
> ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul*
>
>
> *Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) *
> *Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5*
> *34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey *
>
> *Tel: +90.212.381.8727 <%2B90.212.381.8727> - Fax: +90.212.381.8731
> <%2B90.212.381.8731> - Mobile: +1. 202.341.3611 <%2B1.%20202.341.3611>*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> Date: Monday, March 17, 2014 10:23 PM
> To: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org>
> Cc: marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com>, Jonathan Robinson <
> jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl at gih.com)"
> <ocl at gih.com>, "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com>, Lars-Johan Liman <
> liman at netnod.se>, Patrik F?ltstr?m <paf at netnod.se>, "adiel at afrinic.net" <
> adiel at afrinic.net>, Byron Holland <byron.holland at cira.ca>, "Kristina
> Rosette (krosette at cov.com)" <krosette at cov.com>, William Drake <
> wjdrake at gmail.com>, tony holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>, Jun Murai <
> junsec at wide.ad.jp>, "louie at louie.net" <louie at louie.net>, Michele Neylon -
> Blacknight <michele at blacknight.com>, "Elisa Cooper (
> elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com)" <elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>, Heather
> Dryden <Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>
> Subject: Re: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA Globalization
> Progress?
>
> Hi David,
> With feedback from different groups,  is it possible to get an updated
> version of the statement ? Maybe time to use collaborative tool, at least
> something like google doc. Otherwise we won't be synchronized.
> Rafik
> On Mar 18, 2014 2:52 AM, "David Olive" <david.olive at icann.org> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, everyone for your cooperation thus far.
>>
>> Regards,      David
>>
>> --
>> David A. Olive
>> Vice President, Policy Development Support
>> General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters ?Istanbul
>>
>> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>>
>> Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5
>> 34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey
>>
>> Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1. 202.341.3611
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/17/14 7:12 PM, "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <michele at blacknight.com
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >What Mr Falstrom said (sorry - can't do the funky accents on this
>> >keyboard easily)
>> >
>> >I've also had some input from the Registrar ExCom which I'll try to share
>> >ASAP
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >Mr Michele Neylon
>> >Blacknight Solutions
>> >Hosting & Colocation, Domains
>> >http://www.blacknight.co/
>> >http://blog.blacknight.com/
>> >http://www.technology.ie
>> >Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072
>> >Locall: 1850 929 929
>> >Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
>> >Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763
>> >Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
>> >-------------------------------
>> >Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business
>> >Park,Sleaty
>> >Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845
>> >
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Patrik F?ltstr?m [mailto:paf at netnod.se]
>> >Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 5:10 PM
>> >To: David Olive; liman at netnod.se; 'Byron Holland'
>> >(byron.holland at cira.ca); Drazek, Keith (kdrazek at verisign.com); Olivier
>> MJ
>> >Crepin-Leblond (ocl at gih.com); Kristina Rosette (krosette at cov.com);
>> >wjdrake at gmail.com; Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com); Elisa Cooper
>> >(elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com); junsec at wide.ad.jp; adiel at afrinic.net;
>> >louie at louie.net; Jonathan Robinson (jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com); Tony
>> >Holmes (tonyarholmes at btinternet.com); heather.dryden at ic.gc.ca;
>> >marie-laure Lemineur (mllemineur at gmail.com); Michele Neylon - Blacknight
>> >Subject: Re: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA Globalization
>> >Progress?
>> >
>> >Another comment...then I leave my office :-)
>> >
>> >I know NTIA wrote "Key Internet Domain Name Functions", but do remember
>> >that:
>> >
>> >ICANN != IANA
>> >
>> >IANA != DNS
>> >
>> >DNS != Internet
>> >
>> >So, please, please, please try to find a way not to continue the
>> >maddening habit of referring interchangeably to the IANA functions, the
>> >DNS, and the Internet.
>> >
>> >This draft speaks of the intention "to transition key Internet domain
>> >name functions to the global multistakeholder community," a transition
>> >plan needing to "maintain..the Internet DNS," and the IANA functions as
>> >necessary "to ensure the continued security, stability and resiliency of
>> >the Internet." There's a reference to "global customers and partners of
>> >the IANA services" but it's ambiguous.
>> >
>> >   Patrik
>> >
>> >On 2014-03-17 14:58, David Olive wrote:
>> >> Dear SO/AC/SG Leaders:
>> >>
>> >> Just to add to my earlier note.    Attached is a rough draft which may
>> >> help to facilitate a joint statement.
>> >>
>> >> Comments are welcomed.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,       David
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> David A. Olive
>> >> *Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN
>> >> Regional Headquarters -Istanbul*
>> >> *
>> >> *
>> >> *Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>> >> *
>> >> *Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5*
>> >> *34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey *
>> >> *
>> >> *
>> >> *Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1.
>> >> 202.341.3611*
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> From: David Olive <david.olive at icann.org
>> >> <mailto:david.olive at icann.org>>
>> >> Date: Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:42 PM
>> >> To: Lars-Johan Liman <liman at netnod.se <mailto:liman at netnod.se>>, Byron
>> >> Holland <byron.holland at cira.ca <mailto:byron.holland at cira.ca>>,
>> >> "Drazek, Keith" <kdrazek at verisign.com <mailto:kdrazek at verisign.com>>,
>> >> "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>)"
>> >> <ocl at gih.com <mailto:ocl at gih.com>>, "Kristina Rosette
>> >> (krosette at cov.com <mailto:krosette at cov.com>)" <krosette at cov.com
>> >> <mailto:krosette at cov.com>>, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com
>> >> <mailto:wjdrake at gmail.com>>, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> >> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>, "Elisa Cooper
>> >> (elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com <mailto:elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>)"
>> >> <elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com <mailto:elisa.cooper at markmonitor.com>>,
>> >> Jun Murai <junsec at wide.ad.jp <mailto:junsec at wide.ad.jp>>, Patrik
>> >> F?ltstr?m <paf at netnod.se <mailto:paf at netnod.se>>, "adiel at afrinic.net
>> >> <mailto:adiel at afrinic.net>" <adiel at afrinic.net
>> >> <mailto:adiel at afrinic.net>>, "louie at louie.net <mailto:louie at louie.net
>> >"
>> >> <louie at louie.net <mailto:louie at louie.net>>, Jonathan Robinson
>> >> <jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com
>> >> <mailto:jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com>>,
>> >> tony holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com
>> >> <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>>, Heather Dryden
>> >> <Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca <mailto:Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>>,
>> >> marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com
>> >> <mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>>, Michele Neylon - Blacknight
>> >> <michele at blacknight.com <mailto:michele at blacknight.com>>
>> >> Subject: Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA Globalization
>> >> Progress?
>> >>
>> >> Dear SO/AC/SG Leaders:
>> >>
>> >> In light of our recent conversations about this announcement,  might
>> >> it be appropriate for a short joint SO/AC/SG leaders'  statement
>> >> welcoming the US Government's announcement of the suggested changes
>> >> related to the IANA functions contract.
>> >>
>> >> Such a statement  could be an impressive demonstration of ICANN's
>> >> multistakeholder Community working together and willing to be involved
>> >> in next steps.   This document could be shared in Singapore, maybe at
>> >> the Monday session.
>> >>
>> >> An example might be found in the statement by the  "Internet Technical
>> >> Leaders Welcome IANA Globalization Progress"  - attached.
>> >>
>> >> Please let me know if there would be any support for drafting  such a
>> >> statement.  I would be ready to assist you in this task, if needed.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,        David
>> >> --
>> >> David A. Olive
>> >> *Vice President, Policy Development Supportthe General Manager, ICANN
>> >> Regional Headquarters -Istanbul*
>> >> *
>> >> *
>> >> *Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>> >> *
>> >> *Hakki Yeten Cad. Selenium Plaza No:10/C K:5*
>> >> *34349 Fulya, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey *
>> >> *
>> >> *
>> >> *Tel: +90.212.381.8727 - Fax: +90.212.381.8731 - Mobile: +1.
>> >> 202.341.3611*
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************
>
>
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140318/0f33da96/attachment-0001.html>


From dave  Tue Mar 18 18:24:49 2014
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 00:24:49 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Meeting in Singapore
Message-ID: <AB91C000-4C8A-41BD-AE9E-963ECE199B9F@difference.com.au>

	Is there going to be an NCSG-PC meeting in Singapore, as there has been in the last few meetings? 
	I just realised there isn't one on the public schedule, and we don't seem to have discussed it. There is time set aside on Sunday afternoon for SG/C meetings (4.30- 6.300
	Regards
		David
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140319/b72d959c/attachment.sig>


From stephanie.perrin  Tue Mar 18 23:55:46 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 17:55:46 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Meeting in Singapore
In-Reply-To: <AB91C000-4C8A-41BD-AE9E-963ECE199B9F@difference.com.au>
References: <AB91C000-4C8A-41BD-AE9E-963ECE199B9F@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <BB6DCD1F-23CC-43FF-97C9-4B3CAC1ECBAA@mail.utoronto.ca>

I am supposed to be in a three day EWG working session on the 20, 21, 22.  I can nip out for various things (as long as someone doesn?t decide to rewrite certain bits of the report whilst I am gone) but I need to know what things are priorities?if anyone has views on when i should be there. And since I really want to contribute to the policy committee, I would cut class and come to such a meeting were we to hold one. 
cheers Stephanie
On Mar 18, 2014, at 12:24 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:

> 	Is there going to be an NCSG-PC meeting in Singapore, as there has been in the last few meetings? 
> 	I just realised there isn't one on the public schedule, and we don't seem to have discussed it. There is time set aside on Sunday afternoon for SG/C meetings (4.30- 6.300
> 	Regards
> 		David
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From rafik.dammak  Wed Mar 19 03:47:59 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 10:47:59 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Meeting in Singapore
In-Reply-To: <AB91C000-4C8A-41BD-AE9E-963ECE199B9F@difference.com.au>
References: <AB91C000-4C8A-41BD-AE9E-963ECE199B9F@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkJbNBWUH_v5E88tnVhKgcUOicrkEtdnWVykz3ioUxg8w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi David,

yes there is PC meeting in Sunday 16:30-18:30 and that was indicated in
draft schedules I sent previously. for schedule:

   -
   https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Current+NCSG+Meetings+-+Post+October+2012+ICANN+Annual+Meeting
   -
   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsJI0CB4QegidFY4Y0VtOUh6NmRnTW1tWXV4clFrRUE&usp=drive_web#gid=0



it will be great to update policy the wiki space to track the current work
and decision
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Policy+Development
Best Regards,

Rafik

2014-03-19 1:24 GMT+09:00 David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>:

>         Is there going to be an NCSG-PC meeting in Singapore, as there has
> been in the last few meetings?
>         I just realised there isn't one on the public schedule, and we
> don't seem to have discussed it. There is time set aside on Sunday
> afternoon for SG/C meetings (4.30- 6.300
>         Regards
>                 David
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140319/d84277f6/attachment.html>


From dave  Wed Mar 19 06:12:01 2014
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 12:12:01 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Meeting in Singapore
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThkJbNBWUH_v5E88tnVhKgcUOicrkEtdnWVykz3ioUxg8w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AB91C000-4C8A-41BD-AE9E-963ECE199B9F@difference.com.au>
	<CAH5sThkJbNBWUH_v5E88tnVhKgcUOicrkEtdnWVykz3ioUxg8w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B9BA84DB-A150-4EC0-B6FC-FA3C6C376D5D@difference.com.au>

My question then becomes why isn't it on the public schedule?

Cheers

David

On 19 Mar 2014, at 9:47 am, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi David,
> 
> yes there is PC meeting in Sunday 16:30-18:30 and that was indicated in draft schedules I sent previously. for schedule:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Current+NCSG+Meetings+-+Post+October+2012+ICANN+Annual+Meeting
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsJI0CB4QegidFY4Y0VtOUh6NmRnTW1tWXV4clFrRUE&usp=drive_web#gid=0 
> 
> it will be great to update policy the wiki space to track the current work and decision https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Policy+Development  
> Best Regards,
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 2014-03-19 1:24 GMT+09:00 David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>:
>         Is there going to be an NCSG-PC meeting in Singapore, as there has been in the last few meetings?
>         I just realised there isn't one on the public schedule, and we don't seem to have discussed it. There is time set aside on Sunday afternoon for SG/C meetings (4.30- 6.300
>         Regards
>                 David
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140319/709aa6f5/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140319/709aa6f5/attachment.sig>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Mar 19 06:18:30 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 13:18:30 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Meeting in Singapore
In-Reply-To: <B9BA84DB-A150-4EC0-B6FC-FA3C6C376D5D@difference.com.au>
References: <AB91C000-4C8A-41BD-AE9E-963ECE199B9F@difference.com.au>
	<CAH5sThkJbNBWUH_v5E88tnVhKgcUOicrkEtdnWVykz3ioUxg8w@mail.gmail.com>
	<B9BA84DB-A150-4EC0-B6FC-FA3C6C376D5D@difference.com.au>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=VTJ7RxF+Gi6JtJa-pPdS4vWYXo50T4ocq-S6KwxEOeg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi David,

why it should be? it is during the SGs time in sunday.

Best,
Rafik

2014-03-19 13:12 GMT+09:00 David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>:

> My question then becomes why isn't it on the public schedule?
>
> Cheers
>
> David
>
> On 19 Mar 2014, at 9:47 am, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi David,
>
> yes there is PC meeting in Sunday 16:30-18:30 and that was indicated in
> draft schedules I sent previously. for schedule:
>
>    -
>    https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Current+NCSG+Meetings+-+Post+October+2012+ICANN+Annual+Meeting
>    -
>    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsJI0CB4QegidFY4Y0VtOUh6NmRnTW1tWXV4clFrRUE&usp=drive_web#gid=0
>
>
>
> it will be great to update policy the wiki space to track the current work
> and decision
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Policy+Development
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2014-03-19 1:24 GMT+09:00 David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>:
>
>>         Is there going to be an NCSG-PC meeting in Singapore, as there
>> has been in the last few meetings?
>>         I just realised there isn't one on the public schedule, and we
>> don't seem to have discussed it. There is time set aside on Sunday
>> afternoon for SG/C meetings (4.30- 6.300
>>         Regards
>>                 David
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140319/bfbb7ac0/attachment.html>


From wjdrake  Mon Mar 17 21:48:26 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 20:48:26 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Joint SO/AC/SG Leaders' Statement on the IANA
	Globalization Progress?
In-Reply-To: <532746AD.6080708@acm.org>
References: <CF4BD953.3155C%david.olive@icann.org>	<CF4CCB38.31754%david.olive@icann.org>	<CAH5sThkng2PmKX5ziwxDyXeHTu+OJajejYRf1aMxiMHe1KFgSw@mail.gmail.com>	<CAD3sNqFR-2MqGRzNSuL6vMj=ZrvUbs_cwfOMt7F-taatusv0XQ@mail.gmail.com>	<CAH5sThmhw_EzfaMq2=wnu5AuU3QjfTw8BW5WYxdeTUxYyh9HgA@mail.gmail.com>	<D36B8C76-4759-4A99-BE40-20D92963531E@egyptig.org>
	<777E4548-57A7-4642-A147-FDF5340E1AF9@gmail.com>
	<532746AD.6080708@acm.org>
Message-ID: <E8CBF267-ED36-4CC0-874E-556560932940@gmail.com>


On Mar 17, 2014, at 8:02 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> I think it is more important to get an NCSG stmt out than to wait for the Leaders to do one.

The silo leads are consulting with their respective groups on language, which is how it should be, and in response proposing revisions.  I?d like to see the same thing happening here, frankly. Nobody reads the PC list, including it seems some of the PC.   An issue of this magnitude should not be handled in the same manner as a council motion on procedural arcana etc.  We should consult more broadly rather than just going off what and doing what a few people want.  

I don?t see the argument for rushing, especially since the vast majority of our members probably have not read and thought through the relevant proposals.  It?s a moment that be leveraged to try to get broader engagement and buy in, and there?s no pressure to be the first silo into the pool.
> 
> And i think it is more important to make the extra point thant to accept the lowest common denominator.

If so, then why not propose language to that effect into the SOAC process in the same way the others are?  See if there?s support for it.
> 
> So if the idea is to wait until the leaders have made up their mind, and thus delay, I say never mind, just send the NCSG stmt.

