From maria.farrell Thu May 1 14:57:18 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 12:57:18 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH Board seat 14 election - results second round In-Reply-To: References: <7FE24A9B-C107-4E3B-96B0-2A8E093D33A0@egyptig.org> <7DE7C863-145B-4C8B-A2AF-64B6C094D418@ipjustice.org> <3B23855A-DF37-430F-86FB-3092C5241AF4@gmail.com> <534BF98A.7080608@acm.org> <25388823-7321-4924-B859-6A2217C58719@isoc.be> <502A97E1-ADCA-44C8-8BC3-19E1F95989CC@gmail.com> <534FF5B5.6050207@acm.org> <7BE746CD-D85B-4013-A068-29120CA5A295@isoc.be> <18CEADFE-5E93-45D4-AE0A-41E9CD76F085@isoc.be> Message-ID: Dear all, My apologies for being offline for much of this discussion; I have been dealing with some personal issues. Thanks so much, Rafik, for taking the lead. All the best, Maria On 29 April 2014 21:43, Rafik Dammak wrote: > again, btw can Sam share his CV ? we need to present him to CSG. > > Rafik > > > 2014-04-30 5:40 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > > Hi Rudi, >> >> I resumed the discussion with Kristina about the process after the >> netmundial week and suggested our compromise candidate. CSG excom had call >> before and discussed some options to be on or out (for example they decided >> to not change the voting threshold of 8 votes), they didn't reach any >> decision yet and now they have to check our own proposal. >> >> we may have call early next week with CSG if it is OK and we will be able >> to defend our option and listen to theirs. good to agree on some points >> before the call . >> >> btw the time is playing for our side, >> >> Best >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2014-04-30 5:00 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : >> >> Dear Rafik, >>> >>> As I did not hear nor read any reaction of action on the process of >>> putting forward our compromise candidate and time is flowing away, may I >>> ask what?s next ? Did CSG already react ? What are the steps we officially >>> need to go through now (asap) ? >>> >>> 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-apr.-2014, om 13:54 heeft Rafik Dammak >>> het volgende geschreven: >>> >>> Hi , >>> >>> just to clarify, it is not a NCSG PC meeting we are talking about but a >>> possible call between CSG and NCSG regarding the election. because >>> netmundial, it may be complicated for those in brazil from CSG and NCSG to >>> attend the call this week. it may be wise to have a call next week when >>> everybody go back home. we are also hashing out the process here in PC >>> list. Sam is our compromise candidate and we still need to discuss about >>> the election process and find out CSG reaction to our proposal. >>> >>> @Avri thanks for the proposal, it looks for me a workable and clear way >>> to improve election process. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2014-04-21 17:00 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : >>> >>>> Dear all, >>>> >>>> The decision to have a NCSG PC meeting is that not the responsibility >>>> of the chair of the NCSG Policy Committee ? Maria, what about the call for >>>> a meeting or a doodle ? Do you take action ? >>>> >>>> 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-apr.-2014, om 08:22 heeft marie-laure Lemineur < >>>> mllemineur at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I know I am copied, but a silly question just to be sure, I am suppose >>>> to be on this call or just the GNSO councillors and Rafik and Maria as >>>> policy Chair ? Just for clarification. >>>> >>>> ...Not going to Brazil thus I am available all week basically.. >>>> >>>> best, >>>> >>>> ml >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi everybody, >>>>> >>>>> I goy finally email from Kristina, she was asking if CSG and NCSG need >>>>> confcall next week to discuss . since many of us will be in netmundial, it >>>>> may be complicated. so please let me if you are ok or not to have such >>>>> call. if we have such call, I think that is better to let them know about >>>>> the compromise there. >>>>> Kristina and me need to contact Jonathan too about the result , >>>>> checking with John Jeffrey (the ICANN legal counsel) >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> 2014-04-19 1:50 GMT+09:00 Magaly Pazello : >>>>> >>>>> Hi! >>>>>> It is my understand too, I mean what Maria explained and Rafik >>>>>> observations about the CSG reactions. >>>>>> Thank you our brave Avri! >>>>>> >>>>>> For whom is coming to NM have a smooth trip to S?o Paulo. And at the >>>>>> airports take care with ATM machines as it is a paradise of credit/bank >>>>>> account card fraud! >>>>>> >>>>>> Magaly >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Rafik Dammak < >>>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Maria, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for the summary, >>>>>>> it is when we have deadlock that we can propose the compromise and >>>>>>> having the ability to do so. and the only way to reach deadlock is at 3rd >>>>>>> and final round . >>>>>>> yes , we can follow the proposal: writing to the NCPH list to >>>>>>> initiate the discussion regarding compromise candidates. and yes we cannot >>>>>>> predict CSG reactions and we should be ready for that. >>>>>>> I already indicated quickly to Kristina when I received the results >>>>>>> that we should discuss but no reply yet. I think that is easter holidays >>>>>>> this weekend and probably won't get answer quickly ( in addition to those >>>>>>> who are travelling to Sao Paulo soon). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2014-04-18 0:57 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Marie Laure et al, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, just to be clear, we'd agreed in Singapore to let the thing go >>>>>>>> to three rounds and if it was still deadlocked,i.e. an election clearly >>>>>>>> wasn't going to yield a winning candidate, that NCSG would propose Sam to >>>>>>>> the CSG as a compromise candidate both sides of the NCPH could agree on. >>>>>>>> (at least we in the NCSG agree he would be a good candidate, and we hope >>>>>>>> the CSG will agree, too) We didn't want to put Sam up against BIll in a >>>>>>>> vote, but rather in the discussions we anticipated might ensue after the >>>>>>>> vote proved inconclusive. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So I think there should be no scope for any disappointment just yet >>>>>>>> - apart from the obvious disappointment that the NCSG's candidate didn't >>>>>>>> win outright in three rounds of voting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now we need to start the process of interacting with the CSG on a >>>>>>>> compromise person to be agreed on by both sides of the NCPH, and we all >>>>>>>> stand behind Sam as that person. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From here on in, we can't predict what the CSG will propose or how >>>>>>>> they will react, so we will have to work very closely across the NCSG to >>>>>>>> make sure we're all happy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let's be clear about precisely how we will take the next step. I >>>>>>>> think we should write to the NCPH list and say basically 'there's no clear >>>>>>>> outcome in the election, so shall we discuss compromise candidates?' and >>>>>>>> if/when they agree, say we propose Sam. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How does that sound as a next step? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maria >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> p.s. Thank you very, very much, Avri, for standing in the election >>>>>>>> on behalf of the NCSG. It was fantastic that you secured the NCA vote, and >>>>>>>> a shame the ISPs didn't come through. Tant pis! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 17 April 2014 16:39, Avri Doria wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> While I disagree with your interpretation about what was agreed >>>>>>>>> to, I >>>>>>>>> appreciate you giving me the chance. And I appreciate the fact >>>>>>>>> that all >>>>>>>>> of the votes held and I was able to at least get the majority vote. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And yes now is the time to propose Sam as the compromise. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Which means he replaces _both_ BillG and me and become a sole >>>>>>>>> candidate >>>>>>>>> in a election between Sam and none of the above. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is what I think we agreed to. And I am pretty sure the record >>>>>>>>> shows that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> avri >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 17-Apr-14 11:13, Marie-laure Lemineur wrote: >>>>>>>>> > Dear NCSG-PC members, >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > The results of the third round were just released. This third >>>>>>>>> round >>>>>>>>> > ended in a deadlock therefore, as agreed in Singapore, NCSG >>>>>>>>> though its >>>>>>>>> > leadership should proposed Sam as the compromise candidate. Just >>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>> > fairness to history and for the record, in Singapore we had >>>>>>>>> agreed that >>>>>>>>> > we would wait for two rounds and if a deadlock happened, Sam >>>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>>> > proposed as a candidate for the third round. But despite that, >>>>>>>>> in order >>>>>>>>> > to give Avri another opportunity and as a proof of good faith, >>>>>>>>> we ( >>>>>>>>> > NPOC) waited for the results of the third round to happen. Now, >>>>>>>>> that it >>>>>>>>> > has happened, and we are going for a fourth round, the fair >>>>>>>>> thing to do >>>>>>>>> > is to that respect the terms of our deal despite the >>>>>>>>> disappointment that >>>>>>>>> > many can feel. >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Best, >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Marie-laure >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > Enviado desde mi iPad >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > El 14/04/2014, a las 10:29 p.m., Rudi Vansnick < >>>>>>>>> rudi.vansnick at isoc.be >>>>>>>>> > > escribi?: >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >> Dear Policy Committee members, >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> As the chair of the NPOC PC, after consulting with the committee >>>>>>>>> >> members, I agree we proceed as is stated in Avri?s mail. We go >>>>>>>>> for the >>>>>>>>> >> 3rd round and if the deadlock happens we proceed with Sam >>>>>>>>> Lanfranco as >>>>>>>>> >> the compromise candidate. >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> 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 14-apr.-2014, om 17:06 heeft Avri Doria >>>>>>>> >> > het volgende geschreven: >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> I hope we are still giving me the third round to see what >>>>>>>>> happens. >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> If no one wins the 60% in this vote, then we are in the >>>>>>>>> deadlock we >>>>>>>>> >>> spoke of when Sam is proposed as the compromise candidate. >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> Or at least that is what I thought we agreed to. >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> thanks >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> avri >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> On 14-Apr-14 02:47, marie-laure Lemineur wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>> Dear Rafik, >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> I would like to call for an NCSG policy meeting soonest in >>>>>>>>> order to >>>>>>>>> >>>> formally nominate Sam as a candidate for the next round. >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> Marie-laure >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 11:18 AM, marie-laure Lemineur >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> I assume that what we agreed on during our NCSG policy >>>>>>>>> meeting in >>>>>>>>> >>>> Singapore, for the third round, is still on... >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> best, >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> ml >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 4:59 PM, William Drake < >>>>>>>>> wjdrake at gmail.com >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> Mikey is the key. >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> On Apr 12, 2014, at 6:33 PM, Robin Gross < >>>>>>>>> robin at ipjustice.org >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> This is really great! Way to go Avri! Keep it up, >>>>>>>>> team!! >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>> Robin >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> On Apr 12, 2014, at 4:39 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Heeey!! Looks like Avri picked up the NCA vote this >>>>>>>>> round!! :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> Nice. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> On Apr 12, 2014, at 12:17 PM, Rafik Dammak >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi , >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> The result of 2nd round, we are going to have a 3rd >>>>>>>>> round. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: "Glen de Saint G?ry" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Date: Apr 12, 2014 4:03 PM >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Subject: NCPH Board seat 14 election - results >>>>>>>>> second round >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> To: "krosette at cov.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> " >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> "rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>>>>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> " >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> rafik.dammak at gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cc: "Glen de Saint G?ry" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Kristina and Rafik,____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Please find the results of the second round of >>>>>>>>> voting which >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> closed on Friday, 11 April at 23:59 UTC. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Final tally :____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> *__ __* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 7 votes Avri Doria____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 6 votes Bill Graham____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0 vote None of the above____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> We await your instructions to continue with the >>>>>>>>> third >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> round of voting due to open at 07:00UTC on 14 April 2014 >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> close on 16 April at 23:59 UTC. Please provide us with >>>>>>>>> the text >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> for the ballot and any covering note that has to be sent >>>>>>>>> with the >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> vote.____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you.____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Kind regards,____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Glen____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> *__ __* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Machine tally: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Total Ballots Cast (including duplicates):*13 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Ballots Counted (excluding duplicates):* 13 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Voters Who Haven't Voted:* 0 *____* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Ballot with added tally (using weights, if >>>>>>>>> any):*____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Select just one of the nominees >>>>>>>>> below____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1: 7 votes [] Avri Doria____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2: 6 votes [] Bill Graham____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3: 0 votes [] None of the above____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> *__ __* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Ballots Received:*____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID 1dd5b4c740cea13 Received at 2014-04-11 >>>>>>>>> 16:49:17 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID 1a1b25296676fb1 Received at 2014-04-11 >>>>>>>>> 15:28:42 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID 4c958b0a504c620 Received at 2014-04-10 >>>>>>>>> 13:40:01 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID ad2820176335eb9 Received at 2014-04-10 >>>>>>>>> 13:08:07 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID a1f76553370d1a0 Received at 2014-04-10 >>>>>>>>> 09:26:14 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID fe7ceebe542d573 Received at 2014-04-08 >>>>>>>>> 16:52:25 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID 38e81b64ae7b939 Received at 2014-04-08 >>>>>>>>> 15:57:41 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID b38aaa35f39640a Received at 2014-04-08 >>>>>>>>> 13:35:34 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID 7b27a78001e9a0e Received at 2014-04-08 >>>>>>>>> 11:39:05 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID 4b5a67b6bf8b080 Received at 2014-04-08 >>>>>>>>> 11:31:12 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID 56805a16c3eee62 Received at 2014-04-08 >>>>>>>>> 09:48:11 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID a5658498dd4faf6 Received at 2014-04-08 >>>>>>>>> 08:41:13 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID 149c308cf7d49b7 Received at 2014-04-08 >>>>>>>>> 06:59:36 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Glen de Saint G?ry ____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> GNSO Secretariat ____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> ____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://gnso.icann.org ____ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>>> >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> *********************************************** >>>>>>>>> >>>> William J. Drake >>>>>>>>> >>>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>>>>>>>> >>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>>>>>>>> >>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>>>>>>>> >>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >>>>>>>>> >>>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org < >>>>>>>>> http://www.ncuc.org> >>>>>>>>> >>>> william.drake at uzh.ch >>>>>>>>> >>>> (direct), >>>>>>>>> wjdrake at gmail.com >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> (lists), >>>>>>>>> >>>> www.williamdrake.org >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> *********************************************** >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>>> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>>> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>>>> >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>>> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>>>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>>>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Thu May 1 18:48:19 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 17:48:19 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH Board seat 14 election - results second round In-Reply-To: References: <534BF98A.7080608@acm.org> <25388823-7321-4924-B859-6A2217C58719@isoc.be> <502A97E1-ADCA-44C8-8BC3-19E1F95989CC@gmail.com> <534FF5B5.6050207@acm.org> <7BE746CD-D85B-4013-A068-29120CA5A295@isoc.be> <18CEADFE-5E93-45D4-AE0A-41E9CD76F085@isoc.be> Message-ID: <53626CC3.80108@acm.org> Hi, Waiting with great curiosity to learn what comes next in this saga of internecine admiration. Have they accepted the compromise? avri On 01-May-14 13:57, Maria Farrell wrote: > Dear all, > > My apologies for being offline for much of this discussion; I have been > dealing with some personal issues Thanks so much, Rafik, for taking the > lead. > > All the best, Maria > > > On 29 April 2014 21:43, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > again, btw can Sam share his CV ? we need to present him to CSG. > > Rafik > > > 2014-04-30 5:40 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >: > > Hi Rudi, > > I resumed the discussion with Kristina about the process after > the netmundial week and suggested our compromise candidate. CSG > excom had call before and discussed some options to be on or out > (for example they decided to not change the voting threshold of > 8 votes), they didn't reach any decision yet and now they have > to check our own proposal. > > we may have call early next week with CSG if it is OK and we > will be able to defend our option and listen to theirs. good to > agree on some points before the call . > > btw the time is playing for our side, > > Best > > Rafik > > > 2014-04-30 5:00 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick >: > > Dear Rafik, > > As I did not hear nor read any reaction of action on the > process of putting forward our compromise candidate and time > is flowing away, may I ask what?s next ? Did CSG already > react ? What are the steps we officially need to go through > now (asap) ? > > 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-apr.-2014, om 13:54 heeft Rafik Dammak > > het > volgende geschreven: > >> Hi , >> >> just to clarify, it is not a NCSG PC meeting we are >> talking about but a possible call between CSG and NCSG >> regarding the election. because netmundial, it may be >> complicated for those in brazil from CSG and NCSG to >> attend the call this week. it may be wise to have a call >> next week when everybody go back home. we are also hashing >> out the process here in PC list. Sam is our compromise >> candidate and we still need to discuss about the election >> process and find out CSG reaction to our proposal. >> >> @Avri thanks for the proposal, it looks for me a workable >> and clear way to improve election process. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-04-21 17:00 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick >> >: >> >> Dear all, >> >> The decision to have a NCSG PC meeting is that not the >> responsibility of the chair of the NCSG Policy >> Committee ? Maria, what about the call for a meeting >> or a doodle ? Do you take action ? >> >> 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-apr.-2014, om 08:22 heeft marie-laure Lemineur >> > >> het volgende geschreven: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I know I am copied, but a silly question just to be >>> sure, I am suppose to be on this call or just the >>> GNSO councillors and Rafik and Maria as policy Chair >>> ? Just for clarification >>> >>> ...Not going to Brazil thus I am available all week >>> basically.. >>> >>> best, >>> >>> ml >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Rafik Dammak >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi everybody, >>> >>> I goy finally email from Kristina, she was asking >>> if CSG and NCSG need confcall next week to >>> discuss . since many of us will be in netmundial, >>> it may be complicated. so please let me if you >>> are ok or not to have such call. if we have such >>> call, I think that is better to let them know >>> about the compromise there. >>> Kristina and me need to contact Jonathan too >>> about the result , checking with John Jeffrey >>> (the ICANN legal counsel) >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2014-04-19 1:50 GMT+09:00 Magaly Pazello >>> >> >: >>> >>> Hi! >>> It is my understand too, I mean what Maria >>> explained and Rafik observations about the >>> CSG reactions. >>> Thank you our brave Avri! >>> >>> For whom is coming to NM have a smooth trip >>> to S?o Paulo. And at the airports take care >>> with ATM machines as it is a paradise of >>> credit/bank account card fraud! >>> >>> Magaly >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Rafik >>> Dammak >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi Maria, >>> >>> Thanks for the summary, >>> it is when we have deadlock that we can >>> propose the compromise and having the >>> ability to do so. and the only way to >>> reach deadlock is at 3rd and final round . >>> yes , we can follow the proposal: writing >>> to the NCPH list to initiate the >>> discussion regarding compromise >>> candidates. and yes we cannot predict CSG >>> reactions and we should be ready for that. >>> I already indicated quickly to Kristina >>> when I received the results that we >>> should discuss but no reply yet. I think >>> that is easter holidays this weekend and >>> probably won't get answer quickly ( in >>> addition to those who are travelling to >>> Sao Paulo soon). >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2014-04-18 0:57 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell >>> >> >: >>> >>> Hi Marie Laure et al, >>> >>> Yes, just to be clear, we'd agreed in >>> Singapore to let the thing go to >>> three rounds and if it was still >>> deadlocked,i.e. an election clearly >>> wasn't going to yield a winning >>> candidate, that NCSG would propose >>> Sam to the CSG as a compromise >>> candidate both sides of the NCPH >>> could agree on (at least we in the >>> NCSG agree he would be a good >>> candidate, and we hope the CSG will >>> agree, too) We didn't want to put Sam >>> up against BIll in a vote, but rather >>> in the discussions we anticipated >>> might ensue after the vote proved >>> inconclusive. >>> >>> So I think there should be no scope >>> for any disappointment just yet - >>> apart from the obvious disappointment >>> that the NCSG's candidate didn't win >>> outright in three rounds of voting. >>> >>> Now we need to start the process of >>> interacting with the CSG on a >>> compromise person to be agreed on by >>> both sides of the NCPH, and we all >>> stand behind Sam as that person. >>> >>> From here on in, we can't predict >>> what the CSG will propose or how they >>> will react, so we will have to work >>> very closely across the NCSG to make >>> sure we're all happy. >>> >>> Let's be clear about precisely how we >>> will take the next step. I think we >>> should write to the NCPH list and say >>> basically 'there's no clear outcome >>> in the election, so shall we discuss >>> compromise candidates?' and if/when >>> they agree, say we propose Sam. >>> >>> How does that sound as a next step? >>> >>> Maria >>> >>> p.s. Thank you very, very much, Avri, >>> for standing in the election on >>> behalf of the NCSG. It was fantastic >>> that you secured the NCA vote, and a >>> shame the ISPs didn't come through. >>> Tant pis! >>> >>> >>> On 17 April 2014 16:39, Avri Doria >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> While I disagree with your >>> interpretation about what was >>> agreed to, I >>> appreciate you giving me the >>> chance. And I appreciate the >>> fact that all >>> of the votes held and I was able >>> to at least get the majority vote. >>> >>> And yes now is the time to >>> propose Sam as the compromise. >>> >>> Which means he replaces _both_ >>> BillG and me and become a sole >>> candidate >>> in a election between Sam and >>> none of the above. >>> >>> That is what I think we agreed >>> to. And I am pretty sure the record >>> shows that. >>> >>> avri >>> >>> On 17-Apr-14 11:13, Marie-laure >>> Lemineur wrote: >>> > Dear NCSG-PC members, >>> > >>> > The results of the third round >>> were just released. This third round >>> > ended in a deadlock therefore, >>> as agreed in Singapore, NCSG >>> though its >>> > leadership should proposed Sam >>> as the compromise candidate. Just in >>> > fairness to history and for the >>> record, in Singapore we had >>> agreed that >>> > we would wait for two rounds >>> and if a deadlock happened, Sam >>> would be >>> > proposed as a candidate for the >>> third round. But despite that, in >>> order >>> > to give Avri another >>> opportunity and as a proof of >>> good faith, we ( >>> > NPOC) waited for the results of >>> the third round to happen. Now, >>> that it >>> > has happened, and we are going >>> for a fourth round, the fair >>> thing to do >>> > is to that respect the terms of >>> our deal despite the >>> disappointment that >>> > many can feel. >>> > >>> > Best, >>> > >>> > Marie-laure >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Enviado desde mi iPad >>> > >>> > El 14/04/2014, a las 10:29 >>> p.m., Rudi Vansnick >>> >> >>> > >> >> >>> escribi?: >>> > >>> >> Dear Policy Committee members, >>> >> >>> >> As the chair of the NPOC PC, >>> after consulting with the committee >>> >> members, I agree we proceed as >>> is stated in Avri?s mail. We go >>> for the >>> >> 3rd round and if the deadlock >>> happens we proceed with Sam >>> Lanfranco as >>> >> the compromise candidate. >>> >> >>> >> 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 14-apr.-2014, om 17:06 >>> heeft Avri Doria >> >>> >> >> >> het >>> volgende geschreven: >>> >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> >>> I hope we are still giving me >>> the third round to see what happens. >>> >>> >>> >>> If no one wins the 60% in >>> this vote, then we are in the >>> deadlock we >>> >>> spoke of when Sam is proposed >>> as the compromise candidate. >>> >>> >>> >>> Or at least that is what I >>> thought we agreed to. >>> >>> >>> >>> thanks >>> >>> >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 14-Apr-14 02:47, >>> marie-laure Lemineur wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Rafik, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I would like to call for an >>> NCSG policy meeting soonest in >>> order to >>> >>>> formally nominate Sam as a >>> candidate for the next round. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Best, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Marie-laure >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at >>> 11:18 AM, marie-laure Lemineur >>> >>>> >> >>> >> > >>> >>>> >> >> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Hi all, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I assume that what we >>> agreed on during our NCSG policy >>> meeting in >>> >>>> Singapore, for the third >>> round, is still on.. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> best, >>> >>>> >>> >>>> ml >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at >>> 4:59 PM, William Drake >>> >> >>> >>>> >> > >>> >>>> >> >> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Mikey is the key. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Apr 12, 2014, at >>> 6:33 PM, Robin Gross >>> >> >>> >>>> >> > >>> >>>> >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>>> This is really >>> great! Way to go Avri! Keep it >>> up, team!! >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Best, >>> >>>>> Robin >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> On Apr 12, 2014, at >>> 4:39 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> Heeey!! Looks like >>> Avri picked up the NCA vote this >>> round!! :) >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Nice. >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> On Apr 12, 2014, at >>> 12:17 PM, Rafik Dammak >>> >>>>>> >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Hi , >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> The result of 2nd >>> round, we are going to have a 3rd >>> round. >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Best, >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> ---------- >>> Forwarded message ---------- >>> >>>>>>> From: "Glen de >>> Saint G?ry" >> >>> >>>>>>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> Date: Apr 12, 2014 >>> 4:03 PM >>> >>>>>>> Subject: NCPH >>> Board seat 14 election - results >>> second round >>> >>>>>>> To: >>> "krosette at cov.com >>> >>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >" >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >> >>, >>> >>>>>>> >>> "rafik.dammak at gmail.com >>> >>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >>> >> >" >>> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> Cc: "Glen de Saint >>> G?ry" >> >>> >>>>>>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Dear Kristina and >>> Rafik,____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Please find the >>> results of the second round of >>> voting which >>> >>>>>>> closed on Friday, >>> 11 April at 23:59 UTC. >>> >>>>>>> Final tally :____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> *__ __* >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 7 votes Avri >>> Doria____ >>> >>>>>>> 6 votes Bill >>> Graham____ >>> >>>>>>> 0 vote None >>> of the above____ >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>> >>>>>>> We await your >>> instructions to continue with the >>> third >>> >>>>>>> round of voting due to >>> open at 07:00UTC on 14 April 2014 and >>> >>>>>>> close on 16 April at >>> 23:59 UTC. Please provide us >>> with the text >>> >>>>>>> for the ballot and any >>> covering note that has to be sent >>> with the >>> >>>>>>> vote.____ >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>> >>>>>>> Thank you.____ >>> >>>>>>> Kind regards,____ >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>> >>>>>>> Glen____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> *__ __* >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> *Machine tally: >>> >>>>>>> **Total Ballots >>> Cast (including duplicates):*13 >>> >>>>>>> *Ballots Counted >>> (excluding duplicates):* 13 >>> >>>>>>> *Voters Who >>> Haven't Voted:* 0 *____* >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> *Ballot with added >>> tally (using weights, if any):*____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> Select just one of the nominees >>> below____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 1: 7 votes [] >>> Avri Doria____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 2: 6 votes [] >>> Bill Graham____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 3: 0 votes [] >>> None of the above____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> *__ __* >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> *Ballots >>> Received:*____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >>> 1dd5b4c740cea13 Received at >>> 2014-04-11 16:49:17 >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >>> 1a1b25296676fb1 Received at >>> 2014-04-11 15:28:42 >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >>> 4c958b0a504c620 Received at >>> 2014-04-10 13:40:01 >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >>> ad2820176335eb9 Received at >>> 2014-04-10 13:08:07 >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >>> a1f76553370d1a0 Received at >>> 2014-04-10 09:26:14 >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >>> fe7ceebe542d573 Received at >>> 2014-04-08 16:52:25 >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >>> 38e81b64ae7b939 Received at >>> 2014-04-08 15:57:41 >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >>> b38aaa35f39640a Received at >>> 2014-04-08 13:35:34 >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >>> 7b27a78001e9a0e Received at >>> 2014-04-08 11:39:05 >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >>> 4b5a67b6bf8b080 Received at >>> 2014-04-08 11:31:12 >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >>> 56805a16c3eee62 Received at >>> 2014-04-08 09:48:11 >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >>> a5658498dd4faf6 Received at >>> 2014-04-08 08:41:13 >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >>> 149c308cf7d49b7 Received at >>> 2014-04-08 06:59:36 >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> Glen de Saint G?ry >>> ____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> GNSO Secretariat ____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >>> >> > >>> ____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> http://gnso.icann.org >>> >>> ____ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >>>>>>> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >>>>>> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>> >> > >>> >>>>>> >>> >> > >>> >>>>>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >>>>> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>> >> > >>> >>>>> >>> >> > >>> >>>>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> *********************************************** >>> >>>> William J. Drake >>> >>>> International Fellow >>> & Lecturer >>> >>>> Media Change & >>> Innovation Division, IPMZ >>> >>>> University of >>> Zurich, Switzerland >>> >>>> Chair, Noncommercial >>> Users Constituency, >>> >>>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>> >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >>>> william.drake at uzh.ch >>> >>> >> > >>> >>>> >>> >> > >>> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com >>> >>> >>>> >> > >>> >>>> >>> >> > (lists), >>> >>>> >>> www.williamdrake.org >>> >>> >> > >>> >>>> >> > >>> >>>> >>> *********************************************** >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>> >> > >>> >>>> >>> >> > >>> >>>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>> >> > >>> >>>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From stephanie.perrin Fri May 2 03:46:10 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 20:46:10 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion re a number of privacy matters Message-ID: <7D54FDEF-2115-41AB-9DB8-E9B0B64AF790@mail.utoronto.ca> Hi folks, when do we have the next policy meeting? there are a number of privacy issues looming which I would like to put on the agenda, notably: * the imminent release of the whois report, and what response will be needed * the completion of the criticism of the privacy policy * the preparation of a response to the secure protected credentials I must say that I am extremely frustrated, at this moment in time, with my experience on this committee. It has been 14 long and difficult months, and I feel like I have made no progress with the intractable attitudes of some of the team. This is interesting for my research, less so for my general sense of wellbeing and joie de vivre. However, I suppose we are near the end. I do hope we are able to catch this report and move the good bits forward and the bad bits backwards. cheers stephanie From rafik.dammak Fri May 2 03:49:26 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 09:49:26 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion re a number of privacy matters In-Reply-To: <7D54FDEF-2115-41AB-9DB8-E9B0B64AF790@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <7D54FDEF-2115-41AB-9DB8-E9B0B64AF790@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, the info about NCSG call was sent yesterday, it will be held Tuesday 6th May 15:00UTC. Best, Rafik 2014-05-02 9:46 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: > Hi folks, when do we have the next policy meeting? there are a number of > privacy issues looming which I would like to put on the agenda, notably: > * the imminent release of the whois report, and what response will > be needed > * the completion of the criticism of the privacy policy > * the preparation of a response to the secure protected credentials > > I must say that I am extremely frustrated, at this moment in time, with my > experience on this committee. It has been 14 long and difficult months, > and I feel like I have made no progress with the intractable attitudes of > some of the team. This is interesting for my research, less so for my > general sense of wellbeing and joie de vivre. However, I suppose we are > near the end. I do hope we are able to catch this report and move the good > bits forward and the bad bits backwards. > 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: From rafik.dammak Fri May 2 03:52:54 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 09:52:54 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH Board seat 14 election - results second round In-Reply-To: <53626CC3.80108@acm.org> References: <534BF98A.7080608@acm.org> <25388823-7321-4924-B859-6A2217C58719@isoc.be> <502A97E1-ADCA-44C8-8BC3-19E1F95989CC@gmail.com> <534FF5B5.6050207@acm.org> <7BE746CD-D85B-4013-A068-29120CA5A295@isoc.be> <18CEADFE-5E93-45D4-AE0A-41E9CD76F085@isoc.be> <53626CC3.80108@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Avri, no response about the proposal of compromise. for the call in Wednesday 7th May, they are suggesting either 1:00pm or 2:00pm EDT (5:00pm or 6:00pm UTC), it will be late for me. can everybody tell me if it is ok for him/her Best Regards, Rafik 2014-05-02 0:48 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > Waiting with great curiosity to learn what comes next in this saga of > internecine admiration. > > Have they accepted the compromise? > > avri > > > On 01-May-14 13:57, Maria Farrell wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > My apologies for being offline for much of this discussion; I have been > > dealing with some personal issues Thanks so much, Rafik, for taking the > > lead. > > > > All the best, Maria > > > > > > On 29 April 2014 21:43, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: > > > > again, btw can Sam share his CV ? we need to present him to CSG. > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2014-04-30 5:40 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >: > > > > Hi Rudi, > > > > I resumed the discussion with Kristina about the process after > > the netmundial week and suggested our compromise candidate. CSG > > excom had call before and discussed some options to be on or out > > (for example they decided to not change the voting threshold of > > 8 votes), they didn't reach any decision yet and now they have > > to check our own proposal. > > > > we may have call early next week with CSG if it is OK and we > > will be able to defend our option and listen to theirs. good to > > agree on some points before the call . > > > > btw the time is playing for our side, > > > > Best > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2014-04-30 5:00 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick > >: > > > > Dear Rafik, > > > > As I did not hear nor read any reaction of action on the > > process of putting forward our compromise candidate and time > > is flowing away, may I ask what?s next ? Did CSG already > > react ? What are the steps we officially need to go through > > now (asap) ? > > > > 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-apr.-2014, om 13:54 heeft Rafik Dammak > > > het > > volgende geschreven: > > > >> Hi , > >> > >> just to clarify, it is not a NCSG PC meeting we are > >> talking about but a possible call between CSG and NCSG > >> regarding the election. because netmundial, it may be > >> complicated for those in brazil from CSG and NCSG to > >> attend the call this week. it may be wise to have a call > >> next week when everybody go back home. we are also hashing > >> out the process here in PC list. Sam is our compromise > >> candidate and we still need to discuss about the election > >> process and find out CSG reaction to our proposal. > >> > >> @Avri thanks for the proposal, it looks for me a workable > >> and clear way to improve election process. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> 2014-04-21 17:00 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick > >> >: > >> > >> Dear all, > >> > >> The decision to have a NCSG PC meeting is that not the > >> responsibility of the chair of the NCSG Policy > >> Committee ? Maria, what about the call for a meeting > >> or a doodle ? Do you take action ? > >> > >> 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-apr.-2014, om 08:22 heeft marie-laure Lemineur > >> > > >> het volgende geschreven: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I know I am copied, but a silly question just to be > >>> sure, I am suppose to be on this call or just the > >>> GNSO councillors and Rafik and Maria as policy Chair > >>> ? Just for clarification > >>> > >>> ...Not going to Brazil thus I am available all week > >>> basically.. > >>> > >>> best, > >>> > >>> ml > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Rafik Dammak > >>> >>> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi everybody, > >>> > >>> I goy finally email from Kristina, she was asking > >>> if CSG and NCSG need confcall next week to > >>> discuss . since many of us will be in netmundial, > >>> it may be complicated. so please let me if you > >>> are ok or not to have such call. if we have such > >>> call, I think that is better to let them know > >>> about the compromise there. > >>> Kristina and me need to contact Jonathan too > >>> about the result , checking with John Jeffrey > >>> (the ICANN legal counsel) > >>> > >>> Best Regards, > >>> > >>> Rafik > >>> > >>> 2014-04-19 1:50 GMT+09:00 Magaly Pazello > >>> >>> >: > >>> > >>> Hi! > >>> It is my understand too, I mean what Maria > >>> explained and Rafik observations about the > >>> CSG reactions. > >>> Thank you our brave Avri! > >>> > >>> For whom is coming to NM have a smooth trip > >>> to S?o Paulo. And at the airports take care > >>> with ATM machines as it is a paradise of > >>> credit/bank account card fraud! > >>> > >>> Magaly > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Rafik > >>> Dammak >>> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Maria, > >>> > >>> Thanks for the summary, > >>> it is when we have deadlock that we can > >>> propose the compromise and having the > >>> ability to do so. and the only way to > >>> reach deadlock is at 3rd and final round . > >>> yes , we can follow the proposal: writing > >>> to the NCPH list to initiate the > >>> discussion regarding compromise > >>> candidates. and yes we cannot predict CSG > >>> reactions and we should be ready for that. > >>> I already indicated quickly to Kristina > >>> when I received the results that we > >>> should discuss but no reply yet. I think > >>> that is easter holidays this weekend and > >>> probably won't get answer quickly ( in > >>> addition to those who are travelling to > >>> Sao Paulo soon). > >>> > >>> Best Regards, > >>> > >>> Rafik > >>> > >>> > >>> 2014-04-18 0:57 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell > >>> >>> >: > >>> > >>> Hi Marie Laure et al, > >>> > >>> Yes, just to be clear, we'd agreed in > >>> Singapore to let the thing go to > >>> three rounds and if it was still > >>> deadlocked,i.e. an election clearly > >>> wasn't going to yield a winning > >>> candidate, that NCSG would propose > >>> Sam to the CSG as a compromise > >>> candidate both sides of the NCPH > >>> could agree on (at least we in the > >>> NCSG agree he would be a good > >>> candidate, and we hope the CSG will > >>> agree, too) We didn't want to put Sam > >>> up against BIll in a vote, but rather > >>> in the discussions we anticipated > >>> might ensue after the vote proved > >>> inconclusive. > >>> > >>> So I think there should be no scope > >>> for any disappointment just yet - > >>> apart from the obvious disappointment > >>> that the NCSG's candidate didn't win > >>> outright in three rounds of voting. > >>> > >>> Now we need to start the process of > >>> interacting with the CSG on a > >>> compromise person to be agreed on by > >>> both sides of the NCPH, and we all > >>> stand behind Sam as that person. > >>> > >>> From here on in, we can't predict > >>> what the CSG will propose or how they > >>> will react, so we will have to work > >>> very closely across the NCSG to make > >>> sure we're all happy. > >>> > >>> Let's be clear about precisely how we > >>> will take the next step. I think we > >>> should write to the NCPH list and say > >>> basically 'there's no clear outcome > >>> in the election, so shall we discuss > >>> compromise candidates?' and if/when > >>> they agree, say we propose Sam. > >>> > >>> How does that sound as a next step? > >>> > >>> Maria > >>> > >>> p.s. Thank you very, very much, Avri, > >>> for standing in the election on > >>> behalf of the NCSG. It was fantastic > >>> that you secured the NCA vote, and a > >>> shame the ISPs didn't come through. > >>> Tant pis! > >>> > >>> > >>> On 17 April 2014 16:39, Avri Doria > >>> > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> While I disagree with your > >>> interpretation about what was > >>> agreed to, I > >>> appreciate you giving me the > >>> chance. And I appreciate the > >>> fact that all > >>> of the votes held and I was able > >>> to at least get the majority vote. > >>> > >>> And yes now is the time to > >>> propose Sam as the compromise. > >>> > >>> Which means he replaces _both_ > >>> BillG and me and become a sole > >>> candidate > >>> in a election between Sam and > >>> none of the above. > >>> > >>> That is what I think we agreed > >>> to. And I am pretty sure the > record > >>> shows that. > >>> > >>> avri > >>> > >>> On 17-Apr-14 11:13, Marie-laure > >>> Lemineur wrote: > >>> > Dear NCSG-PC members, > >>> > > >>> > The results of the third round > >>> were just released. This third > round > >>> > ended in a deadlock therefore, > >>> as agreed in Singapore, NCSG > >>> though its > >>> > leadership should proposed Sam > >>> as the compromise candidate. Just > in > >>> > fairness to history and for the > >>> record, in Singapore we had > >>> agreed that > >>> > we would wait for two rounds > >>> and if a deadlock happened, Sam > >>> would be > >>> > proposed as a candidate for the > >>> third round. But despite that, in > >>> order > >>> > to give Avri another > >>> opportunity and as a proof of > >>> good faith, we ( > >>> > NPOC) waited for the results of > >>> the third round to happen. Now, > >>> that it > >>> > has happened, and we are going > >>> for a fourth round, the fair > >>> thing to do > >>> > is to that respect the terms of > >>> our deal despite the > >>> disappointment that > >>> > many can feel. > >>> > > >>> > Best, > >>> > > >>> > Marie-laure > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > Enviado desde mi iPad > >>> > > >>> > El 14/04/2014, a las 10:29 > >>> p.m., Rudi Vansnick > >>> >>> > >>> > >>> >> > >>> escribi?: > >>> > > >>> >> Dear Policy Committee members, > >>> >> > >>> >> As the chair of the NPOC PC, > >>> after consulting with the committee > >>> >> members, I agree we proceed as > >>> is stated in Avri?s mail. We go > >>> for the > >>> >> 3rd round and if the deadlock > >>> happens we proceed with Sam > >>> Lanfranco as > >>> >> the compromise candidate. > >>> >> > >>> >> 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 14-apr.-2014, om 17:06 > >>> heeft Avri Doria >>> > >>> >> >>> >> het > >>> volgende geschreven: > >>> >> > >>> >>> Hi, > >>> >>> > >>> >>> I hope we are still giving me > >>> the third round to see what > happens. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> If no one wins the 60% in > >>> this vote, then we are in the > >>> deadlock we > >>> >>> spoke of when Sam is proposed > >>> as the compromise candidate. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Or at least that is what I > >>> thought we agreed to. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> thanks > >>> >>> > >>> >>> avri > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> On 14-Apr-14 02:47, > >>> marie-laure Lemineur wrote: > >>> >>>> Dear Rafik, > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> I would like to call for an > >>> NCSG policy meeting soonest in > >>> order to > >>> >>>> formally nominate Sam as a > >>> candidate for the next round. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> Best, > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> Marie-laure > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at > >>> 11:18 AM, marie-laure Lemineur > >>> >>>> >>> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>>> >>> >> > >>> wrote: > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> Hi all, > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> I assume that what we > >>> agreed on during our NCSG policy > >>> meeting in > >>> >>>> Singapore, for the third > >>> round, is still on.. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> best, > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> ml > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at > >>> 4:59 PM, William Drake > >>> >>> > >>> >>>> >>> > > >>> >>>> >>> >> > wrote: > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> Mikey is the key. > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> On Apr 12, 2014, at > >>> 6:33 PM, Robin Gross > >>> >>> > >>> >>>> >>> > > >>> >>>> > >>> >>> >> > wrote: > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>>> This is really > >>> great! Way to go Avri! Keep it > >>> up, team!! > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> Best, > >>> >>>>> Robin > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> On Apr 12, 2014, at > >>> 4:39 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Heeey!! Looks like > >>> Avri picked up the NCA vote this > >>> round!! :) > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> Nice. > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> On Apr 12, 2014, at > >>> 12:17 PM, Rafik Dammak > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>> >> > >>> wrote: > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> Hi , > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> The result of 2nd > >>> round, we are going to have a 3rd > >>> round. > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> Best, > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> Rafik > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> ---------- > >>> Forwarded message ---------- > >>> >>>>>>> From: "Glen de > >>> Saint G?ry" >>> > >>> >>>>>>> >>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> Date: Apr 12, 2014 > >>> 4:03 PM > >>> >>>>>>> Subject: NCPH > >>> Board seat 14 election - results > >>> second round > >>> >>>>>>> To: > >>> "krosette at cov.com > >>> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>>>>>> >>> >" > >>> >>>>>>> >>> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>>>>>> >>> >>, > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> "rafik.dammak at gmail.com > >>> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>> >" > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> Cc: "Glen de Saint > >>> G?ry" >>> > >>> >>>>>>> >>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> __ __ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> Dear Kristina and > >>> Rafik,____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> __ __ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> Please find the > >>> results of the second round of > >>> voting which > >>> >>>>>>> closed on Friday, > >>> 11 April at 23:59 UTC. > >>> >>>>>>> Final tally :____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> *__ __* > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 7 votes Avri > >>> Doria____ > >>> >>>>>>> 6 votes Bill > >>> Graham____ > >>> >>>>>>> 0 vote None > >>> of the above____ > >>> >>>>>>> __ __ > >>> >>>>>>> We await your > >>> instructions to continue with the > >>> third > >>> >>>>>>> round of voting due to > >>> open at 07:00UTC on 14 April 2014 > and > >>> >>>>>>> close on 16 April at > >>> 23:59 UTC. Please provide us > >>> with the text > >>> >>>>>>> for the ballot and any > >>> covering note that has to be sent > >>> with the > >>> >>>>>>> vote.____ > >>> >>>>>>> __ __ > >>> >>>>>>> Thank you.____ > >>> >>>>>>> Kind regards,____ > >>> >>>>>>> __ __ > >>> >>>>>>> Glen____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> *__ __* > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> *Machine tally: > >>> >>>>>>> **Total Ballots > >>> Cast (including duplicates):*13 > >>> >>>>>>> *Ballots Counted > >>> (excluding duplicates):* 13 > >>> >>>>>>> *Voters Who > >>> Haven't Voted:* 0 *____* > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> *Ballot with added > >>> tally (using weights, if any):*____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> Select just one of the nominees > >>> below____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 1: 7 votes [] > >>> Avri Doria____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 2: 6 votes [] > >>> Bill Graham____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 3: 0 votes [] > >>> None of the above____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> *__ __* > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> *Ballots > >>> Received:*____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> __ __ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID > >>> 1dd5b4c740cea13 Received at > >>> 2014-04-11 16:49:17 > >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> __ __ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID > >>> 1a1b25296676fb1 Received at > >>> 2014-04-11 15:28:42 > >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> __ __ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID > >>> 4c958b0a504c620 Received at > >>> 2014-04-10 13:40:01 > >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> __ __ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID > >>> ad2820176335eb9 Received at > >>> 2014-04-10 13:08:07 > >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> __ __ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID > >>> a1f76553370d1a0 Received at > >>> 2014-04-10 09:26:14 > >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> __ __ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID > >>> fe7ceebe542d573 Received at > >>> 2014-04-08 16:52:25 > >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> __ __ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID > >>> 38e81b64ae7b939 Received at > >>> 2014-04-08 15:57:41 > >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> __ __ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID > >>> b38aaa35f39640a Received at > >>> 2014-04-08 13:35:34 > >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> __ __ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID > >>> 7b27a78001e9a0e Received at > >>> 2014-04-08 11:39:05 > >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> __ __ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID > >>> 4b5a67b6bf8b080 Received at > >>> 2014-04-08 11:31:12 > >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> __ __ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID > >>> 56805a16c3eee62 Received at > >>> 2014-04-08 09:48:11 > >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> __ __ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID > >>> a5658498dd4faf6 Received at > >>> 2014-04-08 08:41:13 > >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> __ __ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID > >>> 149c308cf7d49b7 Received at > >>> 2014-04-08 06:59:36 > >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> __ __ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> __ __ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> Glen de Saint G?ry > >>> ____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> GNSO Secretariat > ____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > >>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > >>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > >>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>> > >>> ____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> http://gnso.icann.org > >>> > >>> ____ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> __ __ > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>>>>>> > >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>>>>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> >>>>>> > >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>>>>> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>>>>> > >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> >>>>> > >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>>>> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>>>> > >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> > *********************************************** > >>> >>>> William J. Drake > >>> >>>> International Fellow > >>> & Lecturer > >>> >>>> Media Change & > >>> Innovation Division, IPMZ > >>> >>>> University of > >>> Zurich, Switzerland > >>> >>>> Chair, Noncommercial > >>> Users Constituency, > >>> >>>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org > >>> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>>> william.drake at uzh.ch > >>> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>>> > >>> >>> > > >>> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com > >>> > >>> >>>> >>> > > >>> >>>> > >>> >>> > > (lists), > >>> >>>> > >>> www.williamdrake.org > >>> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>>> >>> > > >>> >>>> > >>> > *********************************************** > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>>> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>>> > >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> >>>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>>> > >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> >>>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> > >>> >>> > > >>> >> > >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> > >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> > >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ > >>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> > >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> > >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> PC-NCSG mailing list > >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Fri May 2 14:17:27 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 13:17:27 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion re a number of privacy matters In-Reply-To: <7D54FDEF-2115-41AB-9DB8-E9B0B64AF790@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <7D54FDEF-2115-41AB-9DB8-E9B0B64AF790@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <55E84002-DEB1-40FA-83A7-267559330E16@egyptig.org> Hey Stephanie, Thanks for sticking with it!! I can imagine what kind of output would be coming out of the EWG if you weren?t actively participating in it, and I doubt it would have been any good. :) Amr On May 2, 2014, at 2:46 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > Hi folks, when do we have the next policy meeting? there are a number of privacy issues looming which I would like to put on the agenda, notably: > * the imminent release of the whois report, and what response will be needed > * the completion of the criticism of the privacy policy > * the preparation of a response to the secure protected credentials > > I must say that I am extremely frustrated, at this moment in time, with my experience on this committee. It has been 14 long and difficult months, and I feel like I have made no progress with the intractable attitudes of some of the team. This is interesting for my research, less so for my general sense of wellbeing and joie de vivre. However, I suppose we are near the end. I do hope we are able to catch this report and move the good bits forward and the bad bits backwards. > cheers stephanie > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg From stephanie.perrin Fri May 2 15:58:52 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 05:58:52 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion re a number of privacy matters In-Reply-To: <55E84002-DEB1-40FA-83A7-267559330E16@egyptig.org> References: <7D54FDEF-2115-41AB-9DB8-E9B0B64AF790@mail.utoronto.ca> <55E84002-DEB1-40FA-83A7-267559330E16@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <08D99AC7-A55A-46A6-90D3-B942C7C693A1@mail.utoronto.ca> Thanks Amr! Be ready! We need to invite some data commissioners to the London meeting, we need to have an ambush meeting. More later... Sent from my iPad > On May 2, 2014, at 4:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hey Stephanie, > > Thanks for sticking with it!! I can imagine what kind of output would be coming out of the EWG if you weren?t actively participating in it, and I doubt it would have been any good. :) > > Amr > >> On May 2, 2014, at 2:46 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> Hi folks, when do we have the next policy meeting? there are a number of privacy issues looming which I would like to put on the agenda, notably: >> * the imminent release of the whois report, and what response will be needed >> * the completion of the criticism of the privacy policy >> * the preparation of a response to the secure protected credentials >> >> I must say that I am extremely frustrated, at this moment in time, with my experience on this committee. It has been 14 long and difficult months, and I feel like I have made no progress with the intractable attitudes of some of the team. This is interesting for my research, less so for my general sense of wellbeing and joie de vivre. However, I suppose we are near the end. I do hope we are able to catch this report and move the good bits forward and the bad bits backwards. >> cheers stephanie >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From mllemineur Sat May 3 06:26:38 2014 From: mllemineur (Marie-laure Lemineur) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 10:26:38 +0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion re a number of privacy matters In-Reply-To: References: <7D54FDEF-2115-41AB-9DB8-E9B0B64AF790@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Dear Rafik and al. Apologies but I am currently traveling and will be doing so on the 6th. I trust Rudi will represent NPOC. Best, Marie-laure Enviado desde mi iPad > El 02/05/2014, a las 07:49 a.m., Rafik Dammak escribi?: > > Hi Stephanie, > > the info about NCSG call was sent yesterday, it will be held Tuesday 6th May 15:00UTC. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > > 2014-05-02 9:46 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin : >> Hi folks, when do we have the next policy meeting? there are a number of privacy issues looming which I would like to put on the agenda, notably: >> * the imminent release of the whois report, and what response will be needed >> * the completion of the criticism of the privacy policy >> * the preparation of a response to the secure protected credentials >> >> I must say that I am extremely frustrated, at this moment in time, with my experience on this committee. It has been 14 long and difficult months, and I feel like I have made no progress with the intractable attitudes of some of the team. This is interesting for my research, less so for my general sense of wellbeing and joie de vivre. However, I suppose we are near the end. I do hope we are able to catch this report and move the good bits forward and the bad bits backwards. >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Sat May 3 06:45:12 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 12:45:12 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion re a number of privacy matters In-Reply-To: <08D99AC7-A55A-46A6-90D3-B942C7C693A1@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <7D54FDEF-2115-41AB-9DB8-E9B0B64AF790@mail.utoronto.ca> <55E84002-DEB1-40FA-83A7-267559330E16@egyptig.org> <08D99AC7-A55A-46A6-90D3-B942C7C693A1@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, what do you mean by ambush meeting :)? Rafik 2014-05-02 21:58 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: > Thanks Amr! Be ready! We need to invite some data commissioners to the > London meeting, we need to have an ambush meeting. More later... > > Sent from my iPad > > > On May 2, 2014, at 4:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > > > Hey Stephanie, > > > > Thanks for sticking with it!! I can imagine what kind of output would be > coming out of the EWG if you weren?t actively participating in it, and I > doubt it would have been any good. :) > > > > Amr > > > >> On May 2, 2014, at 2:46 AM, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > >> > >> Hi folks, when do we have the next policy meeting? there are a number > of privacy issues looming which I would like to put on the agenda, notably: > >> * the imminent release of the whois report, and what response will > be needed > >> * the completion of the criticism of the privacy policy > >> * the preparation of a response to the secure protected credentials > >> > >> I must say that I am extremely frustrated, at this moment in time, with > my experience on this committee. It has been 14 long and difficult > months, and I feel like I have made no progress with the intractable > attitudes of some of the team. This is interesting for my research, less > so for my general sense of wellbeing and joie de vivre. However, I suppose > we are near the end. I do hope we are able to catch this report and move > the good bits forward and the bad bits backwards. > >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Sat May 3 06:55:32 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 23:55:32 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion re a number of privacy matters In-Reply-To: References: <7D54FDEF-2115-41AB-9DB8-E9B0B64AF790@mail.utoronto.ca> <55E84002-DEB1-40FA-83A7-267559330E16@egyptig.org> <08D99AC7-A55A-46A6-90D3-B942C7C693A1@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: I have noticed that some stakeholders just show up at an ICANN meeting (Singapore, Buenos Aires) and demand a meeting with the EWG. (e.g.. Interpol) I have repeatedly (as others have) suggested meeting with data commissioners. I think the thing to do for the London meeting, is engineer a meeting in town (possibly persuade Privacy International to hold a little workshop) and get them to invite a couple of solid data commissioners over, then bring the whole meeting to ICANN for the open mike session, or any presentation we might hold as EWG. There is no point in getting ICANN to do it, they don?t want to.They will offer to send Nigel Hickson in to talk to them. I like Nigel, but having him go see them does not move the yardsticks on this. We also need support on the secure credentials thing?.so we could use some folks who are interested in that. (by the way, my emails to David Cake are bouncing any idea why??) I would love to get Ross Anderson there, so I will reach out to him, maybe even Caspar Bowden might help. He understands U-prove well. This is all I meant by ambush?.get our own people there. cheers sp On May 2, 2014, at 11:45 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > what do you mean by ambush meeting :)? > > Rafik > > > > 2014-05-02 21:58 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin : > Thanks Amr! Be ready! We need to invite some data commissioners to the London meeting, we need to have an ambush meeting. More later... > > Sent from my iPad > > > On May 2, 2014, at 4:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > > > Hey Stephanie, > > > > Thanks for sticking with it!! I can imagine what kind of output would be coming out of the EWG if you weren?t actively participating in it, and I doubt it would have been any good. :) > > > > Amr > > > >> On May 2, 2014, at 2:46 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >> > >> Hi folks, when do we have the next policy meeting? there are a number of privacy issues looming which I would like to put on the agenda, notably: > >> * the imminent release of the whois report, and what response will be needed > >> * the completion of the criticism of the privacy policy > >> * the preparation of a response to the secure protected credentials > >> > >> I must say that I am extremely frustrated, at this moment in time, with my experience on this committee. It has been 14 long and difficult months, and I feel like I have made no progress with the intractable attitudes of some of the team. This is interesting for my research, less so for my general sense of wellbeing and joie de vivre. However, I suppose we are near the end. I do hope we are able to catch this report and move the good bits forward and the bad bits backwards. > >> 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Sat May 3 11:12:54 2014 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 10:12:54 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion re a number of privacy matters In-Reply-To: References: <7D54FDEF-2115-41AB-9DB8-E9B0B64AF790@mail.utoronto.ca> <55E84002-DEB1-40FA-83A7-267559330E16@egyptig.org> <08D99AC7-A55A-46A6-90D3-B942C7C693A1@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <49B08A20-DC1F-4CB1-9FD5-8065B18F9E90@gmail.com> Hi I would definitely support some sort of privacy meeting happening. I don?t know if it?s possible at this late stage to ask for a slot in the regular program, but we could inquire. It?s not a matter of ICANN doing it, we could organize, they just provide the room. If that?s just not possible we could try doing something ?off campus? in town, but this usually proves very difficult because of schedule density and commitments, hard to ask people to leave the building for several hours. Bill On May 3, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > I have noticed that some stakeholders just show up at an ICANN meeting (Singapore, Buenos Aires) and demand a meeting with the EWG. (e.g.. Interpol) > I have repeatedly (as others have) suggested meeting with data commissioners. I think the thing to do for the London meeting, is engineer a meeting in town (possibly persuade Privacy International to hold a little workshop) and get them to invite a couple of solid data commissioners over, then bring the whole meeting to ICANN for the open mike session, or any presentation we might hold as EWG. There is no point in getting ICANN to do it, they don?t want to.They will offer to send Nigel Hickson in to talk to them. I like Nigel, but having him go see them does not move the yardsticks on this. > We also need support on the secure credentials thing?.so we could use some folks who are interested in that. (by the way, my emails to David Cake are bouncing any idea why??) I would love to get Ross Anderson there, so I will reach out to him, maybe even Caspar Bowden might help. He understands U-prove well. > This is all I meant by ambush?.get our own people there. > cheers sp > On May 2, 2014, at 11:45 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Stephanie, >> >> what do you mean by ambush meeting :)? >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> 2014-05-02 21:58 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin : >> Thanks Amr! Be ready! We need to invite some data commissioners to the London meeting, we need to have an ambush meeting. More later... >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> > On May 2, 2014, at 4:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> > >> > Hey Stephanie, >> > >> > Thanks for sticking with it!! I can imagine what kind of output would be coming out of the EWG if you weren?t actively participating in it, and I doubt it would have been any good. :) >> > >> > Amr >> > >> >> On May 2, 2014, at 2:46 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi folks, when do we have the next policy meeting? there are a number of privacy issues looming which I would like to put on the agenda, notably: >> >> * the imminent release of the whois report, and what response will be needed >> >> * the completion of the criticism of the privacy policy >> >> * the preparation of a response to the secure protected credentials >> >> >> >> I must say that I am extremely frustrated, at this moment in time, with my experience on this committee. It has been 14 long and difficult months, and I feel like I have made no progress with the intractable attitudes of some of the team. This is interesting for my research, less so for my general sense of wellbeing and joie de vivre. However, I suppose we are near the end. I do hope we are able to catch this report and move the good bits forward and the bad bits backwards. >> >> 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From rafik.dammak Sat May 3 11:38:10 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 17:38:10 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion re a number of privacy matters In-Reply-To: References: <7D54FDEF-2115-41AB-9DB8-E9B0B64AF790@mail.utoronto.ca> <55E84002-DEB1-40FA-83A7-267559330E16@egyptig.org> <08D99AC7-A55A-46A6-90D3-B942C7C693A1@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, I have noticed that some stakeholders just show up at an ICANN meeting > (Singapore, Buenos Aires) and demand a meeting with the EWG. (e.g.. > Interpol) > in fact LEAs usually attend ICANN meetings but they have closed sessions. things may change soon. I have repeatedly (as others have) suggested meeting with data > commissioners. I think the thing to do for the London meeting, is engineer > a meeting in town (possibly persuade Privacy International to hold a little > workshop) and get them to invite a couple of solid data commissioners over, > then bring the whole meeting to ICANN for the open mike session, or any > presentation we might hold as EWG. > we may get european based data commissioners including folks of Article 29 WG(which is still angry with ICANN and reminded about the latest rejection of data retention), but that should be done soon . There is no point in getting ICANN to do it, they don?t want to.They will > offer to send Nigel Hickson in to talk to them. I like Nigel, but having > him go see them does not move the yardsticks on this. > nobody will suggest ICANN for that, we told them about listening to data commissioner, nothing was done. > We also need support on the secure credentials thing?.so we could use some > folks who are interested in that. (by the way, my emails to David Cake are > bouncing any idea why??) I would love to get Ross Anderson there, so I > will reach out to him, maybe even Caspar Bowden might help. He understands > U-prove well. > Caspar would be great , he is a rising star . > This is all I meant by ambush?.get our own people there. > understood, now time for planning and action. Rafik > cheers sp > > On May 2, 2014, at 11:45 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Stephanie, > > what do you mean by ambush meeting :)? > > Rafik > > > > 2014-05-02 21:58 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: > >> Thanks Amr! Be ready! We need to invite some data commissioners to the >> London meeting, we need to have an ambush meeting. More later... >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> > On May 2, 2014, at 4:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> > >> > Hey Stephanie, >> > >> > Thanks for sticking with it!! I can imagine what kind of output would >> be coming out of the EWG if you weren?t actively participating in it, and I >> doubt it would have been any good. :) >> > >> > Amr >> > >> >> On May 2, 2014, at 2:46 AM, Stephanie Perrin < >> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi folks, when do we have the next policy meeting? there are a number >> of privacy issues looming which I would like to put on the agenda, notably: >> >> * the imminent release of the whois report, and what response will >> be needed >> >> * the completion of the criticism of the privacy policy >> >> * the preparation of a response to the secure protected credentials >> >> >> >> I must say that I am extremely frustrated, at this moment in time, >> with my experience on this committee. It has been 14 long and difficult >> months, and I feel like I have made no progress with the intractable >> attitudes of some of the team. This is interesting for my research, less >> so for my general sense of wellbeing and joie de vivre. However, I suppose >> we are near the end. I do hope we are able to catch this report and move >> the good bits forward and the bad bits backwards. >> >> 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 >> > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bkuerbis Sat May 3 14:21:23 2014 From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 07:21:23 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Comment on IANA transition Message-ID: Dear NCSG-PC and NCSG membership, ARTICLE 19 and the Internet Governance Project have drafted a comment in response to ICANN's "Draft Proposal, Based on Initial Community Feedback, of the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to Develop a Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions" as well as its proposed Scoping Document". You can view and comment on the document here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Oe-kqA-5WXGavAy40XEHVzKltNAQrjiuuZ-FH5jJqw/edit?usp=sharing We kindly request that this comment be submitted to ICANN on behalf of the NCSG. Comments are due next week, May 8. Best regards, --------------------------------------- Brenden Kuerbis Internet Governance Project http://internetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Sat May 3 14:58:53 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 13:58:53 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Comment on IANA transition In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5364D9FD.8050908@acm.org> Hi, I support this document and despite a few quibbles which I have commented on in the doc and beleive should be fixed would approve the docs avri On 03-May-14 13:21, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: > Dear NCSG-PC and NCSG membership, > > ARTICLE 19 and the Internet Governance Project have drafted a comment in > response to ICANN's "Draft Proposal, Based on Initial Community > Feedback, of the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to Develop a > Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions" as well > as its proposed Scoping Document". > > You can view and comment on the document here: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Oe-kqA-5WXGavAy40XEHVzKltNAQrjiuuZ-FH5jJqw/edit?usp=sharing > > We kindly request that this comment be submitted to ICANN on behalf of > the NCSG. Comments are due next week, May 8. > > Best regards, > > --------------------------------------- > Brenden Kuerbis > Internet Governance Project > http://internetgovernance.org > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From stephanie.perrin Sun May 4 01:03:57 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 18:03:57 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion re a number of privacy matters In-Reply-To: References: <7D54FDEF-2115-41AB-9DB8-E9B0B64AF790@mail.utoronto.ca> <55E84002-DEB1-40FA-83A7-267559330E16@egyptig.org> <08D99AC7-A55A-46A6-90D3-B942C7C693A1@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <11C1F283-3C75-4D56-8603-9BD72A38BD2B@mail.utoronto.ca> Ok I will put out some feelers. See if anyone in London (or close) is interested in helping. More soon... cheers steph PS back home after tiring working group meeting of EWG in LA....this is pushing a heavy rock up a long steep hill, but I think progress is coming. On 2014-05-03, at 4:38 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > I have noticed that some stakeholders just show up at an ICANN meeting (Singapore, Buenos Aires) and demand a meeting with the EWG. (e.g.. Interpol) > > in fact LEAs usually attend ICANN meetings but they have closed sessions. things may change soon. > > I have repeatedly (as others have) suggested meeting with data commissioners. I think the thing to do for the London meeting, is engineer a meeting in town (possibly persuade Privacy International to hold a little workshop) and get them to invite a couple of solid data commissioners over, then bring the whole meeting to ICANN for the open mike session, or any presentation we might hold as EWG. > > we may get european based data commissioners including folks of Article 29 WG(which is still angry with ICANN and reminded about the latest rejection of data retention), but that should be done soon . > > There is no point in getting ICANN to do it, they don?t want to.They will offer to send Nigel Hickson in to talk to them. I like Nigel, but having him go see them does not move the yardsticks on this. > > nobody will suggest ICANN for that, we told them about listening to data commissioner, nothing was done. > > We also need support on the secure credentials thing?.so we could use some folks who are interested in that. (by the way, my emails to David Cake are bouncing any idea why??) I would love to get Ross Anderson there, so I will reach out to him, maybe even Caspar Bowden might help. He understands U-prove well. > > Caspar would be great , he is a rising star . > This is all I meant by ambush?.get our own people there. > > understood, now time for planning and action. > > Rafik > > cheers sp > > On May 2, 2014, at 11:45 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Stephanie, >> >> what do you mean by ambush meeting :)? >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> 2014-05-02 21:58 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin : >> Thanks Amr! Be ready! We need to invite some data commissioners to the London meeting, we need to have an ambush meeting. More later... >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> > On May 2, 2014, at 4:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> > >> > Hey Stephanie, >> > >> > Thanks for sticking with it!! I can imagine what kind of output would be coming out of the EWG if you weren?t actively participating in it, and I doubt it would have been any good. :) >> > >> > Amr >> > >> >> On May 2, 2014, at 2:46 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi folks, when do we have the next policy meeting? there are a number of privacy issues looming which I would like to put on the agenda, notably: >> >> * the imminent release of the whois report, and what response will be needed >> >> * the completion of the criticism of the privacy policy >> >> * the preparation of a response to the secure protected credentials >> >> >> >> I must say that I am extremely frustrated, at this moment in time, with my experience on this committee. It has been 14 long and difficult months, and I feel like I have made no progress with the intractable attitudes of some of the team. This is interesting for my research, less so for my general sense of wellbeing and joie de vivre. However, I suppose we are near the end. I do hope we are able to catch this report and move the good bits forward and the bad bits backwards. >> >> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From magaly.pazello Sun May 4 03:47:12 2014 From: magaly.pazello (Magaly Pazello) Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 21:47:12 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH Board seat 14 election - results second round In-Reply-To: References: <534BF98A.7080608@acm.org> <25388823-7321-4924-B859-6A2217C58719@isoc.be> <502A97E1-ADCA-44C8-8BC3-19E1F95989CC@gmail.com> <534FF5B5.6050207@acm.org> <7BE746CD-D85B-4013-A068-29120CA5A295@isoc.be> <18CEADFE-5E93-45D4-AE0A-41E9CD76F085@isoc.be> <53626CC3.80108@acm.org> Message-ID: Hello! Unfortunately I am not available on Wednesday, I am teaching all day long, no chance to have a break to attend this meeting. Magaly On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Avri, > > no response about the proposal of compromise. > for the call in Wednesday 7th May, they are suggesting either 1:00pm or > 2:00pm EDT (5:00pm or 6:00pm UTC), it will be late for me. can everybody > tell me if it is ok for him/her > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > 2014-05-02 0:48 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > >> Hi, >> >> Waiting with great curiosity to learn what comes next in this saga of >> internecine admiration. >> >> Have they accepted the compromise? >> >> avri >> >> >> On 01-May-14 13:57, Maria Farrell wrote: >> > Dear all, >> > >> > My apologies for being offline for much of this discussion; I have been >> > dealing with some personal issues Thanks so much, Rafik, for taking the >> > lead. >> > >> > All the best, Maria >> > >> > >> > On 29 April 2014 21:43, Rafik Dammak > > > wrote: >> > >> > again, btw can Sam share his CV ? we need to present him to CSG. >> > >> > Rafik >> > >> > >> > 2014-04-30 5:40 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > > >: >> > >> > Hi Rudi, >> > >> > I resumed the discussion with Kristina about the process after >> > the netmundial week and suggested our compromise candidate. CSG >> > excom had call before and discussed some options to be on or out >> > (for example they decided to not change the voting threshold of >> > 8 votes), they didn't reach any decision yet and now they have >> > to check our own proposal. >> > >> > we may have call early next week with CSG if it is OK and we >> > will be able to defend our option and listen to theirs. good to >> > agree on some points before the call . >> > >> > btw the time is playing for our side, >> > >> > Best >> > >> > Rafik >> > >> > >> > 2014-04-30 5:00 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick > > >: >> > >> > Dear Rafik, >> > >> > As I did not hear nor read any reaction of action on the >> > process of putting forward our compromise candidate and time >> > is flowing away, may I ask what?s next ? Did CSG already >> > react ? What are the steps we officially need to go through >> > now (asap) ? >> > >> > 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-apr.-2014, om 13:54 heeft Rafik Dammak >> > > >> het >> > volgende geschreven: >> > >> >> Hi , >> >> >> >> just to clarify, it is not a NCSG PC meeting we are >> >> talking about but a possible call between CSG and NCSG >> >> regarding the election. because netmundial, it may be >> >> complicated for those in brazil from CSG and NCSG to >> >> attend the call this week. it may be wise to have a call >> >> next week when everybody go back home. we are also hashing >> >> out the process here in PC list. Sam is our compromise >> >> candidate and we still need to discuss about the election >> >> process and find out CSG reaction to our proposal. >> >> >> >> @Avri thanks for the proposal, it looks for me a workable >> >> and clear way to improve election process. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> 2014-04-21 17:00 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick >> >> >: >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> The decision to have a NCSG PC meeting is that not the >> >> responsibility of the chair of the NCSG Policy >> >> Committee ? Maria, what about the call for a meeting >> >> or a doodle ? Do you take action ? >> >> >> >> 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-apr.-2014, om 08:22 heeft marie-laure Lemineur >> >> > >> >> het volgende geschreven: >> >> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> I know I am copied, but a silly question just to be >> >>> sure, I am suppose to be on this call or just the >> >>> GNSO councillors and Rafik and Maria as policy Chair >> >>> ? Just for clarification >> >>> >> >>> ...Not going to Brazil thus I am available all week >> >>> basically.. >> >>> >> >>> best, >> >>> >> >>> ml >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Rafik Dammak >> >>> > >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi everybody, >> >>> >> >>> I goy finally email from Kristina, she was asking >> >>> if CSG and NCSG need confcall next week to >> >>> discuss . since many of us will be in netmundial, >> >>> it may be complicated. so please let me if you >> >>> are ok or not to have such call. if we have such >> >>> call, I think that is better to let them know >> >>> about the compromise there. >> >>> Kristina and me need to contact Jonathan too >> >>> about the result , checking with John Jeffrey >> >>> (the ICANN legal counsel) >> >>> >> >>> Best Regards, >> >>> >> >>> Rafik >> >>> >> >>> 2014-04-19 1:50 GMT+09:00 Magaly Pazello >> >>> > >>> >: >> >>> >> >>> Hi! >> >>> It is my understand too, I mean what Maria >> >>> explained and Rafik observations about the >> >>> CSG reactions. >> >>> Thank you our brave Avri! >> >>> >> >>> For whom is coming to NM have a smooth trip >> >>> to S?o Paulo. And at the airports take care >> >>> with ATM machines as it is a paradise of >> >>> credit/bank account card fraud! >> >>> >> >>> Magaly >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Rafik >> >>> Dammak > >>> > wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi Maria, >> >>> >> >>> Thanks for the summary, >> >>> it is when we have deadlock that we can >> >>> propose the compromise and having the >> >>> ability to do so. and the only way to >> >>> reach deadlock is at 3rd and final round . >> >>> yes , we can follow the proposal: writing >> >>> to the NCPH list to initiate the >> >>> discussion regarding compromise >> >>> candidates. and yes we cannot predict CSG >> >>> reactions and we should be ready for that. >> >>> I already indicated quickly to Kristina >> >>> when I received the results that we >> >>> should discuss but no reply yet. I think >> >>> that is easter holidays this weekend and >> >>> probably won't get answer quickly ( in >> >>> addition to those who are travelling to >> >>> Sao Paulo soon). >> >>> >> >>> Best Regards, >> >>> >> >>> Rafik >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> 2014-04-18 0:57 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell >> >>> > >>> >: >> >>> >> >>> Hi Marie Laure et al, >> >>> >> >>> Yes, just to be clear, we'd agreed in >> >>> Singapore to let the thing go to >> >>> three rounds and if it was still >> >>> deadlocked,i.e. an election clearly >> >>> wasn't going to yield a winning >> >>> candidate, that NCSG would propose >> >>> Sam to the CSG as a compromise >> >>> candidate both sides of the NCPH >> >>> could agree on (at least we in the >> >>> NCSG agree he would be a good >> >>> candidate, and we hope the CSG will >> >>> agree, too) We didn't want to put Sam >> >>> up against BIll in a vote, but rather >> >>> in the discussions we anticipated >> >>> might ensue after the vote proved >> >>> inconclusive. >> >>> >> >>> So I think there should be no scope >> >>> for any disappointment just yet - >> >>> apart from the obvious disappointment >> >>> that the NCSG's candidate didn't win >> >>> outright in three rounds of voting. >> >>> >> >>> Now we need to start the process of >> >>> interacting with the CSG on a >> >>> compromise person to be agreed on by >> >>> both sides of the NCPH, and we all >> >>> stand behind Sam as that person. >> >>> >> >>> From here on in, we can't predict >> >>> what the CSG will propose or how they >> >>> will react, so we will have to work >> >>> very closely across the NCSG to make >> >>> sure we're all happy. >> >>> >> >>> Let's be clear about precisely how we >> >>> will take the next step. I think we >> >>> should write to the NCPH list and say >> >>> basically 'there's no clear outcome >> >>> in the election, so shall we discuss >> >>> compromise candidates?' and if/when >> >>> they agree, say we propose Sam. >> >>> >> >>> How does that sound as a next step? >> >>> >> >>> Maria >> >>> >> >>> p.s. Thank you very, very much, Avri, >> >>> for standing in the election on >> >>> behalf of the NCSG. It was fantastic >> >>> that you secured the NCA vote, and a >> >>> shame the ISPs didn't come through. >> >>> Tant pis! >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On 17 April 2014 16:39, Avri Doria >> >>> > >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Hi, >> >>> >> >>> While I disagree with your >> >>> interpretation about what was >> >>> agreed to, I >> >>> appreciate you giving me the >> >>> chance. And I appreciate the >> >>> fact that all >> >>> of the votes held and I was able >> >>> to at least get the majority vote. >> >>> >> >>> And yes now is the time to >> >>> propose Sam as the compromise. >> >>> >> >>> Which means he replaces _both_ >> >>> BillG and me and become a sole >> >>> candidate >> >>> in a election between Sam and >> >>> none of the above. >> >>> >> >>> That is what I think we agreed >> >>> to. And I am pretty sure the >> record >> >>> shows that. >> >>> >> >>> avri >> >>> >> >>> On 17-Apr-14 11:13, Marie-laure >> >>> Lemineur wrote: >> >>> > Dear NCSG-PC members, >> >>> > >> >>> > The results of the third round >> >>> were just released. This third >> round >> >>> > ended in a deadlock therefore, >> >>> as agreed in Singapore, NCSG >> >>> though its >> >>> > leadership should proposed Sam >> >>> as the compromise candidate. Just >> in >> >>> > fairness to history and for the >> >>> record, in Singapore we had >> >>> agreed that >> >>> > we would wait for two rounds >> >>> and if a deadlock happened, Sam >> >>> would be >> >>> > proposed as a candidate for the >> >>> third round. But despite that, in >> >>> order >> >>> > to give Avri another >> >>> opportunity and as a proof of >> >>> good faith, we ( >> >>> > NPOC) waited for the results of >> >>> the third round to happen. Now, >> >>> that it >> >>> > has happened, and we are going >> >>> for a fourth round, the fair >> >>> thing to do >> >>> > is to that respect the terms of >> >>> our deal despite the >> >>> disappointment that >> >>> > many can feel. >> >>> > >> >>> > Best, >> >>> > >> >>> > Marie-laure >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > Enviado desde mi iPad >> >>> > >> >>> > El 14/04/2014, a las 10:29 >> >>> p.m., Rudi Vansnick >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > > >>> >> >> >>> escribi?: >> >>> > >> >>> >> Dear Policy Committee members, >> >>> >> >> >>> >> As the chair of the NPOC PC, >> >>> after consulting with the >> committee >> >>> >> members, I agree we proceed as >> >>> is stated in Avri?s mail. We go >> >>> for the >> >>> >> 3rd round and if the deadlock >> >>> happens we proceed with Sam >> >>> Lanfranco as >> >>> >> the compromise candidate. >> >>> >> >> >>> >> 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 14-apr.-2014, om 17:06 >> >>> heeft Avri Doria > >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> het >> >>> volgende geschreven: >> >>> >> >> >>> >>> Hi, >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> I hope we are still giving me >> >>> the third round to see what >> happens. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> If no one wins the 60% in >> >>> this vote, then we are in the >> >>> deadlock we >> >>> >>> spoke of when Sam is proposed >> >>> as the compromise candidate. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> Or at least that is what I >> >>> thought we agreed to. >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> thanks >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> avri >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> On 14-Apr-14 02:47, >> >>> marie-laure Lemineur wrote: >> >>> >>>> Dear Rafik, >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> I would like to call for an >> >>> NCSG policy meeting soonest in >> >>> order to >> >>> >>>> formally nominate Sam as a >> >>> candidate for the next round. >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> Best, >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> Marie-laure >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at >> >>> 11:18 AM, marie-laure Lemineur >> >>> >>>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>> > >>> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> Hi all, >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> I assume that what we >> >>> agreed on during our NCSG policy >> >>> meeting in >> >>> >>>> Singapore, for the third >> >>> round, is still on.. >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> best, >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> ml >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at >> >>> 4:59 PM, William Drake >> >>> > >>> >> >>> >>>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>> > >>> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> Mikey is the key. >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> On Apr 12, 2014, at >> >>> 6:33 PM, Robin Gross >> >>> > >>> >> >>> >>>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>> >> >>> > >>> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>>> This is really >> >>> great! Way to go Avri! Keep it >> >>> up, team!! >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> Best, >> >>> >>>>> Robin >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> On Apr 12, 2014, at >> >>> 4:39 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Heeey!! Looks like >> >>> Avri picked up the NCA vote this >> >>> round!! :) >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> Nice. >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> On Apr 12, 2014, at >> >>> 12:17 PM, Rafik Dammak >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> Hi , >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> The result of 2nd >> >>> round, we are going to have a 3rd >> >>> round. >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> Best, >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> Rafik >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> ---------- >> >>> Forwarded message ---------- >> >>> >>>>>>> From: "Glen de >> >>> Saint G?ry" > >>> >> >>> >>>>>>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> Date: Apr 12, 2014 >> >>> 4:03 PM >> >>> >>>>>>> Subject: NCPH >> >>> Board seat 14 election - results >> >>> second round >> >>> >>>>>>> To: >> >>> "krosette at cov.com >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >" >> >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> > >>> >>, >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> "rafik.dammak at gmail.com >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> > >>> >" >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> Cc: "Glen de Saint >> >>> G?ry" > >>> >> >>> >>>>>>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> Dear Kristina and >> >>> Rafik,____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> Please find the >> >>> results of the second round of >> >>> voting which >> >>> >>>>>>> closed on Friday, >> >>> 11 April at 23:59 UTC. >> >>> >>>>>>> Final tally :____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> *__ __* >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 7 votes Avri >> >>> Doria____ >> >>> >>>>>>> 6 votes Bill >> >>> Graham____ >> >>> >>>>>>> 0 vote None >> >>> of the above____ >> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >> >>> >>>>>>> We await your >> >>> instructions to continue with the >> >>> third >> >>> >>>>>>> round of voting due to >> >>> open at 07:00UTC on 14 April 2014 >> and >> >>> >>>>>>> close on 16 April at >> >>> 23:59 UTC. Please provide us >> >>> with the text >> >>> >>>>>>> for the ballot and any >> >>> covering note that has to be sent >> >>> with the >> >>> >>>>>>> vote.____ >> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >> >>> >>>>>>> Thank you.____ >> >>> >>>>>>> Kind regards,____ >> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >> >>> >>>>>>> Glen____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> *__ __* >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> *Machine tally: >> >>> >>>>>>> **Total Ballots >> >>> Cast (including duplicates):*13 >> >>> >>>>>>> *Ballots Counted >> >>> (excluding duplicates):* 13 >> >>> >>>>>>> *Voters Who >> >>> Haven't Voted:* 0 *____* >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> *Ballot with added >> >>> tally (using weights, if >> any):*____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> Select just one of the nominees >> >>> below____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 1: 7 votes [] >> >>> Avri Doria____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 2: 6 votes [] >> >>> Bill Graham____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 3: 0 votes [] >> >>> None of the above____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> *__ __* >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> *Ballots >> >>> Received:*____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >> >>> 1dd5b4c740cea13 Received at >> >>> 2014-04-11 16:49:17 >> >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >> >>> 1a1b25296676fb1 Received at >> >>> 2014-04-11 15:28:42 >> >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >> >>> 4c958b0a504c620 Received at >> >>> 2014-04-10 13:40:01 >> >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >> >>> ad2820176335eb9 Received at >> >>> 2014-04-10 13:08:07 >> >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >> >>> a1f76553370d1a0 Received at >> >>> 2014-04-10 09:26:14 >> >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >> >>> fe7ceebe542d573 Received at >> >>> 2014-04-08 16:52:25 >> >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >> >>> 38e81b64ae7b939 Received at >> >>> 2014-04-08 15:57:41 >> >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >> >>> b38aaa35f39640a Received at >> >>> 2014-04-08 13:35:34 >> >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [X]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >> >>> 7b27a78001e9a0e Received at >> >>> 2014-04-08 11:39:05 >> >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >> >>> 4b5a67b6bf8b080 Received at >> >>> 2014-04-08 11:31:12 >> >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >> >>> 56805a16c3eee62 Received at >> >>> 2014-04-08 09:48:11 >> >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >> >>> a5658498dd4faf6 Received at >> >>> 2014-04-08 08:41:13 >> >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> Ballot ID >> >>> 149c308cf7d49b7 Received at >> >>> 2014-04-08 06:59:36 >> >>> >>>>>>> UTC *(counted)*____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 1: [X]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 2: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> 3: [ ]____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> Glen de Saint G?ry >> >>> ____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> GNSO Secretariat >> ____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >> >>> > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >> >>> > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >> >>> > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org>> >> >>> ____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> http://gnso.icann.org >> >>> >> >>> ____ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> __ __ >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> >>> >>>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing >> list >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>>>>> >> >>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> >>> >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>>>> >> >>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> >>> >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>>> >> >>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >> *********************************************** >> >>> >>>> William J. Drake >> >>> >>>> International Fellow >> >>> & Lecturer >> >>> >>>> Media Change & >> >>> Innovation Division, IPMZ >> >>> >>>> University of >> >>> Zurich, Switzerland >> >>> >>>> Chair, Noncommercial >> >>> Users Constituency, >> >>> >>>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>> william.drake at uzh.ch >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>> >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com >> >>> >> >>> >>>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>> >> >>> > >>> > >> (lists), >> >>> >>>> >> >>> www.williamdrake.org >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >> *********************************************** >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> >>> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>> >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> >>> >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> >>> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> >>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >> >>> >> >> >>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>> >> >>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>> >> >>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>> >> >>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> >> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin Sun May 4 20:42:27 2014 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 10:42:27 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion re a number of privacy matters In-Reply-To: <49B08A20-DC1F-4CB1-9FD5-8065B18F9E90@gmail.com> References: <7D54FDEF-2115-41AB-9DB8-E9B0B64AF790@mail.utoronto.ca> <55E84002-DEB1-40FA-83A7-267559330E16@egyptig.org> <08D99AC7-A55A-46A6-90D3-B942C7C693A1@mail.utoronto.ca> <49B08A20-DC1F-4CB1-9FD5-8065B18F9E90@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5D1C80F5-BB1B-4149-ADAE-5BF775ADBF7B@ipjustice.org> Thanks very much, Stephanie! I haven't been able to keep up with online discussions in the last couple of days cause I'm visiting family in Utah, but was really glad to see your suggestion that we meet with data commissioners in London cause I had the same thought and last Monday sent Article 29WP a note to see who was coming and what we could organize to meet with them. I have not received a reply from A29, but want to continue to pursue this meeting with data commissioners in London when I get back to SF in a couple days. So count me in on helping to pull this together. If you know any specific commissioners or other experts to pull in, please do so. Let's find a few and see what we can come up with. Even if ICANN doesn't give us a room, we can still get one by other means, I'm sure. Thanks, Robin On May 3, 2014, at 1:12 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > I would definitely support some sort of privacy meeting happening. I don?t know if it?s possible at this late stage to ask for a slot in the regular program, but we could inquire. It?s not a matter of ICANN doing it, we could organize, they just provide the room. If that?s just not possible we could try doing something ?off campus? in town, but this usually proves very difficult because of schedule density and commitments, hard to ask people to leave the building for several hours. > > Bill > > On May 3, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >> I have noticed that some stakeholders just show up at an ICANN meeting (Singapore, Buenos Aires) and demand a meeting with the EWG. (e.g.. Interpol) >> I have repeatedly (as others have) suggested meeting with data commissioners. I think the thing to do for the London meeting, is engineer a meeting in town (possibly persuade Privacy International to hold a little workshop) and get them to invite a couple of solid data commissioners over, then bring the whole meeting to ICANN for the open mike session, or any presentation we might hold as EWG. There is no point in getting ICANN to do it, they don?t want to.They will offer to send Nigel Hickson in to talk to them. I like Nigel, but having him go see them does not move the yardsticks on this. >> We also need support on the secure credentials thing?.so we could use some folks who are interested in that. (by the way, my emails to David Cake are bouncing any idea why??) I would love to get Ross Anderson there, so I will reach out to him, maybe even Caspar Bowden might help. He understands U-prove well. >> This is all I meant by ambush?.get our own people there. >> cheers sp >> On May 2, 2014, at 11:45 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi Stephanie, >>> >>> what do you mean by ambush meeting :)? >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-05-02 21:58 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin : >>> Thanks Amr! Be ready! We need to invite some data commissioners to the London meeting, we need to have an ambush meeting. More later... >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> > On May 2, 2014, at 4:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> > >>> > Hey Stephanie, >>> > >>> > Thanks for sticking with it!! I can imagine what kind of output would be coming out of the EWG if you weren?t actively participating in it, and I doubt it would have been any good. :) >>> > >>> > Amr >>> > >>> >> On May 2, 2014, at 2:46 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi folks, when do we have the next policy meeting? there are a number of privacy issues looming which I would like to put on the agenda, notably: >>> >> * the imminent release of the whois report, and what response will be needed >>> >> * the completion of the criticism of the privacy policy >>> >> * the preparation of a response to the secure protected credentials >>> >> >>> >> I must say that I am extremely frustrated, at this moment in time, with my experience on this committee. It has been 14 long and difficult months, and I feel like I have made no progress with the intractable attitudes of some of the team. This is interesting for my research, less so for my general sense of wellbeing and joie de vivre. However, I suppose we are near the end. I do hope we are able to catch this report and move the good bits forward and the bad bits backwards. >>> >> 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 >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From mariliamaciel Sun May 4 22:35:10 2014 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 16:35:10 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion re a number of privacy matters In-Reply-To: <5D1C80F5-BB1B-4149-ADAE-5BF775ADBF7B@ipjustice.org> References: <7D54FDEF-2115-41AB-9DB8-E9B0B64AF790@mail.utoronto.ca> <55E84002-DEB1-40FA-83A7-267559330E16@egyptig.org> <08D99AC7-A55A-46A6-90D3-B942C7C693A1@mail.utoronto.ca> <49B08A20-DC1F-4CB1-9FD5-8065B18F9E90@gmail.com> <5D1C80F5-BB1B-4149-ADAE-5BF775ADBF7B@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie and all, The event about privacy is a very good idea. It does not have to be big, but it should create buzz and be fed whenever possible into London discussions, specially the open session. By the way, I met Alexandrine Pirlot from Privacy International in Net Mundial and she said they were interested to know in more detail what is at stake right now in ICANN regarding privacy discussions and participate. Did you talk to her too, Stephanie? There are also discussions about making privacy one of the key themes for IGF maybe with a specific event.The idea is still maturing, but something will probably be raised in the next Open Consultations (19-21 May). We should take advantage of the momentum and help to make it bigger on ICANN's front, join forces. Recovered from a post-Net Mundial burn out, I am back into action, so count on me to help. Mar?lia On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > Thanks very much, Stephanie! I haven't been able to keep up with online > discussions in the last couple of days cause I'm visiting family in Utah, > but was really glad to see your suggestion that we meet with data > commissioners in London cause I had the same thought and last Monday sent > Article 29WP a note to see who was coming and what we could organize to > meet with them. I have not received a reply from A29, but want to continue > to pursue this meeting with data commissioners in London when I get back to > SF in a couple days. So count me in on helping to pull this together. If > you know any specific commissioners or other experts to pull in, please do > so. Let's find a few and see what we can come up with. Even if ICANN > doesn't give us a room, we can still get one by other means, I'm sure. > > Thanks, > Robin > > > On May 3, 2014, at 1:12 AM, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > > I would definitely support some sort of privacy meeting happening. I > don?t know if it?s possible at this late stage to ask for a slot in the > regular program, but we could inquire. It?s not a matter of ICANN doing it, > we could organize, they just provide the room. If that?s just not possible > we could try doing something ?off campus? in town, but this usually proves > very difficult because of schedule density and commitments, hard to ask > people to leave the building for several hours. > > Bill > > On May 3, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > > I have noticed that some stakeholders just show up at an ICANN meeting > (Singapore, Buenos Aires) and demand a meeting with the EWG. (e.g.. > Interpol) > I have repeatedly (as others have) suggested meeting with data > commissioners. I think the thing to do for the London meeting, is engineer > a meeting in town (possibly persuade Privacy International to hold a little > workshop) and get them to invite a couple of solid data commissioners over, > then bring the whole meeting to ICANN for the open mike session, or any > presentation we might hold as EWG. There is no point in getting ICANN to > do it, they don?t want to.They will offer to send Nigel Hickson in to talk > to them. I like Nigel, but having him go see them does not move the > yardsticks on this. > We also need support on the secure credentials thing?.so we could use some > folks who are interested in that. (by the way, my emails to David Cake are > bouncing any idea why??) I would love to get Ross Anderson there, so I > will reach out to him, maybe even Caspar Bowden might help. He understands > U-prove well. > This is all I meant by ambush?.get our own people there. > cheers sp > On May 2, 2014, at 11:45 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Stephanie, > > what do you mean by ambush meeting :)? > > Rafik > > > > 2014-05-02 21:58 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: > >> Thanks Amr! Be ready! We need to invite some data commissioners to the >> London meeting, we need to have an ambush meeting. More later... >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> > On May 2, 2014, at 4:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >> > >> > Hey Stephanie, >> > >> > Thanks for sticking with it!! I can imagine what kind of output would >> be coming out of the EWG if you weren?t actively participating in it, and I >> doubt it would have been any good. :) >> > >> > Amr >> > >> >> On May 2, 2014, at 2:46 AM, Stephanie Perrin < >> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi folks, when do we have the next policy meeting? there are a number >> of privacy issues looming which I would like to put on the agenda, notably: >> >> * the imminent release of the whois report, and what response will >> be needed >> >> * the completion of the criticism of the privacy policy >> >> * the preparation of a response to the secure protected credentials >> >> >> >> I must say that I am extremely frustrated, at this moment in time, >> with my experience on this committee. It has been 14 long and difficult >> months, and I feel like I have made no progress with the intractable >> attitudes of some of the team. This is interesting for my research, less >> so for my general sense of wellbeing and joie de vivre. However, I suppose >> we are near the end. I do hope we are able to catch this report and move >> the good bits forward and the bad bits backwards. >> >> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > *********************************************** > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, > ICANN, www.ncuc.org > william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > *********************************************** > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- *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: From rafik.dammak Mon May 5 14:55:18 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 20:55:18 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion re a number of privacy matters In-Reply-To: References: <7D54FDEF-2115-41AB-9DB8-E9B0B64AF790@mail.utoronto.ca> <55E84002-DEB1-40FA-83A7-267559330E16@egyptig.org> <08D99AC7-A55A-46A6-90D3-B942C7C693A1@mail.utoronto.ca> <49B08A20-DC1F-4CB1-9FD5-8065B18F9E90@gmail.com> <5D1C80F5-BB1B-4149-ADAE-5BF775ADBF7B@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Hi Marilia, I met Alexandrine at the academic event too, and she is definitely open to know more about what is going on ICANN in privacy front. London meeting is in few weeks! Rafik On May 5, 2014 4:35 AM, "Marilia Maciel" wrote: > Hi Stephanie and all, > > The event about privacy is a very good idea. It does not have to be big, > but it should create buzz and be fed whenever possible into London > discussions, specially the open session. By the way, I met Alexandrine > Pirlot from Privacy International in Net Mundial and she said they were > interested to know in more detail what is at stake right now in ICANN > regarding privacy discussions and participate. Did you talk to her too, > Stephanie? > > There are also discussions about making privacy one of the key themes for > IGF maybe with a specific event.The idea is still maturing, but something > will probably be raised in the next Open Consultations (19-21 May). We > should take advantage of the momentum and help to make it bigger on ICANN's > front, join forces. > > Recovered from a post-Net Mundial burn out, I am back into action, so > count on me to help. > > Mar?lia > > > On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > >> Thanks very much, Stephanie! I haven't been able to keep up with online >> discussions in the last couple of days cause I'm visiting family in Utah, >> but was really glad to see your suggestion that we meet with data >> commissioners in London cause I had the same thought and last Monday sent >> Article 29WP a note to see who was coming and what we could organize to >> meet with them. I have not received a reply from A29, but want to continue >> to pursue this meeting with data commissioners in London when I get back to >> SF in a couple days. So count me in on helping to pull this together. If >> you know any specific commissioners or other experts to pull in, please do >> so. Let's find a few and see what we can come up with. Even if ICANN >> doesn't give us a room, we can still get one by other means, I'm sure. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >> >> On May 3, 2014, at 1:12 AM, William Drake wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> I would definitely support some sort of privacy meeting happening. I >> don?t know if it?s possible at this late stage to ask for a slot in the >> regular program, but we could inquire. It?s not a matter of ICANN doing it, >> we could organize, they just provide the room. If that?s just not possible >> we could try doing something ?off campus? in town, but this usually proves >> very difficult because of schedule density and commitments, hard to ask >> people to leave the building for several hours. >> >> Bill >> >> On May 3, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin < >> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >> >> I have noticed that some stakeholders just show up at an ICANN meeting >> (Singapore, Buenos Aires) and demand a meeting with the EWG. (e.g.. >> Interpol) >> I have repeatedly (as others have) suggested meeting with data >> commissioners. I think the thing to do for the London meeting, is engineer >> a meeting in town (possibly persuade Privacy International to hold a little >> workshop) and get them to invite a couple of solid data commissioners over, >> then bring the whole meeting to ICANN for the open mike session, or any >> presentation we might hold as EWG. There is no point in getting ICANN to >> do it, they don?t want to.They will offer to send Nigel Hickson in to talk >> to them. I like Nigel, but having him go see them does not move the >> yardsticks on this. >> We also need support on the secure credentials thing?.so we could use >> some folks who are interested in that. (by the way, my emails to David Cake >> are bouncing any idea why??) I would love to get Ross Anderson there, so I >> will reach out to him, maybe even Caspar Bowden might help. He understands >> U-prove well. >> This is all I meant by ambush?.get our own people there. >> cheers sp >> On May 2, 2014, at 11:45 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi Stephanie, >> >> what do you mean by ambush meeting :)? >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> 2014-05-02 21:58 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < >> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: >> >>> Thanks Amr! Be ready! We need to invite some data commissioners to the >>> London meeting, we need to have an ambush meeting. More later... >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> > On May 2, 2014, at 4:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>> > >>> > Hey Stephanie, >>> > >>> > Thanks for sticking with it!! I can imagine what kind of output would >>> be coming out of the EWG if you weren?t actively participating in it, and I >>> doubt it would have been any good. :) >>> > >>> > Amr >>> > >>> >> On May 2, 2014, at 2:46 AM, Stephanie Perrin < >>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi folks, when do we have the next policy meeting? there are a >>> number of privacy issues looming which I would like to put on the agenda, >>> notably: >>> >> * the imminent release of the whois report, and what response will >>> be needed >>> >> * the completion of the criticism of the privacy policy >>> >> * the preparation of a response to the secure protected credentials >>> >> >>> >> I must say that I am extremely frustrated, at this moment in time, >>> with my experience on this committee. It has been 14 long and difficult >>> months, and I feel like I have made no progress with the intractable >>> attitudes of some of the team. This is interesting for my research, less >>> so for my general sense of wellbeing and joie de vivre. However, I suppose >>> we are near the end. I do hope we are able to catch this report and move >>> the good bits forward and the bad bits backwards. >>> >> 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 >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> *********************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > > > -- > *Mar?lia Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel Mon May 5 17:34:39 2014 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Mon, 5 May 2014 11:34:39 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion re a number of privacy matters In-Reply-To: References: <7D54FDEF-2115-41AB-9DB8-E9B0B64AF790@mail.utoronto.ca> <55E84002-DEB1-40FA-83A7-267559330E16@egyptig.org> <08D99AC7-A55A-46A6-90D3-B942C7C693A1@mail.utoronto.ca> <49B08A20-DC1F-4CB1-9FD5-8065B18F9E90@gmail.com> <5D1C80F5-BB1B-4149-ADAE-5BF775ADBF7B@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Yes, London is approaching. Shall we make this happen? Throwing some ideas of possible next steps: - Write a concise concept note explaining what are the issues related to privacy that deserve attention in ICANN at this moment and what is at stake (Steph, I am sure you have something that we could adjust) - Put together a small coalition of convenors of the meeting. ex: Article 19, Privacy International, Global Partners and ICANN internal groups that may support it (NCUC, NPOC, ALAC...). Maybe seek for the support of some GAC members? Brazil and Germany seem like good candidates for that. - Contact ICANN staff for to explore the possibility of addition to the agenda. Global Partners headquarters are in London. Maybe they have an idea of an alternative location if it does not fly with staff. - Agenda and invitations. Data comissioners, activists, academics... We need this very soon - Website. Keep it simple and sweet but announce. Anyway, just sharing some initial ideas. What do you think? I am willing to work on that with others. Best Mar?lia On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Marilia, > > I met Alexandrine at the academic event too, and she is definitely open to > know more about what is going on ICANN in privacy front. > > London meeting is in few weeks! > > Rafik > On May 5, 2014 4:35 AM, "Marilia Maciel" wrote: > >> Hi Stephanie and all, >> >> The event about privacy is a very good idea. It does not have to be big, >> but it should create buzz and be fed whenever possible into London >> discussions, specially the open session. By the way, I met Alexandrine >> Pirlot from Privacy International in Net Mundial and she said they were >> interested to know in more detail what is at stake right now in ICANN >> regarding privacy discussions and participate. Did you talk to her too, >> Stephanie? >> >> There are also discussions about making privacy one of the key themes for >> IGF maybe with a specific event.The idea is still maturing, but something >> will probably be raised in the next Open Consultations (19-21 May). We >> should take advantage of the momentum and help to make it bigger on ICANN's >> front, join forces. >> >> Recovered from a post-Net Mundial burn out, I am back into action, so >> count on me to help. >> >> Mar?lia >> >> >> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >> >>> Thanks very much, Stephanie! I haven't been able to keep up with online >>> discussions in the last couple of days cause I'm visiting family in Utah, >>> but was really glad to see your suggestion that we meet with data >>> commissioners in London cause I had the same thought and last Monday sent >>> Article 29WP a note to see who was coming and what we could organize to >>> meet with them. I have not received a reply from A29, but want to continue >>> to pursue this meeting with data commissioners in London when I get back to >>> SF in a couple days. So count me in on helping to pull this together. If >>> you know any specific commissioners or other experts to pull in, please do >>> so. Let's find a few and see what we can come up with. Even if ICANN >>> doesn't give us a room, we can still get one by other means, I'm sure. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Robin >>> >>> >>> On May 3, 2014, at 1:12 AM, William Drake wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> I would definitely support some sort of privacy meeting happening. I >>> don?t know if it?s possible at this late stage to ask for a slot in the >>> regular program, but we could inquire. It?s not a matter of ICANN doing it, >>> we could organize, they just provide the room. If that?s just not possible >>> we could try doing something ?off campus? in town, but this usually proves >>> very difficult because of schedule density and commitments, hard to ask >>> people to leave the building for several hours. >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> On May 3, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin < >>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >>> >>> I have noticed that some stakeholders just show up at an ICANN meeting >>> (Singapore, Buenos Aires) and demand a meeting with the EWG. (e.g.. >>> Interpol) >>> I have repeatedly (as others have) suggested meeting with data >>> commissioners. I think the thing to do for the London meeting, is engineer >>> a meeting in town (possibly persuade Privacy International to hold a little >>> workshop) and get them to invite a couple of solid data commissioners over, >>> then bring the whole meeting to ICANN for the open mike session, or any >>> presentation we might hold as EWG. There is no point in getting ICANN to >>> do it, they don?t want to.They will offer to send Nigel Hickson in to talk >>> to them. I like Nigel, but having him go see them does not move the >>> yardsticks on this. >>> We also need support on the secure credentials thing?.so we could use >>> some folks who are interested in that. (by the way, my emails to David Cake >>> are bouncing any idea why??) I would love to get Ross Anderson there, so I >>> will reach out to him, maybe even Caspar Bowden might help. He understands >>> U-prove well. >>> This is all I meant by ambush?.get our own people there. >>> cheers sp >>> On May 2, 2014, at 11:45 PM, Rafik Dammak >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Stephanie, >>> >>> what do you mean by ambush meeting :)? >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-05-02 21:58 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < >>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: >>> >>>> Thanks Amr! Be ready! We need to invite some data commissioners to >>>> the London meeting, we need to have an ambush meeting. More later... >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> > On May 2, 2014, at 4:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Hey Stephanie, >>>> > >>>> > Thanks for sticking with it!! I can imagine what kind of output would >>>> be coming out of the EWG if you weren?t actively participating in it, and I >>>> doubt it would have been any good. :) >>>> > >>>> > Amr >>>> > >>>> >> On May 2, 2014, at 2:46 AM, Stephanie Perrin < >>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Hi folks, when do we have the next policy meeting? there are a >>>> number of privacy issues looming which I would like to put on the agenda, >>>> notably: >>>> >> * the imminent release of the whois report, and what response >>>> will be needed >>>> >> * the completion of the criticism of the privacy policy >>>> >> * the preparation of a response to the secure protected >>>> credentials >>>> >> >>>> >> I must say that I am extremely frustrated, at this moment in time, >>>> with my experience on this committee. It has been 14 long and difficult >>>> months, and I feel like I have made no progress with the intractable >>>> attitudes of some of the team. This is interesting for my research, less >>>> so for my general sense of wellbeing and joie de vivre. However, I suppose >>>> we are near the end. I do hope we are able to catch this report and move >>>> the good bits forward and the bad bits backwards. >>>> >> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> *********************************************** >>> William J. Drake >>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>> www.williamdrake.org >>> *********************************************** >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Mar?lia Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora >> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> >> Researcher and Coordinator >> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate >> www.diplomacy.edu >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> -- *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: From rafik.dammak Tue May 6 10:07:11 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 16:07:11 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH Board seat 14 election - results second round In-Reply-To: References: <7FE24A9B-C107-4E3B-96B0-2A8E093D33A0@egyptig.org> <7DE7C863-145B-4C8B-A2AF-64B6C094D418@ipjustice.org> <3B23855A-DF37-430F-86FB-3092C5241AF4@gmail.com> <534BF98A.7080608@acm.org> <25388823-7321-4924-B859-6A2217C58719@isoc.be> <502A97E1-ADCA-44C8-8BC3-19E1F95989CC@gmail.com> <534FF5B5.6050207@acm.org> <7BE746CD-D85B-4013-A068-29120CA5A295@isoc.be> <18CEADFE-5E93-45D4-AE0A-41E9CD76F085@isoc.be> Message-ID: Hello everyone, the call with CSG will be wednesday 11:00am EDT / 15:00 UTC can you please confirm if you can attend the call? no response yet to our compromise proposal. Best Regards, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Tue May 6 10:30:09 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 08:30:09 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH Board seat 14 election - results second round In-Reply-To: References: <7FE24A9B-C107-4E3B-96B0-2A8E093D33A0@egyptig.org> <7DE7C863-145B-4C8B-A2AF-64B6C094D418@ipjustice.org> <3B23855A-DF37-430F-86FB-3092C5241AF4@gmail.com> <534BF98A.7080608@acm.org> <25388823-7321-4924-B859-6A2217C58719@isoc.be> <502A97E1-ADCA-44C8-8BC3-19E1F95989CC@gmail.com> <534FF5B5.6050207@acm.org> <7BE746CD-D85B-4013-A068-29120CA5A295@isoc.be> <18CEADFE-5E93-45D4-AE0A-41E9CD76F085@isoc.be> Message-ID: Hi Rafik, yes, I'll be on the call on Weds. cheers, m On 6 May 2014 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hello everyone, > > the call with CSG will be wednesday 11:00am EDT / 15:00 UTC > can you please confirm if you can attend the call? > no response yet to our compromise proposal. > > 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: From rafik.dammak Tue May 6 11:14:46 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 17:14:46 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Comment on IANA transition In-Reply-To: <5364D9FD.8050908@acm.org> References: <5364D9FD.8050908@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Avri, thank you, I think that PC should act quickly, we should send the statement for this important comment in time. Best Regards, Rafik 2014-05-03 20:58 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > I support this document and despite a few quibbles which I have > commented on in the doc and beleive should be fixed would approve the docs > > avri > > On 03-May-14 13:21, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: > > Dear NCSG-PC and NCSG membership, > > > > ARTICLE 19 and the Internet Governance Project have drafted a comment in > > response to ICANN's "Draft Proposal, Based on Initial Community > > Feedback, of the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to Develop a > > Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions" as well > > as its proposed Scoping Document". > > > > You can view and comment on the document here: > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Oe-kqA-5WXGavAy40XEHVzKltNAQrjiuuZ-FH5jJqw/edit?usp=sharing > > > > We kindly request that this comment be submitted to ICANN on behalf of > > the NCSG. Comments are due next week, May 8. > > > > Best regards, > > > > --------------------------------------- > > Brenden Kuerbis > > Internet Governance Project > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Tue May 6 11:44:12 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 17:44:12 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion re a number of privacy matters In-Reply-To: References: <7D54FDEF-2115-41AB-9DB8-E9B0B64AF790@mail.utoronto.ca> <55E84002-DEB1-40FA-83A7-267559330E16@egyptig.org> <08D99AC7-A55A-46A6-90D3-B942C7C693A1@mail.utoronto.ca> <49B08A20-DC1F-4CB1-9FD5-8065B18F9E90@gmail.com> <5D1C80F5-BB1B-4149-ADAE-5BF775ADBF7B@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Hi Marilia, Stephanie, for the meeting room, I think that I can request that to ICANN staff , at least it can be placeholder and we can know if we need plan B just in case. I will do that as NCSG related meeting (as I did for other sessions but I dunno about the size of room we can get)since the window of time to request is short. date and time matters too to avoid clash with main sessions. the concept note or briefing is something overdue and we promised it previously to Fadi and board, good opportunity to make it now. Stephanie already outlined several aspect in strawman document as follow-up the discussion in Singapore. we can have this convening group with article19 , privacy international , NCSG/NCUC/NPOC. for ALAC, I am not sure about the level of common ground regarding privacy issues. yes for some GAC members support, same for Article 29 WG. can I assume that you are volunteering to make the bootstrapping of such effort :)? I will be happy to provide support. Rafik 2014-05-05 23:34 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel : > Yes, London is approaching. Shall we make this happen? Throwing some ideas > of possible next steps: > - Write a concise concept note explaining what are the issues related to > privacy that deserve attention in ICANN at this moment and what is at stake > (Steph, I am sure you have something that we could adjust) > - Put together a small coalition of convenors of the meeting. ex: Article > 19, Privacy International, Global Partners and ICANN internal groups that > may support it (NCUC, NPOC, ALAC...). Maybe seek for the support of some > GAC members? Brazil and Germany seem like good candidates for that. > - Contact ICANN staff for to explore the possibility of addition to the > agenda. Global Partners headquarters are in London. Maybe they have an idea > of an alternative location if it does not fly with staff. > - Agenda and invitations. Data comissioners, activists, academics... We > need this very soon > - Website. Keep it simple and sweet but announce. > > Anyway, just sharing some initial ideas. What do you think? I am willing > to work on that with others. > Best > Mar?lia > > > > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Marilia, >> >> I met Alexandrine at the academic event too, and she is definitely open >> to know more about what is going on ICANN in privacy front. >> >> London meeting is in few weeks! >> >> Rafik >> On May 5, 2014 4:35 AM, "Marilia Maciel" wrote: >> >>> Hi Stephanie and all, >>> >>> The event about privacy is a very good idea. It does not have to be big, >>> but it should create buzz and be fed whenever possible into London >>> discussions, specially the open session. By the way, I met Alexandrine >>> Pirlot from Privacy International in Net Mundial and she said they were >>> interested to know in more detail what is at stake right now in ICANN >>> regarding privacy discussions and participate. Did you talk to her too, >>> Stephanie? >>> >>> There are also discussions about making privacy one of the key themes >>> for IGF maybe with a specific event.The idea is still maturing, but >>> something will probably be raised in the next Open Consultations (19-21 >>> May). We should take advantage of the momentum and help to make it bigger >>> on ICANN's front, join forces. >>> >>> Recovered from a post-Net Mundial burn out, I am back into action, so >>> count on me to help. >>> >>> Mar?lia >>> >>> >>> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >>> >>>> Thanks very much, Stephanie! I haven't been able to keep up with >>>> online discussions in the last couple of days cause I'm visiting family in >>>> Utah, but was really glad to see your suggestion that we meet with data >>>> commissioners in London cause I had the same thought and last Monday sent >>>> Article 29WP a note to see who was coming and what we could organize to >>>> meet with them. I have not received a reply from A29, but want to continue >>>> to pursue this meeting with data commissioners in London when I get back to >>>> SF in a couple days. So count me in on helping to pull this together. If >>>> you know any specific commissioners or other experts to pull in, please do >>>> so. Let's find a few and see what we can come up with. Even if ICANN >>>> doesn't give us a room, we can still get one by other means, I'm sure. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Robin >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 3, 2014, at 1:12 AM, William Drake wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> I would definitely support some sort of privacy meeting happening. I >>>> don?t know if it?s possible at this late stage to ask for a slot in the >>>> regular program, but we could inquire. It?s not a matter of ICANN doing it, >>>> we could organize, they just provide the room. If that?s just not possible >>>> we could try doing something ?off campus? in town, but this usually proves >>>> very difficult because of schedule density and commitments, hard to ask >>>> people to leave the building for several hours. >>>> >>>> Bill >>>> >>>> On May 3, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin < >>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>> I have noticed that some stakeholders just show up at an ICANN meeting >>>> (Singapore, Buenos Aires) and demand a meeting with the EWG. (e.g.. >>>> Interpol) >>>> I have repeatedly (as others have) suggested meeting with data >>>> commissioners. I think the thing to do for the London meeting, is engineer >>>> a meeting in town (possibly persuade Privacy International to hold a little >>>> workshop) and get them to invite a couple of solid data commissioners over, >>>> then bring the whole meeting to ICANN for the open mike session, or any >>>> presentation we might hold as EWG. There is no point in getting ICANN to >>>> do it, they don?t want to.They will offer to send Nigel Hickson in to talk >>>> to them. I like Nigel, but having him go see them does not move the >>>> yardsticks on this. >>>> We also need support on the secure credentials thing?.so we could use >>>> some folks who are interested in that. (by the way, my emails to David Cake >>>> are bouncing any idea why??) I would love to get Ross Anderson there, so I >>>> will reach out to him, maybe even Caspar Bowden might help. He understands >>>> U-prove well. >>>> This is all I meant by ambush?.get our own people there. >>>> cheers sp >>>> On May 2, 2014, at 11:45 PM, Rafik Dammak >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>> >>>> what do you mean by ambush meeting :)? >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-05-02 21:58 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < >>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: >>>> >>>>> Thanks Amr! Be ready! We need to invite some data commissioners to >>>>> the London meeting, we need to have an ambush meeting. More later... >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >>>>> > On May 2, 2014, at 4:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > Hey Stephanie, >>>>> > >>>>> > Thanks for sticking with it!! I can imagine what kind of output >>>>> would be coming out of the EWG if you weren?t actively participating in it, >>>>> and I doubt it would have been any good. :) >>>>> > >>>>> > Amr >>>>> > >>>>> >> On May 2, 2014, at 2:46 AM, Stephanie Perrin < >>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Hi folks, when do we have the next policy meeting? there are a >>>>> number of privacy issues looming which I would like to put on the agenda, >>>>> notably: >>>>> >> * the imminent release of the whois report, and what response >>>>> will be needed >>>>> >> * the completion of the criticism of the privacy policy >>>>> >> * the preparation of a response to the secure protected >>>>> credentials >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I must say that I am extremely frustrated, at this moment in time, >>>>> with my experience on this committee. It has been 14 long and difficult >>>>> months, and I feel like I have made no progress with the intractable >>>>> attitudes of some of the team. This is interesting for my research, less >>>>> so for my general sense of wellbeing and joie de vivre. However, I suppose >>>>> we are near the end. I do hope we are able to catch this report and move >>>>> the good bits forward and the bad bits backwards. >>>>> >> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>> >>>> *********************************************** >>>> William J. Drake >>>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >>>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>>> www.williamdrake.org >>>> *********************************************** >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Mar?lia Maciel* >>> Pesquisadora Gestora >>> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >>> >>> Researcher and Coordinator >>> Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School >>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >>> DiploFoundation associate >>> www.diplomacy.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> > > > -- > *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: From joy Tue May 6 11:49:01 2014 From: joy (joy) Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 20:49:01 +1200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion re a number of privacy matters In-Reply-To: References: <7D54FDEF-2115-41AB-9DB8-E9B0B64AF790@mail.utoronto.ca> <55E84002-DEB1-40FA-83A7-267559330E16@egyptig.org> <08D99AC7-A55A-46A6-90D3-B942C7C693A1@mail.utoronto.ca> <49B08A20-DC1F-4CB1-9FD5-8065B18F9E90@gmail.com> <5D1C80F5-BB1B-4149-ADAE-5BF775ADBF7B@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <5368A1FD.4090905@apc.org> Hi Stephanie and all, I can also help the concept note and reaching out to Privacy International, Global Partners and others. I will not be attending the ICANN London meeting, but happy to help in other ways. I also think coordinating messages across the whole of the agenda, so that the key points we want to take forward are put up in each meeting, can help. Joy On 6/05/2014 8:44 p.m., Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Marilia, Stephanie, > > for the meeting room, I think that I can request that to ICANN staff , > at least it can be placeholder and we can know if we need plan B just > in case. I will do that as NCSG related meeting (as I did for other > sessions but I dunno about the size of room we can get)since the > window of time to request is short. date and time matters too to > avoid clash with main sessions. > > the concept note or briefing is something overdue and we promised it > previously to Fadi and board, good opportunity to make it now. > Stephanie already outlined several aspect in strawman document as > follow-up the discussion in Singapore. > > we can have this convening group with article19 , privacy > international , NCSG/NCUC/NPOC. for ALAC, I am not sure about the > level of common ground regarding privacy issues. yes for some GAC > members support, same for Article 29 WG. > > can I assume that you are volunteering to make the bootstrapping of > such effort :)? I will be happy to provide support. > > Rafik > > 2014-05-05 23:34 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel >: > > Yes, London is approaching. Shall we make this happen? Throwing > some ideas of possible next steps: > - Write a concise concept note explaining what are the issues > related to privacy that deserve attention in ICANN at this moment > and what is at stake (Steph, I am sure you have something that we > could adjust) > - Put together a small coalition of convenors of the meeting. ex: > Article 19, Privacy International, Global Partners and ICANN > internal groups that may support it (NCUC, NPOC, ALAC...). Maybe > seek for the support of some GAC members? Brazil and Germany seem > like good candidates for that. > - Contact ICANN staff for to explore the possibility of addition > to the agenda. Global Partners headquarters are in London. Maybe > they have an idea of an alternative location if it does not fly > with staff. > - Agenda and invitations. Data comissioners, activists, > academics... We need this very soon > - Website. Keep it simple and sweet but announce. > > Anyway, just sharing some initial ideas. What do you think? I am > willing to work on that with others. > Best > Mar?lia > > > > > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 8:55 AM, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: > > Hi Marilia, > > I met Alexandrine at the academic event too, and she is > definitely open to know more about what is going on ICANN in > privacy front. > > London meeting is in few weeks! > > Rafik > > On May 5, 2014 4:35 AM, "Marilia Maciel" > > wrote: > > Hi Stephanie and all, > > The event about privacy is a very good idea. It does not > have to be big, but it should create buzz and be fed > whenever possible into London discussions, specially the > open session. By the way, I met Alexandrine Pirlot from > Privacy International in Net Mundial and she said they > were interested to know in more detail what is at stake > right now in ICANN regarding privacy discussions and > participate. Did you talk to her too, Stephanie? > > There are also discussions about making privacy one of the > key themes for IGF maybe with a specific event.The idea is > still maturing, but something will probably be raised in > the next Open Consultations (19-21 May). We should take > advantage of the momentum and help to make it bigger on > ICANN's front, join forces. > > Recovered from a post-Net Mundial burn out, I am back into > action, so count on me to help. > > Mar?lia > > > On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Robin Gross > > wrote: > > Thanks very much, Stephanie! I haven't been able to > keep up with online discussions in the last couple of > days cause I'm visiting family in Utah, but was really > glad to see your suggestion that we meet with data > commissioners in London cause I had the same thought > and last Monday sent Article 29WP a note to see who > was coming and what we could organize to meet with > them. I have not received a reply from A29, but want > to continue to pursue this meeting with data > commissioners in London when I get back to SF in a > couple days. So count me in on helping to pull this > together. If you know any specific commissioners or > other experts to pull in, please do so. Let's find > a few and see what we can come up with. Even if ICANN > doesn't give us a room, we can still get one by other > means, I'm sure. > > Thanks, > Robin > > > On May 3, 2014, at 1:12 AM, William Drake wrote: > >> Hi >> >> I would definitely support some sort of privacy >> meeting happening. I don't know if it's possible at >> this late stage to ask for a slot in the regular >> program, but we could inquire. It's not a matter of >> ICANN doing it, we could organize, they just provide >> the room. If that's just not possible we could try >> doing something "off campus" in town, but this >> usually proves very difficult because of schedule >> density and commitments, hard to ask people to leave >> the building for several hours. >> >> Bill >> >> On May 3, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin >> > > wrote: >> >>> I have noticed that some stakeholders just show up >>> at an ICANN meeting (Singapore, Buenos Aires) and >>> demand a meeting with the EWG. (e.g.. Interpol) >>> I have repeatedly (as others have) suggested meeting >>> with data commissioners. I think the thing to do >>> for the London meeting, is engineer a meeting in >>> town (possibly persuade Privacy International to >>> hold a little workshop) and get them to invite a >>> couple of solid data commissioners over, then bring >>> the whole meeting to ICANN for the open mike >>> session, or any presentation we might hold as EWG. >>> There is no point in getting ICANN to do it, they >>> don't want to.They will offer to send Nigel Hickson >>> in to talk to them. I like Nigel, but having him go >>> see them does not move the yardsticks on this. >>> We also need support on the secure credentials >>> thing....so we could use some folks who are >>> interested in that. (by the way, my emails to David >>> Cake are bouncing any idea why??) I would love to >>> get Ross Anderson there, so I will reach out to him, >>> maybe even Caspar Bowden might help. He understands >>> U-prove well. >>> This is all I meant by ambush....get our own people >>> there. >>> cheers sp >>> On May 2, 2014, at 11:45 PM, Rafik Dammak >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>> >>>> what do you mean by ambush meeting :)? >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-05-02 21:58 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin >>>> >>> >: >>>> >>>> Thanks Amr! Be ready! We need to invite some >>>> data commissioners to the London meeting, we >>>> need to have an ambush meeting. More later... >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> > On May 2, 2014, at 4:17 AM, Amr Elsadr >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Hey Stephanie, >>>> > >>>> > Thanks for sticking with it!! I can imagine >>>> what kind of output would be coming out of the >>>> EWG if you weren't actively participating in >>>> it, and I doubt it would have been any good. :) >>>> > >>>> > Amr >>>> > >>>> >> On May 2, 2014, at 2:46 AM, Stephanie Perrin >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Hi folks, when do we have the next policy >>>> meeting? there are a number of privacy issues >>>> looming which I would like to put on the >>>> agenda, notably: >>>> >> * the imminent release of the whois >>>> report, and what response will be needed >>>> >> * the completion of the criticism of the >>>> privacy policy >>>> >> * the preparation of a response to the >>>> secure protected credentials >>>> >> >>>> >> I must say that I am extremely frustrated, >>>> at this moment in time, with my experience on >>>> this committee. It has been 14 long and >>>> difficult months, and I feel like I have made >>>> no progress with the intractable attitudes of >>>> some of the team. This is interesting for my >>>> research, less so for my general sense of >>>> wellbeing and joie de vivre. However, I >>>> suppose we are near the end. I do hope we are >>>> able to catch this report and move the good >>>> bits forward and the bad bits backwards. >>>> >> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> *********************************************** >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >> william.drake at uzh.ch >> (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com >> (lists), >> www.williamdrake.org >> *********************************************** >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > -- > *Mar?lia Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > -- > *Mar?lia Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: joy.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 229 bytes Desc: not available URL: From aelsadr Tue May 6 13:07:40 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 12:07:40 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Comment on IANA transition In-Reply-To: References: <5364D9FD.8050908@acm.org> Message-ID: <7938B642-E661-438B-99D6-AA15A114D4CF@egyptig.org> Hi, I?m also fine with this document. Thanks to everyone who worked on this very important issue over the past few months and to the IGP and Article 19 for writing the comment up. Amr On May 6, 2014, at 10:14 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Avri, > > thank you, > I think that PC should act quickly, we should send the statement for this important comment in time. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > 2014-05-03 20:58 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > I support this document and despite a few quibbles which I have > commented on in the doc and beleive should be fixed would approve the docs > > avri > > On 03-May-14 13:21, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: > > Dear NCSG-PC and NCSG membership, > > > > ARTICLE 19 and the Internet Governance Project have drafted a comment in > > response to ICANN's "Draft Proposal, Based on Initial Community > > Feedback, of the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to Develop a > > Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions" as well > > as its proposed Scoping Document". > > > > You can view and comment on the document here: > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Oe-kqA-5WXGavAy40XEHVzKltNAQrjiuuZ-FH5jJqw/edit?usp=sharing > > > > We kindly request that this comment be submitted to ICANN on behalf of > > the NCSG. Comments are due next week, May 8. > > > > Best regards, > > > > --------------------------------------- > > Brenden Kuerbis > > Internet Governance Project > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Tue May 6 13:16:02 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 12:16:02 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH Board seat 14 election - results second round In-Reply-To: References: <7FE24A9B-C107-4E3B-96B0-2A8E093D33A0@egyptig.org> <7DE7C863-145B-4C8B-A2AF-64B6C094D418@ipjustice.org> <3B23855A-DF37-430F-86FB-3092C5241AF4@gmail.com> <534BF98A.7080608@acm.org> <25388823-7321-4924-B859-6A2217C58719@isoc.be> <502A97E1-ADCA-44C8-8BC3-19E1F95989CC@gmail.com> <534FF5B5.6050207@acm.org> <7BE746CD-D85B-4013-A068-29120CA5A295@isoc.be> <18CEADFE-5E93-45D4-AE0A-41E9CD76F085@isoc.be> Message-ID: Me too. Is there an agenda set for this meeting? It would be helpful if one was set prior to the call to make it as productive as possible. The CSG could at least acknowledge wether or not they wish to discuss the ?compromise proposal?. Thanks. Amr On May 6, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Maria Farrell wrote: > Hi Rafik, > > yes, I'll be on the call on Weds. > > cheers, m > > > On 6 May 2014 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hello everyone, > > the call with CSG will be wednesday 11:00am EDT / 15:00 UTC > can you please confirm if you can attend the call? > no response yet to our compromise proposal. > > 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: From bkuerbis Tue May 6 13:31:04 2014 From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 06:31:04 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Comment on IANA transition In-Reply-To: References: <5364D9FD.8050908@acm.org> Message-ID: Thanks Rafik, I agree. Fortunately, the timing appears to be good with today's NCSG call? I'll attempt to join the call, but will be late do to a conflict. Regardless, I'd kindly request that endorsement be resolved today if possible. -- Brenden Hi Avri, thank you, I think that PC should act quickly, we should send the statement for this important comment in time. Best Regards, Rafik Hi Avri, thank you, I think that PC should act quickly, we should send the statement for this important comment in time. Best Regards, Rafik 2014-05-03 20:58 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > I support this document and despite a few quibbles which I have > commented on in the doc and beleive should be fixed would approve the docs > > avri > > On 03-May-14 13:21, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: > > Dear NCSG-PC and NCSG membership, > > > > ARTICLE 19 and the Internet Governance Project have drafted a comment in > > response to ICANN's "Draft Proposal, Based on Initial Community > > Feedback, of the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to Develop a > > Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions" as well > > as its proposed Scoping Document". > > > > You can view and comment on the document here: > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Oe-kqA-5WXGavAy40XEHVzKltNAQrjiuuZ-FH5jJqw/edit?usp=sharing > > > > We kindly request that this comment be submitted to ICANN on behalf of > > the NCSG. Comments are due next week, May 8. > > > > Best regards, > > > > --------------------------------------- > > Brenden Kuerbis > > Internet Governance Project > > http://internetgovernance.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > _______________________________________________ PC-NCSG mailing list PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Tue May 6 13:34:13 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 19:34:13 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Comment on IANA transition In-Reply-To: References: <5364D9FD.8050908@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Brenden, the IANA transition comment is already in the agenda. Rafik 2014-05-06 19:31 GMT+09:00 Brenden Kuerbis : > Thanks Rafik, I agree. Fortunately, the timing appears to be good with > today's NCSG call? I'll attempt to join the call, but will be late do to a > conflict. Regardless, I'd kindly request that endorsement be resolved > today if possible. > > -- Brenden > > Hi Avri, > > thank you, > I think that PC should act quickly, we should send the statement for this > important comment in time. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > Hi Avri, > > thank you, > I think that PC should act quickly, we should send the statement for this > important comment in time. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > 2014-05-03 20:58 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > >> Hi, >> >> I support this document and despite a few quibbles which I have >> commented on in the doc and beleive should be fixed would approve the docs >> >> avri >> >> On 03-May-14 13:21, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: >> > Dear NCSG-PC and NCSG membership, >> > >> > ARTICLE 19 and the Internet Governance Project have drafted a comment in >> > response to ICANN's "Draft Proposal, Based on Initial Community >> > Feedback, of the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to Develop a >> > Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions" as well >> > as its proposed Scoping Document". >> > >> > You can view and comment on the document here: >> > >> > >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Oe-kqA-5WXGavAy40XEHVzKltNAQrjiuuZ-FH5jJqw/edit?usp=sharing >> > >> > We kindly request that this comment be submitted to ICANN on behalf of >> > the NCSG. Comments are due next week, May 8. >> > >> > Best regards, >> > >> > --------------------------------------- >> > Brenden Kuerbis >> > Internet Governance Project >> > http://internetgovernance.org >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Tue May 6 13:50:41 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 06:50:41 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH Board seat 14 election - results second round In-Reply-To: References: <534BF98A.7080608@acm.org> <25388823-7321-4924-B859-6A2217C58719@isoc.be> <502A97E1-ADCA-44C8-8BC3-19E1F95989CC@gmail.com> <534FF5B5.6050207@acm.org> <7BE746CD-D85B-4013-A068-29120CA5A295@isoc.be> <18CEADFE-5E93-45D4-AE0A-41E9CD76F085@isoc.be> Message-ID: <5368BE81.4040708@acm.org> Hi, Unfortunately I have another meeting at this time - a long delayed (because of my travels) SCI side meeting that I already agreed to. Then again I think I am the least necessary person in that meeting. And some might complain about hiving one candidate when the other can't attend. I must state, though, that except in the case of the pre-arranged compromise, I do _not_ intend to withdraw my candidacy. I think it is significant that in terms of the vote I did not lose, whereas the other candidate did. I believe that this should be taken into account in any negotiated settlements. Just to allay any doubts anyone may have, having been the NCSG candidate for this role for a while now, yes, I want to serve on the Board as an elected member from the GNSO-NCPH. My fate as a candidate, and possibly a Board member, is in your hands. avri On 06-May-14 03:07, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hello everyone, > > the call with CSG will be wednesday 11:00am EDT / 15:00 UTC > can you please confirm if you can attend the call? > no response yet to our compromise proposal. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From rafik.dammak Tue May 6 14:05:36 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 20:05:36 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH Board seat 14 election - results second round In-Reply-To: References: <7FE24A9B-C107-4E3B-96B0-2A8E093D33A0@egyptig.org> <7DE7C863-145B-4C8B-A2AF-64B6C094D418@ipjustice.org> <3B23855A-DF37-430F-86FB-3092C5241AF4@gmail.com> <534BF98A.7080608@acm.org> <25388823-7321-4924-B859-6A2217C58719@isoc.be> <502A97E1-ADCA-44C8-8BC3-19E1F95989CC@gmail.com> <534FF5B5.6050207@acm.org> <7BE746CD-D85B-4013-A068-29120CA5A295@isoc.be> <18CEADFE-5E93-45D4-AE0A-41E9CD76F085@isoc.be> Message-ID: Hi Amr, I asked CSG about the reaction regarding the compromise but not answer, so I reiterated but I doubt that we will get any before the call . Rafik 2014-05-06 19:16 GMT+09:00 Amr Elsadr : > Me too. Is there an agenda set for this meeting? It would be helpful if > one was set prior to the call to make it as productive as possible. The CSG > could at least acknowledge wether or not they wish to discuss the > ?compromise proposal?. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On May 6, 2014, at 9:30 AM, Maria Farrell wrote: > > Hi Rafik, > > yes, I'll be on the call on Weds. > > cheers, m > > > On 6 May 2014 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hello everyone, >> >> the call with CSG will be wednesday 11:00am EDT / 15:00 UTC >> can you please confirm if you can attend the call? >> no response yet to our compromise proposal. >> >> 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: From wjdrake Tue May 6 14:06:03 2014 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 13:06:03 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion re a number of privacy matters In-Reply-To: References: <7D54FDEF-2115-41AB-9DB8-E9B0B64AF790@mail.utoronto.ca> <55E84002-DEB1-40FA-83A7-267559330E16@egyptig.org> <08D99AC7-A55A-46A6-90D3-B942C7C693A1@mail.utoronto.ca> <49B08A20-DC1F-4CB1-9FD5-8065B18F9E90@gmail.com> <5D1C80F5-BB1B-4149-ADAE-5BF775ADBF7B@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Hi Marilia On May 4, 2014, at 9:35 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > There are also discussions about making privacy one of the key themes for IGF maybe with a specific event.The idea is still maturing, but something will probably be raised in the next Open Consultations (19-21 May). We should take advantage of the momentum and help to make it bigger on ICANN's front, join forces. Who?s discussing this where? It?s not been in the MAG, and the program for main sessions is already kind of set. We have a call tomorrow, if there?s more info let me know. Best Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Tue May 6 14:07:23 2014 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 13:07:23 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCPH Board seat 14 election - results second round In-Reply-To: References: <7FE24A9B-C107-4E3B-96B0-2A8E093D33A0@egyptig.org> <7DE7C863-145B-4C8B-A2AF-64B6C094D418@ipjustice.org> <3B23855A-DF37-430F-86FB-3092C5241AF4@gmail.com> <534BF98A.7080608@acm.org> <25388823-7321-4924-B859-6A2217C58719@isoc.be> <502A97E1-ADCA-44C8-8BC3-19E1F95989CC@gmail.com> <534FF5B5.6050207@acm.org> <7BE746CD-D85B-4013-A068-29120CA5A295@isoc.be> <18CEADFE-5E93-45D4-AE0A-41E9CD76F085@isoc.be> Message-ID: On May 6, 2014, at 9:07 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hello everyone, > > the call with CSG will be wednesday 11:00am EDT / 15:00 UTC > can you please confirm if you can attend the call? > no response yet to our compromise proposal. I have another call then but look forward to hearing what?s been discussed. thanks Bill From stephanie.perrin Tue May 6 16:58:50 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 09:58:50 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] discussion re a number of privacy matters In-Reply-To: References: <7D54FDEF-2115-41AB-9DB8-E9B0B64AF790@mail.utoronto.ca> <55E84002-DEB1-40FA-83A7-267559330E16@egyptig.org> <08D99AC7-A55A-46A6-90D3-B942C7C693A1@mail.utoronto.ca> <49B08A20-DC1F-4CB1-9FD5-8065B18F9E90@gmail.com> <5D1C80F5-BB1B-4149-ADAE-5BF775ADBF7B@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: I have not met Alexandrine, but I sat withGus Hosein when we were at Cyberdialogues (what a month April was!) and updated him on the struggles... I hope you had a good rest you, deserve one! SP Sent from my iPad > On May 4, 2014, at 3:35 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > > Hi Stephanie and all, > > The event about privacy is a very good idea. It does not have to be big, but it should create buzz and be fed whenever possible into London discussions, specially the open session. By the way, I met Alexandrine Pirlot from Privacy International in Net Mundial and she said they were interested to know in more detail what is at stake right now in ICANN regarding privacy discussions and participate. Did you talk to her too, Stephanie? > > There are also discussions about making privacy one of the key themes for IGF maybe with a specific event.The idea is still maturing, but something will probably be raised in the next Open Consultations (19-21 May). We should take advantage of the momentum and help to make it bigger on ICANN's front, join forces. > > Recovered from a post-Net Mundial burn out, I am back into action, so count on me to help. > > Mar?lia > > >> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Robin Gross wrote: >> Thanks very much, Stephanie! I haven't been able to keep up with online discussions in the last couple of days cause I'm visiting family in Utah, but was really glad to see your suggestion that we meet with data commissioners in London cause I had the same thought and last Monday sent Article 29WP a note to see who was coming and what we could organize to meet with them. I have not received a reply from A29, but want to continue to pursue this meeting with data commissioners in London when I get back to SF in a couple days. So count me in on helping to pull this together. If you know any specific commissioners or other experts to pull in, please do so. Let's find a few and see what we can come up with. Even if ICANN doesn't give us a room, we can still get one by other means, I'm sure. >> >> Thanks, >> Robin >> >> >>> On May 3, 2014, at 1:12 AM, William Drake wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> I would definitely support some sort of privacy meeting happening. I don?t know if it?s possible at this late stage to ask for a slot in the regular program, but we could inquire. It?s not a matter of ICANN doing it, we could organize, they just provide the room. If that?s just not possible we could try doing something ?off campus? in town, but this usually proves very difficult because of schedule density and commitments, hard to ask people to leave the building for several hours. >>> >>> Bill >>> >>>> On May 3, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>> >>>> I have noticed that some stakeholders just show up at an ICANN meeting (Singapore, Buenos Aires) and demand a meeting with the EWG. (e.g.. Interpol) >>>> I have repeatedly (as others have) suggested meeting with data commissioners. I think the thing to do for the London meeting, is engineer a meeting in town (possibly persuade Privacy International to hold a little workshop) and get them to invite a couple of solid data commissioners over, then bring the whole meeting to ICANN for the open mike session, or any presentation we might hold as EWG. There is no point in getting ICANN to do it, they don?t want to.They will offer to send Nigel Hickson in to talk to them. I like Nigel, but having him go see them does not move the yardsticks on this. >>>> We also need support on the secure credentials thing?.so we could use some folks who are interested in that. (by the way, my emails to David Cake are bouncing any idea why??) I would love to get Ross Anderson there, so I will reach out to him, maybe even Caspar Bowden might help. He understands U-prove well. >>>> This is all I meant by ambush?.get our own people there. >>>> cheers sp >>>>> On May 2, 2014, at 11:45 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>> >>>>> what do you mean by ambush meeting :)? >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2014-05-02 21:58 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin : >>>>>> Thanks Amr! Be ready! We need to invite some data commissioners to the London meeting, we need to have an ambush meeting. More later... >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>>> >>>>>> > On May 2, 2014, at 4:17 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Hey Stephanie, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Thanks for sticking with it!! I can imagine what kind of output would be coming out of the EWG if you weren?t actively participating in it, and I doubt it would have been any good. :) >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Amr >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> On May 2, 2014, at 2:46 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Hi folks, when do we have the next policy meeting? there are a number of privacy issues looming which I would like to put on the agenda, notably: >>>>>> >> * the imminent release of the whois report, and what response will be needed >>>>>> >> * the completion of the criticism of the privacy policy >>>>>> >> * the preparation of a response to the secure protected credentials >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> I must say that I am extremely frustrated, at this moment in time, with my experience on this committee. It has been 14 long and difficult months, and I feel like I have made no progress with the intractable attitudes of some of the team. This is interesting for my research, less so for my general sense of wellbeing and joie de vivre. However, I suppose we are near the end. I do hope we are able to catch this report and move the good bits forward and the bad bits backwards. >>>>>> >> 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 >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> *********************************************** >>> William J. Drake >>> International Fellow & Lecturer >>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >>> University of Zurich, Switzerland >>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, >>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org >>> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), >>> www.williamdrake.org >>> *********************************************** >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > -- > 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: From stephanie.perrin Tue May 6 19:28:58 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 12:28:58 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: RDS Risk Survey and Webinar Announcement References: Message-ID: I think Milton says it well....webinars are over, but survey still up... Begin forwarded message: > From: Milton L Mueller > Date: April 13, 2014 6:07:00 PM EDT > To: > Subject: Re: RDS Risk Survey and Webinar Announcement > Reply-To: Milton L Mueller > > Rafik?s message may not be getting through. Here is a simpler version: > > IF YOU ARE A PRIVACY ADVOCATE, TAKE THIS SURVEY!!! > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/rds-risk-survey-14mar14-en.htm > > (and that link goes directly to the survey, not to some RDS public relations fluff page.) > > > From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Rafik Dammak > Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2014 8:28 AM > To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] RDS Risk Survey and Webinar Announcement > > Hello everyone, > > below you will find information regarding survey about the risks of the new Registration directory service or RDS (new naming of whois..) > NCSG had meeting with some members of the expert working group behind this proposal during Singapore ICANN meeting (you will find transcripts and recordings here http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/tue-ncsg ) > > no need to say that is important to participate in this survey and indicate any concerns we have. it is possible to attend the webinars this week to get an overview and ask questions. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Charla Shambley > Date: 2014-04-08 5:06 GMT+09:00 > Subject: [Soac-infoalert] RDS Risk Survey and Webinar Announcement > To: "soac-infoalert at icann.org" > > > Dear SO/AC: > > The Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services (EWG) invites you to participate in its recently launched Registration Directory Service (RDS) Risk Survey. > > If you provide or use gTLD domain name registration data (today known as Whois), please consider responding to this survey to share your unique perspective on potential risks and benefits associated with the EWG's proposed RDS, should ICANN choose to implement such as system to replace Whois. > > Today, anyone can query Whois to identify the organization or individual responsible for an Internet domain name, known as a Registrant, along with their postal address, email address, and telephone number. The EWG was asked to re-examine the purpose and provision of this information, envisioning a clean-slate approach to meet global Internet community needs with greater privacy, accuracy, and accountability. The EWG's proposed next generation RDS would collect, validate and disclose registration information for permissible purposes only, with some values remaining public and others being gated ? that is, returned only to authorized users with legitimate purposes. > > At this point, the RDS is simply a proposal being refined by the EWG for ICANN Board and community consideration. If you are one of the many different individuals, businesses, and other organizations that consume Whois data today, or a domain name Registrant, Registrar, or Registry that provides Whois data today, please participate in this survey. This survey is a chance to tell the EWG about the risks and benefits that the recommended RDS might have for YOU. > > All risks and benefits identified through this survey will be published in aggregated, anonymized form and used by the EWG to refine its recommendations and as input to a full risk assessment. > > RDS Risk Survey attributes: > > ? RDS Risk Survey Availability Date: 15 March 2014 > ? RDS Risk Survey address: http://tiny.cc/risk-ewg-survey > ? RDS Risk Survey Close Date: 15 May 2014, 23:59 UTC > To read more, you may download a printable PDF [PDF, 1.93 MB] before returning to http://tiny.cc/risk-ewg-survey to take the on-line survey. Translated versions of this survey will also be available shortly. > > To learn more about this survey, please join the EWG for this interactive online workshop: How will Next Generation Registration Directory Services impact you? > > Date: Wednesday, 16 April 2014 > Time: 19:00-20:30 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/n9rsmfx) > > Date: Thursday, 17 April 2014 > > Time: 12:00-13:30 UTC (time converter: http://tinyurl.com/ouzekzx) > > Additional details on the interactive online workshop are available here. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > ICANN Staff, on behalf of the > > Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From mariliamaciel Tue May 6 20:07:03 2014 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 14:07:03 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Comment on IANA transition In-Reply-To: References: <5364D9FD.8050908@acm.org> Message-ID: I also support this statement. Best, Mar?lia On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 7:34 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Brenden, > > the IANA transition comment is already in the agenda. > > Rafik > > > 2014-05-06 19:31 GMT+09:00 Brenden Kuerbis < > bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org>: > > Thanks Rafik, I agree. Fortunately, the timing appears to be good with >> today's NCSG call? I'll attempt to join the call, but will be late do to a >> conflict. Regardless, I'd kindly request that endorsement be resolved >> today if possible. >> >> -- Brenden >> >> Hi Avri, >> >> thank you, >> I think that PC should act quickly, we should send the statement for this >> important comment in time. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> Hi Avri, >> >> thank you, >> I think that PC should act quickly, we should send the statement for this >> important comment in time. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-05-03 20:58 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I support this document and despite a few quibbles which I have >>> commented on in the doc and beleive should be fixed would approve the >>> docs >>> >>> avri >>> >>> On 03-May-14 13:21, Brenden Kuerbis wrote: >>> > Dear NCSG-PC and NCSG membership, >>> > >>> > ARTICLE 19 and the Internet Governance Project have drafted a comment >>> in >>> > response to ICANN's "Draft Proposal, Based on Initial Community >>> > Feedback, of the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to Develop a >>> > Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions" as >>> well >>> > as its proposed Scoping Document". >>> > >>> > You can view and comment on the document here: >>> > >>> > >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Oe-kqA-5WXGavAy40XEHVzKltNAQrjiuuZ-FH5jJqw/edit?usp=sharing >>> > >>> > We kindly request that this comment be submitted to ICANN on behalf of >>> > the NCSG. Comments are due next week, May 8. >>> > >>> > Best regards, >>> > >>> > --------------------------------------- >>> > Brenden Kuerbis >>> > Internet Governance Project >>> > http://internetgovernance.org >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From rafik.dammak Tue May 6 20:09:15 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 02:09:15 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG policy call follow-up Message-ID: Dear Maria, Rudi, as quick follow-up of today call: - NCSG PC members to review the comment on IANA transition and vote about it, so we can submit in time (8th May) the document is here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Oe-kqA-5WXGavAy40XEHVzKltNAQrjiuuZ-FH5jJqw/edit - EWG survey: reminder was sent to NCSG list and NCSG PC should work on filling the survey too. http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/rds-risk-survey-14mar14-en.htm hope that I didn't miss or misunderstand what was agreed. Thank you, Best Regards, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Wed May 7 04:28:21 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 10:28:21 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] "Enhancing ICANN Accountability" process starting Message-ID: Hi everyone, during NCSG policy call this tuesday, there was mention of the ICANN accountability track which should go along the IANA transition since they are interrelated. ICANN just published the public comment and details about this track. As NCSG , we have to cover this since the accountability issue matter a lot for us and we had members in the two Accountability and Transparency Review Teams. Please read carefully about the details of the process here http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/enhancing-accountability-06may14-en.htm to be effective and efficient, I suggest to have a group of volunteers to draft comment and follow this track : to be able to respond in time . With such group, we can ensure having some members leading the process and guarantee that our input will be brought into the discussion. I propose Avri, Brenden and Niels since they already worked either on accountability or/and IANA transition. the group is aimed to extended of course and include more volunteers from NCSG. the group can coordinate together through shared space like etherpad and wiki in confluence space to draft something to share with NCSG Policy Committee and NCSG membership and give updates in regular basis. we have many things to do and I hope that with some division of labor and coordination we can cope with the ongoing policies and other ICANN matters. Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Glen de Saint G?ry Date: 2014-05-07 6:45 GMT+09:00 Subject: [liaison6c] Request for Comments:Enhancing ICANN Accountability To: liaison6c http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/enhancing-accountability-06may14-en.htm Enhancing ICANN Accountability Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 6 May 2014 Comment Close Date: 27 May 2014 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 28 May 2014 Reply Close Date: 18 June 2014 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement To Submit Your Comments (Forum) View Comments Submitted Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Categories/Tags: - Transparency/Accountability Purpose (Brief): As announced at ICANN's March 2014 Public Meeting in Singapore, ICANN is initiating a discussion on Enhancing ICANN Accountability. This discussion will look at how ICANN remains accountable in the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government and the perceived backstop with regard to ICANN's organization-wide accountability provided by that role. While related to the ongoing discussions around the IANA Stewardship Transition, this is a separate process, though the output of this process is expected to be completed on the same timeframe as the stewardship transition work. Current Status: ICANN is initiating the community discussion on enhancement of ICANN's accountability through the posting of a background document and questions for input. Next Steps: The responses received will be compiled and analyzed. Prior to ICANN's June 2014 Public Meeting in London, ICANN's Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees will be requested to start identifying Working Group participants, so that the work can start in earnest at ICANN 50 after community input is received. Staff Contact: Theresa Swinehart, Senior Advisor to the President on Strategy Email Staff Contact Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: On March 14, 2014, the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced its intent to transition its stewardship over key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. NTIA asked ICANN, as the IANA functions contractor and the global coordinator for the DNS, to convene a multistakeholder process to develop a proposal for the transition. During discussions around the IANA stewardship transition, the community has also raised the broader topic of the impact of the transition on ICANN accountability. While the community develops a proposal for the transition of NTIA's stewardship role, it is important that the community also address the separate ? but interdependent and interrelated ? issue of ICANN's accountability. As a result, ICANN is launching a separate process, the scope of which is to look at ICANN remaining accountable in the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government and the perceived backstop with regard to ICANN's organization-wide accountability provided by that role, such as the renewal process of the IANA Functions Contract. This second process will examine from an organizational perspective how ICANN's broader accountability mechanisms should be strengthened to address the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government. This includes looking at strengthening existing accountability mechanisms like the Affirmation of Commitments. This process is additive, not a duplication of any of the reviews called for under the Affirmation of Commitments. This Accountability Process is envisioned to be coordinated by the ICANN Accountability Working Group, comprised of community members as well subject-matter experts in a range of areas, including: - Internet Technical Operations - International Organizational Reviews - Global Accountability Tools and Metrics - Jurisprudence / Accountability Mechanism - Internet Consumer Protection - Economics (Marketplace and Competition) - Global Ethics Frameworks - Operational, Finance and Process - Board Governance - Transparency - Risk Management The Enhancing ICANN Accountabilitypage sets out the detail of the proposed terms of reference for the process as well as setting forth questions designed to provide input to the ICANN Accountability Working Group. For ease of reference, the questions posed are: - What issues does the community identify as being core to strengthening ICANN's overall accountability in the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government? - What should be the guiding principles to ensure that the notion of accountability is understood and accepted globally? What are the consequences if the ICANN Board is not being accountable to the community? Is there anything that should be added to the Working Group's mandate? - Do the Affirmation of Commitments and the values expressed therein need to evolve to support global acceptance of ICANN's accountability and so, how? - What are the means by which the Community is assured that ICANN is meeting its accountability commitments? - Are there other mechanisms that would better ensure that ICANN lives up to its commitments? - What additional comments would you like to share that could be of use to the ICANN Accountability Working Group? As the public comment period is underway, ICANN will be reaching out to the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees regarding the identification of Working Group members. ICANN anticipates that the Working Group will commence its work, including consideration of community input, during ICANN 50 in June 2014. It's expected that sub-working groups on specialized subject areas will be useful and open to all. Section II: Background: The Enhancing ICANN Accountabilitypage sets forth detail on the community consultation that led to the creation of this ICANN Accountability Process, as well as an inventory of ICANN's current accountability efforts. Section III: Document and Resource Links: Community input is sought on the Enhancing ICANN Accountability proposal. Further background on the IANA Stewardship Transition is available at http://www.icann.org/en/about/agreements/iana/transition. 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: From rafik.dammak Wed May 7 04:42:05 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 10:42:05 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Dial in details NCPH leadership call Wednesday 7th May 2014 at 15:00 UTC (11:00 am EDT) Message-ID: Hi everyone, please find below the details for the call today regarding the board seat election. only Maria and Amr confirmed their attendance from NCSG side, can other confirm ?( Avri, Bill, Magaly already send their apologies and won't join us) the agenda will be only focus on the Board seat election (we will discuss later to fix the process in the long term, maybe a meeting in london), CSG did not answer yet about our compromise proposal but we should be ready for any response. we need to insist that we had deadlock and we may end up with the same deadlock if there is no compromise. it is also clear that Bill Graham cannot run again. thanks Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nathalie Peregrine Date: 2014-05-07 0:40 GMT+09:00 Subject: Dial in details NCPH leadership call Wednesday 7th May 2014 at 15:00 UTC (11:00 am EDT) To: "krosette at cov.com" , "rafik.dammak at gmail.com" < rafik.dammak at gmail.com> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" Dear Kristina and Rafik, Please find below the dial in details of the NCPH leadership call scheduled *Wednesday 7th May at 15:00 UTC.* For other times: *http://tinyurl.com/od25gjj * *Passcodes/Pin codes:* Participant passcode: NCPH *For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. * *Dial in numbers:* *Country* *Toll Numbers* *Freephone/Toll Free Number* ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 06-800-12755 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 Kind regards Nathalie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mariliamaciel Wed May 7 06:10:51 2014 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 00:10:51 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Dial in details NCPH leadership call Wednesday 7th May 2014 at 15:00 UTC (11:00 am EDT) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Rafik and all, I will be there tomorrow as well. See you soon Mar?lia On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > please find below the details for the call today regarding the board seat > election. > only Maria and Amr confirmed their attendance from NCSG side, can other > confirm ?( Avri, Bill, Magaly already send their apologies and won't join > us) > the agenda will be only focus on the Board seat election (we will discuss > later to fix the process in the long term, maybe a meeting in london), CSG > did not answer yet about our compromise proposal but we should be ready for > any response. we need to insist that we had deadlock and we may end up with > the same deadlock if there is no compromise. it is also clear that Bill > Graham cannot run again. > thanks > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Nathalie Peregrine > Date: 2014-05-07 0:40 GMT+09:00 > Subject: Dial in details NCPH leadership call Wednesday 7th May 2014 at > 15:00 UTC (11:00 am EDT) > To: "krosette at cov.com" , "rafik.dammak at gmail.com" < > rafik.dammak at gmail.com> > Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" > > > Dear Kristina and Rafik, > > > > Please find below the dial in details of the NCPH leadership call > scheduled *Wednesday 7th May at 15:00 UTC.* > > > > For other times: *http://tinyurl.com/od25gjj * > > > > *Passcodes/Pin codes:* > > Participant passcode: NCPH > > *For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the > conference. * > > > > *Dial in numbers:* > > *Country* > > > > *Toll Numbers* > > > *Freephone/Toll Free Number* > > ARGENTINA > > > > > > 0800-777-0519 > > AUSTRALIA > > ADELAIDE: > > 61-8-8121-4842 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > BRISBANE: > > 61-7-3102-0944 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > CANBERRA: > > 61-2-6100-1944 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > MELBOURNE: > > 61-3-9010-7713 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > PERTH: > > 61-8-9467-5223 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > SYDNEY: > > 61-2-8205-8129 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRIA > > > > 43-1-92-81-113 > > 0800-005-259 > > BELGIUM > > > > 32-2-400-9861 > > 0800-3-8795 > > BRAZIL > > > > > > 0800-7610651 > > CHILE > > > > > > 1230-020-2863 > > CHINA > > CHINA A: > > 86-400-810-4789 > > 10800-712-1670 > > CHINA > > CHINA B: > > 86-400-810-4789 > > 10800-120-1670 > > COLOMBIA > > > > > > 01800-9-156474 > > CZECH REPUBLIC > > > > 420-2-25-98-56-64 > > 800-700-177 > > DENMARK > > > > 45-7014-0284 > > 8088-8324 > > ESTONIA > > > > > > 800-011-1093 > > FINLAND > > > > 358-9-5424-7162 > > 0-800-9-14610 > > FRANCE > > LYON: > > 33-4-26-69-12-85 > > 080-511-1496 > > FRANCE > > MARSEILLE: > > 33-4-86-06-00-85 > > 080-511-1496 > > FRANCE > > PARIS: > > 33-1-70-70-60-72 > > 080-511-1496 > > GERMANY > > > > 49-69-2222-20362 > > 0800-664-4247 > > GREECE > > > > 30-80-1-100-0687 > > 00800-12-7312 > > HONG KONG > > > > 852-3001-3863 > > 800-962-856 > > HUNGARY > > > > > > 06-800-12755 > > INDIA > > INDIA A: > > > > 000-800-852-1268 > > INDIA > > INDIA B: > > > > 000-800-001-6305 > > INDIA > > INDIA C: > > > > 1800-300-00491 > > INDONESIA > > > > > > 001-803-011-3982 > > IRELAND > > > > 353-1-246-7646 > > 1800-992-368 > > ISRAEL > > > > > > 1-80-9216162 > > ITALY > > MILAN: > > 39-02-3600-6007 > > 800-986-383 > > JAPAN > > OSAKA: > > 81-6-7739-4799 > > 0066-33-132439 > > JAPAN > > TOKYO: > > 81-3-5539-5191 > > 0066-33-132439 > > LATVIA > > > > > > 8000-3185 > > LUXEMBOURG > > > > 352-27-000-1364 > > MALAYSIA > > > > > > 1-800-81-3065 > > MEXICO > > > > > > 001-866-376-9696 > > NETHERLANDS > > > > 31-20-718-8588 > > 0800-023-4378 > > NEW ZEALAND > > > > 64-9-970-4771 > > 0800-447-722 > > NORWAY > > > > 47-21-590-062 > > 800-15157 > > PANAMA > > > > > > 011-001-800-5072065 > > PERU > > > > > > 0800-53713 > > PHILIPPINES > > > > 63-2-858-3716 > > POLAND > > > > > > 00-800-1212572 > > PORTUGAL > > > > > > 8008-14052 > > RUSSIA > > > > > > 8-10-8002-0144011 > > SAUDI ARABIA > > > > > > 800-8-110087 > > SINGAPORE > > > > 65-6883-9230 > > 800-120-4663 > > SLOVAK REPUBLIC > > > > 421-2-322-422-25 > > SOUTH AFRICA > > > > > > 080-09-80414 > > SOUTH KOREA > > > > 82-2-6744-1083 > > 00798-14800-7352 > > SPAIN > > > > 34-91-414-25-33 > > 800-300-053 > > SWEDEN > > > > 46-8-566-19-348 > > 0200-884-622 > > SWITZERLAND > > > > 41-44-580-6398 > > 0800-120-032 > > TAIWAN > > > > 886-2-2795-7379 > > 00801-137-797 > > THAILAND > > > > > > 001-800-1206-66056 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > BIRMINGHAM: > > 44-121-210-9025 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > GLASGOW: > > 44-141-202-3225 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > LEEDS: > > 44-113-301-2125 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > LONDON: > > 44-20-7108-6370 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > MANCHESTER: > > 44-161-601-1425 > > 0808-238-6029 > > URUGUAY > > > > > > 000-413-598-3421 > > USA > > > > 1-517-345-9004 > > 866-692-5726 > > VENEZUELA > > > > > > 0800-1-00-3702 > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > Nathalie > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From avri Wed May 7 12:37:07 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 05:37:07 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Dial in details NCPH leadership call Wednesday 7th May 2014 at 15:00 UTC (11:00 am EDT) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5369FEC3.10809@acm.org> On 06-May-14 21:42, Rafik Dammak wrote: > we need to insist that we had deadlock and we may end up with the same > deadlock if there is no compromise we had deadlock, but not a tie, ... From avri Wed May 7 13:43:48 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 06:43:48 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: Fwd: ] Fwd: [] Consensus Call - GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document In-Reply-To: <536A0BEB.2090504@acm.org> References: <536A0BEB.2090504@acm.org> Message-ID: <536A0E64.3070605@acm.org> Hi, Probably should have done this at the PC level. Should consider myself remiss in not having brought this to the PC on my own as opposed to needing a reminder and an example. The change offers a footnote explain logical implications of the statements in the current consensus level guidelines As for the Council reviewing the voting levels as soon as possible, while I am not going to object, from the council perspective I think this should be part of the review and that is soon enough. Maybe I will recommend a change to the language on this. comments? avri -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Fwd: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call - GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 06:33:15 -0400 From: Avri Doria To: Rafik Dammak CC: Stefania Milan Hi, As I read it, it makes explicit that in addition to having consensus for something, you can have consensus against something and that this is different than just the absence of consensus. I thought it was ever thus, if just from a logical perspective and the fact that any statement can be flipped to be a positive statement about not accepting. But for some of the lawyers in the GNSO, especially as manifest in the IGO/INGO WG, this was a problem - mostly I think because the chair/staff were not able to adequately manage the linguistic crisis. I don't see anything problematic about the language that is being recommended. I fact I do not see a change in process here, mostly a clarification of what logic would say. But of course I could be wrong and could be missing some sly and sinister threat. avri On 07-May-14 00:33, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Avri, Stefania, > > as NCSG rep in SCI, can you please tell me more about this issue? shall > we pass it to NCSG PC > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Amr Elsadr* > > Date: 2014-05-02 19:44 GMT+09:00 > Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call - > GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document > To: NCUC-discuss > > > > Hi again, > > This is the second project coming out of the SCI at this time (attached > to this email). It is a change to the decision-making levels? > designations in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. This issue came up at > the completion of the work being done bye the IGO/INGO WG, where there > was no decision-making level designation in the guidelines that > reflected the position of the WG. > > In effect, there was consensus amongst the WG members ?against? some of > the recommendations being made, while the language in the guidelines > don?t allow for consensus against recommendations, only consensus for. A > footnote was added to the decision-making levels to clarify that this is > possible. > > I?m also ready to vote in favour of this recommendation. Anyone have any > reservations or discussion points? Remember, the SCI only makes > recommendations to the GNSO Council after exhaustive discussion and > unanimous consensus (as per its charter) is achieved. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > Begin forwarded message: > >> *From: *Mary Wong > >> *Subject: **[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call - GNSO Working >> Groups Consensus Levels document* >> *Date: *April 30, 2014 at 9:10:34 PM GMT+2 >> *To: *"gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org >> " >> > >> >> Dear all, >> >> Attached is the latest draft of the proposal for SCI submission to the >> GNSO Council relating to the language in the GNSO Working Group >> Guidelines concerning Consensus Levels for Working Groups. >> >> As discussed on the various SCI calls and related emails, the SCI will >> be proposing that the actual text currently in the Guidelines >> concerning the Consensus Levels remain unchanged for now; instead, the >> SCI will recommend that a footnote be added to explain that the Levels >> can and do include designations of ?consensus against?. In addition, >> the SCI will also recommend to the Council that the current Consensus >> Levels text be reviewed as soon as feasible. >> >> Please indicate if you, on behalf of your stakeholder >> groups/constituencies, support or do not support the current draft >> proposal and language. >> >> Thanks and cheers >> Mary >> >> Mary Wong >> Senior Policy Director >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) >> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 >> Email: mary.wong at icann.org >> >> * One World. One Internet. * > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ncuc-discuss mailing list > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Proposed Language for Consensus Levels - 30 April.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 22705 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak Wed May 7 15:24:12 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 21:24:12 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: Fwd: ] Fwd: [] Consensus Call - GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document In-Reply-To: <536A0E64.3070605@acm.org> References: <536A0BEB.2090504@acm.org> <536A0E64.3070605@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Avri, thanks for the explanation and giving the context. Best Regards, Rafik 2014-05-07 19:43 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > Probably should have done this at the PC level. Should consider myself > remiss in not having brought this to the PC on my own as opposed to > needing a reminder and an example. > > The change offers a footnote explain logical implications of the > statements in the current consensus level guidelines > > As for the Council reviewing the voting levels as soon as possible, > while I am not going to object, from the council perspective I think > this should be part of the review and that is soon enough. Maybe I will > recommend a change to the language on this. > > comments? > > avri > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Fwd: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus > Call - GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document > Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 06:33:15 -0400 > From: Avri Doria > To: Rafik Dammak > CC: Stefania Milan > > Hi, > > As I read it, it makes explicit that in addition to having consensus for > something, you can have consensus against something and that this is > different than just the absence of consensus. I thought it was ever > thus, if just from a logical perspective and the fact that any statement > can be flipped to be a positive statement about not accepting. > But for some of the lawyers in the GNSO, especially as manifest in the > IGO/INGO WG, this was a problem - mostly I think because the chair/staff > were not able to adequately manage the linguistic crisis. > > I don't see anything problematic about the language that is being > recommended. I fact I do not see a change in process here, mostly a > clarification of what logic would say. > > But of course I could be wrong and could be missing some sly and > sinister threat. > > avri > > > On 07-May-14 00:33, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Avri, Stefania, > > > > as NCSG rep in SCI, can you please tell me more about this issue? shall > > we pass it to NCSG PC > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Rafik > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: *Amr Elsadr* > > > Date: 2014-05-02 19:44 GMT+09:00 > > Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: [gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call - > > GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document > > To: NCUC-discuss > > > > > > > > Hi again, > > > > This is the second project coming out of the SCI at this time (attached > > to this email). It is a change to the decision-making levels? > > designations in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. This issue came up at > > the completion of the work being done bye the IGO/INGO WG, where there > > was no decision-making level designation in the guidelines that > > reflected the position of the WG. > > > > In effect, there was consensus amongst the WG members ?against? some of > > the recommendations being made, while the language in the guidelines > > don?t allow for consensus against recommendations, only consensus for. A > > footnote was added to the decision-making levels to clarify that this is > > possible. > > > > I?m also ready to vote in favour of this recommendation. Anyone have any > > reservations or discussion points? Remember, the SCI only makes > > recommendations to the GNSO Council after exhaustive discussion and > > unanimous consensus (as per its charter) is achieved. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Amr > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > >> *From: *Mary Wong > > >> *Subject: **[gnso-improvem-impl-sc] Consensus Call - GNSO Working > >> Groups Consensus Levels document* > >> *Date: *April 30, 2014 at 9:10:34 PM GMT+2 > >> *To: *"gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org > >> " > >> gnso-improvem-impl-sc at icann.org>> > >> > >> Dear all, > >> > >> Attached is the latest draft of the proposal for SCI submission to the > >> GNSO Council relating to the language in the GNSO Working Group > >> Guidelines concerning Consensus Levels for Working Groups. > >> > >> As discussed on the various SCI calls and related emails, the SCI will > >> be proposing that the actual text currently in the Guidelines > >> concerning the Consensus Levels remain unchanged for now; instead, the > >> SCI will recommend that a footnote be added to explain that the Levels > >> can and do include designations of ?consensus against?. In addition, > >> the SCI will also recommend to the Council that the current Consensus > >> Levels text be reviewed as soon as feasible. > >> > >> Please indicate if you, on behalf of your stakeholder > >> groups/constituencies, support or do not support the current draft > >> proposal and language. > >> > >> Thanks and cheers > >> Mary > >> > >> Mary Wong > >> Senior Policy Director > >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) > >> Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 > >> Email: mary.wong at icann.org > >> > >> * One World. One Internet. * > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ncuc-discuss mailing list > > Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org > > http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Wed May 7 16:59:08 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 22:59:08 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG policy call follow-up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, since we have to send comment by tomorrow, it will be great to have PC members votes @Rudi can you tell us if NPOC support the statement @Maria is it possible to make a last call to confirm the consensus? Thank you! Best Regards, Rafik 2014-05-07 2:09 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Dear Maria, Rudi, > > as quick follow-up of today call: > - NCSG PC members to review the comment on IANA transition and vote about > it, so we can submit in time (8th May) > the document is here > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Oe-kqA-5WXGavAy40XEHVzKltNAQrjiuuZ-FH5jJqw/edit > - EWG survey: reminder was sent to NCSG list and NCSG PC should work on > filling the survey too. > http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/rds-risk-survey-14mar14-en.htm > hope that I didn't miss or misunderstand what was agreed. > > Thank you, > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Wed May 7 17:06:00 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 10:06:00 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG policy call follow-up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <102D3F8C-0CB5-4591-AE54-6F63C2C0C12C@mail.utoronto.ca> I support the IANA statement On May 7, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > since we have to send comment by tomorrow, it will be great to have PC members votes > @Rudi can you tell us if NPOC support the statement > @Maria is it possible to make a last call to confirm the consensus? > Thank you! > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > 2014-05-07 2:09 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Dear Maria, Rudi, > > as quick follow-up of today call: > - NCSG PC members to review the comment on IANA transition and vote about it, so we can submit in time (8th May) > the document is here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Oe-kqA-5WXGavAy40XEHVzKltNAQrjiuuZ-FH5jJqw/edit > - EWG survey: reminder was sent to NCSG list and NCSG PC should work on filling the survey too. http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/rds-risk-survey-14mar14-en.htm > hope that I didn't miss or misunderstand what was agreed. > > Thank you, > > 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: From rudi.vansnick Wed May 7 17:09:27 2014 From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 16:09:27 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Draft Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions Message-ID: Dear all, NPOC Policy Committee members have agreed on the following : NPOC support the general purpose of the document "Draft Proposal, Based on Initial Community Feedback, of the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to Develop a Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions? as published in googledocs. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Oe-kqA-5WXGavAy40XEHVzKltNAQrjiuuZ-FH5jJqw/edit NPOC PC members would like to ask the following modification in the first paragraph, last 2 sentences : "The NCUC consists of 346 civil society members from 81 different countries, including 94 organizations and 252 individuals. The NPOC represents 47 non profit organizations from 20 different countries." been modified as follows : "The NCUC and NPOC, both constituencies under the ?NCSG umbrella?, consists of civil society members from 81 different countries, including organizations and individuals." Motivation for the changes : Based on the information that is officially available on the NCSG community website NCSG has only 201 active members in total (individuals and org?s). (25 September 2013) We consider the numbers being less important in the context of the proposed document. One organisation (NGO) can easily represent thousands of users, thus decreasing the relevance of the given figures. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Wed May 7 17:15:23 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 10:15:23 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Dial in details NCPH leadership call Wednesday 7th May 2014 at 15:00 UTC (11:00 am EDT) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am confused, is this a regular NCSG policy meeting or a special meeting for leaders on the vote? Can you remind me who staffs the policy cttee and sends out instructions for the call please, is it nathalie? stephanie On May 6, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hello Rafik and all, I will be there tomorrow as well. > See you soon > Mar?lia > > > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > please find below the details for the call today regarding the board seat election. > only Maria and Amr confirmed their attendance from NCSG side, can other confirm ?( Avri, Bill, Magaly already send their apologies and won't join us) > the agenda will be only focus on the Board seat election (we will discuss later to fix the process in the long term, maybe a meeting in london), CSG did not answer yet about our compromise proposal but we should be ready for any response. we need to insist that we had deadlock and we may end up with the same deadlock if there is no compromise. it is also clear that Bill Graham cannot run again. > thanks > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Nathalie Peregrine > Date: 2014-05-07 0:40 GMT+09:00 > Subject: Dial in details NCPH leadership call Wednesday 7th May 2014 at 15:00 UTC (11:00 am EDT) > To: "krosette at cov.com" , "rafik.dammak at gmail.com" > Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" > > > Dear Kristina and Rafik, > > > > Please find below the dial in details of the NCPH leadership call scheduled Wednesday 7th May at 15:00 UTC. > > > > For other times: http://tinyurl.com/od25gjj > > > > Passcodes/Pin codes: > > Participant passcode: NCPH > > For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. > > > > Dial in numbers: > > Country > > > > Toll Numbers > > Freephone/ > Toll Free Number > > ARGENTINA > > > > > > 0800-777-0519 > > AUSTRALIA > > ADELAIDE: > > 61-8-8121-4842 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > BRISBANE: > > 61-7-3102-0944 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > CANBERRA: > > 61-2-6100-1944 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > MELBOURNE: > > 61-3-9010-7713 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > PERTH: > > 61-8-9467-5223 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > SYDNEY: > > 61-2-8205-8129 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRIA > > > > 43-1-92-81-113 > > 0800-005-259 > > BELGIUM > > > > 32-2-400-9861 > > 0800-3-8795 > > BRAZIL > > > > > > 0800-7610651 > > CHILE > > > > > > 1230-020-2863 > > CHINA > > CHINA A: > > 86-400-810-4789 > > 10800-712-1670 > > CHINA > > CHINA B: > > 86-400-810-4789 > > 10800-120-1670 > > COLOMBIA > > > > > > 01800-9-156474 > > CZECH REPUBLIC > > > > 420-2-25-98-56-64 > > 800-700-177 > > DENMARK > > > > 45-7014-0284 > > 8088-8324 > > ESTONIA > > > > > > 800-011-1093 > > FINLAND > > > > 358-9-5424-7162 > > 0-800-9-14610 > > FRANCE > > LYON: > > 33-4-26-69-12-85 > > 080-511-1496 > > FRANCE > > MARSEILLE: > > 33-4-86-06-00-85 > > 080-511-1496 > > FRANCE > > PARIS: > > 33-1-70-70-60-72 > > 080-511-1496 > > GERMANY > > > > 49-69-2222-20362 > > 0800-664-4247 > > GREECE > > > > 30-80-1-100-0687 > > 00800-12-7312 > > HONG KONG > > > > 852-3001-3863 > > 800-962-856 > > HUNGARY > > > > > > 06-800-12755 > > INDIA > > INDIA A: > > > > 000-800-852-1268 > > INDIA > > INDIA B: > > > > 000-800-001-6305 > > INDIA > > INDIA C: > > > > 1800-300-00491 > > INDONESIA > > > > > > 001-803-011-3982 > > IRELAND > > > > 353-1-246-7646 > > 1800-992-368 > > ISRAEL > > > > > > 1-80-9216162 > > ITALY > > MILAN: > > 39-02-3600-6007 > > 800-986-383 > > JAPAN > > OSAKA: > > 81-6-7739-4799 > > 0066-33-132439 > > JAPAN > > TOKYO: > > 81-3-5539-5191 > > 0066-33-132439 > > LATVIA > > > > > > 8000-3185 > > LUXEMBOURG > > > > 352-27-000-1364 > > MALAYSIA > > > > > > 1-800-81-3065 > > MEXICO > > > > > > 001-866-376-9696 > > NETHERLANDS > > > > 31-20-718-8588 > > 0800-023-4378 > > NEW ZEALAND > > > > 64-9-970-4771 > > 0800-447-722 > > NORWAY > > > > 47-21-590-062 > > 800-15157 > > PANAMA > > > > > > 011-001-800-5072065 > > PERU > > > > > > 0800-53713 > > PHILIPPINES > > > > 63-2-858-3716 > > POLAND > > > > > > 00-800-1212572 > > PORTUGAL > > > > > > 8008-14052 > > RUSSIA > > > > > > 8-10-8002-0144011 > > SAUDI ARABIA > > > > > > 800-8-110087 > > SINGAPORE > > > > 65-6883-9230 > > 800-120-4663 > > SLOVAK REPUBLIC > > > > 421-2-322-422-25 > > SOUTH AFRICA > > > > > > 080-09-80414 > > SOUTH KOREA > > > > 82-2-6744-1083 > > 00798-14800-7352 > > SPAIN > > > > 34-91-414-25-33 > > 800-300-053 > > SWEDEN > > > > 46-8-566-19-348 > > 0200-884-622 > > SWITZERLAND > > > > 41-44-580-6398 > > 0800-120-032 > > TAIWAN > > > > 886-2-2795-7379 > > 00801-137-797 > > THAILAND > > > > > > 001-800-1206-66056 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > BIRMINGHAM: > > 44-121-210-9025 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > GLASGOW: > > 44-141-202-3225 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > LEEDS: > > 44-113-301-2125 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > LONDON: > > 44-20-7108-6370 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > MANCHESTER: > > 44-161-601-1425 > > 0808-238-6029 > > URUGUAY > > > > > > 000-413-598-3421 > > USA > > > > 1-517-345-9004 > > 866-692-5726 > > VENEZUELA > > > > > > 0800-1-00-3702 > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > Nathalie > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > -- > Mar?lia Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Wed May 7 17:21:01 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 23:21:01 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Dial in details NCPH leadership call Wednesday 7th May 2014 at 15:00 UTC (11:00 am EDT) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi stephanie, it is call regarding the election process for the board seat between CSG and NCSG representatives. NCSG policy meeting were held yesterday. the instructions for the call are already below in the mail Rafik 2014-05-07 23:15 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: > I am confused, is this a regular NCSG policy meeting or a special meeting > for leaders on the vote? Can you remind me who staffs the policy cttee and > sends out instructions for the call please, is it nathalie? > stephanie > > On May 6, 2014, at 11:10 PM, Marilia Maciel > wrote: > > Hello Rafik and all, I will be there tomorrow as well. > See you soon > Mar?lia > > > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> please find below the details for the call today regarding the board seat >> election. >> only Maria and Amr confirmed their attendance from NCSG side, can other >> confirm ?( Avri, Bill, Magaly already send their apologies and won't join >> us) >> the agenda will be only focus on the Board seat election (we will >> discuss later to fix the process in the long term, maybe a meeting in >> london), CSG did not answer yet about our compromise proposal but we should >> be ready for any response. we need to insist that we had deadlock and we >> may end up with the same deadlock if there is no compromise. it is also >> clear that Bill Graham cannot run again. >> thanks >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Nathalie Peregrine >> Date: 2014-05-07 0:40 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Dial in details NCPH leadership call Wednesday 7th May 2014 at >> 15:00 UTC (11:00 am EDT) >> To: "krosette at cov.com" , "rafik.dammak at gmail.com" < >> rafik.dammak at gmail.com> >> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" >> >> >> Dear Kristina and Rafik, >> >> >> >> Please find below the dial in details of the NCPH leadership call >> scheduled *Wednesday 7th May at 15:00 UTC.* >> >> >> >> For other times: *http://tinyurl.com/od25gjj >> * >> >> >> >> *Passcodes/Pin codes:* >> >> Participant passcode: NCPH >> >> *For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the >> conference. * >> >> >> >> *Dial in numbers:* >> >> *Country* >> >> >> >> *Toll Numbers* >> >> >> *Freephone/Toll Free Number* >> >> ARGENTINA >> >> >> >> >> >> 0800-777-0519 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> ADELAIDE: >> >> 61-8-8121-4842 >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> BRISBANE: >> >> 61-7-3102-0944 >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> CANBERRA: >> >> 61-2-6100-1944 >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> MELBOURNE: >> >> 61-3-9010-7713 >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> PERTH: >> >> 61-8-9467-5223 >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> SYDNEY: >> >> 61-2-8205-8129 >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRIA >> >> >> >> 43-1-92-81-113 >> >> 0800-005-259 >> >> BELGIUM >> >> >> >> 32-2-400-9861 >> >> 0800-3-8795 >> >> BRAZIL >> >> >> >> >> >> 0800-7610651 >> >> CHILE >> >> >> >> >> >> 1230-020-2863 >> >> CHINA >> >> CHINA A: >> >> 86-400-810-4789 >> >> 10800-712-1670 >> >> CHINA >> >> CHINA B: >> >> 86-400-810-4789 >> >> 10800-120-1670 >> >> COLOMBIA >> >> >> >> >> >> 01800-9-156474 >> >> CZECH REPUBLIC >> >> >> >> 420-2-25-98-56-64 >> >> 800-700-177 >> >> DENMARK >> >> >> >> 45-7014-0284 >> >> 8088-8324 >> >> ESTONIA >> >> >> >> >> >> 800-011-1093 >> >> FINLAND >> >> >> >> 358-9-5424-7162 >> >> 0-800-9-14610 >> >> FRANCE >> >> LYON: >> >> 33-4-26-69-12-85 >> >> 080-511-1496 >> >> FRANCE >> >> MARSEILLE: >> >> 33-4-86-06-00-85 >> >> 080-511-1496 >> >> FRANCE >> >> PARIS: >> >> 33-1-70-70-60-72 >> >> 080-511-1496 >> >> GERMANY >> >> >> >> 49-69-2222-20362 >> >> 0800-664-4247 >> >> GREECE >> >> >> >> 30-80-1-100-0687 >> >> 00800-12-7312 >> >> HONG KONG >> >> >> >> 852-3001-3863 >> >> 800-962-856 >> >> HUNGARY >> >> >> >> >> >> 06-800-12755 >> >> INDIA >> >> INDIA A: >> >> >> >> 000-800-852-1268 >> >> INDIA >> >> INDIA B: >> >> >> >> 000-800-001-6305 >> >> INDIA >> >> INDIA C: >> >> >> >> 1800-300-00491 >> >> INDONESIA >> >> >> >> >> >> 001-803-011-3982 >> >> IRELAND >> >> >> >> 353-1-246-7646 >> >> 1800-992-368 >> >> ISRAEL >> >> >> >> >> >> 1-80-9216162 >> >> ITALY >> >> MILAN: >> >> 39-02-3600-6007 >> >> 800-986-383 >> >> JAPAN >> >> OSAKA: >> >> 81-6-7739-4799 >> >> 0066-33-132439 >> >> JAPAN >> >> TOKYO: >> >> 81-3-5539-5191 >> >> 0066-33-132439 >> >> LATVIA >> >> >> >> >> >> 8000-3185 >> >> LUXEMBOURG >> >> >> >> 352-27-000-1364 >> >> MALAYSIA >> >> >> >> >> >> 1-800-81-3065 >> >> MEXICO >> >> >> >> >> >> 001-866-376-9696 >> >> NETHERLANDS >> >> >> >> 31-20-718-8588 >> >> 0800-023-4378 >> >> NEW ZEALAND >> >> >> >> 64-9-970-4771 >> >> 0800-447-722 >> >> NORWAY >> >> >> >> 47-21-590-062 >> >> 800-15157 >> >> PANAMA >> >> >> >> >> >> 011-001-800-5072065 >> >> PERU >> >> >> >> >> >> 0800-53713 >> >> PHILIPPINES >> >> >> >> 63-2-858-3716 >> >> POLAND >> >> >> >> >> >> 00-800-1212572 >> >> PORTUGAL >> >> >> >> >> >> 8008-14052 >> >> RUSSIA >> >> >> >> >> >> 8-10-8002-0144011 >> >> SAUDI ARABIA >> >> >> >> >> >> 800-8-110087 >> >> SINGAPORE >> >> >> >> 65-6883-9230 >> >> 800-120-4663 >> >> SLOVAK REPUBLIC >> >> >> >> 421-2-322-422-25 >> >> SOUTH AFRICA >> >> >> >> >> >> 080-09-80414 >> >> SOUTH KOREA >> >> >> >> 82-2-6744-1083 >> >> 00798-14800-7352 >> >> SPAIN >> >> >> >> 34-91-414-25-33 >> >> 800-300-053 >> >> SWEDEN >> >> >> >> 46-8-566-19-348 >> >> 0200-884-622 >> >> SWITZERLAND >> >> >> >> 41-44-580-6398 >> >> 0800-120-032 >> >> TAIWAN >> >> >> >> 886-2-2795-7379 >> >> 00801-137-797 >> >> THAILAND >> >> >> >> >> >> 001-800-1206-66056 >> >> UNITED KINGDOM >> >> BIRMINGHAM: >> >> 44-121-210-9025 >> >> 0808-238-6029 >> >> UNITED KINGDOM >> >> GLASGOW: >> >> 44-141-202-3225 >> >> 0808-238-6029 >> >> UNITED KINGDOM >> >> LEEDS: >> >> 44-113-301-2125 >> >> 0808-238-6029 >> >> UNITED KINGDOM >> >> LONDON: >> >> 44-20-7108-6370 >> >> 0808-238-6029 >> >> UNITED KINGDOM >> >> MANCHESTER: >> >> 44-161-601-1425 >> >> 0808-238-6029 >> >> URUGUAY >> >> >> >> >> >> 000-413-598-3421 >> >> USA >> >> >> >> 1-517-345-9004 >> >> 866-692-5726 >> >> VENEZUELA >> >> >> >> >> >> 0800-1-00-3702 >> >> >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> >> >> Nathalie >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > > > -- > *Mar?lia Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Wed May 7 17:58:31 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 16:58:31 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Re: Fwd: ] Fwd: [] Consensus Call - GNSO Working Groups Consensus Levels document In-Reply-To: <536A0E64.3070605@acm.org> References: <536A0BEB.2090504@acm.org> <536A0E64.3070605@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi, On May 7, 2014, at 12:43 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > The change offers a footnote explain logical implications of the > statements in the current consensus level guidelines I agree. I can imagine other situations apart from what happened with the IGO/INGO WG creating a need for the added footnote. I support this change to the WG Guidelines. > As for the Council reviewing the voting levels as soon as possible, > while I am not going to object, from the council perspective I think > this should be part of the review and that is soon enough. Maybe I will > recommend a change to the language on this. > > comments? I don?t mind the review of the decision-making levels being done on the SCI or the upcoming GNSO review. I can?t really come up with a reason why one would be preferable to the other, but I might be missing something. I?ve personally found the SCI to be pretty effective in making constructive recommendations. The full consensus rule helps. It also helps that the CSG appointees to the SCI don?t seem to be pushing for any sort of agenda (as far as I can tell). Thanks. Amr From maria.farrell Wed May 7 18:00:52 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 16:00:52 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG policy call follow-up In-Reply-To: <102D3F8C-0CB5-4591-AE54-6F63C2C0C12C@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <102D3F8C-0CB5-4591-AE54-6F63C2C0C12C@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi all, Are there any final objections to adopting and disseminating the proposed IANA statement? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Oe-kqA-5WXGavAy40XEHVzKltNAQrjiuuZ-FH5jJqw/edit The drafters are not accepting any further edits, so I need to know if anyone disagrees with us submitting the documents as it stands. Please let me know of any objections by cob your time today, 6 May. Otherwise, we will submit it on 7 May. All the best, Maria On 7 May 2014 15:06, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > I support the IANA statement > On May 7, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > since we have to send comment by tomorrow, it will be great to have PC > members votes > @Rudi can you tell us if NPOC support the statement > @Maria is it possible to make a last call to confirm the consensus? > Thank you! > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > 2014-05-07 2:09 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > >> Dear Maria, Rudi, >> >> as quick follow-up of today call: >> - NCSG PC members to review the comment on IANA transition and vote about >> it, so we can submit in time (8th May) >> the document is here >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Oe-kqA-5WXGavAy40XEHVzKltNAQrjiuuZ-FH5jJqw/edit >> - EWG survey: reminder was sent to NCSG list and NCSG PC should work on >> filling the survey too. >> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/rds-risk-survey-14mar14-en.htm >> hope that I didn't miss or misunderstand what was agreed. >> >> Thank you, >> >> 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: From mariliamaciel Wed May 7 18:13:42 2014 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 12:13:42 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Dial in details NCPH leadership call Wednesday 7th May 2014 at 15:00 UTC (11:00 am EDT) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello, sorry for being late. There is no possibility to join in Adobe? M On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > please find below the details for the call today regarding the board seat > election. > only Maria and Amr confirmed their attendance from NCSG side, can other > confirm ?( Avri, Bill, Magaly already send their apologies and won't join > us) > the agenda will be only focus on the Board seat election (we will discuss > later to fix the process in the long term, maybe a meeting in london), CSG > did not answer yet about our compromise proposal but we should be ready for > any response. we need to insist that we had deadlock and we may end up with > the same deadlock if there is no compromise. it is also clear that Bill > Graham cannot run again. > thanks > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Nathalie Peregrine > Date: 2014-05-07 0:40 GMT+09:00 > Subject: Dial in details NCPH leadership call Wednesday 7th May 2014 at > 15:00 UTC (11:00 am EDT) > To: "krosette at cov.com" , "rafik.dammak at gmail.com" < > rafik.dammak at gmail.com> > Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" > > > Dear Kristina and Rafik, > > > > Please find below the dial in details of the NCPH leadership call > scheduled *Wednesday 7th May at 15:00 UTC.* > > > > For other times: *http://tinyurl.com/od25gjj * > > > > *Passcodes/Pin codes:* > > Participant passcode: NCPH > > *For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the > conference. * > > > > *Dial in numbers:* > > *Country* > > > > *Toll Numbers* > > > *Freephone/Toll Free Number* > > ARGENTINA > > > > > > 0800-777-0519 > > AUSTRALIA > > ADELAIDE: > > 61-8-8121-4842 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > BRISBANE: > > 61-7-3102-0944 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > CANBERRA: > > 61-2-6100-1944 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > MELBOURNE: > > 61-3-9010-7713 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > PERTH: > > 61-8-9467-5223 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > SYDNEY: > > 61-2-8205-8129 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRIA > > > > 43-1-92-81-113 > > 0800-005-259 > > BELGIUM > > > > 32-2-400-9861 > > 0800-3-8795 > > BRAZIL > > > > > > 0800-7610651 > > CHILE > > > > > > 1230-020-2863 > > CHINA > > CHINA A: > > 86-400-810-4789 > > 10800-712-1670 > > CHINA > > CHINA B: > > 86-400-810-4789 > > 10800-120-1670 > > COLOMBIA > > > > > > 01800-9-156474 > > CZECH REPUBLIC > > > > 420-2-25-98-56-64 > > 800-700-177 > > DENMARK > > > > 45-7014-0284 > > 8088-8324 > > ESTONIA > > > > > > 800-011-1093 > > FINLAND > > > > 358-9-5424-7162 > > 0-800-9-14610 > > FRANCE > > LYON: > > 33-4-26-69-12-85 > > 080-511-1496 > > FRANCE > > MARSEILLE: > > 33-4-86-06-00-85 > > 080-511-1496 > > FRANCE > > PARIS: > > 33-1-70-70-60-72 > > 080-511-1496 > > GERMANY > > > > 49-69-2222-20362 > > 0800-664-4247 > > GREECE > > > > 30-80-1-100-0687 > > 00800-12-7312 > > HONG KONG > > > > 852-3001-3863 > > 800-962-856 > > HUNGARY > > > > > > 06-800-12755 > > INDIA > > INDIA A: > > > > 000-800-852-1268 > > INDIA > > INDIA B: > > > > 000-800-001-6305 > > INDIA > > INDIA C: > > > > 1800-300-00491 > > INDONESIA > > > > > > 001-803-011-3982 > > IRELAND > > > > 353-1-246-7646 > > 1800-992-368 > > ISRAEL > > > > > > 1-80-9216162 > > ITALY > > MILAN: > > 39-02-3600-6007 > > 800-986-383 > > JAPAN > > OSAKA: > > 81-6-7739-4799 > > 0066-33-132439 > > JAPAN > > TOKYO: > > 81-3-5539-5191 > > 0066-33-132439 > > LATVIA > > > > > > 8000-3185 > > LUXEMBOURG > > > > 352-27-000-1364 > > MALAYSIA > > > > > > 1-800-81-3065 > > MEXICO > > > > > > 001-866-376-9696 > > NETHERLANDS > > > > 31-20-718-8588 > > 0800-023-4378 > > NEW ZEALAND > > > > 64-9-970-4771 > > 0800-447-722 > > NORWAY > > > > 47-21-590-062 > > 800-15157 > > PANAMA > > > > > > 011-001-800-5072065 > > PERU > > > > > > 0800-53713 > > PHILIPPINES > > > > 63-2-858-3716 > > POLAND > > > > > > 00-800-1212572 > > PORTUGAL > > > > > > 8008-14052 > > RUSSIA > > > > > > 8-10-8002-0144011 > > SAUDI ARABIA > > > > > > 800-8-110087 > > SINGAPORE > > > > 65-6883-9230 > > 800-120-4663 > > SLOVAK REPUBLIC > > > > 421-2-322-422-25 > > SOUTH AFRICA > > > > > > 080-09-80414 > > SOUTH KOREA > > > > 82-2-6744-1083 > > 00798-14800-7352 > > SPAIN > > > > 34-91-414-25-33 > > 800-300-053 > > SWEDEN > > > > 46-8-566-19-348 > > 0200-884-622 > > SWITZERLAND > > > > 41-44-580-6398 > > 0800-120-032 > > TAIWAN > > > > 886-2-2795-7379 > > 00801-137-797 > > THAILAND > > > > > > 001-800-1206-66056 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > BIRMINGHAM: > > 44-121-210-9025 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > GLASGOW: > > 44-141-202-3225 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > LEEDS: > > 44-113-301-2125 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > LONDON: > > 44-20-7108-6370 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > MANCHESTER: > > 44-161-601-1425 > > 0808-238-6029 > > URUGUAY > > > > > > 000-413-598-3421 > > USA > > > > 1-517-345-9004 > > 866-692-5726 > > VENEZUELA > > > > > > 0800-1-00-3702 > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > Nathalie > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From mariliamaciel Wed May 7 18:15:58 2014 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 12:15:58 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Dial in details NCPH leadership call Wednesday 7th May 2014 at 15:00 UTC (11:00 am EDT) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Forget it. I am in through dial. Tks On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 12:13 PM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Hello, sorry for being late. There is no possibility to join in Adobe? > M > > > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> please find below the details for the call today regarding the board seat >> election. >> only Maria and Amr confirmed their attendance from NCSG side, can other >> confirm ?( Avri, Bill, Magaly already send their apologies and won't join >> us) >> the agenda will be only focus on the Board seat election (we will >> discuss later to fix the process in the long term, maybe a meeting in >> london), CSG did not answer yet about our compromise proposal but we should >> be ready for any response. we need to insist that we had deadlock and we >> may end up with the same deadlock if there is no compromise. it is also >> clear that Bill Graham cannot run again. >> thanks >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Nathalie Peregrine >> Date: 2014-05-07 0:40 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Dial in details NCPH leadership call Wednesday 7th May 2014 at >> 15:00 UTC (11:00 am EDT) >> To: "krosette at cov.com" , "rafik.dammak at gmail.com" < >> rafik.dammak at gmail.com> >> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" >> >> >> Dear Kristina and Rafik, >> >> >> >> Please find below the dial in details of the NCPH leadership call >> scheduled *Wednesday 7th May at 15:00 UTC.* >> >> >> >> For other times: *http://tinyurl.com/od25gjj >> * >> >> >> >> *Passcodes/Pin codes:* >> >> Participant passcode: NCPH >> >> *For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the >> conference. * >> >> >> >> *Dial in numbers:* >> >> *Country* >> >> >> >> *Toll Numbers* >> >> >> *Freephone/Toll Free Number* >> >> ARGENTINA >> >> >> >> >> >> 0800-777-0519 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> ADELAIDE: >> >> 61-8-8121-4842 >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> BRISBANE: >> >> 61-7-3102-0944 >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> CANBERRA: >> >> 61-2-6100-1944 >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> MELBOURNE: >> >> 61-3-9010-7713 >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> PERTH: >> >> 61-8-9467-5223 >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> SYDNEY: >> >> 61-2-8205-8129 >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRIA >> >> >> >> 43-1-92-81-113 >> >> 0800-005-259 >> >> BELGIUM >> >> >> >> 32-2-400-9861 >> >> 0800-3-8795 >> >> BRAZIL >> >> >> >> >> >> 0800-7610651 >> >> CHILE >> >> >> >> >> >> 1230-020-2863 >> >> CHINA >> >> CHINA A: >> >> 86-400-810-4789 >> >> 10800-712-1670 >> >> CHINA >> >> CHINA B: >> >> 86-400-810-4789 >> >> 10800-120-1670 >> >> COLOMBIA >> >> >> >> >> >> 01800-9-156474 >> >> CZECH REPUBLIC >> >> >> >> 420-2-25-98-56-64 >> >> 800-700-177 >> >> DENMARK >> >> >> >> 45-7014-0284 >> >> 8088-8324 >> >> ESTONIA >> >> >> >> >> >> 800-011-1093 >> >> FINLAND >> >> >> >> 358-9-5424-7162 >> >> 0-800-9-14610 >> >> FRANCE >> >> LYON: >> >> 33-4-26-69-12-85 >> >> 080-511-1496 >> >> FRANCE >> >> MARSEILLE: >> >> 33-4-86-06-00-85 >> >> 080-511-1496 >> >> FRANCE >> >> PARIS: >> >> 33-1-70-70-60-72 >> >> 080-511-1496 >> >> GERMANY >> >> >> >> 49-69-2222-20362 >> >> 0800-664-4247 >> >> GREECE >> >> >> >> 30-80-1-100-0687 >> >> 00800-12-7312 >> >> HONG KONG >> >> >> >> 852-3001-3863 >> >> 800-962-856 >> >> HUNGARY >> >> >> >> >> >> 06-800-12755 >> >> INDIA >> >> INDIA A: >> >> >> >> 000-800-852-1268 >> >> INDIA >> >> INDIA B: >> >> >> >> 000-800-001-6305 >> >> INDIA >> >> INDIA C: >> >> >> >> 1800-300-00491 >> >> INDONESIA >> >> >> >> >> >> 001-803-011-3982 >> >> IRELAND >> >> >> >> 353-1-246-7646 >> >> 1800-992-368 >> >> ISRAEL >> >> >> >> >> >> 1-80-9216162 >> >> ITALY >> >> MILAN: >> >> 39-02-3600-6007 >> >> 800-986-383 >> >> JAPAN >> >> OSAKA: >> >> 81-6-7739-4799 >> >> 0066-33-132439 >> >> JAPAN >> >> TOKYO: >> >> 81-3-5539-5191 >> >> 0066-33-132439 >> >> LATVIA >> >> >> >> >> >> 8000-3185 >> >> LUXEMBOURG >> >> >> >> 352-27-000-1364 >> >> MALAYSIA >> >> >> >> >> >> 1-800-81-3065 >> >> MEXICO >> >> >> >> >> >> 001-866-376-9696 >> >> NETHERLANDS >> >> >> >> 31-20-718-8588 >> >> 0800-023-4378 >> >> NEW ZEALAND >> >> >> >> 64-9-970-4771 >> >> 0800-447-722 >> >> NORWAY >> >> >> >> 47-21-590-062 >> >> 800-15157 >> >> PANAMA >> >> >> >> >> >> 011-001-800-5072065 >> >> PERU >> >> >> >> >> >> 0800-53713 >> >> PHILIPPINES >> >> >> >> 63-2-858-3716 >> >> POLAND >> >> >> >> >> >> 00-800-1212572 >> >> PORTUGAL >> >> >> >> >> >> 8008-14052 >> >> RUSSIA >> >> >> >> >> >> 8-10-8002-0144011 >> >> SAUDI ARABIA >> >> >> >> >> >> 800-8-110087 >> >> SINGAPORE >> >> >> >> 65-6883-9230 >> >> 800-120-4663 >> >> SLOVAK REPUBLIC >> >> >> >> 421-2-322-422-25 >> >> SOUTH AFRICA >> >> >> >> >> >> 080-09-80414 >> >> SOUTH KOREA >> >> >> >> 82-2-6744-1083 >> >> 00798-14800-7352 >> >> SPAIN >> >> >> >> 34-91-414-25-33 >> >> 800-300-053 >> >> SWEDEN >> >> >> >> 46-8-566-19-348 >> >> 0200-884-622 >> >> SWITZERLAND >> >> >> >> 41-44-580-6398 >> >> 0800-120-032 >> >> TAIWAN >> >> >> >> 886-2-2795-7379 >> >> 00801-137-797 >> >> THAILAND >> >> >> >> >> >> 001-800-1206-66056 >> >> UNITED KINGDOM >> >> BIRMINGHAM: >> >> 44-121-210-9025 >> >> 0808-238-6029 >> >> UNITED KINGDOM >> >> GLASGOW: >> >> 44-141-202-3225 >> >> 0808-238-6029 >> >> UNITED KINGDOM >> >> LEEDS: >> >> 44-113-301-2125 >> >> 0808-238-6029 >> >> UNITED KINGDOM >> >> LONDON: >> >> 44-20-7108-6370 >> >> 0808-238-6029 >> >> UNITED KINGDOM >> >> MANCHESTER: >> >> 44-161-601-1425 >> >> 0808-238-6029 >> >> URUGUAY >> >> >> >> >> >> 000-413-598-3421 >> >> USA >> >> >> >> 1-517-345-9004 >> >> 866-692-5726 >> >> VENEZUELA >> >> >> >> >> >> 0800-1-00-3702 >> >> >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> >> >> Nathalie >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > -- *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: From mllemineur Wed May 7 18:28:08 2014 From: mllemineur (marie-laure Lemineur) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 10:28:08 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Dial in details NCPH leadership call Wednesday 7th May 2014 at 15:00 UTC (11:00 am EDT) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear all, Apologies but I am on a two-week mission with very limited time to access my emails. You already know my views. I hope you have a fruitful call. best, Marie-laure On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > please find below the details for the call today regarding the board seat > election. > only Maria and Amr confirmed their attendance from NCSG side, can other > confirm ?