Misconstruction of the process.
> 
> And if Amr is right, then don't bother signing the Leader's stmt.  I did not see the issue.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 17-Mar-14 14:52, William Drake wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> I think Amr?s right about the thinking behind "transition key Internet
>> domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community.?
>> 
>> Insofar as this statement could be read as at odds with the one being
>> pushed within NCSG, I?m not clear how we could endorse both.  In any
>> event, you might want to hold of and see how things evolve rather than
>> rush; the world doesn?t need to hear from us before anyone else.
>>  Different groups in the SO/AC are proposing amendments and the text is
>> not stable.
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG
>> <mailto:aelsadr at EGYPTIG.ORG>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I have a question. The first paragraph stating that:
>>> 
>>>> We, the signatories to this statement, welcome the announcement by
>>>> the U.S. Commerce Department?s National Telecommunications and
>>>> Information Administration (NTIA) to transition key Internet domain
>>>> name functions to the global multistakeholder community, a
>>>> development that was envisaged since the early days of the Internet
>>>> Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions contract.
>>> 
>>> Isn?t this a little different than saying that we welcome the
>>> announcement, and the opportunity for the global mulistakeholder
>>> community to collectively develop a proposal/plan for the transition,
>>> rather than a transition TO THE global multistakeholder community?
>>> 
>>> Just wondering if I?m reading it right or not.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 5:26 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Marie-Laure,
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Hope we got endorsement soon, also being synchronized.
>>>> 
>>>> Best,
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 18, 2014 12:53 AM, "marie-laure Lemineur"
>>>> <mllemineur at gmail.com <mailto:mllemineur at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>    Hi,
>>>> 
>>>>    We need to discuss this at our excom level. But I think we will
>>>>    join, since we already issued a statement, if we want to be
>>>>    consistent we should also support this statement.
>>>> 
>>>>    I will let you know in the course of the day-.
>>>>    best,
>>>> 
>>>>    mll
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>>>    <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>        Hello,
>>>> 
>>>>        proposal for statement to be signed by SO/AC/SG "leaders" .
>>>>        reviewing it, I think that I can sign it and hope to get
>>>>        support from you on this matter. we will need the
>>>>        cross-community work in the coming months.
>>>> 
>>>>        Best Regards,
>>>> 
>>>>        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




From rafik.dammak  Wed Mar 19 13:11:46 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 20:11:46 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on US Government Announcement about
 transfer IANA functions stewardship
In-Reply-To: <53270304.3010902@acm.org>
References: <CAH5sTh=e+5XHMH7STb2Hu5ko+05Jqusnzo5Y5e6AL_zJOE98-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<3AD35A31-5242-4406-9E0B-60975BBDE836@egyptig.org>
	<5326D59D.3080507@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThk9fzfm2xOE-7U5hhsnAG=xYZJt=3no8X04vBSvApC2+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<6D571200-F051-4E8E-9E73-34CD62269CE3@egyptig.org>
	<95E55882-DEB1-4900-B692-D8BC23D2C43B@isoc.be>
	<53270304.3010902@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThn=PZ0E+FQrpHqLpFjHYKGMn-N1bB_2VdeKKQO-P2=Zig@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

I saw support within the list, same in PC.
I am ready to send the statement.

Best Regards,

Rafik
On Mar 17, 2014 11:13 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Fantastic.
>
> Do we have endorsement from NCUC too.  what a great day that would be.
>
> Though there may already enough NCUC voices, with no member voices
> against, that we may be able to call it rough consensus and one of our
> leaders can put it out!
>
> avri
>
>
> On 17-Mar-14 09:48, Rudi Vansnick wrote:
>
>> And you may add NPOC?s support to the NCSG statement ..
>>
>> Rudi Vansnick
>> NPOC chair Policy Committee
>> NPOC treasurer
>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
>>
>> Op 17-mrt.-2014, om 13:32 heeft Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>  Hi,
>>>
>>> So far, Avri, Klaus and I have accepted endorsing the NCSG statement
>>> drafted by Milton.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Amr
>>>
>>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi Rudi,
>>>>
>>>> thanks for sharing the NPOC statement, any feedback on the NCSG
>>>> statement?
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2014-03-17 19:59 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Hi,
>>>>
>>>>     So did NPOC get its statement out before NCSG?
>>>>
>>>>     Efficient.
>>>>
>>>>     avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     _________________________________________________
>>>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/__listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>     <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140319/4b91230c/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Wed Mar 19 21:57:36 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 03:57:36 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on US Government Announcement about
	transfer IANA functions stewardship
In-Reply-To: <53270304.3010902@acm.org>
References: <CAH5sTh=e+5XHMH7STb2Hu5ko+05Jqusnzo5Y5e6AL_zJOE98-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<3AD35A31-5242-4406-9E0B-60975BBDE836@egyptig.org>
	<5326D59D.3080507@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThk9fzfm2xOE-7U5hhsnAG=xYZJt=3no8X04vBSvApC2+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<6D571200-F051-4E8E-9E73-34CD62269CE3@egyptig.org>
	<95E55882-DEB1-4900-B692-D8BC23D2C43B@isoc.be>
	<53270304.3010902@acm.org>
Message-ID: <9C65923B-79C6-4F63-AE47-5ACE5DE48C9B@mail.utoronto.ca>

+1 did we catch the typo in the second last paragraph, all and the are in wrong order
Stephanie

Sent from my iPad

> On Mar 17, 2014, at 10:13 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Fantastic.
> 
> Do we have endorsement from NCUC too.  what a great day that would be.
> 
> Though there may already enough NCUC voices, with no member voices against, that we may be able to call it rough consensus and one of our leaders can put it out!
> 
> avri
> 
> 
>> On 17-Mar-14 09:48, Rudi Vansnick wrote:
>> And you may add NPOC?s support to the NCSG statement ..
>> 
>> Rudi Vansnick
>> NPOC chair Policy Committee
>> NPOC treasurer
>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
>> 
>> Op 17-mrt.-2014, om 13:32 heeft Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
>> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> So far, Avri, Klaus and I have accepted endorsing the NCSG statement
>>> drafted by Milton.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Rudi,
>>>> 
>>>> thanks for sharing the NPOC statement, any feedback on the NCSG
>>>> statement?
>>>> 
>>>> Best
>>>> 
>>>> Rafik
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 2014-03-17 19:59 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    Hi,
>>>> 
>>>>    So did NPOC get its statement out before NCSG?
>>>> 
>>>>    Efficient.
>>>> 
>>>>    avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    _________________________________________________
>>>>    PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>    PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>    http://mailman.ipjustice.org/__listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>    <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg



From avri  Thu Mar 20 08:33:15 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:33:15 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
Message-ID: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>

hi,

Glen caught up with me and asked about our candidate, if any.  I told we 
would have and answer by the weekend.


If we can't pick one then perhaps we should make the best of a bad thing 
and endorse BillG. and get it over with. I.e. we should go long to get 
along.  Or maybe BillD's secret candidate will wow everyone.  But at 
this point, we should make a decision tomorrow (Friday) about what we 
want to do, one way or another.


avri



From rafik.dammak  Thu Mar 20 08:42:58 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:42:58 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=qgyzMcFH7JnrhSgPay_d1vb=Z3DRG4fDahyO=7=L+Dw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Avri,

I understand Glen concern but I think that we can respond by monday, we
will have enough time to decide and nominate by monday.
It will be complicated to decided in friday .

Rafik
On Mar 20, 2014 3:34 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> hi,
>
> Glen caught up with me and asked about our candidate, if any.  I told we
> would have and answer by the weekend.
>
>
> If we can't pick one then perhaps we should make the best of a bad thing
> and endorse BillG. and get it over with. I.e. we should go long to get
> along.  Or maybe BillD's secret candidate will wow everyone.  But at this
> point, we should make a decision tomorrow (Friday) about what we want to
> do, one way or another.
>
>
> avri
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140320/fab3d127/attachment.html>


From avri  Thu Mar 20 08:49:45 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:49:45 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=qgyzMcFH7JnrhSgPay_d1vb=Z3DRG4fDahyO=7=L+Dw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=qgyzMcFH7JnrhSgPay_d1vb=Z3DRG4fDahyO=7=L+Dw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <532A8F89.4030304@acm.org>

ok.  someone should catch up with her and tell her I was wrong.

avri


On 20-Mar-14 14:42, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Avri,
>
> I understand Glen concern but I think that we can respond by monday, we
> will have enough time to decide and nominate by monday.
> It will be complicated to decided in friday .
>
> Rafik
>
> On Mar 20, 2014 3:34 PM, "Avri Doria" <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>     hi,
>
>     Glen caught up with me and asked about our candidate, if any.  I
>     told we would have and answer by the weekend.
>
>
>     If we can't pick one then perhaps we should make the best of a bad
>     thing and endorse BillG. and get it over with. I.e. we should go
>     long to get along.  Or maybe BillD's secret candidate will wow
>     everyone.  But at this point, we should make a decision tomorrow
>     (Friday) about what we want to do, one way or another.
>
>
>     avri
>
>     _________________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/__listinfo/pc-ncsg
>     <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
>



From wjdrake  Thu Mar 20 10:16:44 2014
From: wjdrake (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 16:16:44 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
Message-ID: <8BCBF201-1916-4A4C-83CF-9311113C4BAC@gmail.com>

Avri

On Mar 20, 2014, at 2:33 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> hi,
> 
> Glen caught up with me and asked about our candidate, if any.  I told we would have and answer by the weekend.
> 
> 
> If we can't pick one then perhaps we should make the best of a bad thing and endorse BillG. and get it over with. I.e. we should go long to get along.  Or maybe BillD's secret candidate will wow everyone.

So secret even I don?t know who you?re talking about.

>  But at this point, we should make a decision tomorrow (Friday) about what we want to do, one way or another.

Anyway, on the house list I?d been arguing for an open field in case of other candidates and against direction at the SG level so the six are not locked into a bloc and a candidate could conceivably pick off a constituency.  But then you said what we did last year was fine.  So they announced that they will again nominate one, vote as a directed bloc, and Bill?s their guy.  So at this point, it is mathematically impossible for an NCSG candidate to beat him, which sort of raises the question of why both voting, but whatever.  So our choices now are either a) one or more of the NCSG councilors vote for their candidate, or b) none of them do?not sure what the bylaws say if no candidate gets 8.

BD


From mllemineur  Thu Mar 20 11:03:36 2014
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:03:36 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqFPbRJidyLn8enFCg0dF86fNJ9xa-_kbcxbxC7k9UgR8Q@mail.gmail.com>

hi,

My proposal, Sam Lanfranco. See you tomorrow on Friday in Singapore.

best,
mll


On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> hi,
>
> Glen caught up with me and asked about our candidate, if any.  I told we
> would have and answer by the weekend.
>
>
> If we can't pick one then perhaps we should make the best of a bad thing
> and endorse BillG. and get it over with. I.e. we should go long to get
> along.  Or maybe BillD's secret candidate will wow everyone.  But at this
> point, we should make a decision tomorrow (Friday) about what we want to
> do, one way or another.
>
>
> avri
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140320/63d72f83/attachment-0001.html>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Mar 20 11:16:52 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:16:52 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqFPbRJidyLn8enFCg0dF86fNJ9xa-_kbcxbxC7k9UgR8Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
	<CAD3sNqFPbRJidyLn8enFCg0dF86fNJ9xa-_kbcxbxC7k9UgR8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnp8=jVpB3ZqUCV6E-GsG7Ypbc2K-hPnReFkCtmO4ZU1Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Marie-laure,
Thanks, we will wait for other proposals and I will discuss about the
nomination.
Is sam in singapore this weekend?

Best,

Rafik
On Mar 20, 2014 6:04 PM, "marie-laure Lemineur" <mllemineur at gmail.com>
wrote:

> hi,
>
> My proposal, Sam Lanfranco. See you tomorrow on Friday in Singapore.
>
> best,
> mll
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> hi,
>>
>> Glen caught up with me and asked about our candidate, if any.  I told we
>> would have and answer by the weekend.
>>
>>
>> If we can't pick one then perhaps we should make the best of a bad thing
>> and endorse BillG. and get it over with. I.e. we should go long to get
>> along.  Or maybe BillD's secret candidate will wow everyone.  But at this
>> point, we should make a decision tomorrow (Friday) about what we want to
>> do, one way or another.
>>
>>
>> avri
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140320/968c39dd/attachment.html>


From mllemineur  Thu Mar 20 11:20:58 2014
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:20:58 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThnp8=jVpB3ZqUCV6E-GsG7Ypbc2K-hPnReFkCtmO4ZU1Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
	<CAD3sNqFPbRJidyLn8enFCg0dF86fNJ9xa-_kbcxbxC7k9UgR8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThnp8=jVpB3ZqUCV6E-GsG7Ypbc2K-hPnReFkCtmO4ZU1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqH4RZP6_iK3LEkOj3i_KL9pscqcYHRGQPc5vtsNYcN=ZQ@mail.gmail.com>

yep. we have an event on Sarturday Hullet room on DNS in development with
the DNA and PIR. he will be one of the speaker. You are all free to pop up
and we will finish ritgh before 16.00 thus if you can come during the
event, we can always meet after, or you and him. As you wish. Just let us
know. I am in transit in Frankfurt right now.

salut,
ml


On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Marie-laure,
> Thanks, we will wait for other proposals and I will discuss about the
> nomination.
> Is sam in singapore this weekend?
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
> On Mar 20, 2014 6:04 PM, "marie-laure Lemineur" <mllemineur at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> hi,
>>
>> My proposal, Sam Lanfranco. See you tomorrow on Friday in Singapore.
>>
>> best,
>> mll
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> Glen caught up with me and asked about our candidate, if any.  I told we
>>> would have and answer by the weekend.
>>>
>>>
>>> If we can't pick one then perhaps we should make the best of a bad thing
>>> and endorse BillG. and get it over with. I.e. we should go long to get
>>> along.  Or maybe BillD's secret candidate will wow everyone.  But at this
>>> point, we should make a decision tomorrow (Friday) about what we want to
>>> do, one way or another.
>>>
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140320/e7ac76cc/attachment.html>


From avri  Thu Mar 20 11:23:13 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:23:13 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <8BCBF201-1916-4A4C-83CF-9311113C4BAC@gmail.com>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
	<8BCBF201-1916-4A4C-83CF-9311113C4BAC@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <532AB381.1080909@acm.org>


Hi,

I was just trying to be amenable. And just because I am fine with 
something doesn't mean anything.

You know  "play along to get along," my new motto.

I am fine with us not offering a candidate.  I agree, if they are voting 
as a block it is a farce.  So why play?


avri

On 20-Mar-14 16:16, William Drake wrote:
> Avri
>
> On Mar 20, 2014, at 2:33 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>
>> hi,
>>
>> Glen caught up with me and asked about our candidate, if any.  I told we would have and answer by the weekend.
>>
>>
>> If we can't pick one then perhaps we should make the best of a bad thing and endorse BillG. and get it over with. I.e. we should go long to get along.  Or maybe BillD's secret candidate will wow everyone.
>
> So secret even I don?t know who you?re talking about.
>
>>   But at this point, we should make a decision tomorrow (Friday) about what we want to do, one way or another.
>
> Anyway, on the house list I?d been arguing for an open field in case of other candidates and against direction at the SG level so the six are not locked into a bloc and a candidate could conceivably pick off a constituency.  But then you said what we did last year was fine.  So they announced that they will again nominate one, vote as a directed bloc, and Bill?s their guy.  So at this point, it is mathematically impossible for an NCSG candidate to beat him, which sort of raises the question of why both voting, but whatever.  So our choices now are either a) one or more of the NCSG councilors vote for their candidate, or b) none of them do?not sure what the bylaws say if no candidate gets 8.
>
> BD
>



From aelsadr  Thu Mar 20 11:40:52 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:40:52 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <CAD3sNqH4RZP6_iK3LEkOj3i_KL9pscqcYHRGQPc5vtsNYcN=ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
	<CAD3sNqFPbRJidyLn8enFCg0dF86fNJ9xa-_kbcxbxC7k9UgR8Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThnp8=jVpB3ZqUCV6E-GsG7Ypbc2K-hPnReFkCtmO4ZU1Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAD3sNqH4RZP6_iK3LEkOj3i_KL9pscqcYHRGQPc5vtsNYcN=ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7CA36BA6-0CF4-4813-98EF-56C6A81DC2C8@egyptig.org>

Sorry I?m going to miss the event, Marie-Laure, but it conflicts with the GNSO weekend sessions. Good luck with it.

I agree that the voting by bloc (which is where we are right now) is ridiculous. I fly out in a few hours, but will try to check the by-laws in the event of a deadlock. I?m also curious what the outcome would be. Didn?t someone once say we forfeit our Board seat in that scenario??

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 20, 2014, at 10:20 AM, marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur at gmail.com> wrote:

> yep. we have an event on Sarturday Hullet room on DNS in development with the DNA and PIR. he will be one of the speaker. You are all free to pop up and we will finish ritgh before 16.00 thus if you can come during the event, we can always meet after, or you and him. As you wish. Just let us know. I am in transit in Frankfurt right now. 
> 
> salut,
> ml
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:16 AM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Marie-laure,
> Thanks, we will wait for other proposals and I will discuss about the nomination.
> Is sam in singapore this weekend?
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> On Mar 20, 2014 6:04 PM, "marie-laure Lemineur" <mllemineur at gmail.com> wrote:
> hi,
> 
> My proposal, Sam Lanfranco. See you tomorrow on Friday in Singapore.
> 
> best,
> mll
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> hi,
> 
> Glen caught up with me and asked about our candidate, if any.  I told we would have and answer by the weekend.
> 
> 
> If we can't pick one then perhaps we should make the best of a bad thing and endorse BillG. and get it over with. I.e. we should go long to get along.  Or maybe BillD's secret candidate will wow everyone.  But at this point, we should make a decision tomorrow (Friday) about what we want to do, one way or another.
> 
> 
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140320/f1a632a8/attachment-0001.html>


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter  Thu Mar 20 11:48:17 2014
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 10:48:17 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
	<8BCBF201-1916-4A4C-83CF-9311113C4BAC@gmail.com>
	<532AB381.1080909@acm.org>
Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016420CE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

I did not follow all the discussion due to my specific circumstances. My understanding was that Avri will be a candidate for this GNSO board seat. What has changed?
 
wolfgang

________________________________

Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Do 20.03.2014 10:23
Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy
Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] board candidate




Hi,

I was just trying to be amenable. And just because I am fine with
something doesn't mean anything.

You know  "play along to get along," my new motto.

I am fine with us not offering a candidate.  I agree, if they are voting
as a block it is a farce.  So why play?


avri

On 20-Mar-14 16:16, William Drake wrote:
> Avri
>
> On Mar 20, 2014, at 2:33 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>
>> hi,
>>
>> Glen caught up with me and asked about our candidate, if any.  I told we would have and answer by the weekend.
>>
>>
>> If we can't pick one then perhaps we should make the best of a bad thing and endorse BillG. and get it over with. I.e. we should go long to get along.  Or maybe BillD's secret candidate will wow everyone.
>
> So secret even I don't know who you're talking about.
>
>>   But at this point, we should make a decision tomorrow (Friday) about what we want to do, one way or another.
>
> Anyway, on the house list I'd been arguing for an open field in case of other candidates and against direction at the SG level so the six are not locked into a bloc and a candidate could conceivably pick off a constituency.  But then you said what we did last year was fine.  So they announced that they will again nominate one, vote as a directed bloc, and Bill's their guy.  So at this point, it is mathematically impossible for an NCSG candidate to beat him, which sort of raises the question of why both voting, but whatever.  So our choices now are either a) one or more of the NCSG councilors vote for their candidate, or b) none of them do...not sure what the bylaws say if no candidate gets 8.
>
> BD
>

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





From avri  Thu Mar 20 11:57:45 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 17:57:45 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016420CE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
	<8BCBF201-1916-4A4C-83CF-9311113C4BAC@gmail.com>
	<532AB381.1080909@acm.org>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016420CE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <532ABB99.2030307@acm.org>

Hi,

I was never actually nominated - just made myself available for 
nomination - and some were kind of enough to say they would nominate me. 
Now we have Sam as a nominee.  So if I were to be nominated, we would 
have to come up with a method of choosing in the NCSG.

But thanks for asking.

avri


On 20-Mar-14 17:48, "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> I did not follow all the discussion due to my specific circumstances.
> My understanding was that Avri will be a candidate for this GNSO
> board seat. What has changed?
>
> wolfgang
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria
> Gesendet: Do 20.03.2014 10:23 Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy
> Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I was just trying to be amenable. And just because I am fine with
> something doesn't mean anything.
>
> You know  "play along to get along," my new motto.
>
> I am fine with us not offering a candidate.  I agree, if they are
> voting as a block it is a farce.  So why play?
>
>
> avri
>
> On 20-Mar-14 16:16, William Drake wrote:
>> Avri
>>
>> On Mar 20, 2014, at 2:33 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> Glen caught up with me and asked about our candidate, if any.  I
>>> told we would have and answer by the weekend.
>>>
>>>
>>> If we can't pick one then perhaps we should make the best of a
>>> bad thing and endorse BillG. and get it over with. I.e. we should
>>> go long to get along.  Or maybe BillD's secret candidate will wow
>>> everyone.
>>
>> So secret even I don't know who you're talking about.
>>
>>> But at this point, we should make a decision tomorrow (Friday)
>>> about what we want to do, one way or another.
>>
>> Anyway, on the house list I'd been arguing for an open field in
>> case of other candidates and against direction at the SG level so
>> the six are not locked into a bloc and a candidate could
>> conceivably pick off a constituency.  But then you said what we did
>> last year was fine.  So they announced that they will again
>> nominate one, vote as a directed bloc, and Bill's their guy.  So at
>> this point, it is mathematically impossible for an NCSG candidate
>> to beat him, which sort of raises the question of why both voting,
>> but whatever.  So our choices now are either a) one or more of the
>> NCSG councilors vote for their candidate, or b) none of them
>> do...not sure what the bylaws say if no candidate gets 8.
>>
>> BD
>>
>
> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>



From avri  Thu Mar 20 12:01:16 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:01:16 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <7CA36BA6-0CF4-4813-98EF-56C6A81DC2C8@egyptig.org>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>	<CAD3sNqFPbRJidyLn8enFCg0dF86fNJ9xa-_kbcxbxC7k9UgR8Q@mail.gmail.com>	<CAH5sThnp8=jVpB3ZqUCV6E-GsG7Ypbc2K-hPnReFkCtmO4ZU1Q@mail.gmail.com>	<CAD3sNqH4RZP6_iK3LEkOj3i_KL9pscqcYHRGQPc5vtsNYcN=ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<7CA36BA6-0CF4-4813-98EF-56C6A81DC2C8@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <532ABC6C.9090403@acm.org>



On 20-Mar-14 17:40, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Didn?t someone once say we forfeit our Board seat in that scenario??


I don't think so.

Besides BillG. has been nominated by the CSG and he is likely to get at 
least some of the NCSG votes if we weren't to have put up a candidate.

But since Sam has been nominated, that is not likely to happen.

avri



From aelsadr  Thu Mar 20 12:21:19 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 11:21:19 +0100
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <532ABB99.2030307@acm.org>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
	<8BCBF201-1916-4A4C-83CF-9311113C4BAC@gmail.com>
	<532AB381.1080909@acm.org>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8016420CE@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<532ABB99.2030307@acm.org>
Message-ID: <34618190-4C24-4285-AF18-12F2E931B3EE@egyptig.org>

Yeah?, that was me. I said I?d be happy to nominate you, and I still am. I?ve been waiting until the NCPH decided on a process and we discussed it internally within NCSG.

If it?s alright, I?ll hold off on this nomination until I arrive in Singapore. My flight leaves in 3 hours.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 20, 2014, at 10:57 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I was never actually nominated - just made myself available for nomination - and some were kind of enough to say they would nominate me. Now we have Sam as a nominee.  So if I were to be nominated, we would have to come up with a method of choosing in the NCSG.
> 
> But thanks for asking.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 20-Mar-14 17:48, "Kleinw?chter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>> I did not follow all the discussion due to my specific circumstances.
>> My understanding was that Avri will be a candidate for this GNSO
>> board seat. What has changed?
>> 
>> wolfgang
>> 
>> ________________________________
>> 
>> Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria
>> Gesendet: Do 20.03.2014 10:23 Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy NCSG-Policy
>> Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I was just trying to be amenable. And just because I am fine with
>> something doesn't mean anything.
>> 
>> You know  "play along to get along," my new motto.
>> 
>> I am fine with us not offering a candidate.  I agree, if they are
>> voting as a block it is a farce.  So why play?
>> 
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> On 20-Mar-14 16:16, William Drake wrote:
>>> Avri
>>> 
>>> On Mar 20, 2014, at 2:33 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Glen caught up with me and asked about our candidate, if any.  I
>>>> told we would have and answer by the weekend.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> If we can't pick one then perhaps we should make the best of a
>>>> bad thing and endorse BillG. and get it over with. I.e. we should
>>>> go long to get along.  Or maybe BillD's secret candidate will wow
>>>> everyone.
>>> 
>>> So secret even I don't know who you're talking about.
>>> 
>>>> But at this point, we should make a decision tomorrow (Friday)
>>>> about what we want to do, one way or another.
>>> 
>>> Anyway, on the house list I'd been arguing for an open field in
>>> case of other candidates and against direction at the SG level so
>>> the six are not locked into a bloc and a candidate could
>>> conceivably pick off a constituency.  But then you said what we did
>>> last year was fine.  So they announced that they will again
>>> nominate one, vote as a directed bloc, and Bill's their guy.  So at
>>> this point, it is mathematically impossible for an NCSG candidate
>>> to beat him, which sort of raises the question of why both voting,
>>> but whatever.  So our choices now are either a) one or more of the
>>> NCSG councilors vote for their candidate, or b) none of them
>>> do...not sure what the bylaws say if no candidate gets 8.
>>> 
>>> BD
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Thu Mar 20 12:23:40 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 18:23:40 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <8BCBF201-1916-4A4C-83CF-9311113C4BAC@gmail.com>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
	<8BCBF201-1916-4A4C-83CF-9311113C4BAC@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <532AC1AC.5090208@acm.org>



On 20-Mar-14 16:16, William Drake wrote:
>>> If we can't pick one then perhaps we should make the best of a
>>> bad thing and endorse BillG. and get it over with. I.e. we should
>>> go long to get along.  Or maybe BillD's secret candidate will wow
>>> everyone.
> So secret even I don?t know who you?re talking about.
>


Sorry, I thought you had said on a list or chat somewhere that you had a 
candidate to put forward, but that you wanted to keep it confidential at 
that point.

avri





From maria.farrell  Fri Mar 21 05:58:10 2014
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 11:58:10 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Agena for Sunday 22 March NCSG Policy Meeting
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdBH5=URw5L5gwTxwP-acyoDn+c5TUhAdWAAsPVBUUCOAA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

Here is the draft agenda for this Sunday's NCSG policy meeting. Let me know
of any corrections / additions needed.

All the best, Maria

P.S. Rafik - do you know if we have remote participation for it?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140321/ecaf1179/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: NCSG Policy Committee Draft agenda.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 93869 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140321/ecaf1179/attachment-0001.docx>


From rafik.dammak  Fri Mar 21 07:20:40 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:20:40 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Agena for Sunday 22 March NCSG Policy Meeting
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdBH5=URw5L5gwTxwP-acyoDn+c5TUhAdWAAsPVBUUCOAA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC7qwdBH5=URw5L5gwTxwP-acyoDn+c5TUhAdWAAsPVBUUCOAA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThkbT0g-vmA=UNcn5mRZ7+9paK=HuTu0oU76BybkseC_aw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Maria,

yes we have
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Current+NCSG+Meetings+-+Post+October+2012+ICANN+Annual+Meeting
and reminder about the schedule
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsJI0CB4QegidFY4Y0VtOUh6NmRnTW1tWXV4clFrRUE&usp=drive_web#gid=0

Best,

Rafik


2014-03-21 12:58 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com>:

> Hi all,
>
> Here is the draft agenda for this Sunday's NCSG policy meeting. Let me
> know of any corrections / additions needed.
>
> All the best, Maria
>
> P.S. Rafik - do you know if we have remote participation for it?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140321/df2f4da2/attachment.html>


From maria.farrell  Fri Mar 21 08:11:43 2014
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:11:43 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Revised NCSG Policy meeting Agenda
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdCUo0DWbd6vrK4Ht92tZP93H22=PKd07YytoNUrc3ScMw@mail.gmail.com>

*NCSG Policy Committee Meeting*



23 March 2014

1630 - 1830, UTC +8



Location: Hullet Room



*Draft Agenda (V. 2.0)*





1               NCSG Statement on IANA

a.     Discussion and agreement

b.     Steps for releasing it



2               Joint SO/AC/SG Statement on IANA





3               Board Seat 14

a.     Should we contest the election?

b.     If so, process and timeline for whether and how to agree a NCSG
candidate



4               GNSO Council agenda:

http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-gnso-council/agenda-gnso-council-26mar14-en



5               Brief schedule discussion ahead of Constituency Day: which
non-GNSO meetings should members attend on Monday & how to prioritise
participation?

a.     ICANN Globalisation, Monday 1030 - 1230 and 1730- 1900

b.     At Large discussion on Registration Directory Services (Whois):
http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-rds, Monday 15-1700, Room: VIP

c.      Strategy Panels discussion, Monday 1515 - 1645,
http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule?date=2014-03-24

d.     Expert Working Group on Whois, 1630 - 1730, Room: Bras Basah

e.     Others?



6               AOB





Participation:

All NCSG members welcome to participate



For remote participation per session:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Current+NCSG+Meetings+-+Post+October+2012+ICANN+Annual+Meeting







*Meeting Discussion Documents*



*Agenda Item 1  **NCSG Statement on the globalization of the IANA functions*



The Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) welcomes the 13 March 2014
statement from the U.S. Commerce Department announcing its intention to
"transition key Internet domain name functions to the global
multistakeholder community." We support this move because an Internet
governance regime that gives one national government exclusive powers over
a global resource is bound to be politically biased, divisive and promote
tendencies toward Internet fragmentation.

This change is long overdue.



NCSG supports all 5 of the principles NTIA proposed to guide the
transition. We agree that the transition should:

* Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;

* Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;

* Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of
the IANA services;

* Maintain the openness of the Internet;

* Not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental
organization.



It is very important to replace the current system with a carefully
considered, well-designed alternative. We note that noncommercial
stakeholders have been leaders in developing plans for the proposed
transition. Submissions to the Netmundial conference from two NCSG members,
the Internet Governance Project and Avri Doria, have set out specific
blueprints for the transition.



Consistent with both of these proposals, NCSG proposes an additional
principle to guide the transition. The transition should:

* Enhance the accountability of ICANN through structural separation of the
DNS root zone management functions from ICANN's policy making functions



The root zone management functions, which are currently performed by
Verisign, Inc. and IANA under contracts with the U.S. government, are
clerical, technical and operational, The policy making functions of ICANN,
on the other hand, are highly political. NCSG believes that those two
aspects of DNS governance must be kept apart, in separate organizations.
Separating them ensures that those with policy and political objectives
must win support for their ideas in a fair and open policy development
process, and cannot arbitrarily impose them upon Internet users and service
providers by virtue of their control of the operational levers of the
global domain name system.



The existing IANA contract attempts to keep the two separate; however, if
ICANN simply absorbs the IANA and Verisign functions without any oversight
from the U.S. government, there is a danger that the two could become
integrated and intermingled in unhealthy ways. That is why the NCSG, along
with supporters from other stakeholder groups, will insist on this new
principle of separation during the transition process.



The Department of Commerce has asked ICANN to "conven[e] stakeholders
across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition
plan." Unfortunately, ICANN's management seems to have interpreted this as
a mandate to implement its own transition plan, in which it would simply
take over the IANA functions with no oversight. NCSG wishes to remind ICANN
that it has been charged with convening a process, not with controlling it.
The transition will not work unless ICANN runs a truly open and
deliberative process that allows the all ideas to be considered and the
best ideas to win.



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 Non-Profit Operational Constituencies (http://www.npoc.org)







*Agenda Item 2 - *

*Joint Statement on IANA Globalisation*



We, the signatories to this statement, welcome the announcement by the U.S.
Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) to transition oversight over the Internet Assigned
Numbers Authority (IANA) function to the global multistakeholder community,
a development that was envisaged since the early daysof the IANA functions
contract.



We fully support that the Internet Corporation for Names and Numbers
(ICANN) has been assigned the task to convene the multi-stakeholder process
to develop the transition plan and we will work with our respective
communities to ensure that any transition plan will:



- Maintain the security, stability and resiliency of the top level of the
Internet's system of unique identifiers;



- Support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet coordination;



- Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of
the IANA services.





ICANN, in its role as the administrator of the IANA Functions, has
performed these functions since 1998, ensuring the continued security,
stability, and resiliency of the top level of the Internet's system of
unique identifiers. The strength and stability of the IANA functions are
critical to the operation of the Internet. The processes around the IANA
functions should therefore continue to be carefully specified, taking into
account transparency, accountability as well as the role of the
multi-stakeholder model in this context.