( Avri, Bill, Magaly already send their apologies and won't join > us) > the agenda will be only focus on the Board seat election (we will discuss > later to fix the process in the long term, maybe a meeting in london), CSG > did not answer yet about our compromise proposal but we should be ready for > any response. we need to insist that we had deadlock and we may end up with > the same deadlock if there is no compromise. it is also clear that Bill > Graham cannot run again. > thanks > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Nathalie Peregrine > Date: 2014-05-07 0:40 GMT+09:00 > Subject: Dial in details NCPH leadership call Wednesday 7th May 2014 at > 15:00 UTC (11:00 am EDT) > To: "krosette at cov.com" , "rafik.dammak at gmail.com" < > rafik.dammak at gmail.com> > Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" > > > Dear Kristina and Rafik, > > > > Please find below the dial in details of the NCPH leadership call > scheduled *Wednesday 7th May at 15:00 UTC.* > > > > For other times: *http://tinyurl.com/od25gjj * > > > > *Passcodes/Pin codes:* > > Participant passcode: NCPH > > *For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the > conference. * > > > > *Dial in numbers:* > > *Country* > > > > *Toll Numbers* > > > *Freephone/Toll Free Number* > > ARGENTINA > > > > > > 0800-777-0519 > > AUSTRALIA > > ADELAIDE: > > 61-8-8121-4842 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > BRISBANE: > > 61-7-3102-0944 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > CANBERRA: > > 61-2-6100-1944 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > MELBOURNE: > > 61-3-9010-7713 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > PERTH: > > 61-8-9467-5223 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRALIA > > SYDNEY: > > 61-2-8205-8129 > > 1-800-657-260 > > AUSTRIA > > > > 43-1-92-81-113 > > 0800-005-259 > > BELGIUM > > > > 32-2-400-9861 > > 0800-3-8795 > > BRAZIL > > > > > > 0800-7610651 > > CHILE > > > > > > 1230-020-2863 > > CHINA > > CHINA A: > > 86-400-810-4789 > > 10800-712-1670 > > CHINA > > CHINA B: > > 86-400-810-4789 > > 10800-120-1670 > > COLOMBIA > > > > > > 01800-9-156474 > > CZECH REPUBLIC > > > > 420-2-25-98-56-64 > > 800-700-177 > > DENMARK > > > > 45-7014-0284 > > 8088-8324 > > ESTONIA > > > > > > 800-011-1093 > > FINLAND > > > > 358-9-5424-7162 > > 0-800-9-14610 > > FRANCE > > LYON: > > 33-4-26-69-12-85 > > 080-511-1496 > > FRANCE > > MARSEILLE: > > 33-4-86-06-00-85 > > 080-511-1496 > > FRANCE > > PARIS: > > 33-1-70-70-60-72 > > 080-511-1496 > > GERMANY > > > > 49-69-2222-20362 > > 0800-664-4247 > > GREECE > > > > 30-80-1-100-0687 > > 00800-12-7312 > > HONG KONG > > > > 852-3001-3863 > > 800-962-856 > > HUNGARY > > > > > > 06-800-12755 > > INDIA > > INDIA A: > > > > 000-800-852-1268 > > INDIA > > INDIA B: > > > > 000-800-001-6305 > > INDIA > > INDIA C: > > > > 1800-300-00491 > > INDONESIA > > > > > > 001-803-011-3982 > > IRELAND > > > > 353-1-246-7646 > > 1800-992-368 > > ISRAEL > > > > > > 1-80-9216162 > > ITALY > > MILAN: > > 39-02-3600-6007 > > 800-986-383 > > JAPAN > > OSAKA: > > 81-6-7739-4799 > > 0066-33-132439 > > JAPAN > > TOKYO: > > 81-3-5539-5191 > > 0066-33-132439 > > LATVIA > > > > > > 8000-3185 > > LUXEMBOURG > > > > 352-27-000-1364 > > MALAYSIA > > > > > > 1-800-81-3065 > > MEXICO > > > > > > 001-866-376-9696 > > NETHERLANDS > > > > 31-20-718-8588 > > 0800-023-4378 > > NEW ZEALAND > > > > 64-9-970-4771 > > 0800-447-722 > > NORWAY > > > > 47-21-590-062 > > 800-15157 > > PANAMA > > > > > > 011-001-800-5072065 > > PERU > > > > > > 0800-53713 > > PHILIPPINES > > > > 63-2-858-3716 > > POLAND > > > > > > 00-800-1212572 > > PORTUGAL > > > > > > 8008-14052 > > RUSSIA > > > > > > 8-10-8002-0144011 > > SAUDI ARABIA > > > > > > 800-8-110087 > > SINGAPORE > > > > 65-6883-9230 > > 800-120-4663 > > SLOVAK REPUBLIC > > > > 421-2-322-422-25 > > SOUTH AFRICA > > > > > > 080-09-80414 > > SOUTH KOREA > > > > 82-2-6744-1083 > > 00798-14800-7352 > > SPAIN > > > > 34-91-414-25-33 > > 800-300-053 > > SWEDEN > > > > 46-8-566-19-348 > > 0200-884-622 > > SWITZERLAND > > > > 41-44-580-6398 > > 0800-120-032 > > TAIWAN > > > > 886-2-2795-7379 > > 00801-137-797 > > THAILAND > > > > > > 001-800-1206-66056 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > BIRMINGHAM: > > 44-121-210-9025 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > GLASGOW: > > 44-141-202-3225 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > LEEDS: > > 44-113-301-2125 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > LONDON: > > 44-20-7108-6370 > > 0808-238-6029 > > UNITED KINGDOM > > MANCHESTER: > > 44-161-601-1425 > > 0808-238-6029 > > URUGUAY > > > > > > 000-413-598-3421 > > USA > > > > 1-517-345-9004 > > 866-692-5726 > > VENEZUELA > > > > > > 0800-1-00-3702 > > > > > > Kind regards > > > > Nathalie > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Wed May 7 18:40:58 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 16:40:58 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Dial in details NCPH leadership call Wednesday 7th May 2014 at 15:00 UTC (11:00 am EDT) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here are the to dos from the call: Sam: Email to NCPH with details of motivation, qualification and why CSG should support him NCPH list: People on ncph list can ID any questions for Sam Then decide whether to schedule a call with Sam after INTA, week of 19 May if it is agreed to hold a call Rafik and Marilyn : Provide jj with a status update and jonathan robinson - Rafik and Steve Metalitz: work on a joint email to bill graham regarding current state of affairs On 7 May 2014 16:28, marie-laure Lemineur wrote: > Dear all, > > Apologies but I am on a two-week mission with very limited time to access > my emails. You already know my views. I hope you have a fruitful call. > > best, > > Marie-laure > > > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> please find below the details for the call today regarding the board seat >> election. >> only Maria and Amr confirmed their attendance from NCSG side, can other >> confirm ?( Avri, Bill, Magaly already send their apologies and won't join >> us) >> the agenda will be only focus on the Board seat election (we will >> discuss later to fix the process in the long term, maybe a meeting in >> london), CSG did not answer yet about our compromise proposal but we should >> be ready for any response. we need to insist that we had deadlock and we >> may end up with the same deadlock if there is no compromise. it is also >> clear that Bill Graham cannot run again. >> thanks >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Nathalie Peregrine >> Date: 2014-05-07 0:40 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Dial in details NCPH leadership call Wednesday 7th May 2014 at >> 15:00 UTC (11:00 am EDT) >> To: "krosette at cov.com" , "rafik.dammak at gmail.com" < >> rafik.dammak at gmail.com> >> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" >> >> >> Dear Kristina and Rafik, >> >> >> >> Please find below the dial in details of the NCPH leadership call >> scheduled *Wednesday 7th May at 15:00 UTC.* >> >> >> >> For other times: *http://tinyurl.com/od25gjj >> * >> >> >> >> *Passcodes/Pin codes:* >> >> Participant passcode: NCPH >> >> *For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the >> conference. * >> >> >> >> *Dial in numbers:* >> >> *Country* >> >> >> >> *Toll Numbers* >> >> >> *Freephone/Toll Free Number* >> >> ARGENTINA >> >> >> >> >> >> 0800-777-0519 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> ADELAIDE: >> >> 61-8-8121-4842 >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> BRISBANE: >> >> 61-7-3102-0944 >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> CANBERRA: >> >> 61-2-6100-1944 >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> MELBOURNE: >> >> 61-3-9010-7713 >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> PERTH: >> >> 61-8-9467-5223 >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRALIA >> >> SYDNEY: >> >> 61-2-8205-8129 >> >> 1-800-657-260 >> >> AUSTRIA >> >> >> >> 43-1-92-81-113 >> >> 0800-005-259 >> >> BELGIUM >> >> >> >> 32-2-400-9861 >> >> 0800-3-8795 >> >> BRAZIL >> >> >> >> >> >> 0800-7610651 >> >> CHILE >> >> >> >> >> >> 1230-020-2863 >> >> CHINA >> >> CHINA A: >> >> 86-400-810-4789 >> >> 10800-712-1670 >> >> CHINA >> >> CHINA B: >> >> 86-400-810-4789 >> >> 10800-120-1670 >> >> COLOMBIA >> >> >> >> >> >> 01800-9-156474 >> >> CZECH REPUBLIC >> >> >> >> 420-2-25-98-56-64 >> >> 800-700-177 >> >> DENMARK >> >> >> >> 45-7014-0284 >> >> 8088-8324 >> >> ESTONIA >> >> >> >> >> >> 800-011-1093 >> >> FINLAND >> >> >> >> 358-9-5424-7162 >> >> 0-800-9-14610 >> >> FRANCE >> >> LYON: >> >> 33-4-26-69-12-85 >> >> 080-511-1496 >> >> FRANCE >> >> MARSEILLE: >> >> 33-4-86-06-00-85 >> >> 080-511-1496 >> >> FRANCE >> >> PARIS: >> >> 33-1-70-70-60-72 >> >> 080-511-1496 >> >> GERMANY >> >> >> >> 49-69-2222-20362 >> >> 0800-664-4247 >> >> GREECE >> >> >> >> 30-80-1-100-0687 >> >> 00800-12-7312 >> >> HONG KONG >> >> >> >> 852-3001-3863 >> >> 800-962-856 >> >> HUNGARY >> >> >> >> >> >> 06-800-12755 >> >> INDIA >> >> INDIA A: >> >> >> >> 000-800-852-1268 >> >> INDIA >> >> INDIA B: >> >> >> >> 000-800-001-6305 >> >> INDIA >> >> INDIA C: >> >> >> >> 1800-300-00491 >> >> INDONESIA >> >> >> >> >> >> 001-803-011-3982 >> >> IRELAND >> >> >> >> 353-1-246-7646 >> >> 1800-992-368 >> >> ISRAEL >> >> >> >> >> >> 1-80-9216162 >> >> ITALY >> >> MILAN: >> >> 39-02-3600-6007 >> >> 800-986-383 >> >> JAPAN >> >> OSAKA: >> >> 81-6-7739-4799 >> >> 0066-33-132439 >> >> JAPAN >> >> TOKYO: >> >> 81-3-5539-5191 >> >> 0066-33-132439 >> >> LATVIA >> >> >> >> >> >> 8000-3185 >> >> LUXEMBOURG >> >> >> >> 352-27-000-1364 >> >> MALAYSIA >> >> >> >> >> >> 1-800-81-3065 >> >> MEXICO >> >> >> >> >> >> 001-866-376-9696 >> >> NETHERLANDS >> >> >> >> 31-20-718-8588 >> >> 0800-023-4378 >> >> NEW ZEALAND >> >> >> >> 64-9-970-4771 >> >> 0800-447-722 >> >> NORWAY >> >> >> >> 47-21-590-062 >> >> 800-15157 >> >> PANAMA >> >> >> >> >> >> 011-001-800-5072065 >> >> PERU >> >> >> >> >> >> 0800-53713 >> >> PHILIPPINES >> >> >> >> 63-2-858-3716 >> >> POLAND >> >> >> >> >> >> 00-800-1212572 >> >> PORTUGAL >> >> >> >> >> >> 8008-14052 >> >> RUSSIA >> >> >> >> >> >> 8-10-8002-0144011 >> >> SAUDI ARABIA >> >> >> >> >> >> 800-8-110087 >> >> SINGAPORE >> >> >> >> 65-6883-9230 >> >> 800-120-4663 >> >> SLOVAK REPUBLIC >> >> >> >> 421-2-322-422-25 >> >> SOUTH AFRICA >> >> >> >> >> >> 080-09-80414 >> >> SOUTH KOREA >> >> >> >> 82-2-6744-1083 >> >> 00798-14800-7352 >> >> SPAIN >> >> >> >> 34-91-414-25-33 >> >> 800-300-053 >> >> SWEDEN >> >> >> >> 46-8-566-19-348 >> >> 0200-884-622 >> >> SWITZERLAND >> >> >> >> 41-44-580-6398 >> >> 0800-120-032 >> >> TAIWAN >> >> >> >> 886-2-2795-7379 >> >> 00801-137-797 >> >> THAILAND >> >> >> >> >> >> 001-800-1206-66056 >> >> UNITED KINGDOM >> >> BIRMINGHAM: >> >> 44-121-210-9025 >> >> 0808-238-6029 >> >> UNITED KINGDOM >> >> GLASGOW: >> >> 44-141-202-3225 >> >> 0808-238-6029 >> >> UNITED KINGDOM >> >> LEEDS: >> >> 44-113-301-2125 >> >> 0808-238-6029 >> >> UNITED KINGDOM >> >> LONDON: >> >> 44-20-7108-6370 >> >> 0808-238-6029 >> >> UNITED KINGDOM >> >> MANCHESTER: >> >> 44-161-601-1425 >> >> 0808-238-6029 >> >> URUGUAY >> >> >> >> >> >> 000-413-598-3421 >> >> USA >> >> >> >> 1-517-345-9004 >> >> 866-692-5726 >> >> VENEZUELA >> >> >> >> >> >> 0800-1-00-3702 >> >> >> >> >> >> Kind regards >> >> >> >> Nathalie >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Wed May 7 18:50:20 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 16:50:20 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Follow up from NCPH leadership call on Board seat 14 Message-ID: Hi all, We just had the call with the CSG on the issue of Sam Lanfranco as a compromise candidate for Board seat 14. They haven't accepted the principle of agreeing to a compromise candidate, but have said they would like to know more about Sam and are 'cautiously optimistic' about reaching an agreement, ultimately. Here is what we agreed: Sam Lanfranco: Email to NCPH leadership with details of his motivation, qualifications and why CSG should support him NCPH list: People on ncph list can ID any questions for Sam and send to list Then decide whether to schedule a call with Sam after INTA meeting in Hong Kong concludes, week of 19 May if it is agreed to hold a call to effectively interview Sam. Rafik and Marilyn : Provide John Jeffrey, ICANN General Counsel responsible for Board, with a status update on our timings and also Jonathan Robinson, chair of GNSO Council Rafik and Steve Metalitz: work on a joint email to Bill Graham regarding current state of affairs (CSG not yet willing to ask him to withdraw, but agreed to send a shared update.) Cheers, Maria -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Wed May 7 19:35:15 2014 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 18:35:15 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Dial in details NCPH leadership call Wednesday 7th May 2014 at 15:00 UTC (11:00 am EDT) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <905AC069-4F47-4F5A-BCDF-5160457E1CDE@gmail.com> On May 7, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Maria Farrell wrote: > Rafik and Steve Metalitz: work on a joint email to bill graham regarding current state of affairs Gee, that will be a fun write -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Wed May 7 19:47:20 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 17:47:20 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Dial in details NCPH leadership call Wednesday 7th May 2014 at 15:00 UTC (11:00 am EDT) In-Reply-To: <905AC069-4F47-4F5A-BCDF-5160457E1CDE@gmail.com> References: <905AC069-4F47-4F5A-BCDF-5160457E1CDE@gmail.com> Message-ID: Almost as much fun as his double-date with Marilyn and JJ. On 7 May 2014 17:35, William Drake wrote: > > On May 7, 2014, at 5:40 PM, Maria Farrell wrote: > > Rafik and Steve Metalitz: work on a joint email to bill graham regarding > current state of affairs > > > Gee, that will be a fun write > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Wed May 7 20:52:21 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 13:52:21 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG policy call follow-up In-Reply-To: References: <102D3F8C-0CB5-4591-AE54-6F63C2C0C12C@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <536A72D5.9020908@acm.org> Hi, why is > [Furthermore, the coordination group should be community led > and appointed without approval from the ICANN Board or GAC Chairs.] bracketed? I am fine with the statement without brackets. avri From avri Wed May 7 20:57:04 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 13:57:04 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Dial in details NCPH leadership call Wednesday 7th May 2014 at 15:00 UTC (11:00 am EDT) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <536A73F0.3050200@acm.org> On 07-May-14 11:40, Maria Farrell wrote: > Then decide whether to schedule a call with Sam after INTA, week of 19 > May if it is agreed to hold a call that would be for both SGs? > > > > Rafik and Steve Metalitz: work on a joint email to bill graham regarding > current state of affairs > and what is that 'state of affairs' exactly. are the candidates removed, or are we just in storage until such time as the acceptance level of Sam is known. do i get to know too? Or have I become dog food*? avri * dog food: the fate of most stalking horses From mariliamaciel Wed May 7 21:04:02 2014 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 15:04:02 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Dial in details NCPH leadership call Wednesday 7th May 2014 at 15:00 UTC (11:00 am EDT) In-Reply-To: <536A73F0.3050200@acm.org> References: <536A73F0.3050200@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi, my impression is that we were put under pressure to provide detailed information about Sam and his attributes. It would have been good to have more people that work close to him on the call, who would have that info on the tip of their tongues to make a strong case. Nevertheles, Klaus and Maria did a good job with their comments and with the suggestion that he could send a statement afterwards. Mar?lia Ps: Thanks so much for the foot note, Avri. Very sensitive and much more understandable now ;) On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > > On 07-May-14 11:40, Maria Farrell wrote: > > Then decide whether to schedule a call with Sam after INTA, week of 19 > > May if it is agreed to hold a call > > that would be for both SGs? > > > > > > > > > Rafik and Steve Metalitz: work on a joint email to bill graham regarding > > current state of affairs > > > > and what is that 'state of affairs' exactly. > > are the candidates removed, or are we just in storage until such time as > the acceptance level of Sam is known. > > do i get to know too? > Or have I become dog food*? > > avri > > * dog food: the fate of most stalking horses > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From rafik.dammak Thu May 8 03:01:52 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 09:01:52 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG policy call follow-up In-Reply-To: References: <102D3F8C-0CB5-4591-AE54-6F63C2C0C12C@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Maria, thank you, I guess you meant 7th not 6th may. I also think that most comments were added or resolved. I am ready to submit when I get the green light. I attached the latest version, I would send . Best Regards, Rafik 2014-05-08 0:00 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell : > Hi all, > > Are there any final objections to adopting and disseminating the proposed > IANA statement? > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Oe-kqA-5WXGavAy40XEHVzKltNAQrjiuuZ-FH5jJqw/edit > > The drafters are not accepting any further edits, so I need to know if > anyone disagrees with us submitting the documents as it stands. Please let > me know of any objections by cob your time today, 6 May. Otherwise, we will > submit it on 7 May. > > All the best, Maria > > > On 7 May 2014 15:06, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >> I support the IANA statement >> On May 7, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> since we have to send comment by tomorrow, it will be great to have PC >> members votes >> @Rudi can you tell us if NPOC support the statement >> @Maria is it possible to make a last call to confirm the consensus? >> Thank you! >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-05-07 2:09 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >> >>> Dear Maria, Rudi, >>> >>> as quick follow-up of today call: >>> - NCSG PC members to review the comment on IANA transition and vote >>> about it, so we can submit in time (8th May) >>> the document is here >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Oe-kqA-5WXGavAy40XEHVzKltNAQrjiuuZ-FH5jJqw/edit >>> - EWG survey: reminder was sent to NCSG list and NCSG PC should work on >>> filling the survey too. >>> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/rds-risk-survey-14mar14-en.htm >>> hope that I didn't miss or misunderstand what was agreed. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CommentonIANAtransitionprocess.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 131009 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak Thu May 8 04:12:27 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 10:12:27 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG policy call follow-up In-Reply-To: References: <102D3F8C-0CB5-4591-AE54-6F63C2C0C12C@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Brenden, is it possible to make it asap, I rechecked the announcement and it says "Deadline 8 May, 2014 (midnight UTC)", hope that we are not late please share the cleaned version when ready. Best, Rafik 2014-05-08 9:59 GMT+09:00 Brenden Kuerbis : > Rafik, > > There are a couple copy edits that need to be made before you send. I can > get to them tomorrow morning. > On May 7, 2014 8:01 PM, "Rafik Dammak" wrote: > >> Hi Maria, >> >> thank you, I guess you meant 7th not 6th may. I also think that most >> comments were added or resolved. >> I am ready to submit when I get the green light. I attached the latest >> version, I would send . >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2014-05-08 0:00 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell : >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Are there any final objections to adopting and disseminating the >>> proposed IANA statement? >>> >>> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Oe-kqA-5WXGavAy40XEHVzKltNAQrjiuuZ-FH5jJqw/edit >>> >>> The drafters are not accepting any further edits, so I need to know if >>> anyone disagrees with us submitting the documents as it stands. Please let >>> me know of any objections by cob your time today, 6 May. Otherwise, we will >>> submit it on 7 May. >>> >>> All the best, Maria >>> >>> >>> On 7 May 2014 15:06, Stephanie Perrin >> > wrote: >>> >>>> I support the IANA statement >>>> On May 7, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Rafik Dammak >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> since we have to send comment by tomorrow, it will be great to have PC >>>> members votes >>>> @Rudi can you tell us if NPOC support the statement >>>> @Maria is it possible to make a last call to confirm the consensus? >>>> Thank you! >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2014-05-07 2:09 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>>> >>>>> Dear Maria, Rudi, >>>>> >>>>> as quick follow-up of today call: >>>>> - NCSG PC members to review the comment on IANA transition and vote >>>>> about it, so we can submit in time (8th May) >>>>> the document is here >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Oe-kqA-5WXGavAy40XEHVzKltNAQrjiuuZ-FH5jJqw/edit >>>>> - EWG survey: reminder was sent to NCSG list and NCSG PC should work >>>>> on filling the survey too. >>>>> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/rds-risk-survey-14mar14-en.htm >>>>> hope that I didn't miss or misunderstand what was agreed. >>>>> >>>>> Thank you, >>>>> >>>>> 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: From bkuerbis Thu May 8 04:32:18 2014 From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Wed, 7 May 2014 21:32:18 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG policy call follow-up In-Reply-To: References: <102D3F8C-0CB5-4591-AE54-6F63C2C0C12C@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Attached is a clean copy. On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Brenden, > > is it possible to make it asap, I rechecked the announcement and it says "Deadline > 8 May, 2014 (midnight UTC)", hope that we are not late > please share the cleaned version when ready. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2014-05-08 9:59 GMT+09:00 Brenden Kuerbis : > > Rafik, >> >> There are a couple copy edits that need to be made before you send. I can >> get to them tomorrow morning. >> On May 7, 2014 8:01 PM, "Rafik Dammak" wrote: >> >>> Hi Maria, >>> >>> thank you, I guess you meant 7th not 6th may. I also think that most >>> comments were added or resolved. >>> I am ready to submit when I get the green light. I attached the latest >>> version, I would send . >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2014-05-08 0:00 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell : >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Are there any final objections to adopting and disseminating the >>>> proposed IANA statement? >>>> >>>> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Oe-kqA-5WXGavAy40XEHVzKltNAQrjiuuZ-FH5jJqw/edit >>>> >>>> The drafters are not accepting any further edits, so I need to know if >>>> anyone disagrees with us submitting the documents as it stands. Please let >>>> me know of any objections by cob your time today, 6 May. Otherwise, we will >>>> submit it on 7 May. >>>> >>>> All the best, Maria >>>> >>>> >>>> On 7 May 2014 15:06, Stephanie Perrin < >>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I support the IANA statement >>>>> On May 7, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Rafik Dammak >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> since we have to send comment by tomorrow, it will be great to have PC >>>>> members votes >>>>> @Rudi can you tell us if NPOC support the statement >>>>> @Maria is it possible to make a last call to confirm the consensus? >>>>> Thank you! >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> 2014-05-07 2:09 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>>>> >>>>>> Dear Maria, Rudi, >>>>>> >>>>>> as quick follow-up of today call: >>>>>> - NCSG PC members to review the comment on IANA transition and vote >>>>>> about it, so we can submit in time (8th May) >>>>>> the document is here >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Oe-kqA-5WXGavAy40XEHVzKltNAQrjiuuZ-FH5jJqw/edit >>>>>> - EWG survey: reminder was sent to NCSG list and NCSG PC should work >>>>>> on filling the survey too. >>>>>> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/rds-risk-survey-14mar14-en.htm >>>>>> hope that I didn't miss or misunderstand what was agreed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>> >>>>>> 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCSG comment on IANA transition process.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 90421 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak Thu May 8 04:37:03 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 10:37:03 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG policy call follow-up In-Reply-To: References: <102D3F8C-0CB5-4591-AE54-6F63C2C0C12C@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Brenden, Thanks! so waiting for the green light (the end of last call) and I will post the comment. Best Regards, Rafik 2014-05-08 10:32 GMT+09:00 Brenden Kuerbis : > Attached is a clean copy. > > > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Brenden, >> >> is it possible to make it asap, I rechecked the announcement and it says "Deadline >> 8 May, 2014 (midnight UTC)", hope that we are not late >> please share the cleaned version when ready. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-05-08 9:59 GMT+09:00 Brenden Kuerbis : >> >> Rafik, >>> >>> There are a couple copy edits that need to be made before you send. I >>> can get to them tomorrow morning. >>> On May 7, 2014 8:01 PM, "Rafik Dammak" wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Maria, >>>> >>>> thank you, I guess you meant 7th not 6th may. I also think that most >>>> comments were added or resolved. >>>> I am ready to submit when I get the green light. I attached the latest >>>> version, I would send . >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> 2014-05-08 0:00 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell : >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> Are there any final objections to adopting and disseminating the >>>>> proposed IANA statement? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Oe-kqA-5WXGavAy40XEHVzKltNAQrjiuuZ-FH5jJqw/edit >>>>> >>>>> The drafters are not accepting any further edits, so I need to know if >>>>> anyone disagrees with us submitting the documents as it stands. Please let >>>>> me know of any objections by cob your time today, 6 May. Otherwise, we will >>>>> submit it on 7 May. >>>>> >>>>> All the best, Maria >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 7 May 2014 15:06, Stephanie Perrin < >>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I support the IANA statement >>>>>> On May 7, 2014, at 9:59 AM, Rafik Dammak >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> since we have to send comment by tomorrow, it will be great to have >>>>>> PC members votes >>>>>> @Rudi can you tell us if NPOC support the statement >>>>>> @Maria is it possible to make a last call to confirm the consensus? >>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>> >>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> 2014-05-07 2:09 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dear Maria, Rudi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> as quick follow-up of today call: >>>>>>> - NCSG PC members to review the comment on IANA transition and vote >>>>>>> about it, so we can submit in time (8th May) >>>>>>> the document is here >>>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-Oe-kqA-5WXGavAy40XEHVzKltNAQrjiuuZ-FH5jJqw/edit >>>>>>> - EWG survey: reminder was sent to NCSG list and NCSG PC should work >>>>>>> on filling the survey too. >>>>>>> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/gtld-directory-services/rds-risk-survey-14mar14-en.htm >>>>>>> hope that I didn't miss or misunderstand what was agreed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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: From rafik.dammak Thu May 8 04:54:16 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 10:54:16 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Dial in details NCPH leadership call Wednesday 7th May 2014 at 15:00 UTC (11:00 am EDT) In-Reply-To: References: <536A73F0.3050200@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi everyone, thanks to Maria for the summary, we got some action item to follow-up. Yes it is fun to work with Steve, Marylin and Kristina and co-chairing the call with the latter, I had to do that for weeks ;) to add more comments - the call were attended by 16 people : 10 from CSG and 6 from NCSG, we were outnumbered but I don't think that had any influence. - I asked clearly that Bill Graham cannot run again since he didn't get the majority in any round at the election. CSG don't want to decide for now. but it was pretty clear from our side that he cannot. For Avri, there was no indication that she has to drop out and CSG didn't ask for that. - While I shared Sam CV with Kristina and suggested previously a call with him , CSG folks and their membership at-large want to know more about him (Kristina used the term "unknown quantity"). I think that is fair point. so the statement and the call (same as previous candidates had) may give them the opportunity to know him. I don't think that we could convince them anyway in yesterday call anyway, we could be more pushy but it could backfire . as candidate he need to convince them , we will support and brief him beforehand so he can be ready to the Q/A and preparing detailed and straight to the point statement. we will be able to attend the call between CSG and Sam as observers, that will give important moral support. - we should be also ready for any counter-proposal after the call and consultation within CSG about the candidate. I insisted about having deadline but they kept being evasive and noncommittal. Other factor which may influence the process is the response from the legal counsel and if we will have a time constraint. I am also attaching the transcript and you can find the recording here https://icann.box.com/shared/static/l13mnmi49g85y5vn9q3r.mp3 . Best Regards, Rafik 2014-05-08 3:04 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel : > Hi, my impression is that we were put under pressure to provide detailed > information about Sam and his attributes. It would have been good to have > more people that work close to him on the call, who would have that info on > the tip of their tongues to make a strong case. Nevertheles, Klaus and > Maria did a good job with their comments and with the suggestion that he > could send a statement afterwards. > > Mar?lia > Ps: Thanks so much for the foot note, Avri. Very sensitive and much more > understandable now ;) > > > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> >> On 07-May-14 11:40, Maria Farrell wrote: >> > Then decide whether to schedule a call with Sam after INTA, week of 19 >> > May if it is agreed to hold a call >> >> that would be for both SGs? >> >> > >> > >> > >> > Rafik and Steve Metalitz: work on a joint email to bill graham regarding >> > current state of affairs >> > >> >> and what is that 'state of affairs' exactly. >> >> are the candidates removed, or are we just in storage until such time as >> the acceptance level of Sam is known. >> >> do i get to know too? >> Or have I become dog food*? >> >> avri >> >> * dog food: the fate of most stalking horses >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > > > -- > *Mar?lia Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > > Researcher and Coordinator > Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate > www.diplomacy.edu > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: transcript (1).doc Type: application/msword Size: 70149 bytes Desc: not available URL: From maria.farrell Thu May 8 17:22:41 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 15:22:41 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IANA document is finalised Message-ID: Hi all, Just to confirm to you that the response to the public consultation on the Draft Proposal to Transition NTIA's Stewardship of the IANA Functions has been finalised, and Rafik will be submitting it today. Many thanks to everyone to who contributed to it, and especially to Brenden for drafting and revising it. All the best, Maria -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Thu May 8 19:39:22 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 12:39:22 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] re the IANA transition comments Message-ID: <53E630C4-2BB8-40CA-BC6C-C7AE0A896399@mail.utoronto.ca> I sure hope Milton and Brendan are going to summarize all those comments for us.... :-) stephanie From rafik.dammak Fri May 9 17:29:02 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 23:29:02 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IANA transition comment Message-ID: Hi Everyone, thanks to Brenden and Niels for drafting the input, and also to those who made comments in the document and the members of policy committee for proceeding swiftly. I submitted the comment on behalf on the NCSG and you can find it here http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/2014/000984.html now time to prepare for the accountability track :) Best Regards, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bkuerbis Fri May 9 18:16:44 2014 From: bkuerbis (Brenden Kuerbis) Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 11:16:44 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] IANA transition comment In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Rafik. Actually, it was Gabrielle Guillemin from ARTICLE19. On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > thanks to Brenden and Niels for drafting the input, and also to those who > made comments in the document and the members of policy committee for > proceeding swiftly. > > I submitted the comment on behalf on the NCSG and you can find it here > http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ianatransition/2014/000984.html > > now time to prepare for the accountability track :) > > 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: From rafik.dammak Mon May 12 14:28:51 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 20:28:51 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] follow-up of the call with CSG/ actions Message-ID: Hi Sam, after the call between NCSG and CSG leadership last week to discuss about the election about the board seat, some actions were agreed. 2 of them concerns you: Item #1: Email from Sam to NCPH list with summary of why he wants to be elected to the ICANN Board, why he believes he?s qualified to serve on the ICANN Board, and why the CSG should support his candidacy [Any specific follow up questions should be posted to NCPH list] Item #2: Identify dates and times when Sam would be available during the week of May 19 for a call with CSG to follow up on his statement can you please draft your statement, having in mind the points above. it is the first step to convince CSG and introduce yourself to them. you may share your statement here to get some feedback. please tell when you will be available next week for the call with CSG? Thank you, Best Regards, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Tue May 13 05:35:22 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 11:35:22 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Sam Lanfranco SOI for Board Seat 14 and brief CV In-Reply-To: <5370DD7B.9070701@yorku.ca> References: <5370DD7B.9070701@yorku.ca> Message-ID: Hi, in case if you didn't receive the statement and CV from Sam. I will share it soon in NCPH list. Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Sam Lanfranco Date: 2014-05-12 23:40 GMT+09:00 Subject: Sam Lanfranco SOI for Board Seat 14 and brief CV To: Rafik Dammak , NCSG-Policy < PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> Rafik, Attached please find a copy of my Statement of Interest with regard to Board Seat 14 (in pdf and .doc) and a copy of my CV focused on ICANN relevant information. Please pass these on to the members of the CSG and whomever else is appropriate. I previously sent an email with preferred times for a conference call for the week of May 19th. Thank you and regards, Sam L. -- ------------------------------------------------ "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured in an unjust state" -Confucius ------------------------------------------------ Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICANN_CV_SamLanfranco-1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 19113 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SamLanfrancoSOI4BoardPosition14.doc Type: application/msword Size: 29184 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: SamLanfrancoSOI4BoardPosition14.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 27804 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak Tue May 13 10:15:20 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 16:15:20 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear PC members, we have here an important process where we should appoint members to GNSO review working group. we can appoint up to 6 members for NCSG. I think that Avri is already member. I am also interested to join this WG. the participation request time commitment for the next months and it is quite critical for us. I will share the call with the membership list, but as PC we should decide who will be our members in the WG. we have to send the names by 19th May Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Glen de Saint G?ry Date: 2014-05-13 1:04 GMT+09:00 Subject: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party To: Rafik Dammak Cc: Marika Konings , "Larisa B. Gurnick" < larisa.gurnick at icann.org>, "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" < gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org> Dear Rafik, Please note the Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party and please note the very tight timeframe. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen *Summary* Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer should they decide so. *Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party* The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[1]<#145f12d57bedb01d__ftn1> ; 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage participation. *Volunteer Requirements* The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open and fully transparent manner. Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multistakeholder model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. *Submitting candidates* Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of the proposed candidates are submitted *by Monday 19 May at the latest* as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). *Background* The objective of the GNSO Review[2] <#145f12d57bedb01d__ftn2> is to examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the independent examiner. Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation from the broader community are important components of this review process. As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities. Please see the recent announcement about the GNSO Review for additional information and background. *Further Information* Forming GNSO Review Working Party *Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party* *Summary* Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer should they decide so. *Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party* The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[3]<#145f12d57bedb01d__ftn3> ; 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage participation. *Volunteer Requirements* The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open and fully transparent manner. Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. *Submitting candidates* Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of the proposed candidates are submitted *by Monday 19 May at the latest* as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). *Background* The objective of the GNSO Review[4] <#145f12d57bedb01d__ftn4> is to examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the independent examiner. Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation from the broader community are important components of this review process. As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities. Please see the recent announcementabout the GNSO Review for additional information and background. *Further Information* ? Forming GNSO Review Working Party ? GNSO Review Webinar Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ [1] <#145f12d57bedb01d__ftnref1> 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative to objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. [2] <#145f12d57bedb01d__ftnref2> GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws . [3] <#145f12d57bedb01d__ftnref3> 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative to objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. [4] <#145f12d57bedb01d__ftnref4> GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Tue May 13 12:15:50 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 11:15:50 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <82D0EE7F-C0C0-4B40-9A33-C5DEF200FA52@egyptig.org> Hi Rafik, I?m also interested in being a part of this working party. Thanks. Amr On May 13, 2014, at 9:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Dear PC members, > > we have here an important process where we should appoint members to GNSO review working group. we can appoint up to 6 members for NCSG. > > I think that Avri is already member. I am also interested to join this WG. > > the participation request time commitment for the next months and it is quite critical for us. > > I will share the call with the membership list, but as PC we should decide who will be our members in the WG. we have to send the names by 19th May > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > Date: 2014-05-13 1:04 GMT+09:00 > Subject: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party > To: Rafik Dammak > Cc: Marika Konings , "Larisa B. Gurnick" , "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" > > > > > Dear Rafik, > > > > Please note the Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party and please note the very tight timeframe. > Thank you. > > Kind regards, > > > > Glen > > Summary > > Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer should they decide so. > > Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party > > The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: > > Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; > Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[1]; > Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; > Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; > Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; > Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage participation. > Volunteer Requirements > > The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open and fully transparent manner. > > Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multistakeholder model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. > > Submitting candidates > > Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of the proposed candidates are submitted by Monday 19 May at the latest as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). > > Background > > The objective of the GNSO Review[2] is to examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the independent examiner. > > Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation from the broader community are important components of this review process. As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities. > > Please see the recent announcement about the GNSO Review for additional information and background. > > > > Further Information > > > > Forming GNSO Review Working Party Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party > > Summary > > Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer should they decide so. > > Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party > > The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: > > Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; > Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[3]; > Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; > Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; > Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; > Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage participation. > Volunteer Requirements > > The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open and fully transparent manner. > > Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. > > Submitting candidates > > Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of the proposed candidates are submitted by Monday 19 May at the latest as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). > > Background > > The objective of the GNSO Review[4] is to examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the independent examiner. > > Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation from the broader community are important components of this review process. As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities. > > Please see the recent announcement about the GNSO Review for additional information and background. > > > > Further Information > > > > ? Forming GNSO Review Working Party > > > > ? GNSO Review Webinar > > > > > > > > > > Glen de Saint G?ry > > GNSO Secretariat > > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > > http://gnso.icann.org > > > > > > > > > [1] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative to objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. > > [2] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws. > > [3] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative to objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. > > [4] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws. > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Tue May 13 16:48:12 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 09:48:12 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5372229C.3030304@acm.org> Hi, Yes, I am currently a member. But of course if the PC is going to pick its members, they could well chose a set of people (not sure where the 6 came from - i would have recommended 3 had i been part of a conversation on this issue, but anyway) that did not include me. I also think Klaus may already be on it, but am not sure. He would need to confirm. avri On 13-May-14 03:15, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Dear PC members, > > we have here an important process where we should appoint members to > GNSO review working group. we can appoint up to 6 members for NCSG. > > I think that Avri is already member. I am also interested to join this WG. > > the participation request time commitment for the next months and it is > quite critical for us. > > I will share the call with the membership list, but as PC we should > decide who will be our members in the WG. we have to send the names by > 19th May > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Glen de Saint G?ry* > > Date: 2014-05-13 1:04 GMT+09:00 > Subject: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party > To: Rafik Dammak > > Cc: Marika Konings >, "Larisa B. Gurnick" > >, > "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > " > > > > > __ __ > > Dear Rafik,____ > > __ __ > > Please note the Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working > Party and please note the very tight timeframe. > Thank you.____ > > Kind regards,____ > > __ __ > > Glen____ > > */Summary____/* > > Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would > like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to > members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is > expected to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for > other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an > observer should they decide so.____ > > */Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party____/* > > The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to:____ > > 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and > the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee;____ > 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[1] > <#145f12d57bedb01d__ftn1>;____ > 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO > constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council;____ > 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and > comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping > to ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner > accurately reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics;____ > 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan > and champion implementation of improvement activities;____ > 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage > participation.____ > > */Volunteer Requirements____/* > > The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include > members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the > make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry > Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar > Stakeholder Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee > appointees, up to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up > to 2 representative from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 > representatives from the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers > Constituency, up to 6 representatives from the Non-Commercial > Stakeholder Group, in addition to the possibility for other SO/ACs to > appoint 1 observer to the effort). The activities of the GNSO Review > Working Party will be conducted in an open and fully transparent manner. > ____ > > Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in > evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective > criteria would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively > and to devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is > expected to be 50 ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work > commencing immediately. Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s > bottom-up, multistakeholder model, and accountability and transparency > ethics are a requirement. ____ > > */Submitting candidates____/* > > Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own > process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the > requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed > above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to > fill all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the > names of the proposed candidates are submitted *_by Monday 19 May at the > latest_* as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed > candidates should be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat > (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > ).____ > > */Background____/* > > The objective of the GNSO Review[2] <#145f12d57bedb01d__ftn2> is to > examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its > structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO > Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review scheduled to begin on > or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly scoped based on objective and > quantifiable criteria provided to the independent examiner.____ > > Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation > from the broader community are important components of this review > process. As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural > Improvements Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO > Review Working Party be assembled to function as a liaison between the > GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review > criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively > supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and > recommendations. Once a final report is issued and the Board takes > action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review Working Party is expected > to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan > and champion implementation of improvement activities.____ > > Please see the recent announcement > > about the GNSO Review for additional information and background.____ > > __ __ > > */Further Information____/* > > __ __ > > Forming GNSO Review Working Party *Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO > Review Working Party____* > > */Summary____/* > > Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would > like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to > members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is > expected to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for > other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an > observer should they decide so.____ > > */Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party____/* > > The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to:____ > > 7. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and > the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee;____ > 8. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[3] > <#145f12d57bedb01d__ftn3>;____ > 9. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO > constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council;____ > 10. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and > comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping > to ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner > accurately reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics;____ > 11. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan > and champion implementation of improvement activities;____ > 12. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage > participation.____ > > */Volunteer Requirements____/* > > The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include > members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the > make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry > Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar > Stakeholder Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee > appointees, up to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up > to 2 representative from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 > representatives from the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers > Constituency, up to 6 representatives from the Non-Commercial > Stakeholder Group, in addition to the possibility for other SO/ACs to > appoint 1 observer to the effort). The activities of the GNSO Review > Working Party will be conducted in an open and fully transparent manner. > ____ > > Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in > evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective > criteria would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively > and to devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is > expected to be 50 ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work > commencing immediately. Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s > bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model, and accountability and transparency > ethics are a requirement. ____ > > */Submitting candidates____/* > > Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own > process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the > requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed > above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to > fill all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the > names of the proposed candidates are submitted *_by Monday 19 May at the > latest_* as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed > candidates should be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat > (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > ).____ > > */Background____/* > > The objective of the GNSO Review[4] <#145f12d57bedb01d__ftn4>is to > examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its > structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO > Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review scheduled to begin on > or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly scoped based on objective and > quantifiable criteria provided to the independent examiner.____ > > Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation > from the broader community are important components of this review > process. As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural > Improvements Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO > Review Working Party be assembled to function as a liaison between the > GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review > criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively > supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and > recommendations. Once a final report is issued and the Board takes > action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review Working Party is expected > to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan > and champion implementation of improvement activities.____ > > Please see the recent announcement > about the > GNSO Review for additional information and background.____ > > __ __ > > */Further Information____/* > > __ __ > > __? __Forming GNSO Review Working Party > ____ > > __ __ > > __? __GNSO Review Webinar > > ____ > > __ __ > > __ __ > > __ __ > > __ __ > > Glen de Saint G?ry ____ > > GNSO Secretariat ____ > > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > ____ > > http://gnso.icann.org____ > > __ __ > > > ____ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ____ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > [1] <#145f12d57bedb01d__ftnref1>360 Assessment is an online mechanism to > collect and summarize feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a > "self-review" relative to objective and quantifiable criteria. > Interested members of other ICANN organizations, Board and staff also > may offer feedback.