Through our respective communities we commit to support and engage in
the  multistakeholder-designed
process that is consensus-driven, participatory, open and transparent that
will launch at the ICANN 49 Meeting in Singapore. We will work to make this
process collaborative and globally-accountable while the IANA functions
continue to ensure the continued security, stability and resiliency of the
top level of the Internet's system of unique identifiers.







*Documents for information (not discussion)*



*NPOC statement on NTIA Annouoncement*

NPOC, the Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns stakeholder Constituency
within ICANN, welcomes the U.S. Government's National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA) announcement of its intention to
"transfer key internet domain name functions to the global stakeholder
community" and pledges its support for the challenging work required for
this task.

NTIA has charged ICANN to convene global stakeholders to develop a
transition proposal that strengthens the multistakeholder model; maintains
the security, stability and resilience of the Internet DNS; meets the needs
and expectations of the global customers and partners of the relevant
domain name system (DNS) functions; and maintains the openness of the
Internet. NPOC's stakeholder constituency has a keen interest in both this
process and its outcome.

NPOC focuses on the impact of DNS policies, and their effects, on the
Not-for-Profit civil society stakeholder community. NPOC stands for a
multistakeholder approach to empowerment and capacity building for
engagement in Internet governance; policy and process transparency; and
stakeholder use of a DNS system that supports community based and just
socio-economic development.

NPOC looks forward to playing an active role on the development of a
transition proposal process that respects the principles of openness and
engagement that have been part of the core DNA of the Internet from its
inception. NPOC intends to collaborate with existing stakeholder
constituencies and others to nurture a growing civil society stakeholder
base, both within ICANN and the transition proposal, and within the
not-for-profit and civil society communities of the larger global Internet
ecosystem.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140321/8dd1ade8/attachment-0001.html>


From dave  Fri Mar 21 09:49:42 2014
From: dave (David Cake)
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:49:42 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG statement on US Government Announcement about
	transfer IANA functions stewardship
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=HqOXBTrYEaw0YJn3jRaiGXuYO0rS9xqPrGT82TGVrsg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sTh=e+5XHMH7STb2Hu5ko+05Jqusnzo5Y5e6AL_zJOE98-A@mail.gmail.com>
	<3AD35A31-5242-4406-9E0B-60975BBDE836@egyptig.org>
	<5326D59D.3080507@acm.org>
	<CAH5sThk9fzfm2xOE-7U5hhsnAG=xYZJt=3no8X04vBSvApC2+Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<6D571200-F051-4E8E-9E73-34CD62269CE3@egyptig.org>
	<95E55882-DEB1-4900-B692-D8BC23D2C43B@isoc.be>
	<53270304.3010902@acm.org>
	<CAH5sTh=HqOXBTrYEaw0YJn3jRaiGXuYO0rS9xqPrGT82TGVrsg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B0056AC2-D563-4EC3-9494-D8B2231D24D9@difference.com.au>

I am happy to support this statement. 

On 17 Mar 2014, at 10:52 pm, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Avri,
> 
> I will be happy to send it, just waiting to see that we have the  support.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Rafik 
> 
> 
> 2014-03-17 23:13 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org>:
> Fantastic.
> 
> Do we have endorsement from NCUC too.  what a great day that would be.
> 
> Though there may already enough NCUC voices, with no member voices against, that we may be able to call it rough consensus and one of our leaders can put it out!
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 17-Mar-14 09:48, Rudi Vansnick wrote:
> And you may add NPOC?s support to the NCSG statement ..
> 
> Rudi Vansnick
> NPOC chair Policy Committee
> NPOC treasurer
> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
> 
> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
> 
> 
> Op 17-mrt.-2014, om 13:32 heeft Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org
> <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> So far, Avri, Klaus and I have accepted endorsing the NCSG statement
> drafted by Milton.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hi Rudi,
> 
> thanks for sharing the NPOC statement, any feedback on the NCSG
> statement?
> 
> Best
> 
> Rafik
> 
> 
> 2014-03-17 19:59 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>>:
> 
> 
> 
>     Hi,
> 
>     So did NPOC get its statement out before NCSG?
> 
>     Efficient.
> 
>     avri
> 
> 
>     _________________________________________________
>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/__listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
>     <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140321/529cf2c7/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140321/529cf2c7/attachment.sig>


From rudi.vansnick  Sat Mar 22 00:22:17 2014
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 06:22:17 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Revised NCSG Policy meeting Agenda
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdCUo0DWbd6vrK4Ht92tZP93H22=PKd07YytoNUrc3ScMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAC7qwdCUo0DWbd6vrK4Ht92tZP93H22=PKd07YytoNUrc3ScMw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A65CDCBD-0821-43AC-BEE1-F1550154699F@isoc.be>

Hi Maria,

Just to inform you I?ve booked the meeting in my agenda. Will be present.
If we need to have a chat about the meeting, I?ll be in the Hullet room today (NPOC event) and will be in the afternoon at the GNSO meeting for the PD WG report on translation and transliteration of contact info (with Chris Dillon).

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 21-jan.-2014, om 14:11 heeft Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM> het volgende geschreven:

> NCSG Policy Committee Meeting
>  
> 23 March 2014
> 1630 ? 1830, UTC +8
>  
> Location: Hullet Room
>  
> Draft Agenda (V. 2.0)
>  
>  
> 1               NCSG Statement on IANA
> 
> a.     Discussion and agreement
> 
> b.     Steps for releasing it
> 
>  
> 2               Joint SO/AC/SG Statement on IANA
> 
>  
>  
> 3               Board Seat 14
> 
> a.     Should we contest the election?
> 
> b.     If so, process and timeline for whether and how to agree a NCSG candidate
> 
>  
> 4               GNSO Council agenda:
> 
> http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-gnso-council/agenda-gnso-council-26mar14-en
>  
> 5               Brief schedule discussion ahead of Constituency Day: which non-GNSO meetings should members attend on Monday & how to prioritise participation?
> 
> a.     ICANN Globalisation, Monday 1030 ? 1230 and 1730- 1900
> 
> b.     At Large discussion on Registration Directory Services (Whois): http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-rds, Monday 15-1700, Room: VIP
> 
> c.      Strategy Panels discussion, Monday 1515 ? 1645, http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule?date=2014-03-24
> 
> d.     Expert Working Group on Whois, 1630 ? 1730, Room: Bras Basah
> 
> e.     Others?
> 
> 
>  
> 6               AOB
> 
>  
>  
> Participation:
> All NCSG members welcome to participate
>  
> For remote participation per session:  https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Current+NCSG+Meetings+-+Post+October+2012+ICANN+Annual+Meeting
>  
>  
>  
> Meeting Discussion Documents
>  
> Agenda Item 1  NCSG Statement on the globalization of the IANA functions
>  
> The Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) welcomes the 13 March 2014 statement from the U.S. Commerce Department announcing its intention to ?transition key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community.? We support this move because an Internet governance regime that gives one national government exclusive powers over a global resource is bound to be politically biased, divisive and promote tendencies toward Internet fragmentation.
> This change is long overdue.
>  
> NCSG supports all 5 of the principles NTIA proposed to guide the transition. We agree that the transition should:
> ? Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
> ? Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
> ? Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services;
> ? Maintain the openness of the Internet;
> ? Not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental organization.
>  
> It is very important to replace the current system with a carefully considered, well-designed alternative. We note that noncommercial stakeholders have been leaders in developing plans for the proposed transition. Submissions to the Netmundial conference from two NCSG members, the Internet Governance Project and Avri Doria, have set out specific blueprints for the transition.
>  
> Consistent with both of these proposals, NCSG proposes an additional principle to guide the transition. The transition should:
> ? Enhance the accountability of ICANN through structural separation of the DNS root zone management functions from ICANN?s policy making functions
>  
> The root zone management functions, which are currently performed by Verisign, Inc. and IANA under contracts with the U.S. government, are clerical, technical and operational, The policy making functions of ICANN, on the other hand, are highly political. NCSG believes that those two aspects of DNS governance must be kept apart, in separate organizations. Separating them ensures that those with policy and political objectives must win support for their ideas in a fair and open policy development process, and cannot arbitrarily impose them upon Internet users and service providers by virtue of their control of the operational levers of the global domain name system.
>  
> The existing IANA contract attempts to keep the two separate; however, if ICANN simply absorbs the IANA and Verisign functions without any oversight from the U.S. government, there is a danger that the two could become integrated and intermingled in unhealthy ways. That is why the NCSG, along with supporters from other stakeholder groups, will insist on this new principle of separation during the transition process.
>  
> The Department of Commerce has asked ICANN to ?conven[e] stakeholders across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition plan.? Unfortunately, ICANN?s management seems to have interpreted this as a mandate to implement its own transition plan, in which it would simply take over the IANA functions with no oversight. NCSG wishes to remind ICANN that it has been charged with convening a process, not with controlling it. The transition will not work unless ICANN runs a truly open and deliberative process that allows the all ideas to be considered and the best ideas to win.
>  
> 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 Non-Profit Operational Constituencies (http://www.npoc.org)
>  
>  
>  
> Agenda Item 2 ?
> Joint Statement on IANA Globalisation
>  
> We, the signatories to this statement, welcome the announcement by the U.S. Commerce Department?s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to transition oversight over the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) function to the global multistakeholder community, a development that was envisaged since the early daysof the IANA functions contract.
>  
> We fully support that the Internet Corporation for Names and Numbers (ICANN) has been assigned the task to convene the multi-stakeholder process to develop the transition plan and we will work with our respective communities to ensure that any transition plan will:
>  
> - Maintain the security, stability and resiliency of the top level of the Internet?s system of unique identifiers;
>  
> - Support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet coordination;
>  
> - Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of the IANA services.
>  
>  
> ICANN, in its role as the administrator of the IANA Functions, has performed these functions since 1998, ensuring the continued security, stability, and resiliency of the top level of the Internet?s system of unique identifiers. The strength and stability of the IANA functions are critical to the operation of the Internet. The processes around the IANA functions should therefore continue to be carefully specified, taking into account transparency, accountability as well as the role of the multi-stakeholder model in this context.
>  
> Through our respective communities we commit to support and engage in the  multistakeholder-designed process that is consensus-driven, participatory, open and transparent that will launch at the ICANN 49 Meeting in Singapore. We will work to make this process collaborative and globally-accountable while the IANA functions continue to ensure the continued security, stability and resiliency of the top level of the Internet?s system of unique identifiers.
>  
>  
>  
> Documents for information (not discussion)
>  
> NPOC statement on NTIA Annouoncement
> NPOC, the Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns stakeholder Constituency within ICANN, welcomes the U.S. Government's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announcement of its intention to ?transfer key internet domain name functions to the global stakeholder community? and pledges its support for the challenging work required for this task.
> NTIA has charged ICANN to convene global stakeholders to develop a transition proposal that strengthens the multistakeholder model; maintains the security, stability and resilience of the Internet DNS; meets the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the relevant domain name system (DNS) functions; and maintains the openness of the Internet. NPOC's stakeholder constituency has a keen interest in both this process and its outcome.
> NPOC focuses on the impact of DNS policies, and their effects, on the Not-for-Profit civil society stakeholder community. NPOC stands for a multistakeholder approach to empowerment and capacity building for engagement in Internet governance; policy and process transparency; and stakeholder use of a DNS system that supports community based and just socio-economic development.
> 
> NPOC looks forward to playing an active role on the development of a transition proposal process that respects the principles of openness and engagement that have been part of the core DNA of the Internet from its inception. NPOC intends to collaborate with existing stakeholder constituencies and others to nurture a growing civil society stakeholder base, both within ICANN and the transition proposal, and within the not-for-profit and civil society communities of the larger global Internet ecosystem.
> 
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140322/bd5293d9/attachment-0001.html>


From maria.farrell  Sat Mar 22 04:06:02 2014
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 10:06:02 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Revised NCSG Policy meeting Agenda
In-Reply-To: <A65CDCBD-0821-43AC-BEE1-F1550154699F@isoc.be>
References: <CAC7qwdCUo0DWbd6vrK4Ht92tZP93H22=PKd07YytoNUrc3ScMw@mail.gmail.com>
	<A65CDCBD-0821-43AC-BEE1-F1550154699F@isoc.be>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdAPtE4mghRyXdyS9p15pwONH=s5UxEE9XW-MEvU1ssGjw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Rudi,

That would be great - obviously I'm in the Council working session all day
so if you wouldn't mind finding me, that would be great.

Also, is Sam Lanfranco going to come to the NCSG PC?

cheers, m


On 22 March 2014 06:22, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be> wrote:

> Hi Maria,
>
> Just to inform you I've booked the meeting in my agenda. Will be present.
> If we need to have a chat about the meeting, I'll be in the Hullet room
> today (NPOC event) and will be in the afternoon at the GNSO meeting for the
> PD WG report on translation and transliteration of contact info (with Chris
> Dillon).
>
> 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 21-jan.-2014, om 14:11 heeft Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at GMAIL.COM>
> het volgende geschreven:
>
> *NCSG Policy Committee Meeting*
>
>
>
> 23 March 2014
>
> 1630 - 1830, UTC +8
>
>
> Location: Hullet Room
>
>
>
> *Draft Agenda (V. 2.0)*
>
>
>
> 1               NCSG Statement on IANA
>
> a.     Discussion and agreement
>
> b.     Steps for releasing it
>
>
> 2               Joint SO/AC/SG Statement on IANA
>
>
>
> 3               Board Seat 14
>
> a.     Should we contest the election?
>
> b.     If so, process and timeline for whether and how to agree a NCSG
> candidate
>
>
> 4               GNSO Council agenda:
>
>
> http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-gnso-council/agenda-gnso-council-26mar14-en
>
>
> 5               Brief schedule discussion ahead of Constituency Day:
> which non-GNSO meetings should members attend on Monday & how to prioritise
> participation?
>
> a.     ICANN Globalisation, Monday 1030 - 1230 and 1730- 1900
>
> b.     At Large discussion on Registration Directory Services (Whois):
> http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/mon-rds, Monday 15-1700, Room:
> VIP
>
> c.      Strategy Panels discussion, Monday 1515 - 1645,
> http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule?date=2014-03-24
>
> d.     Expert Working Group on Whois, 1630 - 1730, Room: Bras Basah
>
> e.     Others?
>
>
>
> 6               AOB
>
>
>
> Participation:
>
> All NCSG members welcome to participate
>
>
> For remote participation per session:
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Current+NCSG+Meetings+-+Post+October+2012+ICANN+Annual+Meeting
>
>
>
>
> *Meeting Discussion Documents*
>
>
> *Agenda Item 1  **NCSG Statement on the globalization of the IANA
> functions*
>
>
> The Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) welcomes the 13 March 2014
> statement from the U.S. Commerce Department announcing its intention to
> "transition key Internet domain name functions to the global
> multistakeholder community." We support this move because an Internet
> governance regime that gives one national government exclusive powers over
> a global resource is bound to be politically biased, divisive and promote
> tendencies toward Internet fragmentation.
>
> This change is long overdue.
>
>
> NCSG supports all 5 of the principles NTIA proposed to guide the
> transition. We agree that the transition should:
>
> * Support and enhance the multistakeholder model;
>
> * Maintain the security, stability, and resiliency of the Internet DNS;
>
> * Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of
> the IANA services;
>
> * Maintain the openness of the Internet;
>
> * Not replace the NTIA role with a government-led or an inter-governmental
> organization.
>
>
> It is very important to replace the current system with a carefully
> considered, well-designed alternative. We note that noncommercial
> stakeholders have been leaders in developing plans for the proposed
> transition. Submissions to the Netmundial conference from two NCSG members,
> the Internet Governance Project and Avri Doria, have set out specific
> blueprints for the transition.
>
>
> Consistent with both of these proposals, NCSG proposes an additional
> principle to guide the transition. The transition should:
>
> * Enhance the accountability of ICANN through structural separation of the
> DNS root zone management functions from ICANN's policy making functions
>
>
> The root zone management functions, which are currently performed by
> Verisign, Inc. and IANA under contracts with the U.S. government, are
> clerical, technical and operational, The policy making functions of ICANN,
> on the other hand, are highly political. NCSG believes that those two
> aspects of DNS governance must be kept apart, in separate organizations.
> Separating them ensures that those with policy and political objectives
> must win support for their ideas in a fair and open policy development
> process, and cannot arbitrarily impose them upon Internet users and service
> providers by virtue of their control of the operational levers of the
> global domain name system.
>
>
> The existing IANA contract attempts to keep the two separate; however, if
> ICANN simply absorbs the IANA and Verisign functions without any oversight
> from the U.S. government, there is a danger that the two could become
> integrated and intermingled in unhealthy ways. That is why the NCSG, along
> with supporters from other stakeholder groups, will insist on this new
> principle of separation during the transition process.
>
>
> The Department of Commerce has asked ICANN to "conven[e] stakeholders
> across the global Internet community to craft an appropriate transition
> plan." Unfortunately, ICANN's management seems to have interpreted this as
> a mandate to implement its own transition plan, in which it would simply
> take over the IANA functions with no oversight. NCSG wishes to remind ICANN
> that it has been charged with convening a process, not with controlling it.
> The transition will not work unless ICANN runs a truly open and
> deliberative process that allows the all ideas to be considered and the
> best ideas to win.
>
>
> 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 Non-Profit Operational Constituencies (http://www.npoc.org)
>
>
>
>
> *Agenda Item 2 - *
>
> *Joint Statement on IANA Globalisation*
>
>
> We, the signatories to this statement, welcome the announcement by the
> U.S. Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information
> Administration (NTIA) to transition oversight over the Internet Assigned
> Numbers Authority (IANA) function to the global multistakeholder community,
> a development that was envisaged since the early daysof the IANA functions
> contract.
>
>
> We fully support that the Internet Corporation for Names and Numbers
> (ICANN) has been assigned the task to convene the multi-stakeholder process
> to develop the transition plan and we will work with our respective
> communities to ensure that any transition plan will:
>
>
> - Maintain the security, stability and resiliency of the top level of the
> Internet's system of unique identifiers;
>
>
> - Support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet coordination;
>
>
> - Meet the needs and expectation of the global customers and partners of
> the IANA services.
>
>
>
> ICANN, in its role as the administrator of the IANA Functions, has
> performed these functions since 1998, ensuring the continued security,
> stability, and resiliency of the top level of the Internet's system of
> unique identifiers. The strength and stability of the IANA functions are
> critical to the operation of the Internet. The processes around the IANA
> functions should therefore continue to be carefully specified, taking into
> account transparency, accountability as well as the role of the
> multi-stakeholder model in this context.
>
>
> Through our respective communities we commit to support and engage in the
> multistakeholder-designed process that is consensus-driven, participatory,
> open and transparent that will launch at the ICANN 49 Meeting in Singapore.
> We will work to make this process collaborative and globally-accountable
> while the IANA functions continue to ensure the continued security,
> stability and resiliency of the top level of the Internet's system of
> unique identifiers.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Documents for information (not discussion)*
>
>
>
> *NPOC statement on NTIA Annouoncement*
>
> NPOC, the Not-for-Profit Operational Concerns stakeholder Constituency
> within ICANN, welcomes the U.S. Government's National Telecommunications
> and Information Administration (NTIA) announcement of its intention to
> "transfer key internet domain name functions to the global stakeholder
> community" and pledges its support for the challenging work required for
> this task.
>
> NTIA has charged ICANN to convene global stakeholders to develop a
> transition proposal that strengthens the multistakeholder model; maintains
> the security, stability and resilience of the Internet DNS; meets the needs
> and expectations of the global customers and partners of the relevant
> domain name system (DNS) functions; and maintains the openness of the
> Internet. NPOC's stakeholder constituency has a keen interest in both this
> process and its outcome.
>
> NPOC focuses on the impact of DNS policies, and their effects, on the
> Not-for-Profit civil society stakeholder community. NPOC stands for a
> multistakeholder approach to empowerment and capacity building for
> engagement in Internet governance; policy and process transparency; and
> stakeholder use of a DNS system that supports community based and just
> socio-economic development.
>
> NPOC looks forward to playing an active role on the development of a
> transition proposal process that respects the principles of openness and
> engagement that have been part of the core DNA of the Internet from its
> inception. NPOC intends to collaborate with existing stakeholder
> constituencies and others to nurture a growing civil society stakeholder
> base, both within ICANN and the transition proposal, and within the
> not-for-profit and civil society communities of the larger global Internet
> ecosystem.
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140322/5eddc7fc/attachment-0001.html>


From aelsadr  Sun Mar 23 04:47:51 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 10:47:51 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <532AC1AC.5090208@acm.org>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
	<8BCBF201-1916-4A4C-83CF-9311113C4BAC@gmail.com>
	<532AC1AC.5090208@acm.org>
Message-ID: <6225CD4F-D50D-4979-B7AD-42F3C9A50241@egyptig.org>

Hi,

We?re talking about this topic at today?s policy meeting, right? I just wanted to fwd my thoughts. I think, out of principle, we need to take a firm stand in this election. The CSG have informed us that we can either back their candidate or go into a deadlock. If we back down, it will be an unfortunate precedent, and will encourage the CSG to take this position repetitively.

Last time around, we had some Board appointed councillors, which we thankfully don?t have now. I know we?re scheduled to speak to Bill tomorrow morning, and I would have liked to meet him, but this should be a matter of principle. I hope we can reach a full consensus on this, and would appreciate hearing thoughts.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 20, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> 
> 
> On 20-Mar-14 16:16, William Drake wrote:
>>>> If we can't pick one then perhaps we should make the best of a
>>>> bad thing and endorse BillG. and get it over with. I.e. we should
>>>> go long to get along.  Or maybe BillD's secret candidate will wow
>>>> everyone.
>> So secret even I don?t know who you?re talking about.
>> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I thought you had said on a list or chat somewhere that you had a candidate to put forward, but that you wanted to keep it confidential at that point.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From stephanie.perrin  Sun Mar 23 05:13:45 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 23:13:45 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <6225CD4F-D50D-4979-B7AD-42F3C9A50241@egyptig.org>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
	<8BCBF201-1916-4A4C-83CF-9311113C4BAC@gmail.com>	<532AC1AC.5090208@acm.org>
	<6225CD4F-D50D-4979-B7AD-42F3C9A50241@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <C4190044-BEA1-4AF3-A21C-50D86CDFAD03@mail.utoronto.ca>

I agree.
Stephanie
On Mar 22, 2014, at 10:47 PM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> We?re talking about this topic at today?s policy meeting, right? I just wanted to fwd my thoughts. I think, out of principle, we need to take a firm stand in this election. The CSG have informed us that we can either back their candidate or go into a deadlock. If we back down, it will be an unfortunate precedent, and will encourage the CSG to take this position repetitively.
> 
> Last time around, we had some Board appointed councillors, which we thankfully don?t have now. I know we?re scheduled to speak to Bill tomorrow morning, and I would have liked to meet him, but this should be a matter of principle. I hope we can reach a full consensus on this, and would appreciate hearing thoughts.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Mar 20, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 20-Mar-14 16:16, William Drake wrote:
>>>>> If we can't pick one then perhaps we should make the best of a
>>>>> bad thing and endorse BillG. and get it over with. I.e. we should
>>>>> go long to get along.  Or maybe BillD's secret candidate will wow
>>>>> everyone.
>>> So secret even I don?t know who you?re talking about.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sorry, I thought you had said on a list or chat somewhere that you had a candidate to put forward, but that you wanted to keep it confidential at that point.
>> 
>> 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 avri  Sun Mar 23 05:16:33 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 11:16:33 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <6225CD4F-D50D-4979-B7AD-42F3C9A50241@egyptig.org>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
	<8BCBF201-1916-4A4C-83CF-9311113C4BAC@gmail.com>
	<532AC1AC.5090208@acm.org>
	<6225CD4F-D50D-4979-B7AD-42F3C9A50241@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <532E5211.5060305@acm.org>

Hi,

Thanks for keeping the dialogue rolling.

I think we have a few alternatives.  And we need to figure out what the 
issues really is.

A. Is the CSG so in love with BillG that they want him or nobody?

B. Or is the CSG, or at least some of its leadership, so against the 
rumored candidate, that they will do anything including deadlock to keep 
her from getting onto the Board?

I think the response we make depends on our analysis.

We have a few alternative:

- not field a nominee and then vote None of the above.  If we all do 
that, we force the deadlock and take bill off the table.  this probably 
won't work and and will reuslt in Bill wining with partial support.  But 
a statement would be made.

- pick a nominee

-- Marie Laure wants to nominate Sam, and some have indicated a desire 
to nominate me.  I assume Sam is willing and I remain willing to be 
nominated.

-- if B above is the case, that makes a case for picking someone other 
than me.  Then again we need to determine whether all of the NCSG voters 
would be willing to vote for Sam, or else this would just work to 
confirm BillG on the first ballot.

-- if A above is the case, we should pick the one who has the best 
chance to picking off at least one of their voters in a contest to see 
which block of voters breaks first.

Now, the NCSG is easier to break up than the CSG, since we do not 
enforce party discipline. And some of us, don't think BillG is all that 
bad and might be convinced tomorrow morning that he will try harder i 
nhis next term.  I had a conversation with him the other day and was 
convinced that on at least the NTIA /IANA issue his mind is still open.

Just some random thoughts.

avri


avri


On 23-Mar-14 10:47, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We?re talking about this topic at today?s policy meeting, right? I just wanted to fwd my thoughts. I think, out of principle, we need to take a firm stand in this election. The CSG have informed us that we can either back their candidate or go into a deadlock. If we back down, it will be an unfortunate precedent, and will encourage the CSG to take this position repetitively.
>
> Last time around, we had some Board appointed councillors, which we thankfully don?t have now. I know we?re scheduled to speak to Bill tomorrow morning, and I would have liked to meet him, but this should be a matter of principle. I hope we can reach a full consensus on this, and would appreciate hearing thoughts.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>



From rudi.vansnick  Sun Mar 23 05:29:03 2014
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 11:29:03 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <532E5211.5060305@acm.org>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
	<8BCBF201-1916-4A4C-83CF-9311113C4BAC@gmail.com>
	<532AC1AC.5090208@acm.org>
	<6225CD4F-D50D-4979-B7AD-42F3C9A50241@egyptig.org>
	<532E5211.5060305@acm.org>
Message-ID: <5F168257-6F5E-493F-B38C-92E195464E26@isoc.be>

dear all,

reading through this mailexchanges it seems to me we are missing a well defined process (procedure). When looking into the NCSG charter I did not find immediately an answer to that question ? So can someone help me getting a text clarifying what the rights of NCSG are wrt the nomination process ?

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 23-jan.-2014, om 11:16 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> het volgende geschreven:

> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for keeping the dialogue rolling.
> 
> I think we have a few alternatives.  And we need to figure out what the issues really is.
> 
> A. Is the CSG so in love with BillG that they want him or nobody?
> 
> B. Or is the CSG, or at least some of its leadership, so against the rumored candidate, that they will do anything including deadlock to keep her from getting onto the Board?
> 
> I think the response we make depends on our analysis.
> 
> We have a few alternative:
> 
> - not field a nominee and then vote None of the above.  If we all do that, we force the deadlock and take bill off the table.  this probably won't work and and will reuslt in Bill wining with partial support.  But a statement would be made.
> 
> - pick a nominee
> 
> -- Marie Laure wants to nominate Sam, and some have indicated a desire to nominate me.  I assume Sam is willing and I remain willing to be nominated.
> 
> -- if B above is the case, that makes a case for picking someone other than me.  Then again we need to determine whether all of the NCSG voters would be willing to vote for Sam, or else this would just work to confirm BillG on the first ballot.
> 
> -- if A above is the case, we should pick the one who has the best chance to picking off at least one of their voters in a contest to see which block of voters breaks first.
> 
> Now, the NCSG is easier to break up than the CSG, since we do not enforce party discipline. And some of us, don't think BillG is all that bad and might be convinced tomorrow morning that he will try harder i nhis next term.  I had a conversation with him the other day and was convinced that on at least the NTIA /IANA issue his mind is still open.
> 
> Just some random thoughts.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 23-Mar-14 10:47, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> We?re talking about this topic at today?s policy meeting, right? I just wanted to fwd my thoughts. I think, out of principle, we need to take a firm stand in this election. The CSG have informed us that we can either back their candidate or go into a deadlock. If we back down, it will be an unfortunate precedent, and will encourage the CSG to take this position repetitively.
>> 
>> Last time around, we had some Board appointed councillors, which we thankfully don?t have now. I know we?re scheduled to speak to Bill tomorrow morning, and I would have liked to meet him, but this should be a matter of principle. I hope we can reach a full consensus on this, and would appreciate hearing thoughts.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> 
>> Amr
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140323/a6a57550/attachment-0001.html>


From maria.farrell  Sun Mar 23 05:30:28 2014
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 11:30:28 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <532E5211.5060305@acm.org>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
	<8BCBF201-1916-4A4C-83CF-9311113C4BAC@gmail.com>
	<532AC1AC.5090208@acm.org>
	<6225CD4F-D50D-4979-B7AD-42F3C9A50241@egyptig.org>
	<532E5211.5060305@acm.org>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdCA4AuCxQg=s1BrrNbPsvzkzOk1Shcdp4ZLLWBrMZMsQw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

quick one to say yes, this is on the agenda at today's ncsg PC and it's up
to the PC to decide.

cheers, m


On 23 March 2014 11:16, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Thanks for keeping the dialogue rolling.
>
> I think we have a few alternatives.  And we need to figure out what the
> issues really is.
>
> A. Is the CSG so in love with BillG that they want him or nobody?
>
> B. Or is the CSG, or at least some of its leadership, so against the
> rumored candidate, that they will do anything including deadlock to keep
> her from getting onto the Board?
>
> I think the response we make depends on our analysis.
>
> We have a few alternative:
>
> - not field a nominee and then vote None of the above.  If we all do that,
> we force the deadlock and take bill off the table.  this probably won't
> work and and will reuslt in Bill wining with partial support.  But a
> statement would be made.
>
> - pick a nominee
>
> -- Marie Laure wants to nominate Sam, and some have indicated a desire to
> nominate me.  I assume Sam is willing and I remain willing to be nominated.
>
> -- if B above is the case, that makes a case for picking someone other
> than me.  Then again we need to determine whether all of the NCSG voters
> would be willing to vote for Sam, or else this would just work to confirm
> BillG on the first ballot.
>
> -- if A above is the case, we should pick the one who has the best chance
> to picking off at least one of their voters in a contest to see which block
> of voters breaks first.
>
> Now, the NCSG is easier to break up than the CSG, since we do not enforce
> party discipline. And some of us, don't think BillG is all that bad and
> might be convinced tomorrow morning that he will try harder i nhis next
> term.  I had a conversation with him the other day and was convinced that
> on at least the NTIA /IANA issue his mind is still open.
>
> Just some random thoughts.
>
> avri
>
>
> avri
>
>
>
> On 23-Mar-14 10:47, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We're talking about this topic at today's policy meeting, right? I just
>> wanted to fwd my thoughts. I think, out of principle, we need to take a
>> firm stand in this election. The CSG have informed us that we can either
>> back their candidate or go into a deadlock. If we back down, it will be an
>> unfortunate precedent, and will encourage the CSG to take this position
>> repetitively.
>>
>> Last time around, we had some Board appointed councillors, which we
>> thankfully don't have now. I know we're scheduled to speak to Bill tomorrow
>> morning, and I would have liked to meet him, but this should be a matter of
>> principle. I hope we can reach a full consensus on this, and would
>> appreciate hearing thoughts.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140323/87098eaf/attachment.html>


From maria.farrell  Sun Mar 23 05:31:45 2014
From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 11:31:45 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <5F168257-6F5E-493F-B38C-92E195464E26@isoc.be>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
	<8BCBF201-1916-4A4C-83CF-9311113C4BAC@gmail.com>
	<532AC1AC.5090208@acm.org>
	<6225CD4F-D50D-4979-B7AD-42F3C9A50241@egyptig.org>
	<532E5211.5060305@acm.org>
	<5F168257-6F5E-493F-B38C-92E195464E26@isoc.be>
Message-ID: <CAC7qwdAyWp3v4WhTyu9wOrDCJmL4Z9H3EoEpAJcNZk2=bBNXdg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Rudi,

It's the NCSG PC's job to elect or appoint people to roles so afaik it's
our job to sort this out.

m


On 23 March 2014 11:29, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be> wrote:

> dear all,
>
> reading through this mailexchanges it seems to me we are missing a well
> defined process (procedure). When looking into the NCSG charter I did not
> find immediately an answer to that question ... So can someone help me
> getting a text clarifying what the rights of NCSG are wrt the nomination
> process ?
>
> 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 23-jan.-2014, om 11:16 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for keeping the dialogue rolling.
>
> I think we have a few alternatives.  And we need to figure out what the
> issues really is.
>
> A. Is the CSG so in love with BillG that they want him or nobody?
>
> B. Or is the CSG, or at least some of its leadership, so against the
> rumored candidate, that they will do anything including deadlock to keep
> her from getting onto the Board?
>
> I think the response we make depends on our analysis.
>
> We have a few alternative:
>
> - not field a nominee and then vote None of the above.  If we all do that,
> we force the deadlock and take bill off the table.  this probably won't
> work and and will reuslt in Bill wining with partial support.  But a
> statement would be made.
>
> - pick a nominee
>
> -- Marie Laure wants to nominate Sam, and some have indicated a desire to
> nominate me.  I assume Sam is willing and I remain willing to be nominated.
>
> -- if B above is the case, that makes a case for picking someone other
> than me.  Then again we need to determine whether all of the NCSG voters
> would be willing to vote for Sam, or else this would just work to confirm
> BillG on the first ballot.
>
> -- if A above is the case, we should pick the one who has the best chance
> to picking off at least one of their voters in a contest to see which block
> of voters breaks first.
>
> Now, the NCSG is easier to break up than the CSG, since we do not enforce
> party discipline. And some of us, don't think BillG is all that bad and
> might be convinced tomorrow morning that he will try harder i nhis next
> term.  I had a conversation with him the other day and was convinced that
> on at least the NTIA /IANA issue his mind is still open.
>
> Just some random thoughts.
>
> avri
>
>
> avri
>
>
> On 23-Mar-14 10:47, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> We're talking about this topic at today's policy meeting, right? I just
> wanted to fwd my thoughts. I think, out of principle, we need to take a
> firm stand in this election. The CSG have informed us that we can either
> back their candidate or go into a deadlock. If we back down, it will be an
> unfortunate precedent, and will encourage the CSG to take this position
> repetitively.
>
> Last time around, we had some Board appointed councillors, which we
> thankfully don't have now. I know we're scheduled to speak to Bill tomorrow
> morning, and I would have liked to meet him, but this should be a matter of
> principle. I hope we can reach a full consensus on this, and would
> appreciate hearing thoughts.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140323/9da5d557/attachment.html>


From rudi.vansnick  Sun Mar 23 05:38:46 2014
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 11:38:46 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <CAC7qwdAyWp3v4WhTyu9wOrDCJmL4Z9H3EoEpAJcNZk2=bBNXdg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
	<8BCBF201-1916-4A4C-83CF-9311113C4BAC@gmail.com>
	<532AC1AC.5090208@acm.org>
	<6225CD4F-D50D-4979-B7AD-42F3C9A50241@egyptig.org>
	<532E5211.5060305@acm.org>
	<5F168257-6F5E-493F-B38C-92E195464E26@isoc.be>
	<CAC7qwdAyWp3v4WhTyu9wOrDCJmL4Z9H3EoEpAJcNZk2=bBNXdg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4141A65C-24D4-4382-B7E5-DD9E1F9F47D2@isoc.be>

Thanks Maria for the clarification. I think it would be good if we could make it an official process to avoid the discussions in the future.

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 23-jan.-2014, om 11:31 heeft Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:

> Hi Rudi,
> 
> It's the NCSG PC's job to elect or appoint people to roles so afaik it's our job to sort this out. 
> 
> m
> 
> 
> On 23 March 2014 11:29, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be> wrote:
> dear all,
> 
> reading through this mailexchanges it seems to me we are missing a well defined process (procedure). When looking into the NCSG charter I did not find immediately an answer to that question ? So can someone help me getting a text clarifying what the rights of NCSG are wrt the nomination process ?
> 
> 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 23-jan.-2014, om 11:16 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Thanks for keeping the dialogue rolling.
>> 
>> I think we have a few alternatives.  And we need to figure out what the issues really is.
>> 
>> A. Is the CSG so in love with BillG that they want him or nobody?
>> 
>> B. Or is the CSG, or at least some of its leadership, so against the rumored candidate, that they will do anything including deadlock to keep her from getting onto the Board?
>> 
>> I think the response we make depends on our analysis.
>> 
>> We have a few alternative:
>> 
>> - not field a nominee and then vote None of the above.  If we all do that, we force the deadlock and take bill off the table.  this probably won't work and and will reuslt in Bill wining with partial support.  But a statement would be made.
>> 
>> - pick a nominee
>> 
>> -- Marie Laure wants to nominate Sam, and some have indicated a desire to nominate me.  I assume Sam is willing and I remain willing to be nominated.
>> 
>> -- if B above is the case, that makes a case for picking someone other than me.  Then again we need to determine whether all of the NCSG voters would be willing to vote for Sam, or else this would just work to confirm BillG on the first ballot.
>> 
>> -- if A above is the case, we should pick the one who has the best chance to picking off at least one of their voters in a contest to see which block of voters breaks first.
>> 
>> Now, the NCSG is easier to break up than the CSG, since we do not enforce party discipline. And some of us, don't think BillG is all that bad and might be convinced tomorrow morning that he will try harder i nhis next term.  I had a conversation with him the other day and was convinced that on at least the NTIA /IANA issue his mind is still open.
>> 
>> Just some random thoughts.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> On 23-Mar-14 10:47, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> We?re talking about this topic at today?s policy meeting, right? I just wanted to fwd my thoughts. I think, out of principle, we need to take a firm stand in this election. The CSG have informed us that we can either back their candidate or go into a deadlock. If we back down, it will be an unfortunate precedent, and will encourage the CSG to take this position repetitively.
>>> 
>>> Last time around, we had some Board appointed councillors, which we thankfully don?t have now. I know we?re scheduled to speak to Bill tomorrow morning, and I would have liked to meet him, but this should be a matter of principle. I hope we can reach a full consensus on this, and would appreciate hearing thoughts.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> Amr
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140323/efaa62e0/attachment-0001.html>


From avri  Sun Mar 23 06:23:47 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 12:23:47 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <4141A65C-24D4-4382-B7E5-DD9E1F9F47D2@isoc.be>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
	<8BCBF201-1916-4A4C-83CF-9311113C4BAC@gmail.com>
	<532AC1AC.5090208@acm.org>
	<6225CD4F-D50D-4979-B7AD-42F3C9A50241@egyptig.org>
	<532E5211.5060305@acm.org>
	<5F168257-6F5E-493F-B38C-92E195464E26@isoc.be>
	<CAC7qwdAyWp3v4WhTyu9wOrDCJmL4Z9H3EoEpAJcNZk2=bBNXdg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4141A65C-24D4-4382-B7E5-DD9E1F9F47D2@isoc.be>
Message-ID: <532E61D3.5020805@acm.org>

Hi,

The charter gives the PC the responsibility to do selections for functions.

The charter also gives the EC the duty to create processes, if it so 
desires. The absence of a EC formal determined policy, the PC gets to do 
stuff by rough consensus as the charter indicates.

Discussion until rough consensus IS a process.  In some organizations it 
is the ONLY process.


avri


On 23-Mar-14 11:38, Rudi Vansnick wrote:
> Thanks Maria for the clarification. I think it would be good if we could
> make it an official process to avoid the discussions in the future.
>
> Rudi Vansnick
> NPOC chair Policy Committee
> NPOC treasurer
> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
>
> Op 23-jan.-2014, om 11:31 heeft Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com
> <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:
>
>> Hi Rudi,
>>
>> It's the NCSG PC's job to elect or appoint people to roles so afaik
>> it's our job to sort this out.
>>
>> m
>>
>>
>> On 23 March 2014 11:29, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>> wrote:
>>
>>     dear all,
>>
>>     reading through this mailexchanges it seems to me we are missing a
>>     well defined process (procedure). When looking into the NCSG
>>     charter I did not find immediately an answer to that question ? So
>>     can someone help me getting a text clarifying what the rights of
>>     NCSG are wrt the nomination process ?
>>
>>     Rudi Vansnick
>>     NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>     NPOC treasurer
>>     rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>     Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>     Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>>     www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>
>>     Op 23-jan.-2014, om 11:16 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>     <mailto:avri at acm.org>> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>>     Hi,
>>>
>>>     Thanks for keeping the dialogue rolling.
>>>
>>>     I think we have a few alternatives.  And we need to figure out
>>>     what the issues really is.
>>>
>>>     A. Is the CSG so in love with BillG that they want him or nobody?
>>>
>>>     B. Or is the CSG, or at least some of its leadership, so against
>>>     the rumored candidate, that they will do anything including
>>>     deadlock to keep her from getting onto the Board?
>>>
>>>     I think the response we make depends on our analysis.
>>>
>>>     We have a few alternative:
>>>
>>>     - not field a nominee and then vote None of the above.  If we all
>>>     do that, we force the deadlock and take bill off the table.  this
>>>     probably won't work and and will reuslt in Bill wining with
>>>     partial support.  But a statement would be made.
>>>
>>>     - pick a nominee
>>>
>>>     -- Marie Laure wants to nominate Sam, and some have indicated a
>>>     desire to nominate me.  I assume Sam is willing and I remain
>>>     willing to be nominated.
>>>
>>>     -- if B above is the case, that makes a case for picking someone
>>>     other than me.  Then again we need to determine whether all of
>>>     the NCSG voters would be willing to vote for Sam, or else this
>>>     would just work to confirm BillG on the first ballot.
>>>
>>>     -- if A above is the case, we should pick the one who has the
>>>     best chance to picking off at least one of their voters in a
>>>     contest to see which block of voters breaks first.
>>>
>>>     Now, the NCSG is easier to break up than the CSG, since we do not
>>>     enforce party discipline. And some of us, don't think BillG is
>>>     all that bad and might be convinced tomorrow morning that he will
>>>     try harder i nhis next term.  I had a conversation with him the
>>>     other day and was convinced that on at least the NTIA /IANA issue
>>>     his mind is still open.
>>>
>>>     Just some random thoughts.
>>>
>>>     avri
>>>
>>>
>>>     avri
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 23-Mar-14 10:47, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>     Hi,
>>>>
>>>>     We?re talking about this topic at today?s policy meeting, right?
>>>>     I just wanted to fwd my thoughts. I think, out of principle, we
>>>>     need to take a firm stand in this election. The CSG have
>>>>     informed us that we can either back their candidate or go into a
>>>>     deadlock. If we back down, it will be an unfortunate precedent,
>>>>     and will encourage the CSG to take this position repetitively.
>>>>
>>>>     Last time around, we had some Board appointed councillors, which
>>>>     we thankfully don?t have now. I know we?re scheduled to speak to
>>>>     Bill tomorrow morning, and I would have liked to meet him, but
>>>>     this should be a matter of principle. I hope we can reach a full
>>>>     consensus on this, and would appreciate hearing thoughts.
>>>>
>>>>     Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>     Amr
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PC-NCSG mailing list
>>     PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>     http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>
>>
>



From aelsadr  Sun Mar 23 06:34:47 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 12:34:47 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <532E5211.5060305@acm.org>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
	<8BCBF201-1916-4A4C-83CF-9311113C4BAC@gmail.com>
	<532AC1AC.5090208@acm.org>
	<6225CD4F-D50D-4979-B7AD-42F3C9A50241@egyptig.org>
	<532E5211.5060305@acm.org>
Message-ID: <12E1A225-B17C-4097-8C63-504419F136C4@egyptig.org>

Hi Avri,

Some thoughts inline below:

On Mar 23, 2014, at 11:16 AM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for keeping the dialogue rolling.
> 
> I think we have a few alternatives.  And we need to figure out what the issues really is.
> 
> A. Is the CSG so in love with BillG that they want him or nobody?
> 
> B. Or is the CSG, or at least some of its leadership, so against the rumored candidate, that they will do anything including deadlock to keep her from getting onto the Board?

If they won?t tell us what their issue is, I honestly don?t care to try to guess. I am not opposed to dialogue, but the bottom line is that they have declared a strong position that they will not accept any other nominee apart from Bill.

> 
> I think the response we make depends on our analysis.
> 
> We have a few alternative:
> 
> - not field a nominee and then vote None of the above.  If we all do that, we force the deadlock and take bill off the table.  this probably won't work and and will reuslt in Bill wining with partial support.  But a statement would be made.

I wouldn?t mind doing this provided that Bill doesn?t win with partial support. I would rather not limit our response to making a statement. I don?t think a statement by us is anything that will phase the CSG. They are taking a strong position, and in this situation, I feel we need to flex our muscles too. I am hoping that this will force more discussion.

> 
> - pick a nominee
> 
> -- Marie Laure wants to nominate Sam, and some have indicated a desire to nominate me.  I assume Sam is willing and I remain willing to be nominated.
> 
> -- if B above is the case, that makes a case for picking someone other than me.  Then again we need to determine whether all of the NCSG voters would be willing to vote for Sam, or else this would just work to confirm BillG on the first ballot.

Yep.

> 
> -- if A above is the case, we should pick the one who has the best chance to picking off at least one of their voters in a contest to see which block of voters breaks first.

Yes again, but they have announced that they haven?t indicated that their common practice of voting as a bloc has changed.

> Now, the NCSG is easier to break up than the CSG, since we do not enforce party discipline. And some of us, don't think BillG is all that bad and might be convinced tomorrow morning that he will try harder i nhis next term.  I had a conversation with him the other day and was convinced that on at least the NTIA /IANA issue his mind is still open.

We shouldn?t make this about Bill, Avri. Our position should be based on that we demand a process in which we should be allowed to run a nominee against Bill who at least has a chance of winning. If not, then we might as well send the CSG a note telling them that we don?t plan to participate in future Board elections, and they can go ahead and pick whoever they want.

> 
> Just some random thoughts.

Also my random thoughts, but this has been bothering me ever since getting WUK?s email.

Thanks.

Amr


From robin  Sun Mar 23 06:35:49 2014
From: robin (Robin Gross)
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 21:35:49 -0700
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <532E61D3.5020805@acm.org>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
	<8BCBF201-1916-4A4C-83CF-9311113C4BAC@gmail.com>
	<532AC1AC.5090208@acm.org>
	<6225CD4F-D50D-4979-B7AD-42F3C9A50241@egyptig.org>
	<532E5211.5060305@acm.org>
	<5F168257-6F5E-493F-B38C-92E195464E26@isoc.be>
	<CAC7qwdAyWp3v4WhTyu9wOrDCJmL4Z9H3EoEpAJcNZk2=bBNXdg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4141A65C-24D4-4382-B7E5-DD9E1F9F47D2@isoc.be>
	<532E61D3.5020805@acm.org>
Message-ID: <5DB5ED15-3187-4728-84ED-5EA9F3722D5B@ipjustice.org>

I agree with Amr's conclusions and suggestions for moving forward.  WE gotta stop letting CSG push us around, even if it is the easiest thing to do.  

Robin

On Mar 22, 2014, at 9:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> The charter gives the PC the responsibility to do selections for functions.
> 
> The charter also gives the EC the duty to create processes, if it so desires. The absence of a EC formal determined policy, the PC gets to do stuff by rough consensus as the charter indicates.
> 
> Discussion until rough consensus IS a process.  In some organizations it is the ONLY process.
> 
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> On 23-Mar-14 11:38, Rudi Vansnick wrote:
>> Thanks Maria for the clarification. I think it would be good if we could
>> make it an official process to avoid the discussions in the future.
>> 
>> Rudi Vansnick
>> NPOC chair Policy Committee
>> NPOC treasurer
>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
>> 
>> Op 23-jan.-2014, om 11:31 heeft Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com
>> <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> Hi Rudi,
>>> 
>>> It's the NCSG PC's job to elect or appoint people to roles so afaik
>>> it's our job to sort this out.
>>> 
>>> m
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 23 March 2014 11:29, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>    dear all,
>>> 
>>>    reading through this mailexchanges it seems to me we are missing a
>>>    well defined process (procedure). When looking into the NCSG
>>>    charter I did not find immediately an answer to that question ? So
>>>    can someone help me getting a text clarifying what the rights of
>>>    NCSG are wrt the nomination process ?
>>> 
>>>    Rudi Vansnick
>>>    NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>    NPOC treasurer
>>>    rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>>    Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>>    Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>>>    www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>> 
>>>    Op 23-jan.-2014, om 11:16 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>    <mailto:avri at acm.org>> het volgende geschreven:
>>> 
>>>>    Hi,
>>>> 
>>>>    Thanks for keeping the dialogue rolling.
>>>> 
>>>>    I think we have a few alternatives.  And we need to figure out
>>>>    what the issues really is.
>>>> 
>>>>    A. Is the CSG so in love with BillG that they want him or nobody?
>>>> 
>>>>    B. Or is the CSG, or at least some of its leadership, so against
>>>>    the rumored candidate, that they will do anything including
>>>>    deadlock to keep her from getting onto the Board?
>>>> 
>>>>    I think the response we make depends on our analysis.
>>>> 
>>>>    We have a few alternative:
>>>> 
>>>>    - not field a nominee and then vote None of the above.  If we all
>>>>    do that, we force the deadlock and take bill off the table.  this
>>>>    probably won't work and and will reuslt in Bill wining with
>>>>    partial support.  But a statement would be made.
>>>> 
>>>>    - pick a nominee
>>>> 
>>>>    -- Marie Laure wants to nominate Sam, and some have indicated a
>>>>    desire to nominate me.  I assume Sam is willing and I remain
>>>>    willing to be nominated.
>>>> 
>>>>    -- if B above is the case, that makes a case for picking someone
>>>>    other than me.  Then again we need to determine whether all of
>>>>    the NCSG voters would be willing to vote for Sam, or else this
>>>>    would just work to confirm BillG on the first ballot.
>>>> 
>>>>    -- if A above is the case, we should pick the one who has the
>>>>    best chance to picking off at least one of their voters in a
>>>>    contest to see which block of voters breaks first.
>>>> 
>>>>    Now, the NCSG is easier to break up than the CSG, since we do not
>>>>    enforce party discipline. And some of us, don't think BillG is
>>>>    all that bad and might be convinced tomorrow morning that he will
>>>>    try harder i nhis next term.  I had a conversation with him the
>>>>    other day and was convinced that on at least the NTIA /IANA issue
>>>>    his mind is still open.
>>>> 
>>>>    Just some random thoughts.
>>>> 
>>>>    avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    avri
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    On 23-Mar-14 10:47, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>    Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>>    We?re talking about this topic at today?s policy meeting, right?
>>>>>    I just wanted to fwd my thoughts. I think, out of principle, we
>>>>>    need to take a firm stand in this election. The CSG have
>>>>>    informed us that we can either back their candidate or go into a
>>>>>    deadlock. If we back down, it will be an unfortunate precedent,
>>>>>    and will encourage the CSG to take this position repetitively.
>>>>> 
>>>>>    Last time around, we had some Board appointed councillors, which
>>>>>    we thankfully don?t have now. I know we?re scheduled to speak to
>>>>>    Bill tomorrow morning, and I would have liked to meet him, but
>>>>>    this should be a matter of principle. I hope we can reach a full
>>>>>    consensus on this, and would appreciate hearing thoughts.
>>>>> 
>>>>>    Thanks.
>>>>> 
>>>>>    Amr
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>>    PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>    PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>    http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    _______________________________________________
>>>    PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>    PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>    http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140322/30f4accb/attachment.sig>


From stephanie.perrin  Sun Mar 23 06:56:41 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 00:56:41 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <5DB5ED15-3187-4728-84ED-5EA9F3722D5B@ipjustice.org>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
	<8BCBF201-1916-4A4C-83CF-9311113C4BAC@gmail.com>	<532AC1AC.5090208@acm.org>
	<6225CD4F-D50D-4979-B7AD-42F3C9A50241@egyptig.org>
	<532E5211.5060305@acm.org>	<5F168257-6F5E-493F-B38C-92E195464E26@isoc.be>
	<CAC7qwdAyWp3v4WhTyu9wOrDCJmL4Z9H3EoEpAJcNZk2=bBNXdg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4141A65C-24D4-4382-B7E5-DD9E1F9F47D2@isoc.be>	<532E61D3.5020805@acm.org>
	<5DB5ED15-3187-4728-84ED-5EA9F3722D5B@ipjustice.org>
Message-ID: <84B8C78C-DFC4-475A-9AC1-7620E5484BA2@mail.utoronto.ca>

Does this process make the multistakeholder, bottom up consensus deal a dead duck?  If so, worth pointing out at this inflection point in time when folks profess to care...
On Mar 23, 2014, at 12:35 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> I agree with Amr's conclusions and suggestions for moving forward.  WE gotta stop letting CSG push us around, even if it is the easiest thing to do.  
> 
> Robin
> 
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 9:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> The charter gives the PC the responsibility to do selections for functions.
>> 
>> The charter also gives the EC the duty to create processes, if it so desires. The absence of a EC formal determined policy, the PC gets to do stuff by rough consensus as the charter indicates.
>> 
>> Discussion until rough consensus IS a process.  In some organizations it is the ONLY process.
>> 
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> On 23-Mar-14 11:38, Rudi Vansnick wrote:
>>> Thanks Maria for the clarification. I think it would be good if we could
>>> make it an official process to avoid the discussions in the future.
>>> 
>>> Rudi Vansnick
>>> NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>> NPOC treasurer
>>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16
>>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>> www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org>
>>> 
>>> Op 23-jan.-2014, om 11:31 heeft Maria Farrell <maria.farrell at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>> het volgende geschreven:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Rudi,
>>>> 
>>>> It's the NCSG PC's job to elect or appoint people to roles so afaik
>>>> it's our job to sort this out.
>>>> 
>>>> m
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 23 March 2014 11:29, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
>>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>   dear all,
>>>> 
>>>>   reading through this mailexchanges it seems to me we are missing a
>>>>   well defined process (procedure). When looking into the NCSG
>>>>   charter I did not find immediately an answer to that question ? So
>>>>   can someone help me getting a text clarifying what the rights of
>>>>   NCSG are wrt the nomination process ?
>>>> 
>>>>   Rudi Vansnick
>>>>   NPOC chair Policy Committee
>>>>   NPOC treasurer
>>>>   rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org>
>>>>   Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>>>   Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032>
>>>>   www.npoc.org <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>> 
>>>>   Op 23-jan.-2014, om 11:16 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>>   <mailto:avri at acm.org>> het volgende geschreven:
>>>> 
>>>>>   Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Thanks for keeping the dialogue rolling.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   I think we have a few alternatives.  And we need to figure out
>>>>>   what the issues really is.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   A. Is the CSG so in love with BillG that they want him or nobody?
>>>>> 
>>>>>   B. Or is the CSG, or at least some of its leadership, so against
>>>>>   the rumored candidate, that they will do anything including
>>>>>   deadlock to keep her from getting onto the Board?
>>>>> 
>>>>>   I think the response we make depends on our analysis.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   We have a few alternative:
>>>>> 
>>>>>   - not field a nominee and then vote None of the above.  If we all
>>>>>   do that, we force the deadlock and take bill off the table.  this
>>>>>   probably won't work and and will reuslt in Bill wining with
>>>>>   partial support.  But a statement would be made.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   - pick a nominee
>>>>> 
>>>>>   -- Marie Laure wants to nominate Sam, and some have indicated a
>>>>>   desire to nominate me.  I assume Sam is willing and I remain
>>>>>   willing to be nominated.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   -- if B above is the case, that makes a case for picking someone
>>>>>   other than me.  Then again we need to determine whether all of
>>>>>   the NCSG voters would be willing to vote for Sam, or else this
>>>>>   would just work to confirm BillG on the first ballot.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   -- if A above is the case, we should pick the one who has the
>>>>>   best chance to picking off at least one of their voters in a
>>>>>   contest to see which block of voters breaks first.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Now, the NCSG is easier to break up than the CSG, since we do not
>>>>>   enforce party discipline. And some of us, don't think BillG is
>>>>>   all that bad and might be convinced tomorrow morning that he will
>>>>>   try harder i nhis next term.  I had a conversation with him the
>>>>>   other day and was convinced that on at least the NTIA /IANA issue
>>>>>   his mind is still open.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   Just some random thoughts.
>>>>> 
>>>>>   avri
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>   avri
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>   On 23-Mar-14 10:47, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>   Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   We?re talking about this topic at today?s policy meeting, right?
>>>>>>   I just wanted to fwd my thoughts. I think, out of principle, we
>>>>>>   need to take a firm stand in this election. The CSG have
>>>>>>   informed us that we can either back their candidate or go into a
>>>>>>   deadlock. If we back down, it will be an unfortunate precedent,
>>>>>>   and will encourage the CSG to take this position repetitively.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   Last time around, we had some Board appointed councillors, which
>>>>>>   we thankfully don?t have now. I know we?re scheduled to speak to
>>>>>>   Bill tomorrow morning, and I would have liked to meet him, but
>>>>>>   this should be a matter of principle. I hope we can reach a full
>>>>>>   consensus on this, and would appreciate hearing thoughts.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   Thanks.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>   Amr
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>>>   PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>>   PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>   http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>   _______________________________________________
>>>>   PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>>   PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>   http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg




From avri  Sun Mar 23 07:28:28 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 13:28:28 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <84B8C78C-DFC4-475A-9AC1-7620E5484BA2@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>	<8BCBF201-1916-4A4C-83CF-9311113C4BAC@gmail.com>	<532AC1AC.5090208@acm.org>	<6225CD4F-D50D-4979-B7AD-42F3C9A50241@egyptig.org>	<532E5211.5060305@acm.org>	<5F168257-6F5E-493F-B38C-92E195464E26@isoc.be>	<CAC7qwdAyWp3v4WhTyu9wOrDCJmL4Z9H3EoEpAJcNZk2=bBNXdg@mail.gmail.com>	<4141A65C-24D4-4382-B7E5-DD9E1F9F47D2@isoc.be>	<532E61D3.5020805@acm.org>	<5DB5ED15-3187-4728-84ED-5EA9F3722D5B@ipjustice.org>
	<84B8C78C-DFC4-475A-9AC1-7620E5484BA2@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <532E70FC.4080509@acm.org>

hi,

If you are speaking of the NCSG nomination process:

I do not think so.

We have a charter that was argued bottom-up and it created the mechanism
for appointments and even includes methods of appeal.

There is a difference between direct democracy and bottom-up where a set
or processes are created for doing things.

We have not set up NCSG as a peoples direct democracy where we take
every decision back to the full list.  There is a difference you know.

But you can certainly appeal this using the charter mechanisms.

If you are speaking of the CSG process:

They have a subsidiary right to pick the methods they like.

If you are speaking of the the Board election  mechanism where 7 people 
elect one Board seat, and 13 elect another is brain dead. But that was a 
recommendation from representative of the GNSO that the Board accepted.


avri

On 23-Mar-14 12:56, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
> Does this process make the multistakeholder, bottom up consensus deal
> a dead duck?  If so, worth pointing out at this inflection point in
> time when folks profess to care...



On Mar 23, 2014, at 12:35 AM,
> Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Amr's conclusions and suggestions for moving forward.
>> WE gotta stop letting CSG push us around, even if it is the easiest
>> thing to do.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>> On Mar 22, 2014, at 9:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> The charter gives the PC the responsibility to do selections for
>>> functions.
>>>
>>> The charter also gives the EC the duty to create processes, if it
>>> so desires. The absence of a EC formal determined policy, the PC
>>> gets to do stuff by rough consensus as the charter indicates.
>>>
>>> Discussion until rough consensus IS a process.  In some
>>> organizations it is the ONLY process.
>>>
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> On 23-Mar-14 11:38, Rudi Vansnick wrote:
>>>> Thanks Maria for the clarification. I think it would be good if
>>>> we could make it an official process to avoid the discussions
>>>> in the future.
>>>>
>>>> Rudi Vansnick NPOC chair Policy Committee NPOC treasurer
>>>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org> Tel :
>>>> +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 www.npoc.org
>>>> <http://www.npoc.org>
>>>>
>>>> Op 23-jan.-2014, om 11:31 heeft Maria Farrell
>>>> <maria.farrell at gmail.com <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>> het
>>>> volgende geschreven:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Rudi,
>>>>>
>>>>> It's the NCSG PC's job to elect or appoint people to roles so
>>>>> afaik it's our job to sort this out.
>>>>>
>>>>> m
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23 March 2014 11:29, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be
>>>>> <mailto:rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> reading through this mailexchanges it seems to me we are
>>>>> missing a well defined process (procedure). When looking into
>>>>> the NCSG charter I did not find immediately an answer to that
>>>>> question ? So can someone help me getting a text clarifying
>>>>> what the rights of NCSG are wrt the nomination process ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Rudi Vansnick NPOC chair Policy Committee NPOC treasurer
>>>>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org <mailto:rudi.vansnick at npoc.org> Tel :
>>>>> +32 (0)9 329 39 16 <tel:%2B32%20%280%299%20329%2039%2016>
>>>>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32
>>>>> <tel:%2B32%20%280%29475%2028%2016%2032> www.npoc.org
>>>>> <http://www.npoc.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Op 23-jan.-2014, om 11:16 heeft Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
>>>>> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for keeping the dialogue rolling.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we have a few alternatives.  And we need to figure
>>>>>> out what the issues really is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A. Is the CSG so in love with BillG that they want him or
>>>>>> nobody?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> B. Or is the CSG, or at least some of its leadership, so
>>>>>> against the rumored candidate, that they will do anything
>>>>>> including deadlock to keep her from getting onto the
>>>>>> Board?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the response we make depends on our analysis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have a few alternative:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - not field a nominee and then vote None of the above.  If
>>>>>> we all do that, we force the deadlock and take bill off the
>>>>>> table.  this probably won't work and and will reuslt in
>>>>>> Bill wining with partial support.  But a statement would be
>>>>>> made.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - pick a nominee
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Marie Laure wants to nominate Sam, and some have
>>>>>> indicated a desire to nominate me.  I assume Sam is willing
>>>>>> and I remain willing to be nominated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- if B above is the case, that makes a case for picking
>>>>>> someone other than me.  Then again we need to determine
>>>>>> whether all of the NCSG voters would be willing to vote for
>>>>>> Sam, or else this would just work to confirm BillG on the
>>>>>> first ballot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- if A above is the case, we should pick the one who has
>>>>>> the best chance to picking off at least one of their voters
>>>>>> in a contest to see which block of voters breaks first.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, the NCSG is easier to break up than the CSG, since we
>>>>>> do not enforce party discipline. And some of us, don't
>>>>>> think BillG is all that bad and might be convinced tomorrow
>>>>>> morning that he will try harder i nhis next term.  I had a
>>>>>> conversation with him the other day and was convinced that
>>>>>> on at least the NTIA /IANA issue his mind is still open.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just some random thoughts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 23-Mar-14 10:47, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We?re talking about this topic at today?s policy meeting,
>>>>>>> right? I just wanted to fwd my thoughts. I think, out of
>>>>>>> principle, we need to take a firm stand in this election.
>>>>>>> The CSG have informed us that we can either back their
>>>>>>> candidate or go into a deadlock. If we back down, it will
>>>>>>> be an unfortunate precedent, and will encourage the CSG
>>>>>>> to take this position repetitively.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Last time around, we had some Board appointed
>>>>>>> councillors, which we thankfully don?t have now. I know
>>>>>>> we?re scheduled to speak to Bill tomorrow morning, and I
>>>>>>> would have liked to meet him, but this should be a matter
>>>>>>> of principle. I hope we can reach a full consensus on
>>>>>>> this, and would appreciate hearing thoughts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Amr
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG
>>>>>> mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG
>>>>> mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>>>> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing
>> list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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 Mar 23 07:33:05 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 01:33:05 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <532E70FC.4080509@acm.org>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
	<8BCBF201-1916-4A4C-83CF-9311113C4BAC@gmail.com>	<532AC1AC.5090208@acm.org>
	<6225CD4F-D50D-4979-B7AD-42F3C9A50241@egyptig.org>
	<532E5211.5060305@acm.org>	<5F168257-6F5E-493F-B38C-92E195464E26@isoc.be>
	<CAC7qwdAyWp3v4WhTyu9wOrDCJmL4Z9H3EoEpAJcNZk2=bBNXdg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4141A65C-24D4-4382-B7E5-DD9E1F9F47D2@isoc.be>	<532E61D3.5020805@acm.org>
	<5DB5ED15-3187-4728-84ED-5EA9F3722D5B@ipjustice.org>
	<84B8C78C-DFC4-475A-9AC1-7620E5484BA2@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<532E70FC.4080509@acm.org>
Message-ID: <4E136B52-011B-4F2A-83B7-7606BB68C41A@mail.utoronto.ca>

"If you are speaking of the the Board election  mechanism where 7 people elect one Board seat, and 13 elect another is brain dead. But that was a recommendation from representative of the GNSO that the Board accepted."

This was the bit that I was referring to?.I am still trying to figure out the process.
SP
On Mar 23, 2014, at 1:28 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> If you are speaking of the the Board election  mechanism where 7 people elect one Board seat, and 13 elect another is brain dead. But that was a recommendation from representative of the GNSO that the Board accepted.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140323/224bea40/attachment.html>


From aelsadr  Sun Mar 23 07:47:59 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 13:47:59 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] board candidate
In-Reply-To: <4E136B52-011B-4F2A-83B7-7606BB68C41A@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <532A8BAB.5020903@acm.org>
	<8BCBF201-1916-4A4C-83CF-9311113C4BAC@gmail.com>	<532AC1AC.5090208@acm.org>
	<6225CD4F-D50D-4979-B7AD-42F3C9A50241@egyptig.org>
	<532E5211.5060305@acm.org>	<5F168257-6F5E-493F-B38C-92E195464E26@isoc.be>
	<CAC7qwdAyWp3v4WhTyu9wOrDCJmL4Z9H3EoEpAJcNZk2=bBNXdg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4141A65C-24D4-4382-B7E5-DD9E1F9F47D2@isoc.be>	<532E61D3.5020805@acm.org>
	<5DB5ED15-3187-4728-84ED-5EA9F3722D5B@ipjustice.org>
	<84B8C78C-DFC4-475A-9AC1-7620E5484BA2@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<532E70FC.4080509@acm.org>
	<4E136B52-011B-4F2A-83B7-7606BB68C41A@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <969A1EC7-468C-4214-A451-CEDF538F1AF4@egyptig.org>

In that case, Stephanie, my answer would be no. It doesn?t make the MSM bottom-up process a dead duck, but it does raise a concern regarding organising the GNSO into ?Party Houses?. That model used to structure the GNSO doesn?t make much sense to me, and I fail to see how it is a productive practice. Others who have been around longer may have a more in-depth understanding than I do on why this was done. I?m not well educated on the matter.

Thanks.

Amr

On Mar 23, 2014, at 1:33 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> "If you are speaking of the the Board election  mechanism where 7 people elect one Board seat, and 13 elect another is brain dead. But that was a recommendation from representative of the GNSO that the Board accepted."
> 
> This was the bit that I was referring to?.I am still trying to figure out the process.
> SP
> On Mar 23, 2014, at 1:28 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> 
>> If you are speaking of the the Board election  mechanism where 7 people elect one Board seat, and 13 elect another is brain dead. But that was a recommendation from representative of the GNSO that the Board accepted.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140323/b6f9a0ff/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Sun Mar 23 10:15:43 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 17:15:43 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] PC meeting room moved to Morrison
Message-ID: <CAH5sThnEkRUK_4Tb5wTxKtsHTUNbkQmf_FxpwrwSu1H9LJccng@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

Urgent update about PC meeting room, it will is moved from hullet to
morrison. The meeting will start in 15min.

Best,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140323/8a2f0e6d/attachment-0001.html>


From rudi.vansnick  Sun Mar 23 17:48:45 2014
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 23:48:45 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] MM edits of staff IANA statement
References: <d464c90dca55496c829100993ec02460@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <7DA2175D-A7FF-482A-9621-07E939F7D176@isoc.be>

Dear colleagues,

Can you please have a look at the document from Milton Mueller ? To me it seems a good document but as I always want hear each other voices, I?m asking your comments / remarks on the proposed document.

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

Begin doorgestuurd bericht:

> Van: Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU>
> Onderwerp: [NCSG-Discuss] MM edits of staff IANA statement
> Datum: 23 maart 2014 17:35:43 GMT+8
> Aan: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Antwoord aan: Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU>
> 
>  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140323/ab70e479/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Joint Statement - IANA Globalization - updated 19 March 2014-MM.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 29696 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140323/ab70e479/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140323/ab70e479/attachment-0003.html>


From aelsadr  Sun Mar 23 18:24:41 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 00:24:41 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] MM edits of staff IANA statement
In-Reply-To: <7DA2175D-A7FF-482A-9621-07E939F7D176@isoc.be>
References: <d464c90dca55496c829100993ec02460@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<7DA2175D-A7FF-482A-9621-07E939F7D176@isoc.be>
Message-ID: <EF632FD4-A6AD-4CDF-A631-EF0B06F754FF@egyptig.org>

Hi Rudi,

Stephanie has circulated a newer version of this document with very slight changes on the NCSG list. I?ve attached it to this email for consideration.

Thanks.

Amr


On Mar 23, 2014, at 11:48 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE> wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
> 
> Can you please have a look at the document from Milton Mueller ? To me it seems a good document but as I always want hear each other voices, I?m asking your comments / remarks on the proposed document.
> 
> 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
> 
> Begin doorgestuurd bericht:
> 
>> Van: Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU>
>> Onderwerp: [NCSG-Discuss] MM edits of staff IANA statement
>> Datum: 23 maart 2014 17:35:43 GMT+8
>> Aan: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> Antwoord aan: Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU>
>> 
>>  
> <Joint Statement - IANA Globalization - updated 19 March 2014-MM.doc>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140324/bd565475/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Joint Statement - IANA Globalization - updated 23 March 2014-MMSP.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 33792 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140324/bd565475/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140324/bd565475/attachment-0003.html>


From aelsadr  Sun Mar 23 18:25:26 2014
From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr)
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 00:25:26 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] MM edits of staff IANA statement
In-Reply-To: <EF632FD4-A6AD-4CDF-A631-EF0B06F754FF@egyptig.org>
References: <d464c90dca55496c829100993ec02460@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu>
	<7DA2175D-A7FF-482A-9621-07E939F7D176@isoc.be>
	<EF632FD4-A6AD-4CDF-A631-EF0B06F754FF@egyptig.org>
Message-ID: <936588B8-659E-4F23-8B42-E1F387C42E2C@egyptig.org>

And I agree that it is a good statement I hope we can get others in the community behind.

Thanks again.

Amr

On Mar 24, 2014, at 12:24 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:

> Hi Rudi,
> 
> Stephanie has circulated a newer version of this document with very slight changes on the NCSG list. I?ve attached it to this email for consideration.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> <Joint Statement - IANA Globalization - updated 23 March 2014-MMSP.doc>
> 
> On Mar 23, 2014, at 11:48 PM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at ISOC.BE> wrote:
> 
>> Dear colleagues,
>> 
>> Can you please have a look at the document from Milton Mueller ? To me it seems a good document but as I always want hear each other voices, I?m asking your comments / remarks on the proposed document.
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> Begin doorgestuurd bericht:
>> 
>>> Van: Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU>
>>> Onderwerp: [NCSG-Discuss] MM edits of staff IANA statement
>>> Datum: 23 maart 2014 17:35:43 GMT+8
>>> Aan: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>> Antwoord aan: Milton L Mueller <mueller at SYR.EDU>
>>> 
>>>  
>> <Joint Statement - IANA Globalization - updated 19 March 2014-MM.doc>
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140324/5705d0ce/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Mar 26 06:43:03 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 13:43:03 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Meeting with Bill Graham
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThn9y=TstfO0s-xo2jRRECGV1ubC5yBug=MCy3FokZ3ktA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThn9y=TstfO0s-xo2jRRECGV1ubC5yBug=MCy3FokZ3ktA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=mMsmp9OELbeZ=yjus-o+HRm=9LAY8kkXZuaX0QpC+Mw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

Just as heads-up we may meet Bill tomorrow at 8:30am, tbc later.

Best Regards,

Rafik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140326/7ddf63c0/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Mar 26 07:05:15 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:05:15 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCSG Transcription 23 March 2014
In-Reply-To: <BDBCC21442A22640A4ECE2C75A8E215AC5CB04D018@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <BDBCC21442A22640A4ECE2C75A8E215AC5CB04D018@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThndMPffGMZRybSt8vRNDzYrUajOmMn3Z6Q--sVHRJMAyw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

please find attached the transcript for the Policy committee meeting in
Sunday,

Best Regards,

Rafik


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Terri Agnew <terri.agnew at icann.org>
Date: 2014-03-25 1:22 GMT+09:00
Subject: NCSG Transcription 23 March 2014
To: "rafik.dammak at gmail.com" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" <gnso-secs at icann.org>


Dear Rafik,



Please find attached the transcription of the NCSG call held on the
23rdMarch 2014 in
Singapore.



Kind regards



Terri Agnew

For GNSO Secretariat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140326/573248e5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: transcript NCSG Policy 23 March 2014.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 401920 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140326/573248e5/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5417 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140326/573248e5/attachment-0001.p7s>


From rafik.dammak  Wed Mar 26 08:06:35 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 15:06:35 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Meeting with Bill Graham
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=mMsmp9OELbeZ=yjus-o+HRm=9LAY8kkXZuaX0QpC+Mw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThn9y=TstfO0s-xo2jRRECGV1ubC5yBug=MCy3FokZ3ktA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=mMsmp9OELbeZ=yjus-o+HRm=9LAY8kkXZuaX0QpC+Mw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sTh=QJ=m+k0X_aLsMZ_gYQgY-YtycoOfWpfzvJnrK9+7EOA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

So it will be at bras pasah 8 to 9 am

Rafik
On Mar 26, 2014 12:43 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Just as heads-up we may meet Bill tomorrow at 8:30am, tbc later.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140326/692e0161/attachment.html>


From mllemineur  Wed Mar 26 08:29:22 2014
From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur)
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:29:22 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] [EC-NCSG] Meeting with Bill Graham
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=mMsmp9OELbeZ=yjus-o+HRm=9LAY8kkXZuaX0QpC+Mw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThn9y=TstfO0s-xo2jRRECGV1ubC5yBug=MCy3FokZ3ktA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=mMsmp9OELbeZ=yjus-o+HRm=9LAY8kkXZuaX0QpC+Mw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD3sNqHSXCYujS1Gi-OQaS1t=etewPkZfdCZnr1qxJLXaAsQsw@mail.gmail.com>

May I ask what for? Just curious.

best,
ml


On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Just as heads-up we may meet Bill tomorrow at 8:30am, tbc later.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Rafik
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC-NCSG mailing list
> EC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/ec-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140326/412e12e5/attachment.html>


From rafik.dammak  Thu Mar 27 02:06:36 2014
From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:06:36 +0900
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Meeting with Bill Graham
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sTh=QJ=m+k0X_aLsMZ_gYQgY-YtycoOfWpfzvJnrK9+7EOA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThn9y=TstfO0s-xo2jRRECGV1ubC5yBug=MCy3FokZ3ktA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=mMsmp9OELbeZ=yjus-o+HRm=9LAY8kkXZuaX0QpC+Mw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=QJ=m+k0X_aLsMZ_gYQgY-YtycoOfWpfzvJnrK9+7EOA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH5sThk9MLqbTU9MM+aac=2an8LgGx4MtxiTF-36ukjWKhuy=g@mail.gmail.com>

Reminder meeting with bill graham at 8am (now) bras basah (same room for
ncsg meeting in tuesday)

Rafik
On Mar 26, 2014 2:06 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> So it will be at bras pasah 8 to 9 am
>
> Rafik
> On Mar 26, 2014 12:43 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just as heads-up we may meet Bill tomorrow at 8:30am, tbc later.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140327/d712d665/attachment.html>


From rudi.vansnick  Fri Mar 28 01:36:49 2014
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 07:36:49 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Meeting with Bill Graham
In-Reply-To: <CAH5sThk9MLqbTU9MM+aac=2an8LgGx4MtxiTF-36ukjWKhuy=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAH5sThn9y=TstfO0s-xo2jRRECGV1ubC5yBug=MCy3FokZ3ktA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=mMsmp9OELbeZ=yjus-o+HRm=9LAY8kkXZuaX0QpC+Mw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sTh=QJ=m+k0X_aLsMZ_gYQgY-YtycoOfWpfzvJnrK9+7EOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAH5sThk9MLqbTU9MM+aac=2an8LgGx4MtxiTF-36ukjWKhuy=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <201116DB-73A4-4980-BF04-2C8C3CAE127F@isoc.be>

Dear Rafik,

I could not join this meeting as I was co-chair of the GNSO DMPM WG session that started at 8:00 AM.
What?s the outcome of that meeting ?

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 27-jan.-2014, om 08:06 heeft Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:

> Reminder meeting with bill graham at 8am (now) bras basah (same room for ncsg meeting in tuesday)
> 
> Rafik
> 
> On Mar 26, 2014 2:06 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> So it will be at bras pasah 8 to 9 am
> 
> Rafik
> 
> On Mar 26, 2014 12:43 PM, "Rafik Dammak" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Just as heads-up we may meet Bill tomorrow at 8:30am, tbc later.
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Rafik
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140328/fa7c70f9/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Fri Mar 28 03:11:06 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 21:11:06 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Comments on RAA data retention?
Message-ID: <B3AF260F-CC29-4B50-BC50-E38CF064A3B8@mail.utoronto.ca>

Are we planning to comment on this? 
https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-21mar14-en.htm
cheers stephanie



From rudi.vansnick  Fri Mar 28 12:06:01 2014
From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick)
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 18:06:01 +0800
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Comments on RAA data retention?
In-Reply-To: <B3AF260F-CC29-4B50-BC50-E38CF064A3B8@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <B3AF260F-CC29-4B50-BC50-E38CF064A3B8@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <1A211388-1AD0-4573-B6BD-6B7DEA1F94CB@isoc.be>

Dear Stephanie,

Being at the airport now, I?m not able to go through the document, but I consider the topic too important to NOT do anything. I propose we come back to this early next week. If I?m not wrong we have time till 21 April ?

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 28-jan.-2014, om 09:11 heeft Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> het volgende geschreven:

> Are we planning to comment on this? 
> https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-21mar14-en.htm
> cheers stephanie
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140328/16914766/attachment.html>


From stephanie.perrin  Sat Mar 29 08:24:40 2014
From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 02:24:40 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Comments on RAA data retention?
In-Reply-To: <1A211388-1AD0-4573-B6BD-6B7DEA1F94CB@isoc.be>
References: <B3AF260F-CC29-4B50-BC50-E38CF064A3B8@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<1A211388-1AD0-4573-B6BD-6B7DEA1F94CB@isoc.be>
Message-ID: <762D7350-5E20-4BEB-AD28-D74524AC0ABC@mail.utoronto.ca>

yes, i think that is about right.  Home now finally,more later...
On Mar 28, 2014, at 6:06 AM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be> wrote:

> Dear Stephanie,
> 
> Being at the airport now, I?m not able to go through the document, but I consider the topic too important to NOT do anything. I propose we come back to this early next week. If I?m not wrong we have time till 21 April ?
> 
> 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 28-jan.-2014, om 09:11 heeft Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> Are we planning to comment on this? 
>> https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-21mar14-en.htm
>> cheers stephanie
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140329/9c57d96b/attachment.html>


From mariliamaciel  Sat Mar 29 08:39:33 2014
From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 03:39:33 -0300
Subject: [PC-NCSG] Comments on RAA data retention?
In-Reply-To: <762D7350-5E20-4BEB-AD28-D74524AC0ABC@mail.utoronto.ca>
References: <B3AF260F-CC29-4B50-BC50-E38CF064A3B8@mail.utoronto.ca>
	<1A211388-1AD0-4573-B6BD-6B7DEA1F94CB@isoc.be>
	<762D7350-5E20-4BEB-AD28-D74524AC0ABC@mail.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <CACpVkK14iYztkYZd8sM4iCtonGc3AXPWjCq12YQA1efUe3HPuQ@mail.gmail.com>

At the airport too waiting for a connecting flight. I agree with Rudi and
would be willing to help as well.
Mar?lia


On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> yes, i think that is about right.  Home now finally,more later...
>
> On Mar 28, 2014, at 6:06 AM, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick at isoc.be> wrote:
>
> Dear Stephanie,
>
> Being at the airport now, I'm not able to go through the document, but I
> consider the topic too important to NOT do anything. I propose we come back
> to this early next week. If I'm not wrong we have time till 21 April ?
>
> 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 28-jan.-2014, om 09:11 heeft Stephanie Perrin <
> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> het volgende geschreven:
>
> Are we planning to comment on this?
> https://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-3-21mar14-en.htm
> cheers stephanie
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>


-- 
*Mar?lia Maciel*
Pesquisadora Gestora
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio

Researcher and Coordinator
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School
http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts

DiploFoundation associate
www.diplomacy.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140329/27c4f5bf/attachment.html>


From avri  Sun Mar 30 23:11:33 2014
From: avri (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 16:11:33 -0400
Subject: [PC-NCSG] ncsg.is
Message-ID: <53387A75.8060805@acm.org>

Hi,

Just wanted to remind people that I have the name ncsg.is

i keep forgetting because I have never set it up to do anything.

but i just opened the email receipt telling me i had just renewed it for 
another year.

i don't have time to do anything with it, except make dns changes for 
server references once i find their interface and am instructed on what 
changes to make.  so it is available for whatever ncsg grouping that 
might want to give it an NCSG server purpose. and administer it.  not 
sure we have a group that does that yet.

let me know.

avri