____ > > [2] <#145f12d57bedb01d__ftnref2>GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s > Bylaws .____ > > [3] <#145f12d57bedb01d__ftnref3>360 Assessment is an online mechanism to > collect and summarize feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a > "self-review" relative to objective and quantifiable criteria. > Interested members of other ICANN organizations, Board and staff also > may offer feedback.____ > > [4] <#145f12d57bedb01d__ftnref4>GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s > Bylaws .____ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From avri Tue May 13 17:03:35 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 10:03:35 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Sam Lanfranco SOI for Board Seat 14 and brief CV In-Reply-To: References: <5370DD7B.9070701@yorku.ca> Message-ID: <53722637.3020704@acm.org> Hi, Good luck Sam. As long as you convince them you are not hostile to business and to the market, you may win them over. You have the very strong positive attribute of not being me. Build on our differences and you may become a board member. Cheers, avri On 12-May-14 22:35, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > in case if you didn't receive the statement and CV from Sam. > I will share it soon in NCPH list. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Sam Lanfranco* > > Date: 2014-05-12 23:40 GMT+09:00 > Subject: Sam Lanfranco SOI for Board Seat 14 and brief CV > To: Rafik Dammak >, NCSG-Policy > > > > Rafik, > > Attached please find a copy of my Statement of Interest with regard to > Board Seat 14 (in pdf and .doc) > and a copy of my CV focused on ICANN relevant information. Please pass > these on to the members of > the CSG and whomever else is appropriate. > > I previously sent an email with preferred times for a conference call > for the week of May 19th. > > Thank you and regards, > > Sam L. > > -- > ------------------------------------------------ > "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured > in an unjust state" -Confucius > ------------------------------------------------ > Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) > Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 > email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco > blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com > Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From robin Tue May 13 18:34:06 2014 From: robin (Robin Gross) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 08:34:06 -0700 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002384A2-A431-404A-80ED-4743C6EE4CC6@ipjustice.org> What is the difference between a "working group" and a "working party"? Why is this a working party? Is it supposed to be more fun than a working group? Robin On May 13, 2014, at 12:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Dear PC members, > > we have here an important process where we should appoint members to GNSO review working group. we can appoint up to 6 members for NCSG. > > I think that Avri is already member. I am also interested to join this WG. > > the participation request time commitment for the next months and it is quite critical for us. > > I will share the call with the membership list, but as PC we should decide who will be our members in the WG. we have to send the names by 19th May > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > Date: 2014-05-13 1:04 GMT+09:00 > Subject: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party > To: Rafik Dammak > Cc: Marika Konings , "Larisa B. Gurnick" , "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" > > > > > Dear Rafik, > > > > Please note the Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party and please note the very tight timeframe. > Thank you. > > Kind regards, > > > > Glen > > Summary > > Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer should they decide so. > > Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party > > The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: > > Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; > Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[1]; > Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; > Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; > Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; > Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage participation. > Volunteer Requirements > > The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open and fully transparent manner. > > Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multistakeholder model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. > > Submitting candidates > > Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of the proposed candidates are submitted by Monday 19 May at the latest as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). > > Background > > The objective of the GNSO Review[2] is to examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the independent examiner. > > Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation from the broader community are important components of this review process. As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities. > > Please see the recent announcement about the GNSO Review for additional information and background. > > > > Further Information > > > > Forming GNSO Review Working Party Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party > > Summary > > Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer should they decide so. > > Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party > > The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: > > Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; > Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[3]; > Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; > Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; > Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; > Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage participation. > Volunteer Requirements > > The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open and fully transparent manner. > > Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. > > Submitting candidates > > Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of the proposed candidates are submitted by Monday 19 May at the latest as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). > > Background > > The objective of the GNSO Review[4] is to examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the independent examiner. > > Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation from the broader community are important components of this review process. As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities. > > Please see the recent announcement about the GNSO Review for additional information and background. > > > > Further Information > > > > ? Forming GNSO Review Working Party > > > > ? GNSO Review Webinar > > > > > > > > > > Glen de Saint G?ry > > GNSO Secretariat > > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > > http://gnso.icann.org > > > > > > > > > [1] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative to objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. > > [2] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws. > > [3] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative to objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. > > [4] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws. > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 496 bytes Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail URL: From aelsadr Tue May 13 19:26:47 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 18:26:47 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: <002384A2-A431-404A-80ED-4743C6EE4CC6@ipjustice.org> References: <002384A2-A431-404A-80ED-4743C6EE4CC6@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: Hey Robin, On May 13, 2014, at 5:34 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > What is the difference between a "working group" and a "working party"? Why is this a working party? Is it supposed to be more fun than a working group? Hehehe. I doubt it. The joint GAC-GNSO group is called a consultative group in order to not confuse it with a regularly chartered GNSO WG. Maybe this is a working party and not a WG for that same reason. A GNSO WG would be open to an unlimited number of members and would not require balanced participation/representation. But that?s just a guess. Thanks. Amr From rudi.vansnick Tue May 13 20:44:25 2014 From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 19:44:25 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: <82D0EE7F-C0C0-4B40-9A33-C5DEF200FA52@egyptig.org> References: <82D0EE7F-C0C0-4B40-9A33-C5DEF200FA52@egyptig.org> Message-ID: Dear all, I suppose the 6 seats will be filed in by a balanced number from each constituency. So, I propose we will have 2 candidates from NPOC. NPOC will announce it members end of this week. 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 13-mei-2014, om 11:15 heeft Amr Elsadr het volgende geschreven: > Hi Rafik, > > I?m also interested in being a part of this working party. > > Thanks. > > Amr > > On May 13, 2014, at 9:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Dear PC members, >> >> we have here an important process where we should appoint members to GNSO review working group. we can appoint up to 6 members for NCSG. >> >> I think that Avri is already member. I am also interested to join this WG. >> >> the participation request time commitment for the next months and it is quite critical for us. >> >> I will share the call with the membership list, but as PC we should decide who will be our members in the WG. we have to send the names by 19th May >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Glen de Saint G?ry >> Date: 2014-05-13 1:04 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party >> To: Rafik Dammak >> Cc: Marika Konings , "Larisa B. Gurnick" , "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" >> >> >> >> >> Dear Rafik, >> >> >> >> Please note the Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party and please note the very tight timeframe. >> Thank you. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> >> Glen >> >> Summary >> >> Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer should they decide so. >> >> Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party >> >> The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: >> >> Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; >> Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[1]; >> Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; >> Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; >> Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; >> Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage participation. >> Volunteer Requirements >> >> The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open and fully transparent manner. >> >> Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multistakeholder model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. >> >> Submitting candidates >> >> Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of the proposed candidates are submitted by Monday 19 May at the latest as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). >> >> Background >> >> The objective of the GNSO Review[2] is to examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the independent examiner. >> >> Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation from the broader community are important components of this review process. As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities. >> >> Please see the recent announcement about the GNSO Review for additional information and background. >> >> >> >> Further Information >> >> >> >> Forming GNSO Review Working Party Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party >> >> Summary >> >> Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer should they decide so. >> >> Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party >> >> The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: >> >> Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; >> Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[3]; >> Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; >> Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; >> Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; >> Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage participation. >> Volunteer Requirements >> >> The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open and fully transparent manner. >> >> Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. >> >> Submitting candidates >> >> Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of the proposed candidates are submitted by Monday 19 May at the latest as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). >> >> Background >> >> The objective of the GNSO Review[4] is to examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the independent examiner. >> >> Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation from the broader community are important components of this review process. As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities. >> >> Please see the recent announcement about the GNSO Review for additional information and background. >> >> >> >> Further Information >> >> >> >> ? Forming GNSO Review Working Party >> >> >> >> ? GNSO Review Webinar >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Glen de Saint G?ry >> >> GNSO Secretariat >> >> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >> >> http://gnso.icann.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [1] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative to objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. >> >> [2] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws. >> >> [3] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative to objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. >> >> [4] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From klaus.stoll Wed May 14 05:37:57 2014 From: klaus.stoll (Klaus Stoll) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 03:37:57 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5372D705.3080106@gkpfoundation.org> Dear Friends I am also interested serving in this working party. Yours Klaus On 5/13/2014 8:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Dear PC members, > > we have here an important process where we should appoint members to > GNSO review working group. we can appoint up to 6 members for NCSG. > > I think that Avri is already member. I am also interested to join this WG. > > the participation request time commitment for the next months and it > is quite critical for us. > > I will share the call with the membership list, but as PC we should > decide who will be our members in the WG. we have to send the names > by 19th May > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Glen de Saint G?ry* > > Date: 2014-05-13 1:04 GMT+09:00 > Subject: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party > To: Rafik Dammak > > Cc: Marika Konings >, "Larisa B. Gurnick" > >, > "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > " > > > > > Dear Rafik, > > Please note the Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working > Party and please note the very tight timeframe. > Thank you. > > Kind regards, > > Glen > > */Summary/* > > Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council > would like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working > Party to members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working > Party is expected to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the > opportunity for other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees > to appoint an observer should they decide so. > > */Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party/* > > The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: > > 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner > and the Board's Structural Improvements Committee; > 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[1] > <#145f12d57bedb01d__ftn1>; > 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO > constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; > 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and > comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping > to ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner > accurately reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; > 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation > Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; > 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage > participation. > > */Volunteer Requirements/* > > The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include > members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring > the make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the > Registry Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar > Stakeholder Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating > Committee appointees, up to 2 representatives from the Business > Constituency, up to 2 representative from the Intellectual Property > Constituency, up to 2 representatives from the Internet Service and > Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 representatives from the > Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to the possibility for > other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The activities of > the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open and fully > transparent manner. > > Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience > in evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective > criteria would be useful. Members are expected to participate > actively and to devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment > is expected to be 50 -- 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work > commencing immediately. Commitment to and compliance with ICANN's > bottom-up, multistakeholder model, and accountability and transparency > ethics are a requirement. > > */Submitting candidates/* > > Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their > own process for selecting members for this effort taking into account > the requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment > listed above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not > required to fill all the slots allocated to their respective groups. > Ideally the names of the proposed candidates are submitted *_by Monday > 19 May at the latest_* as work has already commenced. The names of the > proposed candidates should be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat > (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > ). > > */Background/* > > The objective of the GNSO Review[2] <#145f12d57bedb01d__ftn2> is to > examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its > structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO > Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review scheduled to begin > on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly scoped based on objective and > quantifiable criteria provided to the independent examiner. > > Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation > from the broader community are important components of this review > process. As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural > Improvements Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO > Review Working Party be assembled to function as a liaison between the > GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review > criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively > supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and > recommendations. Once a final report is issued and the Board takes > action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review Working Party is > expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an > Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities. > > Please see the recent announcement > > about the GNSO Review for additional information and background. > > */Further Information/* > > Forming GNSO Review Working Party *Call for GNSO Members - Forming > GNSO Review Working Party* > > */Summary/* > > Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council > would like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working > Party to members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working > Party is expected to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the > opportunity for other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees > to appoint an observer should they decide so. > > */Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party/* > > The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: > > 7. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner > and the Board's Structural Improvements Committee; > 8. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[3] > <#145f12d57bedb01d__ftn3>; > 9. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO > constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; > 10. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and > comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping > to ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner > accurately reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; > 11. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation > Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; > 12. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage > participation. > > */Volunteer Requirements/* > > The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include > members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring > the make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the > Registry Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar > Stakeholder Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating > Committee appointees, up to 2 representatives from the Business > Constituency, up to 2 representative from the Intellectual Property > Constituency, up to 2 representatives from the Internet Service and > Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 representatives from the > Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to the possibility for > other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The activities of > the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open and fully > transparent manner. > > Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience > in evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective > criteria would be useful. Members are expected to participate > actively and to devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment > is expected to be 50 -- 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work > commencing immediately. Commitment to and compliance with ICANN's > bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model, and accountability and > transparency ethics are a requirement. > > */Submitting candidates/* > > Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their > own process for selecting members for this effort taking into account > the requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment > listed above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not > required to fill all the slots allocated to their respective groups. > Ideally the names of the proposed candidates are submitted *_by Monday > 19 May at the latest_* as work has already commenced. The names of the > proposed candidates should be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat > (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > ). > > */Background/* > > The objective of the GNSO Review[4] <#145f12d57bedb01d__ftn4>is to > examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its > structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO > Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review scheduled to begin > on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly scoped based on objective and > quantifiable criteria provided to the independent examiner. > > Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation > from the broader community are important components of this review > process. As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural > Improvements Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO > Review Working Party be assembled to function as a liaison between the > GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review > criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively > supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and > recommendations. Once a final report is issued and the Board takes > action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review Working Party is > expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an > Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities. > > Please see the recent announcement > about > the GNSO Review for additional information and background. > > */Further Information/* > > ?Forming GNSO Review Working Party > > > ?GNSO Review Webinar > > > > Glen de Saint G?ry > > GNSO Secretariat > > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > > http://gnso.icann.org > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > [1] <#145f12d57bedb01d__ftnref1>360 Assessment is an online mechanism > to collect and summarize feedback from members of the GNSO community > --- a "self-review" relative to objective and quantifiable criteria. > Interested members of other ICANN organizations, Board and staff also > may offer feedback. > > [2] <#145f12d57bedb01d__ftnref2>GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN's > Bylaws . > > [3] <#145f12d57bedb01d__ftnref3>360 Assessment is an online mechanism > to collect and summarize feedback from members of the GNSO community > --- a "self-review" relative to objective and quantifiable criteria. > Interested members of other ICANN organizations, Board and staff also > may offer feedback. > > [4] <#145f12d57bedb01d__ftnref4>GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN's > Bylaws . > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Wed May 14 10:04:10 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 16:04:10 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Sam Lanfranco SOI for Board Seat 14 and brief CV In-Reply-To: <5370DD7B.9070701@yorku.ca> References: <5370DD7B.9070701@yorku.ca> Message-ID: Hi Sam, Thank you, I just shared the material in NCPH list and you are in cc, you may receive some questions from CSG members, be ready :) Best Regards, Rafik 2014-05-12 23:40 GMT+09:00 Sam Lanfranco : > Rafik, > > Attached please find a copy of my Statement of Interest with regard to > Board Seat 14 (in pdf and .doc) > and a copy of my CV focused on ICANN relevant information. Please pass > these on to the members of > the CSG and whomever else is appropriate. > > I previously sent an email with preferred times for a conference call for > the week of May 19th. > > Thank you and regards, > > Sam L. > > -- > ------------------------------------------------ > "It is a disgrace to be rich and honoured > in an unjust state" -Confucius > ------------------------------------------------ > Dr Sam Lanfranco (Prof Emeritus & Senior Scholar) > Econ, York U., Toronto, Ontario, CANADA - M3J 1P3 > email: Lanfran at Yorku.ca Skype: slanfranco > blog: http://samlanfranco.blogspot.com > Phone: +1 613-476-0429 cell: +1 416-816-2852 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rudi.vansnick Thu May 15 16:49:36 2014 From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 15:49:36 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Supporting the Domain Name Industry in Underserved Regions Message-ID: <1F4F5E32-31FB-47BE-97B9-578246CE7B3D@isoc.be> Dear colleagues, This report from ICANN (for public comment) should be part of our discussions ! I?m putting this on my priority list to be discussed in the next few days. Too busy today to be able to give already some reactions but I?m convinced we are OBLIGED to give input to this report ! Kind regards Rudi Report: Supporting the Domain Name Industry in Underserved Regions Comment / Reply Periods (*) Comment Open Date: 14 May 2014 Comment Close Date: 13 June 2014 - 23:59 UTC Reply Open Date: 14 June 2014 Reply Close Date: 30 June 2014 - 23:59 UTC Important Information Links Public Comment Announcement To Submit Your Comments (Forum) View Comments Submitted Brief Overview Originating Organization: ICANN Staff Categories/Tags: Contracted Party Agreements Participation Reviews/Improvements Purpose (Brief): This is a report about supporting the domain name industry in underserved regions, prepared by ICANN staff for public comment. Current Status: ICANN has solicited feedback from the community on this topic through a variety of informal avenues. ICANN seeks comment on this report, which summarizes community input to date, with the goal of transforming these discussions into concrete results. Next Steps: Public comments on this report will be used to determine next steps to support the DNS industry in underserved regions. Staff Contact: Amy Bivins Email Staff Contact Detailed Information Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: ICANN is exploring ideas and strategies to help promote the domain name industry in regions that have typically been underserved. In particular, ICANN is looking at existing barriers to Registrar Accreditation and operation and considering ways that these challenges might be mitigated. Public comments on this report will be used to determine next steps to support the domain name industry in underserved regions. As of 16 April 2014, there were 1,010 ICANN-accredited Registrars. Of those, seven are located in Africa. Fourteen are located in the Middle East. Barriers to participation in domain name industry business in regions such as Africa and the Middle East are complex and some cannot be addressed by ICANN without coordination with the greater community. Many of these issues have been recognized and discussed for some time. ICANN staff is therefore seeking input to determine how best to transform this discussion into concrete results. Section II: Background: To encourage participation of developing countries to date, ICANN has, for example, created a fellowship program, participated in many regional meetings and increased the availability of translated materials and interpretation services, engendering participation within ICANN. Additionally, in August 2012, ICANN announced a new approach to Africa, with the support of AFRINIC, including a new initiative aimed at increasing African participation and influence within ICANN.1 A working group was created and endorsed by the African community members meeting in Prague. The working group included key players in Internet governance from different regions in Africa to contribute to the development of the new strategy. The working group selected Nii Quaynor of Ghana, a well-respected Internet leader in Africa, to lead its efforts. The working group published its report, Enhanced Registry Registrar Relationships, on 13 July 2013 (see Annex at the end of this report). Members of the domain name industry community in the Middle East community have taken a similar approach. Middle East community members created a working group in early 2013 to develop an ICANN engagement strategy for the Middle East. The Middle East strategy identified domain name industry development as one area where more work needs to be done. ICANN has since co-sponsored a number of DNS Forum events in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.2 ICANN recently held a session on this topic at the March 2014 ICANN meeting in Singapore.3 At the session, ICANN solicited considerable input from attendees about the challenges facing the domain name industry in underserved regions and began discussions to explore potential solutions. 1 See http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10aug12-en.htm 2 http://blog.icann.org/2014/02/first-middle-east-dns-forum-overwhelmingly-successful/ ; http://www.internetsociety.org/news/africa-domain-name-system-forum-be-held-durban-south-africa-12-13-july-2013 3 http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-dns-underserved Section III: Document and Resource Links: The attached report [PDF, 601 KB] includes a table that summarizes input that ICANN has received regarding the challenges that face the domain name industry in underserved regions. The table is by no means exhaustive, and ICANN staff welcome input on any issue that you believe poses a barrier to domain name industry growth and participation in underserved regions. The table identifies the relevant issue, notes where the requirement lies in relevant policies or contracts, lists solutions that have been proposed, and explores how such solutions might be implemented. As background, the report also includes the July 2013 report, Enhanced Registry Registrar Relationships, developed by Africa Strategy working group. ICANN Seeks Public Comment: Supporting the DNS Industry in Underserved Regions English [PDF, 601 KB] Fran?ais [PDF, 528 KB] Espa?ol [PDF, 471 KB] ??????? [PDF, 676 KB] Portugu?s [PDF, 472 KB] ???? [PDF, 522 KB] ??????? [PDF, 599 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Thu May 15 16:52:43 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 22:52:43 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Supporting the Domain Name Industry in Underserved Regions In-Reply-To: <1F4F5E32-31FB-47BE-97B9-578246CE7B3D@isoc.be> References: <1F4F5E32-31FB-47BE-97B9-578246CE7B3D@isoc.be> Message-ID: Hi Rudi, I already shared the info in NCSG mailing list to get volunteers for drafting comment, I volunteered myself too. Best Regards, Rafik 2014-05-15 22:49 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : > Dear colleagues, > > This report from ICANN (for public comment) should be part of our > discussions ! I?m putting this on my priority list to be discussed in the > next few days. Too busy today to be able to give already some reactions but > I?m convinced we are OBLIGED to give input to this report ! > > Kind regards > > Rudi > Report: Supporting the Domain Name Industry in Underserved Regions > > > Comment / Reply Periods (*) > Comment Open Date: > 14 May 2014 > Comment Close Date: > 13 June 2014 - 23:59 UTC > Reply Open Date: > 14 June 2014 > Reply Close Date: > 30 June 2014 - 23:59 UTC > Important Information Links > Public Comment Announcement > To Submit Your Comments (Forum) > View Comments Submitted > Brief Overview > Originating Organization: > ICANN Staff > Categories/Tags: > > - Contracted Party Agreements > - Participation > - Reviews/Improvements > > Purpose (Brief): > > This is a report about supporting the domain name industry in underserved > regions, prepared by ICANN staff for public comment. > Current Status: > > ICANN has solicited feedback from the community on this topic through a > variety of informal avenues. ICANN seeks comment on this report, which > summarizes community input to date, with the goal of transforming these > discussions into concrete results. > Next Steps: > > Public comments on this report will be used to determine next steps to > support the DNS industry in underserved regions. > Staff Contact: > Amy Bivins > Email Staff Contact > Detailed Information > Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: > > ICANN is exploring ideas and strategies to help promote the domain name > industry in regions that have typically been underserved. In particular, > ICANN is looking at existing barriers to Registrar Accreditation and > operation and considering ways that these challenges might be mitigated. > Public comments on this report will be used to determine next steps to > support the domain name industry in underserved regions. > > As of 16 April 2014, there were 1,010 ICANN-accredited Registrars. Of > those, seven are located in Africa. Fourteen are located in the Middle East. > > Barriers to participation in domain name industry business in regions such > as Africa and the Middle East are complex and some cannot be addressed by > ICANN without coordination with the greater community. Many of these > issues have been recognized and discussed for some time. ICANN staff is > therefore seeking input to determine how best to transform this discussion > into concrete results. > Section II: Background: > > To encourage participation of developing countries to date, ICANN has, > for example, created a fellowship program, participated in many regional > meetings and increased the availability of translated materials and > interpretation services, engendering participation within ICANN. > > Additionally, in August 2012, ICANN announced a new approach to Africa, > with the support of AFRINIC, including a new initiative aimed at increasing > African participation and influence within ICANN.1A working group was created and endorsed by the African community members > meeting in Prague. The working group included key players in Internet > governance from different regions in Africa to contribute to the > development of the new strategy. The working group selected Nii Quaynor of > Ghana, a well-respected Internet leader in Africa, to lead its efforts. The > working group published its report, Enhanced Registry Registrar > Relationships, on 13 July 2013 (see Annex at the end of this report). > > Members of the domain name industry community in the Middle East community > have taken a similar approach. Middle East community members created a > working group in early 2013 to develop an ICANN engagement strategy for > the Middle East. The Middle East strategy identified domain name industry > development as one area where more work needs to be done. ICANN has since > co-sponsored a number of DNS Forum events in the Middle East, Africa, and > Asia.2 > > ICANN recently held a session on this topic at the March 2014 ICANNmeeting in Singapore. > 3At the session, > ICANN solicited considerable input from attendees about the challenges > facing the domain name industry in underserved regions and began > discussions to explore potential solutions. > ------------------------------ > > 1See > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10aug12-en.htm > > 2 > http://blog.icann.org/2014/02/first-middle-east-dns-forum-overwhelmingly-successful/; > http://www.internetsociety.org/news/africa-domain-name-system-forum-be-held-durban-south-africa-12-13-july-2013 > > 3 > http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-dns-underserved > Section III: Document and Resource Links: > > The attached report[PDF, 601 KB] includes a table that summarizes input that > ICANN has received regarding the challenges that face the domain name > industry in underserved regions. The table is by no means exhaustive, and > ICANN staff welcome input on any issue that you believe poses a barrier > to domain name industry growth and participation in underserved regions. > > The table identifies the relevant issue, notes where the requirement lies > in relevant policies or contracts, lists solutions that have been proposed, > and explores how such solutions might be implemented. > > As background, the report also includes the July 2013 report, Enhanced > Registry Registrar Relationships, developed by Africa Strategy working > group. > > ICANN Seeks Public Comment: Supporting the DNS Industry in Underserved > Regions > > - English[PDF, 601 KB] > - Fran?ais[PDF, 528 KB] > - Espa?ol[PDF, 471 KB] > - ???????[PDF, 676 KB] > - Portugu?s[PDF, 472 KB] > - ????[PDF, 522 KB] > - ???????[PDF, 599 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. > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Thu May 15 17:34:55 2014 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 16:34:55 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Supporting the Domain Name Industry in Underserved Regions In-Reply-To: References: <1F4F5E32-31FB-47BE-97B9-578246CE7B3D@isoc.be> Message-ID: <4A72B177-ABDE-49B6-B6A6-D3875B3EB5D3@gmail.com> And I?d sent it to the NCUC list, great minds think alike :-) Hope people respond and an effort is mounted, Bill On May 15, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Rudi, > > I already shared the info in NCSG mailing list to get volunteers for drafting comment, I volunteered myself too. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > 2014-05-15 22:49 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : > Dear colleagues, > > This report from ICANN (for public comment) should be part of our discussions ! I?m putting this on my priority list to be discussed in the next few days. Too busy today to be able to give already some reactions but I?m convinced we are OBLIGED to give input to this report ! > > Kind regards > > Rudi > Report: Supporting the Domain Name Industry in Underserved Regions > > Comment / Reply Periods (*) > Comment Open Date: > 14 May 2014 > Comment Close Date: > 13 June 2014 - 23:59 UTC > Reply Open Date: > 14 June 2014 > Reply Close Date: > 30 June 2014 - 23:59 UTC > Important Information Links > Public Comment Announcement > To Submit Your Comments (Forum) > View Comments Submitted > Brief Overview > Originating Organization: > ICANN Staff > Categories/Tags: > Contracted Party Agreements > Participation > Reviews/Improvements > Purpose (Brief): > This is a report about supporting the domain name industry in underserved regions, prepared by ICANN staff for public comment. > > Current Status: > ICANN has solicited feedback from the community on this topic through a variety of informal avenues. ICANN seeks comment on this report, which summarizes community input to date, with the goal of transforming these discussions into concrete results. > > Next Steps: > Public comments on this report will be used to determine next steps to support the DNS industry in underserved regions. > > Staff Contact: > Amy Bivins > Email Staff Contact > Detailed Information > Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: > ICANN is exploring ideas and strategies to help promote the domain name industry in regions that have typically been underserved. In particular, ICANN is looking at existing barriers to Registrar Accreditation and operation and considering ways that these challenges might be mitigated. Public comments on this report will be used to determine next steps to support the domain name industry in underserved regions. > > As of 16 April 2014, there were 1,010 ICANN-accredited Registrars. Of those, seven are located in Africa. Fourteen are located in the Middle East. > > Barriers to participation in domain name industry business in regions such as Africa and the Middle East are complex and some cannot be addressed by ICANN without coordination with the greater community. Many of these issues have been recognized and discussed for some time. ICANN staff is therefore seeking input to determine how best to transform this discussion into concrete results. > > Section II: Background: > To encourage participation of developing countries to date, ICANN has, for example, created a fellowship program, participated in many regional meetings and increased the availability of translated materials and interpretation services, engendering participation within ICANN. > > Additionally, in August 2012, ICANN announced a new approach to Africa, with the support of AFRINIC, including a new initiative aimed at increasing African participation and influence within ICANN.1 A working group was created and endorsed by the African community members meeting in Prague. The working group included key players in Internet governance from different regions in Africa to contribute to the development of the new strategy. The working group selected Nii Quaynor of Ghana, a well-respected Internet leader in Africa, to lead its efforts. The working group published its report, Enhanced Registry Registrar Relationships, on 13 July 2013 (see Annex at the end of this report). > > Members of the domain name industry community in the Middle East community have taken a similar approach. Middle East community members created a working group in early 2013 to develop an ICANN engagement strategy for the Middle East. The Middle East strategy identified domain name industry development as one area where more work needs to be done. ICANN has since co-sponsored a number of DNS Forum events in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.2 > > ICANN recently held a session on this topic at the March 2014 ICANN meeting in Singapore.3 At the session, ICANN solicited considerable input from attendees about the challenges facing the domain name industry in underserved regions and began discussions to explore potential solutions. > > 1 See http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-10aug12-en.htm > > 2 http://blog.icann.org/2014/02/first-middle-east-dns-forum-overwhelmingly-successful/ ; http://www.internetsociety.org/news/africa-domain-name-system-forum-be-held-durban-south-africa-12-13-july-2013 > > 3 http://singapore49.icann.org/en/schedule/wed-dns-underserved > > Section III: Document and Resource Links: > The attached report [PDF, 601 KB] includes a table that summarizes input that ICANN has received regarding the challenges that face the domain name industry in underserved regions. The table is by no means exhaustive, and ICANN staff welcome input on any issue that you believe poses a barrier to domain name industry growth and participation in underserved regions. > > The table identifies the relevant issue, notes where the requirement lies in relevant policies or contracts, lists solutions that have been proposed, and explores how such solutions might be implemented. > > As background, the report also includes the July 2013 report, Enhanced Registry Registrar Relationships, developed by Africa Strategy working group. > > ICANN Seeks Public Comment: Supporting the DNS Industry in Underserved Regions > > English [PDF, 601 KB] > Fran?ais [PDF, 528 KB] > Espa?ol [PDF, 471 KB] > ??????? [PDF, 676 KB] > Portugu?s [PDF, 472 KB] > ???? [PDF, 522 KB] > ??????? [PDF, 599 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. > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.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: From rafik.dammak Sun May 18 11:33:38 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 17:33:38 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Sam Lanfranco -- call with CSG 5/19 at 1830 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, CSG confirmed about confcall date/time with Sam. Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Metalitz, Steven Date: 2014-05-18 3:20 GMT+09:00 Subject: RE: Sam Lanfranco -- call with CSG 5/19 at 1830 UTC To: Rafik Dammak , Sam Lanfranco Sam, CSG members look forward to speaking with you at 1830 UTC (2:30 pm EDT) on Monday, May 19. We will send the call-in details as soon as they are available. The call will be recorded and transcribed for the benefit of NCSG as well. Steve Metalitz *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, May 14, 2014 3:03 AM *To:* gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org; Sam Lanfranco; Metalitz, Steven *Subject:* Sam Lanfranco SOI for Board Seat 14 and brief CV Hi Everyone, I am forwarding the statement and CV from Sam as follow-up of our call last week. he is in cc, so you can ask him any question or clarification (he is subscribed to this list) regarding the date/time for next week confcall, it should be early in the week, any time of the day May 19th/20th. can CSG leadership acknowledge the reception, I am not sure who is in the list from CSG side. Best Regards, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aelsadr Sun May 18 14:30:41 2014 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 13:30:41 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Sam Lanfranco -- call with CSG 5/19 at 1830 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7AD1B7B1-485D-489B-ACBF-9EA06BAE750F@egyptig.org> Thanks Rafik, and good luck to Sam. Amr On May 18, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > CSG confirmed about confcall date/time with Sam. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Metalitz, Steven > Date: 2014-05-18 3:20 GMT+09:00 > Subject: RE: Sam Lanfranco -- call with CSG 5/19 at 1830 UTC > To: Rafik Dammak , Sam Lanfranco > > > Sam, > > > > CSG members look forward to speaking with you at 1830 UTC (2:30 pm EDT) on Monday, May 19. We will send the call-in details as soon as they are available. The call will be recorded and transcribed for the benefit of NCSG as well. > > > > Steve Metalitz > > > > From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 3:03 AM > To: gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org; Sam Lanfranco; Metalitz, Steven > Subject: Sam Lanfranco SOI for Board Seat 14 and brief CV > > > > Hi Everyone, > > > > I am forwarding the statement and CV from Sam as follow-up of our call last week. > > he is in cc, so you can ask him any question or clarification (he is subscribed to this list) > > regarding the date/time for next week confcall, it should be early in the week, any time of the day May 19th/20th. > > can CSG leadership acknowledge the reception, I am not sure who is in the list from CSG side. > > > > 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: From rafik.dammak Mon May 19 03:17:01 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 09:17:01 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: <5372D705.3080106@gkpfoundation.org> References: <5372D705.3080106@gkpfoundation.org> Message-ID: Hi everybody, I have to send names by today, we have till now: Amr, Avri, Klaus and myself. Best Regards, Rafik 2014-05-14 11:37 GMT+09:00 Klaus Stoll : > Dear Friends > > I am also interested serving in this working party. > > Yours > > Klaus > > > On 5/13/2014 8:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Dear PC members, > > we have here an important process where we should appoint members to GNSO > review working group. we can appoint up to 6 members for NCSG. > > I think that Avri is already member. I am also interested to join this WG. > > the participation request time commitment for the next months and it is > quite critical for us. > > I will share the call with the membership list, but as PC we should decide > who will be our members in the WG. we have to send the names by 19th May > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > Date: 2014-05-13 1:04 GMT+09:00 > Subject: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party > To: Rafik Dammak > Cc: Marika Konings , "Larisa B. Gurnick" < > larisa.gurnick at icann.org>, "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" < > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org> > > > > > Dear Rafik, > > > > Please note the Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party > and please note the very tight timeframe. > Thank you. > > Kind regards, > > > > Glen > > *Summary* > > Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would > like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to > members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected > to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other > Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer > should they decide so. > > *Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party* > > The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: > > 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner > and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; > 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[1]<#145f8980880d8d3b_145f12d57bedb01d__ftn1> > ; > 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO > constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; > 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and > comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to > ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately > reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; > 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation > Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; > 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage > participation. > > *Volunteer Requirements* > > The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include > members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the > make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry > Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder > Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up > to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative > from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from > the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 > representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to > the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The > activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open > and fully transparent manner. > > Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in > evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria > would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to > devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 > ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. > Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multistakeholder > model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. > > *Submitting candidates* > > Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own > process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the > requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed > above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill > all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of > the proposed candidates are submitted *by Monday 19 May at the latest* as > work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should be > submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). > > *Background* > > The objective of the GNSO Review[2]<#145f8980880d8d3b_145f12d57bedb01d__ftn2> is > to examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its > structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder > Groups and Constituencies). The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 > July 2014 will be tightly scoped based on objective and quantifiable > criteria provided to the independent examiner. > > Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation from > the broader community are important components of this review process. As > discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements Committee > of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party be > assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent > examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 > Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and > responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is > issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review > Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare > an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement > activities. > > Please see the recent announcement about > the GNSO Review for additional information and background. > > > > *Further Information* > > > > Forming GNSO Review Working Party *Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO > Review Working Party* > > *Summary* > > Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would > like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to > members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected > to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other > Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer > should they decide so. > > *Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party* > > The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: > > 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner > and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; > 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[3]<#145f8980880d8d3b_145f12d57bedb01d__ftn3> > ; > 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO > constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; > 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and > comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to > ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately > reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; > 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation > Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; > 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage > participation. > > *Volunteer Requirements* > > The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include > members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the > make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry > Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder > Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up > to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative > from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from > the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 > representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to > the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The > activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open > and fully transparent manner. > > Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in > evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria > would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to > devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 > ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. > Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multi-stakeholder > model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. > > *Submitting candidates* > > Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own > process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the > requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed > above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill > all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of > the proposed candidates are submitted *by Monday 19 May at the latest* as > work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should be > submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). > > *Background* > > The objective of the GNSO Review[4]<#145f8980880d8d3b_145f12d57bedb01d__ftn4>is to examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its > structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder > Groups and Constituencies). The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 > July 2014 will be tightly scoped based on objective and quantifiable > criteria provided to the independent examiner. > > Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation from > the broader community are important components of this review process. As > discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements Committee > of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party be > assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent > examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 > Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and > responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is > issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review > Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare > an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement > activities. > > Please see the recent announcementabout the GNSO Review for additional information and background. > > > > *Further Information* > > > > ? Forming GNSO Review Working Party > > > > ? GNSO Review Webinar > > > > > > > > > > Glen de Saint G?ry > > GNSO Secretariat > > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > > http://gnso.icann.org > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------ > > ------------------------------ > > [1] <#145f8980880d8d3b_145f12d57bedb01d__ftnref1> 360 Assessment is an > online mechanism to collect and summarize feedback from members of the GNSO > community ? a "self-review" relative to objective and quantifiable > criteria. Interested members of other ICANN organizations, Board and staff > also may offer feedback. > > [2] <#145f8980880d8d3b_145f12d57bedb01d__ftnref2> GNSO Review is mandated > by ICANN?s Bylaws . > > [3] <#145f8980880d8d3b_145f12d57bedb01d__ftnref3> 360 Assessment is an > online mechanism to collect and summarize feedback from members of the GNSO > community ? a "self-review" relative to objective and quantifiable > criteria. Interested members of other ICANN organizations, Board and staff > also may offer feedback. > > [4] <#145f8980880d8d3b_145f12d57bedb01d__ftnref4> GNSO Review is mandated > by ICANN?s Bylaws . > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Mon May 19 05:18:58 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 11:18:58 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] Teleconference between ICANN Meetings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello, I think that most of you are already in the NCPH list (please let me know if you are not) I asked for doodle to figure out a date/time appropriate for everybody. CSG want a separate call, I don't see a problem for the time being. any feedback or comment? Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Bill Graham Date: 2014-05-19 3:51 GMT+09:00 Subject: [Gnso-ncph-leadership] Teleconference between ICANN Meetings To: "gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org" Most of us were able to find time to meet in Singapore, and one of the suggestions I heard repeatedly was to try to schedule at least one teleconference between the various components of the NCPH and me, as your current Board member. We are now about 5 weeks out from the London ICANN 50 meeting, so I thought I would reach out to you to ask if you would like to schedule such a call in the next week or so. I am open to joining a general call, or separate calls with each constituency. Please let me know your preferences. My schedule is not too difficult for the next 10 days, but I do live in the same time zone as Los Angeles, so would appeciate it if any calls could be scheduled between 15:00 to 00:00 UTC if at all possible. best regards Bill _______________________________________________ Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list Gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4359 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rudi.vansnick Mon May 19 10:51:57 2014 From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 09:51:57 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: References: <5372D705.3080106@gkpfoundation.org> Message-ID: <377AFB1E-C31A-4E45-963C-EE3BB017A6EF@isoc.be> I thought I mentioned earlier my candidature for this WG. So add my name to this list. Kind regards, Rudi Vansnick NPOC chair Policy Committee NPOC treasurer rudi.vansnick at npoc.org Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 www.npoc.org Op 19-mei-2014, om 02:17 heeft Rafik Dammak het volgende geschreven: > Hi everybody, > > I have to send names by today, we have till now: Amr, Avri, Klaus and myself. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > 2014-05-14 11:37 GMT+09:00 Klaus Stoll : > Dear Friends > > I am also interested serving in this working party. > > Yours > > Klaus > > > On 5/13/2014 8:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Dear PC members, >> >> we have here an important process where we should appoint members to GNSO review working group. we can appoint up to 6 members for NCSG. >> >> I think that Avri is already member. I am also interested to join this WG. >> >> the participation request time commitment for the next months and it is quite critical for us. >> >> I will share the call with the membership list, but as PC we should decide who will be our members in the WG. we have to send the names by 19th May >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Glen de Saint G?ry >> Date: 2014-05-13 1:04 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party >> To: Rafik Dammak >> Cc: Marika Konings , "Larisa B. Gurnick" , "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" >> >> >> >> Dear Rafik, >> >> >> Please note the Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party and please note the very tight timeframe. >> Thank you. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> Glen >> >> Summary >> >> Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer should they decide so. >> >> Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party >> >> The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: >> >> Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; >> Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[1]; >> Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; >> Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; >> Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; >> Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage participation. >> Volunteer Requirements >> >> The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open and fully transparent manner. >> >> Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multistakeholder model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. >> >> Submitting candidates >> >> Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of the proposed candidates are submitted by Monday 19 May at the latest as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). >> >> Background >> >> The objective of the GNSO Review[2] is to examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the independent examiner. >> >> Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation from the broader community are important components of this review process. As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities. >> >> Please see the recent announcement about the GNSO Review for additional information and background. >> >> >> Further Information >> >> >> Forming GNSO Review Working Party Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party >> >> Summary >> >> Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer should they decide so. >> >> Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party >> >> The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: >> >> Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; >> Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[3]; >> Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; >> Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; >> Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; >> Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage participation. >> Volunteer Requirements >> >> The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open and fully transparent manner. >> >> Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multi-stakeholder model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. >> >> Submitting candidates >> >> Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of the proposed candidates are submitted by Monday 19 May at the latest as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). >> >> Background >> >> The objective of the GNSO Review[4] is to examine organizational effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the independent examiner. >> >> Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation from the broader community are important components of this review process. As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities. >> >> Please see the recent announcement about the GNSO Review for additional information and background. >> >> >> Further Information >> >> >> ? Forming GNSO Review Working Party >> >> >> ? GNSO Review Webinar >> >> >> >> >> >> Glen de Saint G?ry >> >> GNSO Secretariat >> >> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >> >> http://gnso.icann.org >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [1] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative to objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. >> >> [2] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws. >> >> [3] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative to objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. >> >> [4] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Mon May 19 10:56:59 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 16:56:59 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: <377AFB1E-C31A-4E45-963C-EE3BB017A6EF@isoc.be> References: <5372D705.3080106@gkpfoundation.org> <377AFB1E-C31A-4E45-963C-EE3BB017A6EF@isoc.be> Message-ID: Rudi, thanks, I think that you didn't mention your own candidature, but you said you will get back with names. I will add your name anyway. Rafik 2014-05-19 16:51 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : > I thought I mentioned earlier my candidature for this WG. So add my name > to this list. > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > NPOC chair Policy Committee > NPOC treasurer > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 > www.npoc.org > > Op 19-mei-2014, om 02:17 heeft Rafik Dammak het > volgende geschreven: > > Hi everybody, > > I have to send names by today, we have till now: Amr, Avri, Klaus and > myself. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > 2014-05-14 11:37 GMT+09:00 Klaus Stoll : > >> Dear Friends >> >> I am also interested serving in this working party. >> >> Yours >> >> Klaus >> >> >> On 5/13/2014 8:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Dear PC members, >> >> we have here an important process where we should appoint members to GNSO >> review working group. we can appoint up to 6 members for NCSG. >> >> I think that Avri is already member. I am also interested to join this WG. >> >> the participation request time commitment for the next months and it is >> quite critical for us. >> >> I will share the call with the membership list, but as PC we should >> decide who will be our members in the WG. we have to send the names by >> 19th May >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Glen de Saint G?ry >> Date: 2014-05-13 1:04 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party >> To: Rafik Dammak >> Cc: Marika Konings , "Larisa B. Gurnick" < >> larisa.gurnick at icann.org>, "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" < >> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org> >> >> >> >> >> Dear Rafik, >> >> >> Please note the Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party >> and please note the very tight timeframe. >> Thank you. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> Glen >> >> *Summary* >> >> Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would >> like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to >> members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected >> to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other >> Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer >> should they decide so. >> >> *Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party* >> >> The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: >> >> 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner >> and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; >> 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[1]; >> 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO >> constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; >> 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and >> comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to >> ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately >> reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; >> 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation >> Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; >> 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage >> participation. >> >> *Volunteer Requirements* >> >> The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include >> members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the >> make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry >> Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder >> Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up >> to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative >> from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from >> the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 >> representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to >> the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The >> activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open >> and fully transparent manner. >> >> Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in >> evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria >> would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to >> devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 >> ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. >> Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multistakeholder >> model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. >> >> *Submitting candidates* >> >> Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own >> process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the >> requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed >> above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill >> all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of >> the proposed candidates are submitted *by Monday 19 May at the latest*as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should >> be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). >> >> *Background* >> >> The objective of the GNSO Review[2] is to examine organizational >> effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO >> Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). >> The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly >> scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the >> independent examiner. >> >> Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation from >> the broader community are important components of this review process. As >> discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements Committee >> of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party be >> assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent >> examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 >> Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and >> responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is >> issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review >> Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare >> an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement >> activities. >> >> Please see the recent announcement about >> the GNSO Review for additional information and background. >> >> >> *Further Information* >> >> >> Forming GNSO Review Working Party *Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO >> Review Working Party* >> >> *Summary* >> >> Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would >> like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to >> members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected >> to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other >> Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer >> should they decide so. >> >> *Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party* >> >> The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: >> >> 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner >> and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; >> 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[3]; >> 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO >> constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; >> 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and >> comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to >> ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately >> reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; >> 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation >> Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; >> 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage >> participation. >> >> *Volunteer Requirements* >> >> The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include >> members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the >> make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry >> Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder >> Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up >> to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative >> from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from >> the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 >> representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to >> the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The >> activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open >> and fully transparent manner. >> >> Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in >> evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria >> would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to >> devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 >> ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. >> Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multi-stakeholder >> model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. >> >> *Submitting candidates* >> >> Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own >> process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the >> requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed >> above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill >> all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of >> the proposed candidates are submitted *by Monday 19 May at the latest*as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should >> be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). >> >> *Background* >> >> The objective of the GNSO Review[4] is to examine organizational >> effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO >> Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). >> The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly >> scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the >> independent examiner. >> >> Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation from >> the broader community are important components of this review process. As >> discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements Committee >> of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party be >> assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent >> examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 >> Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and >> responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is >> issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review >> Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare >> an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement >> activities. >> >> Please see the recent announcementabout the GNSO Review for additional information and background. >> >> >> *Further Information* >> >> >> ? Forming GNSO Review Working Party >> >> >> ? GNSO Review Webinar >> >> >> >> >> >> Glen de Saint G?ry >> >> GNSO Secretariat >> >> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >> >> http://gnso.icann.org >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> [1] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize >> feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative to >> objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN >> organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. >> >> [2] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws >> . >> >> [3] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize >> feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative to >> objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN >> organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. >> >> [4] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws >> . >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Tue May 20 03:02:49 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 09:02:49 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Teleconference with Bill Graham Message-ID: Hi everyone, please fill your availability in the doodle poll, it is about the confcall with Bill Graham prior to London meeting. Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Glen de Saint G?ry Date: 2014-05-19 23:44 GMT+09:00 Subject: With LINK! NCSG Teleconference between ICANN Meetings To: Bill Graham , Rafik Dammak < rafik.dammak at gmail.com> Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" Dear Bill and Rafik, Please send the doodle poll to the appropriate mailing lists. Please complete the doodle poll below to find a suitable time for a call of the NCSG and Bill Graham. http://doodle.com/a9f5kvtv68fd74z3 Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Gnso-ncph-leadership mailing list Gnso-ncph-leadership at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ncph-leadership From rafik.dammak Tue May 20 06:11:27 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 12:11:27 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: References: <5372D705.3080106@gkpfoundation.org> <377AFB1E-C31A-4E45-963C-EE3BB017A6EF@isoc.be> Message-ID: Hello everyone, seeing no objection and because the deadline, I will send the list to GNSO secretariat: Amr, Avri, Klaus. Rudi and myself. however, if needed I can send updated list to Glen if PC members has any comment. Best Regards. Rafik 2014-05-19 16:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Rudi, > > thanks, I think that you didn't mention your own candidature, but you said > you will get back with names. I will add your name anyway. > > Rafik > > > 2014-05-19 16:51 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : > > I thought I mentioned earlier my candidature for this WG. So add my name >> to this list. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Rudi Vansnick >> NPOC chair Policy Committee >> NPOC treasurer >> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org >> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 >> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >> www.npoc.org >> >> Op 19-mei-2014, om 02:17 heeft Rafik Dammak het >> volgende geschreven: >> >> Hi everybody, >> >> I have to send names by today, we have till now: Amr, Avri, Klaus and >> myself. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-05-14 11:37 GMT+09:00 Klaus Stoll : >> >>> Dear Friends >>> >>> I am also interested serving in this working party. >>> >>> Yours >>> >>> Klaus >>> >>> >>> On 5/13/2014 8:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Dear PC members, >>> >>> we have here an important process where we should appoint members to >>> GNSO review working group. we can appoint up to 6 members for NCSG. >>> >>> I think that Avri is already member. I am also interested to join this >>> WG. >>> >>> the participation request time commitment for the next months and it is >>> quite critical for us. >>> >>> I will share the call with the membership list, but as PC we should >>> decide who will be our members in the WG. we have to send the names by >>> 19th May >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry >>> Date: 2014-05-13 1:04 GMT+09:00 >>> Subject: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party >>> To: Rafik Dammak >>> Cc: Marika Konings , "Larisa B. Gurnick" < >>> larisa.gurnick at icann.org>, "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" < >>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Rafik, >>> >>> >>> Please note the Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working >>> Party and please note the very tight timeframe. >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> >>> Glen >>> >>> *Summary* >>> >>> Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would >>> like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to >>> members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected >>> to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other >>> Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer >>> should they decide so. >>> >>> *Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party* >>> >>> The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: >>> >>> 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner >>> and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; >>> 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[1]; >>> 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO >>> constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; >>> 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and >>> comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to >>> ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately >>> reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; >>> 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation >>> Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; >>> 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage >>> participation. >>> >>> *Volunteer Requirements* >>> >>> The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include >>> members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the >>> make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry >>> Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder >>> Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up >>> to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative >>> from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from >>> the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 >>> representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to >>> the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The >>> activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open >>> and fully transparent manner. >>> >>> Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in >>> evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria >>> would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to >>> devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 >>> ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. >>> Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multistakeholder >>> model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. >>> >>> *Submitting candidates* >>> >>> Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own >>> process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the >>> requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed >>> above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill >>> all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of >>> the proposed candidates are submitted *by Monday 19 May at the latest*as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should >>> be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). >>> >>> *Background* >>> >>> The objective of the GNSO Review[2] is to examine organizational >>> effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO >>> Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). >>> The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly >>> scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the >>> independent examiner. >>> >>> Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation >>> from the broader community are important components of this review process. >>> As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements >>> Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party >>> be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent >>> examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 >>> Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and >>> responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is >>> issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review >>> Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare >>> an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement >>> activities. >>> >>> Please see the recent announcement about >>> the GNSO Review for additional information and background. >>> >>> >>> *Further Information* >>> >>> >>> Forming GNSO Review Working Party *Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO >>> Review Working Party* >>> >>> *Summary* >>> >>> Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would >>> like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to >>> members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected >>> to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other >>> Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer >>> should they decide so. >>> >>> *Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party* >>> >>> The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: >>> >>> 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner >>> and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; >>> 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[3]; >>> 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO >>> constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; >>> 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and >>> comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to >>> ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately >>> reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; >>> 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation >>> Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; >>> 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage >>> participation. >>> >>> *Volunteer Requirements* >>> >>> The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include >>> members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the >>> make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry >>> Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder >>> Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up >>> to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative >>> from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from >>> the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 >>> representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to >>> the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The >>> activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open >>> and fully transparent manner. >>> >>> Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in >>> evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria >>> would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to >>> devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 >>> ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. >>> Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multi-stakeholder >>> model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. >>> >>> *Submitting candidates* >>> >>> Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own >>> process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the >>> requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed >>> above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill >>> all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of >>> the proposed candidates are submitted *by Monday 19 May at the latest*as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should >>> be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). >>> >>> *Background* >>> >>> The objective of the GNSO Review[4] is to examine organizational >>> effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO >>> Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). >>> The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly >>> scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the >>> independent examiner. >>> >>> Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation >>> from the broader community are important components of this review process. >>> As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements >>> Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party >>> be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent >>> examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 >>> Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and >>> responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is >>> issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review >>> Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare >>> an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement >>> activities. >>> >>> Please see the recent announcementabout the GNSO Review for additional information and background. >>> >>> >>> *Further Information* >>> >>> >>> ? Forming GNSO Review Working Party >>> >>> >>> ? GNSO Review Webinar >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Glen de Saint G?ry >>> >>> GNSO Secretariat >>> >>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >>> >>> http://gnso.icann.org >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> [1] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize >>> feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative to >>> objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN >>> organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. >>> >>> [2] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws >>> . >>> >>> [3] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize >>> feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative to >>> objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN >>> organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. >>> >>> [4] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Tue May 20 06:14:13 2014 From: joy (joy) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 15:14:13 +1200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: References: <5372D705.3080106@gkpfoundation.org> <377AFB1E-C31A-4E45-963C-EE3BB017A6EF@isoc.be> Message-ID: <537AC885.6060803@apc.org> Hi Rafik - I have also filled in the doodle poll and am happy to join this call joy On 20/05/2014 3:11 p.m., Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hello everyone, > > seeing no objection and because the deadline, I will send the list to GNSO > secretariat: Amr, Avri, Klaus. Rudi and myself. > however, if needed I can send updated list to Glen if PC members has any > comment. > > Best Regards. > > Rafik > > > 2014-05-19 16:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > >> Rudi, >> >> thanks, I think that you didn't mention your own candidature, but you said >> you will get back with names. I will add your name anyway. >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2014-05-19 16:51 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : >> >> I thought I mentioned earlier my candidature for this WG. So add my name >>> to this list. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Rudi Vansnick >>> NPOC chair Policy Committee >>> NPOC treasurer >>> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org >>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 >>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >>> www.npoc.org >>> >>> Op 19-mei-2014, om 02:17 heeft Rafik Dammak het >>> volgende geschreven: >>> >>> Hi everybody, >>> >>> I have to send names by today, we have till now: Amr, Avri, Klaus and >>> myself. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2014-05-14 11:37 GMT+09:00 Klaus Stoll : >>> >>>> Dear Friends >>>> >>>> I am also interested serving in this working party. >>>> >>>> Yours >>>> >>>> Klaus >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/13/2014 8:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear PC members, >>>> >>>> we have here an important process where we should appoint members to >>>> GNSO review working group. we can appoint up to 6 members for NCSG. >>>> >>>> I think that Avri is already member. I am also interested to join this >>>> WG. >>>> >>>> the participation request time commitment for the next months and it is >>>> quite critical for us. >>>> >>>> I will share the call with the membership list, but as PC we should >>>> decide who will be our members in the WG. we have to send the names by >>>> 19th May >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry >>>> Date: 2014-05-13 1:04 GMT+09:00 >>>> Subject: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party >>>> To: Rafik Dammak >>>> Cc: Marika Konings , "Larisa B. Gurnick" < >>>> larisa.gurnick at icann.org>, "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" < >>>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Dear Rafik, >>>> >>>> >>>> Please note the Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working >>>> Party and please note the very tight timeframe. >>>> Thank you. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> Glen >>>> >>>> *Summary* >>>> >>>> Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would >>>> like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to >>>> members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected >>>> to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other >>>> Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer >>>> should they decide so. >>>> >>>> *Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party* >>>> >>>> The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: >>>> >>>> 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner >>>> and the Board's Structural Improvements Committee; >>>> 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[1]; >>>> 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO >>>> constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; >>>> 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and >>>> comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to >>>> ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately >>>> reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; >>>> 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation >>>> Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; >>>> 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage >>>> participation. >>>> >>>> *Volunteer Requirements* >>>> >>>> The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include >>>> members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the >>>> make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry >>>> Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder >>>> Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up >>>> to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative >>>> from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from >>>> the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 >>>> representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to >>>> the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The >>>> activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open >>>> and fully transparent manner. >>>> >>>> Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in >>>> evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria >>>> would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to >>>> devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 >>>> -- 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. >>>> Commitment to and compliance with ICANN's bottom-up, multistakeholder >>>> model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. >>>> >>>> *Submitting candidates* >>>> >>>> Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own >>>> process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the >>>> requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed >>>> above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill >>>> all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of >>>> the proposed candidates are submitted *by Monday 19 May at the latest*as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should >>>> be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). >>>> >>>> *Background* >>>> >>>> The objective of the GNSO Review[2] is to examine organizational >>>> effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO >>>> Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). >>>> The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly >>>> scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the >>>> independent examiner. >>>> >>>> Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation >>>> from the broader community are important components of this review process. >>>> As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements >>>> Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party >>>> be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent >>>> examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 >>>> Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and >>>> responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is >>>> issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review >>>> Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare >>>> an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement >>>> activities. >>>> >>>> Please see the recent announcement about >>>> the GNSO Review for additional information and background. >>>> >>>> >>>> *Further Information* >>>> >>>> >>>> Forming GNSO Review Working Party *Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO >>>> Review Working Party* >>>> >>>> *Summary* >>>> >>>> Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would >>>> like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to >>>> members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected >>>> to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other >>>> Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer >>>> should they decide so. >>>> >>>> *Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party* >>>> >>>> The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: >>>> >>>> 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner >>>> and the Board's Structural Improvements Committee; >>>> 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[3]; >>>> 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO >>>> constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; >>>> 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and >>>> comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to >>>> ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately >>>> reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; >>>> 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation >>>> Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; >>>> 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage >>>> participation. >>>> >>>> *Volunteer Requirements* >>>> >>>> The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include >>>> members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the >>>> make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry >>>> Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder >>>> Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up >>>> to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative >>>> from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from >>>> the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 >>>> representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to >>>> the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The >>>> activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open >>>> and fully transparent manner. >>>> >>>> Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in >>>> evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria >>>> would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to >>>> devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 >>>> -- 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. >>>> Commitment to and compliance with ICANN's bottom-up, multi-stakeholder >>>> model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. >>>> >>>> *Submitting candidates* >>>> >>>> Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own >>>> process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the >>>> requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed >>>> above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill >>>> all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of >>>> the proposed candidates are submitted *by Monday 19 May at the latest*as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should >>>> be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). >>>> >>>> *Background* >>>> >>>> The objective of the GNSO Review[4] is to examine organizational >>>> effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO >>>> Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). >>>> The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly >>>> scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the >>>> independent examiner. >>>> >>>> Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation >>>> from the broader community are important components of this review process. >>>> As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements >>>> Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party >>>> be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent >>>> examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 >>>> Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and >>>> responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is >>>> issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review >>>> Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare >>>> an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement >>>> activities. >>>> >>>> Please see the recent announcementabout the GNSO Review for additional information and background. >>>> >>>> >>>> *Further Information* >>>> >>>> >>>> ? Forming GNSO Review Working Party >>>> >>>> >>>> ? GNSO Review Webinar >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Glen de Saint G?ry >>>> >>>> GNSO Secretariat >>>> >>>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >>>> >>>> http://gnso.icann.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> [1] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize >>>> feedback from members of the GNSO community --- a "self-review" relative to >>>> objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN >>>> organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. >>>> >>>> [2] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN's Bylaws >>>> . >>>> >>>> [3] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize >>>> feedback from members of the GNSO community --- a "self-review" relative to >>>> objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN >>>> organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. >>>> >>>> [4] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN's Bylaws >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: joy.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 229 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak Tue May 20 06:15:41 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 12:15:41 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: <537AC885.6060803@apc.org> References: <5372D705.3080106@gkpfoundation.org> <377AFB1E-C31A-4E45-963C-EE3BB017A6EF@isoc.be> <537AC885.6060803@apc.org> Message-ID: Thanks Joy! we should discuss the points we wants to talk with Bill. Rafik 2014-05-20 12:14 GMT+09:00 joy : > Hi Rafik - I have also filled in the doodle poll and am happy to join > this call > joy > On 20/05/2014 3:11 p.m., Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hello everyone, > > seeing no objection and because the deadline, I will send the list to GNSO > secretariat: Amr, Avri, Klaus. Rudi and myself. > however, if needed I can send updated list to Glen if PC members has any > comment. > > Best Regards. > > Rafik > > > 2014-05-19 16:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > > > Rudi, > > thanks, I think that you didn't mention your own candidature, but you said > you will get back with names. I will add your name anyway. > > Rafik > > > 2014-05-19 16:51 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : > > I thought I mentioned earlier my candidature for this WG. So add my name > > to this list. > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > NPOC chair Policy Committee > NPOC treasurerrudi.vansnick at npoc.org > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32www.npoc.org > > Op 19-mei-2014, om 02:17 heeft Rafik Dammak het > volgende geschreven: > > Hi everybody, > > I have to send names by today, we have till now: Amr, Avri, Klaus and > myself. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > 2014-05-14 11:37 GMT+09:00 Klaus Stoll : > > > Dear Friends > > I am also interested serving in this working party. > > Yours > > Klaus > > > On 5/13/2014 8:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Dear PC members, > > we have here an important process where we should appoint members to > GNSO review working group. we can appoint up to 6 members for NCSG. > > I think that Avri is already member. I am also interested to join this > WG. > > the participation request time commitment for the next months and it is > quite critical for us. > > I will share the call with the membership list, but as PC we should > decide who will be our members in the WG. we have to send the names by > 19th May > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > Date: 2014-05-13 1:04 GMT+09:00 > Subject: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party > To: Rafik Dammak > Cc: Marika Konings , "Larisa B. Gurnick" , "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" > > > > > > Dear Rafik, > > > Please note the Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working > Party and please note the very tight timeframe. > Thank you. > > Kind regards, > > > Glen > > *Summary* > > Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would > like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to > members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected > to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other > Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer > should they decide so. > > *Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party* > > The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: > > 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner > and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; > 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[1]; > 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO > constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; > 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and > comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to > ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately > reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; > 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation > Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; > 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage > participation. > > *Volunteer Requirements* > > The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include > members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the > make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry > Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder > Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up > to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative > from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from > the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 > representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to > the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The > activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open > and fully transparent manner. > > Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in > evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria > would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to > devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 > ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. > Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multistakeholder > model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. > > *Submitting candidates* > > Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own > process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the > requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed > above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill > all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of > the proposed candidates are submitted *by Monday 19 May at the latest*as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should > be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). > > *Background* > > The objective of the GNSO Review[2] is to examine organizational > effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO > Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). > The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly > scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the > independent examiner. > > Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation > from the broader community are important components of this review process. > As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements > Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party > be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent > examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 > Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and > responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is > issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review > Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare > an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement > activities. > > Please see the recent announcement about > the GNSO Review for additional information and background. > > > *Further Information* > > > Forming GNSO Review Working Party *Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO > Review Working Party* > > *Summary* > > Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would > like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to > members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected > to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other > Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer > should they decide so. > > *Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party* > > The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: > > 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner > and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; > 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[3]; > 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO > constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; > 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and > comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to > ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately > reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; > 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation > Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; > 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage > participation. > > *Volunteer Requirements* > > The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include > members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the > make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry > Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder > Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up > to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative > from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from > the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 > representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to > the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The > activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open > and fully transparent manner. > > Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in > evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria > would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to > devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 > ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. > Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multi-stakeholder > model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. > > *Submitting candidates* > > Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own > process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the > requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed > above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill > all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of > the proposed candidates are submitted *by Monday 19 May at the latest*as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should > be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). > > *Background* > > The objective of the GNSO Review[4] is to examine organizational > effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO > Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). > The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly > scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the > independent examiner. > > Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation > from the broader community are important components of this review process. > As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements > Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party > be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent > examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 > Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and > responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is > issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review > Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare > an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement > activities. > > Please see the recent announcement about the GNSO Review for additional information and background. > > > *Further Information* > > > ? Forming GNSO Review Working Party > > > ? GNSO Review Webinar > > > > > > > > Glen de Saint G?ry > > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------ > > ------------------------------ > > [1] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize > feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative to > objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN > organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. > > [2] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws > . > > [3] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize > feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative to > objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN > organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. > > [4] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws > . > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joy Tue May 20 06:23:46 2014 From: joy (joy) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 15:23:46 +1200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: References: <5372D705.3080106@gkpfoundation.org> <377AFB1E-C31A-4E45-963C-EE3BB017A6EF@isoc.be> <537AC885.6060803@apc.org> Message-ID: <537ACAC2.7000203@apc.org> Sure we could start with: + please give 3 examples of the issues that are of concern to the non-commercial stakeholder group + identify how you have weighed NCSG issues in the balance against other non-contracted party house groups in your role as a Board member (shall we ask for some specific cases?) + in what ways do you consider yourself representative of and accountable to NSCG in your Board role? + please explain your lack of engagement with NCSG during your tenure on the Board and why you believe you merit a further term. On 20/05/2014 3:15 p.m., Rafik Dammak wrote: > Thanks Joy! we should discuss the points we wants to talk with Bill. > > Rafik > > 2014-05-20 12:14 GMT+09:00 joy : > >> Hi Rafik - I have also filled in the doodle poll and am happy to join >> this call >> joy >> On 20/05/2014 3:11 p.m., Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hello everyone, >> >> seeing no objection and because the deadline, I will send the list to GNSO >> secretariat: Amr, Avri, Klaus. Rudi and myself. >> however, if needed I can send updated list to Glen if PC members has any >> comment. >> >> Best Regards. >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2014-05-19 16:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >> >> >> Rudi, >> >> thanks, I think that you didn't mention your own candidature, but you said >> you will get back with names. I will add your name anyway. >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2014-05-19 16:51 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : >> >> I thought I mentioned earlier my candidature for this WG. So add my name >> >> to this list. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Rudi Vansnick >> NPOC chair Policy Committee >> NPOC treasurerrudi.vansnick at npoc.org >> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 >> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32www.npoc.org >> >> Op 19-mei-2014, om 02:17 heeft Rafik Dammak het >> volgende geschreven: >> >> Hi everybody, >> >> I have to send names by today, we have till now: Amr, Avri, Klaus and >> myself. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-05-14 11:37 GMT+09:00 Klaus Stoll : >> >> >> Dear Friends >> >> I am also interested serving in this working party. >> >> Yours >> >> Klaus >> >> >> On 5/13/2014 8:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Dear PC members, >> >> we have here an important process where we should appoint members to >> GNSO review working group. we can appoint up to 6 members for NCSG. >> >> I think that Avri is already member. I am also interested to join this >> WG. >> >> the participation request time commitment for the next months and it is >> quite critical for us. >> >> I will share the call with the membership list, but as PC we should >> decide who will be our members in the WG. we have to send the names by >> 19th May >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Glen de Saint G?ry >> Date: 2014-05-13 1:04 GMT+09:00 >> Subject: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party >> To: Rafik Dammak >> Cc: Marika Konings , "Larisa B. Gurnick" , "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" > >> >> >> Dear Rafik, >> >> >> Please note the Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working >> Party and please note the very tight timeframe. >> Thank you. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> Glen >> >> *Summary* >> >> Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would >> like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to >> members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected >> to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other >> Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer >> should they decide so. >> >> *Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party* >> >> The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: >> >> 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner >> and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; >> 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[1]; >> 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO >> constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; >> 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and >> comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to >> ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately >> reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; >> 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation >> Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; >> 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage >> participation. >> >> *Volunteer Requirements* >> >> The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include >> members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the >> make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry >> Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder >> Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up >> to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative >> from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from >> the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 >> representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to >> the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The >> activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open >> and fully transparent manner. >> >> Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in >> evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria >> would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to >> devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 >> ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. >> Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multistakeholder >> model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. >> >> *Submitting candidates* >> >> Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own >> process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the >> requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed >> above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill >> all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of >> the proposed candidates are submitted *by Monday 19 May at the latest*as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should >> be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). >> >> *Background* >> >> The objective of the GNSO Review[2] is to examine organizational >> effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO >> Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). >> The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly >> scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the >> independent examiner. >> >> Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation >> from the broader community are important components of this review process. >> As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements >> Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party >> be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent >> examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 >> Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and >> responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is >> issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review >> Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare >> an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement >> activities. >> >> Please see the recent announcement about >> the GNSO Review for additional information and background. >> >> >> *Further Information* >> >> >> Forming GNSO Review Working Party *Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO >> Review Working Party* >> >> *Summary* >> >> Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would >> like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to >> members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected >> to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other >> Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer >> should they decide so. >> >> *Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party* >> >> The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: >> >> 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner >> and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; >> 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[3]; >> 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO >> constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; >> 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and >> comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to >> ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately >> reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; >> 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation >> Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; >> 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage >> participation. >> >> *Volunteer Requirements* >> >> The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include >> members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the >> make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry >> Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder >> Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up >> to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative >> from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from >> the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 >> representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to >> the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The >> activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open >> and fully transparent manner. >> >> Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in >> evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria >> would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to >> devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 >> ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. >> Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multi-stakeholder >> model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. >> >> *Submitting candidates* >> >> Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own >> process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the >> requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed >> above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill >> all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of >> the proposed candidates are submitted *by Monday 19 May at the latest*as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should >> be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). >> >> *Background* >> >> The objective of the GNSO Review[4] is to examine organizational >> effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO >> Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). >> The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly >> scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the >> independent examiner. >> >> Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation >> from the broader community are important components of this review process. >> As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements >> Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party >> be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent >> examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 >> Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and >> responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is >> issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review >> Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare >> an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement >> activities. >> >> Please see the recent announcement about the GNSO Review for additional information and background. >> >> >> *Further Information* >> >> >> ? Forming GNSO Review Working Party >> >> >> ? GNSO Review Webinar >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Glen de Saint G?ry >> >> GNSO Secretariat >> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >> http://gnso.icann.org >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> [1] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize >> feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative to >> objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN >> organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. >> >> [2] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws >> . >> >> [3] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize >> feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative to >> objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN >> organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. >> >> [4] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws >> . >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: joy.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 238 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri Tue May 20 06:31:18 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 23:31:18 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: <537ACAC2.7000203@apc.org> References: <5372D705.3080106@gkpfoundation.org> <377AFB1E-C31A-4E45-963C-EE3BB017A6EF@isoc.be> <537AC885.6060803@apc.org> <537ACAC2.7000203@apc.org> Message-ID: <537ACC86.2030204@acm.org> Hi, As interested as I might have been, since he is out of the election and has lost, we could probably focus on current issues and where he stands on issues like separation; explain his vote, whatever it might have been, on .amazon; where he stands on next steps for the TMCH+50 action; what is happening with excess funds that can be expected from the auctions about to begin; what does he think about the problem issues with ICANN privacy. Stuff like that. avri On 19-May-14 23:23, joy wrote: > Sure we could start with: > + please give 3 examples of the issues that are of concern to the > non-commercial stakeholder group > + identify how you have weighed NCSG issues in the balance against other > non-contracted party house groups in your role as a Board member (shall > we ask for some specific cases?) > + in what ways do you consider yourself representative of and > accountable to NSCG in your Board role? > + please explain your lack of engagement with NCSG during your tenure on > the Board and why you believe you merit a further term. > > > On 20/05/2014 3:15 p.m., Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Thanks Joy! we should discuss the points we wants to talk with Bill. >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-05-20 12:14 GMT+09:00 joy : >> >>> Hi Rafik - I have also filled in the doodle poll and am happy to join >>> this call >>> joy >>> On 20/05/2014 3:11 p.m., Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hello everyone, >>> >>> seeing no objection and because the deadline, I will send the list to GNSO >>> secretariat: Amr, Avri, Klaus. Rudi and myself. >>> however, if needed I can send updated list to Glen if PC members has any >>> comment. >>> >>> Best Regards. >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2014-05-19 16:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>> >>> >>> Rudi, >>> >>> thanks, I think that you didn't mention your own candidature, but you said >>> you will get back with names. I will add your name anyway. >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2014-05-19 16:51 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : >>> >>> I thought I mentioned earlier my candidature for this WG. So add my name >>> >>> to this list. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Rudi Vansnick >>> NPOC chair Policy Committee >>> NPOC treasurerrudi.vansnick at npoc.org >>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 >>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32www.npoc.org >>> >>> Op 19-mei-2014, om 02:17 heeft Rafik Dammak het >>> volgende geschreven: >>> >>> Hi everybody, >>> >>> I have to send names by today, we have till now: Amr, Avri, Klaus and >>> myself. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2014-05-14 11:37 GMT+09:00 Klaus Stoll : >>> >>> >>> Dear Friends >>> >>> I am also interested serving in this working party. >>> >>> Yours >>> >>> Klaus >>> >>> >>> On 5/13/2014 8:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Dear PC members, >>> >>> we have here an important process where we should appoint members to >>> GNSO review working group. we can appoint up to 6 members for NCSG. >>> >>> I think that Avri is already member. I am also interested to join this >>> WG. >>> >>> the participation request time commitment for the next months and it is >>> quite critical for us. >>> >>> I will share the call with the membership list, but as PC we should >>> decide who will be our members in the WG. we have to send the names by >>> 19th May >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry >>> Date: 2014-05-13 1:04 GMT+09:00 >>> Subject: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party >>> To: Rafik Dammak >>> Cc: Marika Konings , "Larisa B. Gurnick" , "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" >> >>> >>> >>> Dear Rafik, >>> >>> >>> Please note the Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working >>> Party and please note the very tight timeframe. >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> >>> Glen >>> >>> *Summary* >>> >>> Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would >>> like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to >>> members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected >>> to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other >>> Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer >>> should they decide so. >>> >>> *Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party* >>> >>> The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: >>> >>> 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner >>> and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; >>> 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[1]; >>> 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO >>> constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; >>> 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and >>> comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to >>> ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately >>> reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; >>> 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation >>> Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; >>> 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage >>> participation. >>> >>> *Volunteer Requirements* >>> >>> The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include >>> members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the >>> make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry >>> Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder >>> Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up >>> to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative >>> from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from >>> the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 >>> representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to >>> the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The >>> activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open >>> and fully transparent manner. >>> >>> Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in >>> evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria >>> would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to >>> devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 >>> ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. >>> Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multistakeholder >>> model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. >>> >>> *Submitting candidates* >>> >>> Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own >>> process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the >>> requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed >>> above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill >>> all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of >>> the proposed candidates are submitted *by Monday 19 May at the latest*as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should >>> be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). >>> >>> *Background* >>> >>> The objective of the GNSO Review[2] is to examine organizational >>> effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO >>> Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). >>> The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly >>> scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the >>> independent examiner. >>> >>> Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation >>> from the broader community are important components of this review process. >>> As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements >>> Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party >>> be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent >>> examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 >>> Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and >>> responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is >>> issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review >>> Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare >>> an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement >>> activities. >>> >>> Please see the recent announcement about >>> the GNSO Review for additional information and background. >>> >>> >>> *Further Information* >>> >>> >>> Forming GNSO Review Working Party *Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO >>> Review Working Party* >>> >>> *Summary* >>> >>> Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would >>> like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to >>> members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected >>> to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other >>> Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer >>> should they decide so. >>> >>> *Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party* >>> >>> The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: >>> >>> 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner >>> and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; >>> 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[3]; >>> 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO >>> constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; >>> 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and >>> comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to >>> ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately >>> reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; >>> 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation >>> Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; >>> 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage >>> participation. >>> >>> *Volunteer Requirements* >>> >>> The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include >>> members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the >>> make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry >>> Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder >>> Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up >>> to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative >>> from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from >>> the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 >>> representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to >>> the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The >>> activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open >>> and fully transparent manner. >>> >>> Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in >>> evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria >>> would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to >>> devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 >>> ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. >>> Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multi-stakeholder >>> model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. >>> >>> *Submitting candidates* >>> >>> Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own >>> process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the >>> requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed >>> above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill >>> all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of >>> the proposed candidates are submitted *by Monday 19 May at the latest*as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should >>> be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). >>> >>> *Background* >>> >>> The objective of the GNSO Review[4] is to examine organizational >>> effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO >>> Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). >>> The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly >>> scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the >>> independent examiner. >>> >>> Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation >>> from the broader community are important components of this review process. >>> As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements >>> Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party >>> be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent >>> examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 >>> Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and >>> responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is >>> issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review >>> Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare >>> an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement >>> activities. >>> >>> Please see the recent announcement about the GNSO Review for additional information and background. >>> >>> >>> *Further Information* >>> >>> >>> ? Forming GNSO Review Working Party >>> >>> >>> ? GNSO Review Webinar >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Glen de Saint G?ry >>> >>> GNSO Secretariat >>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >>> http://gnso.icann.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> [1] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize >>> feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative to >>> objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN >>> organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. >>> >>> [2] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws >>> . >>> >>> [3] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize >>> feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative to >>> objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN >>> organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. >>> >>> [4] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From rafik.dammak Tue May 20 09:30:38 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 15:30:38 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: <537ACC86.2030204@acm.org> References: <5372D705.3080106@gkpfoundation.org> <377AFB1E-C31A-4E45-963C-EE3BB017A6EF@isoc.be> <537AC885.6060803@apc.org> <537ACAC2.7000203@apc.org> <537ACC86.2030204@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Avri, Joy, thanks for the comments and suggestion, I will compile them in one doc. hope that others will send their comments too. Best Regards, Rafik 2014-05-20 12:31 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > Hi, > > As interested as I might have been, since he is out of the election and > has lost, we could probably focus on current issues and where he stands > on issues like separation; explain his vote, whatever it might have > been, on .amazon; where he stands on next steps for the TMCH+50 action; > what is happening with excess funds that can be expected from the > auctions about to begin; what does he think about the problem issues > with ICANN privacy. Stuff like that. > > avri > > > On 19-May-14 23:23, joy wrote: > > Sure we could start with: > > + please give 3 examples of the issues that are of concern to the > > non-commercial stakeholder group > > + identify how you have weighed NCSG issues in the balance against other > > non-contracted party house groups in your role as a Board member (shall > > we ask for some specific cases?) > > + in what ways do you consider yourself representative of and > > accountable to NSCG in your Board role? > > + please explain your lack of engagement with NCSG during your tenure on > > the Board and why you believe you merit a further term. > > > > > > On 20/05/2014 3:15 p.m., Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Thanks Joy! we should discuss the points we wants to talk with Bill. > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> 2014-05-20 12:14 GMT+09:00 joy : > >> > >>> Hi Rafik - I have also filled in the doodle poll and am happy to join > >>> this call > >>> joy > >>> On 20/05/2014 3:11 p.m., Rafik Dammak wrote: > >>> > >>> Hello everyone, > >>> > >>> seeing no objection and because the deadline, I will send the list to > GNSO > >>> secretariat: Amr, Avri, Klaus. Rudi and myself. > >>> however, if needed I can send updated list to Glen if PC members has > any > >>> comment. > >>> > >>> Best Regards. > >>> > >>> Rafik > >>> > >>> > >>> 2014-05-19 16:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak < > rafik.dammak at gmail.com>: > >>> > >>> > >>> Rudi, > >>> > >>> thanks, I think that you didn't mention your own candidature, but you > said > >>> you will get back with names. I will add your name anyway. > >>> > >>> Rafik > >>> > >>> > >>> 2014-05-19 16:51 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick < > rudi.vansnick at isoc.be>: > >>> > >>> I thought I mentioned earlier my candidature for this WG. So add my > name > >>> > >>> to this list. > >>> > >>> Kind regards, > >>> > >>> Rudi Vansnick > >>> NPOC chair Policy Committee > >>> NPOC treasurerrudi.vansnick at npoc.org > >>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 > >>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32www.npoc.org > >>> > >>> Op 19-mei-2014, om 02:17 heeft Rafik Dammak < > rafik.dammak at gmail.com> het > >>> volgende geschreven: > >>> > >>> Hi everybody, > >>> > >>> I have to send names by today, we have till now: Amr, Avri, Klaus and > >>> myself. > >>> > >>> Best Regards, > >>> > >>> Rafik > >>> > >>> 2014-05-14 11:37 GMT+09:00 Klaus Stoll > : > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear Friends > >>> > >>> I am also interested serving in this working party. > >>> > >>> Yours > >>> > >>> Klaus > >>> > >>> > >>> On 5/13/2014 8:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >>> > >>> Dear PC members, > >>> > >>> we have here an important process where we should appoint members to > >>> GNSO review working group. we can appoint up to 6 members for NCSG. > >>> > >>> I think that Avri is already member. I am also interested to join this > >>> WG. > >>> > >>> the participation request time commitment for the next months and it is > >>> quite critical for us. > >>> > >>> I will share the call with the membership list, but as PC we should > >>> decide who will be our members in the WG. we have to send the names by > >>> 19th May > >>> > >>> Best Regards, > >>> > >>> Rafik > >>> > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry > >>> Date: 2014-05-13 1:04 GMT+09:00 > >>> Subject: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party > >>> To: Rafik Dammak > >>> Cc: Marika Konings < > marika.konings at icann.org>, "Larisa B. Gurnick" , > "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" < > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Dear Rafik, > >>> > >>> > >>> Please note the Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working > >>> Party and please note the very tight timeframe. > >>> Thank you. > >>> > >>> Kind regards, > >>> > >>> > >>> Glen > >>> > >>> *Summary* > >>> > >>> Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council > would > >>> like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to > >>> members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is > expected > >>> to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other > >>> Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer > >>> should they decide so. > >>> > >>> *Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party* > >>> > >>> The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: > >>> > >>> 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner > >>> and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; > >>> 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[1]; > >>> 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO > >>> constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; > >>> 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and > >>> comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping > to > >>> ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner > accurately > >>> reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; > >>> 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation > >>> Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; > >>> 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage > >>> participation. > >>> > >>> *Volunteer Requirements* > >>> > >>> The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include > >>> members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the > >>> make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry > >>> Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar > Stakeholder > >>> Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee > appointees, up > >>> to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 > representative > >>> from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives > from > >>> the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 > >>> representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition > to > >>> the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). > The > >>> activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an > open > >>> and fully transparent manner. > >>> > >>> Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in > >>> evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective > criteria > >>> would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to > >>> devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to > be 50 > >>> ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. > >>> Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multistakeholder > >>> model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. > >>> > >>> *Submitting candidates* > >>> > >>> Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their > own > >>> process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the > >>> requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed > >>> above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to > fill > >>> all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names > of > >>> the proposed candidates are submitted *by Monday 19 May at the > latest*as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates > should > >>> be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > ). > >>> > >>> *Background* > >>> > >>> The objective of the GNSO Review[2] is to examine organizational > >>> effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO > >>> Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and > Constituencies). > >>> The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly > >>> scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the > >>> independent examiner. > >>> > >>> Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation > >>> from the broader community are important components of this review > process. > >>> As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements > >>> Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working > Party > >>> be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent > >>> examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 > >>> Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification > and > >>> responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final > report is > >>> issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO > Review > >>> Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to > prepare > >>> an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement > >>> activities. > >>> > >>> Please see the recent announcement< > http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-22apr14-en.htm> < > http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-22apr14-en.htm> about > >>> the GNSO Review for additional information and background. > >>> > >>> > >>> *Further Information* > >>> > >>> > >>> Forming GNSO Review Working Party *Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO > >>> Review Working Party* > >>> > >>> *Summary* > >>> > >>> Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council > would > >>> like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to > >>> members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is > expected > >>> to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other > >>> Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer > >>> should they decide so. > >>> > >>> *Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party* > >>> > >>> The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: > >>> > >>> 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner > >>> and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; > >>> 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[3]; > >>> 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO > >>> constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; > >>> 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and > >>> comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping > to > >>> ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner > accurately > >>> reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; > >>> 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation > >>> Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; > >>> 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage > >>> participation. > >>> > >>> *Volunteer Requirements* > >>> > >>> The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include > >>> members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the > >>> make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry > >>> Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar > Stakeholder > >>> Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee > appointees, up > >>> to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 > representative > >>> from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives > from > >>> the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 > >>> representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition > to > >>> the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). > The > >>> activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an > open > >>> and fully transparent manner. > >>> > >>> Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in > >>> evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective > criteria > >>> would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to > >>> devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to > be 50 > >>> ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. > >>> Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multi-stakeholder > >>> model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. > >>> > >>> *Submitting candidates* > >>> > >>> Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their > own > >>> process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the > >>> requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed > >>> above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to > fill > >>> all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names > of > >>> the proposed candidates are submitted *by Monday 19 May at the > latest*as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates > should > >>> be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > ). > >>> > >>> *Background* > >>> > >>> The objective of the GNSO Review[4] is to examine organizational > >>> effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO > >>> Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and > Constituencies). > >>> The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly > >>> scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the > >>> independent examiner. > >>> > >>> Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation > >>> from the broader community are important components of this review > process. > >>> As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements > >>> Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working > Party > >>> be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent > >>> examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 > >>> Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification > and > >>> responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final > report is > >>> issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO > Review > >>> Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to > prepare > >>> an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement > >>> activities. > >>> > >>> Please see the recent announcement< > http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-22apr14-en.htm> < > http://gnso.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-22apr14-en.htm>about > the GNSO Review for additional information and background. > >>> > >>> > >>> *Further Information* > >>> > >>> > >>> ? Forming GNSO Review Working Party< > http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-06may14-en.pdf> < > http://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-review-06may14-en.pdf> > >>> > >>> > >>> ? GNSO Review Webinar< > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-23apr14-en.htm.> > .> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Glen de Saint G?ry > >>> > >>> GNSO Secretariat > >>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > >>> http://gnso.icann.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> [1] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize > >>> feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative > to > >>> objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN > >>> organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. > >>> > >>> [2] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws< > http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#IV> < > http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#IV> > >>> . > >>> > >>> [3] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize > >>> feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative > to > >>> objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN > >>> organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. > >>> > >>> [4] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws< > http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#IV> < > http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#IV> > >>> . > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp:// > mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp:// > mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Tue May 20 14:06:57 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 20:06:57 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Draft_NCSG_response?= =?utf-8?q?_to_=E2=80=9CEnhancing_ICANN=E2=80=99s_Accountability?= =?utf-8?b?4oCdLXByb2Nlc3Mu?= In-Reply-To: <537B34AB.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> References: <537B34AB.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: Hi everyone, We have this draft commenting ICANN accountability. The comment deadline is 27th may. I count on PC to act quickly. Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Niels ten Oever" Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing ICANN?s Accountability?-process. To: Cc: Dear all, Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from Brenden and Avri, have drafted a potential NCSG response to the ?Enhancing ICANN?s Accountability?-process. You can find it and comment here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be great if you could share your comments before Monday the 26th. Best, Niels Niels ten Oever Acting Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 562 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wjdrake Tue May 20 14:10:31 2014 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 13:10:31 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party In-Reply-To: <537ACAC2.7000203@apc.org> References: <5372D705.3080106@gkpfoundation.org> <377AFB1E-C31A-4E45-963C-EE3BB017A6EF@isoc.be> <537AC885.6060803@apc.org> <537ACAC2.7000203@apc.org> Message-ID: <5BA5444C-67AD-44D9-8E2A-C1910115F26C@gmail.com> Well those should be good conversation fodder! :-) (other) Bill On May 20, 2014, at 5:23 AM, joy wrote: > Sure we could start with: > + please give 3 examples of the issues that are of concern to the > non-commercial stakeholder group > + identify how you have weighed NCSG issues in the balance against other > non-contracted party house groups in your role as a Board member (shall > we ask for some specific cases?) > + in what ways do you consider yourself representative of and > accountable to NSCG in your Board role? > + please explain your lack of engagement with NCSG during your tenure on > the Board and why you believe you merit a further term. > > > On 20/05/2014 3:15 p.m., Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Thanks Joy! we should discuss the points we wants to talk with Bill. >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-05-20 12:14 GMT+09:00 joy : >> >>> Hi Rafik - I have also filled in the doodle poll and am happy to join >>> this call >>> joy >>> On 20/05/2014 3:11 p.m., Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Hello everyone, >>> >>> seeing no objection and because the deadline, I will send the list to GNSO >>> secretariat: Amr, Avri, Klaus. Rudi and myself. >>> however, if needed I can send updated list to Glen if PC members has any >>> comment. >>> >>> Best Regards. >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2014-05-19 16:56 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : >>> >>> >>> Rudi, >>> >>> thanks, I think that you didn't mention your own candidature, but you said >>> you will get back with names. I will add your name anyway. >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2014-05-19 16:51 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : >>> >>> I thought I mentioned earlier my candidature for this WG. So add my name >>> >>> to this list. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Rudi Vansnick >>> NPOC chair Policy Committee >>> NPOC treasurerrudi.vansnick at npoc.org >>> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 >>> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32www.npoc.org >>> >>> Op 19-mei-2014, om 02:17 heeft Rafik Dammak het >>> volgende geschreven: >>> >>> Hi everybody, >>> >>> I have to send names by today, we have till now: Amr, Avri, Klaus and >>> myself. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2014-05-14 11:37 GMT+09:00 Klaus Stoll : >>> >>> >>> Dear Friends >>> >>> I am also interested serving in this working party. >>> >>> Yours >>> >>> Klaus >>> >>> >>> On 5/13/2014 8:15 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>> Dear PC members, >>> >>> we have here an important process where we should appoint members to >>> GNSO review working group. we can appoint up to 6 members for NCSG. >>> >>> I think that Avri is already member. I am also interested to join this >>> WG. >>> >>> the participation request time commitment for the next months and it is >>> quite critical for us. >>> >>> I will share the call with the membership list, but as PC we should >>> decide who will be our members in the WG. we have to send the names by >>> 19th May >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: Glen de Saint G?ry >>> Date: 2014-05-13 1:04 GMT+09:00 >>> Subject: Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working Party >>> To: Rafik Dammak >>> Cc: Marika Konings , "Larisa B. Gurnick" , "gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org" >> >>> >>> >>> Dear Rafik, >>> >>> >>> Please note the Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO Review Working >>> Party and please note the very tight timeframe. >>> Thank you. >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> >>> Glen >>> >>> *Summary* >>> >>> Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would >>> like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to >>> members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected >>> to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other >>> Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer >>> should they decide so. >>> >>> *Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party* >>> >>> The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: >>> >>> 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner >>> and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; >>> 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[1]; >>> 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO >>> constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; >>> 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and >>> comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to >>> ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately >>> reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; >>> 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation >>> Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; >>> 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage >>> participation. >>> >>> *Volunteer Requirements* >>> >>> The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include >>> members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the >>> make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry >>> Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder >>> Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up >>> to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative >>> from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from >>> the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 >>> representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to >>> the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The >>> activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open >>> and fully transparent manner. >>> >>> Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in >>> evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria >>> would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to >>> devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 >>> ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. >>> Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multistakeholder >>> model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. >>> >>> *Submitting candidates* >>> >>> Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own >>> process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the >>> requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed >>> above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill >>> all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of >>> the proposed candidates are submitted *by Monday 19 May at the latest*as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should >>> be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). >>> >>> *Background* >>> >>> The objective of the GNSO Review[2] is to examine organizational >>> effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO >>> Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). >>> The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly >>> scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the >>> independent examiner. >>> >>> Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation >>> from the broader community are important components of this review process. >>> As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements >>> Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party >>> be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent >>> examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 >>> Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and >>> responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is >>> issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review >>> Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare >>> an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement >>> activities. >>> >>> Please see the recent announcement about >>> the GNSO Review for additional information and background. >>> >>> >>> *Further Information* >>> >>> >>> Forming GNSO Review Working Party *Call for GNSO Members - Forming GNSO >>> Review Working Party* >>> >>> *Summary* >>> >>> Following the GNSO Council meeting on 8 May 2014, the GNSO Council would >>> like to extend the invitation to join the GNSO Review Working Party to >>> members of the GNSO community. The make-up of the Working Party is expected >>> to reflect that of the GNSO community, with the opportunity for other >>> Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees to appoint an observer >>> should they decide so. >>> >>> *Tasks of the GNSO Review Working Group Party* >>> >>> The task of the GNSO Review Working Group Party will be to: >>> >>> 1. Function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent examiner >>> and the Board?s Structural Improvements Committee; >>> 2. Provide input on review criteria and the 360 Assessment[3]; >>> 3. Serve as additional conduit for input from, and requests to, GNSO >>> constituencies/stakeholder groups, Council; >>> 4. Act as sounding board: offer objective guidance, reactions and >>> comments to any preliminary conclusions and assessment and helping to >>> ensure the draft report issued by the independent examiner accurately >>> reflects the GNSO structure, scope and dynamics; >>> 5. Coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare an Implementation >>> Plan and champion implementation of improvement activities; >>> 6. Perform support communication/awareness activities to encourage >>> participation. >>> >>> *Volunteer Requirements* >>> >>> The membership of the GNSO Review Working Party is proposed to include >>> members representing the diversity of the GNSO community, mirroring the >>> make-up of the GNSO Council (up to 3 representatives from the Registry >>> Stakeholder Group, up to 3 representatives from the Registrar Stakeholder >>> Group, up to 2 representatives from the Nominating Committee appointees, up >>> to 2 representatives from the Business Constituency, up to 2 representative >>> from the Intellectual Property Constituency, up to 2 representatives from >>> the Internet Service and Connectivity Providers Constituency, up to 6 >>> representatives from the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group, in addition to >>> the possibility for other SO/ACs to appoint 1 observer to the effort). The >>> activities of the GNSO Review Working Party will be conducted in an open >>> and fully transparent manner. >>> >>> Knowledge of the GNSO structure and operations as well as experience in >>> evaluating performance and processes based on a set of objective criteria >>> would be useful. Members are expected to participate actively and to >>> devote sufficient time to the process. Time commitment is expected to be 50 >>> ? 80 hours within the next 9 months, with work commencing immediately. >>> Commitment to and compliance with ICANN?s bottom-up, multi-stakeholder >>> model, and accountability and transparency ethics are a requirement. >>> >>> *Submitting candidates* >>> >>> Each Stakeholder Group / Constituency is expected to determine their own >>> process for selecting members for this effort taking into account the >>> requirements, especially in relation to expected time commitment listed >>> above. Stakeholder Groups/Constituencies may, but are not required to fill >>> all the slots allocated to their respective groups. Ideally the names of >>> the proposed candidates are submitted *by Monday 19 May at the latest*as work has already commenced. The names of the proposed candidates should >>> be submitted to the GNSO Secretariat (gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org). >>> >>> *Background* >>> >>> The objective of the GNSO Review[4] is to examine organizational >>> effectiveness of the GNSO, including its structure components (GNSO >>> Council, GNSO Working Groups, GNSO Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies). >>> The review scheduled to begin on or about 1 July 2014 will be tightly >>> scoped based on objective and quantifiable criteria provided to the >>> independent examiner. >>> >>> Involvement of the GNSO community as well as input and participation >>> from the broader community are important components of this review process. >>> As discussed in GNSO Council meetings, the Structural Improvements >>> Committee of the Board (SIC) has requested that a GNSO Review Working Party >>> be assembled to function as a liaison between the GNSO, the independent >>> examiner and the SIC, to provide input on review criteria and the 360 >>> Assessment, coordinate interviews and objectively supply clarification and >>> responses to the draft findings and recommendations. Once a final report is >>> issued and the Board takes action on it, as appropriate, the GNSO Review >>> Working Party is expected to coordinate with the GNSO community to prepare >>> an Implementation Plan and champion implementation of improvement >>> activities. >>> >>> Please see the recent announcement about the GNSO Review for additional information and background. >>> >>> >>> *Further Information* >>> >>> >>> ? Forming GNSO Review Working Party >>> >>> >>> ? GNSO Review Webinar >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Glen de Saint G?ry >>> >>> GNSO Secretariat >>> gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org >>> http://gnso.icann.org >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> [1] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize >>> feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative to >>> objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN >>> organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. >>> >>> [2] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws >>> . >>> >>> [3] 360 Assessment is an online mechanism to collect and summarize >>> feedback from members of the GNSO community ? a "self-review" relative to >>> objective and quantifiable criteria. Interested members of other ICANN >>> organizations, Board and staff also may offer feedback. >>> >>> [4] GNSO Review is mandated by ICANN?s Bylaws >>> . >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing listPC-NCSG at ipjustice.orghttp://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 rafik.dammak Wed May 21 03:55:07 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 09:55:07 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, here the transcripts of the confcall between CSG and Sam. I will ask them when they will respond to us. Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Metalitz, Steven Date: 2014-05-21 4:36 GMT+09:00 Subject: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 To: Rafik Dammak Rafik, For circulation to NCSG. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Nathalie Peregrine [mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:48 AM To: Rosette, Kristina; Metalitz, Steven; tony holmes ( tonyarholmes at btinternet.com); Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ( Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de); Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com; marilynscade at hotmail.com; harris at cabase.org.ar Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 Dear all, Please find attached the transcript of the CSG call held with Sam Lanfranco on May 19th 2014. Kind regards Nathalie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: transcript.doc Type: application/msword Size: 129024 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak Wed May 21 15:29:07 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 21:29:07 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [liaison6c] Please comment: Proposed Implementation of GNSO PDP Recommendations on Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings - Revised UDRP Rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Glen de Saint G?ry Date: 2014-05-21 16:52 GMT+09:00 Subject: [liaison6c] Please comment: Proposed Implementation of GNSO PDP Recommendations on Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings - Revised UDRP Rules To: liaison6c Proposed Implementation of GNSO PDP Recommendations on Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings - Revised UDRP Rules https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-05-20-en https://www.icann.org/public-comments/udrp-rules-proposed-2014-05-19-en Follow Updates 1. Comment Phase: Ends 18 Jun 2014 23:59 UTC 2. Reply Phase: Ends 18 Jul 2014 23:59 UTC 3. Summary and Review Evaluation and Decision During this phase your comments are reviewed by the body that asked for input/feedback and evaluations are made about how to proceed based on the comments. Contents - Brief Overview - Submit Comment to Forum - Comments Forum - Dates - Section I: Description, Explanation & Purpose - Section II: Background - Section III: Relevant Resources - Section IV: Additional Information - Staff Contact Brief Overview Obtain community input on the proposed implementation of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Policy Development Process (PDP) recommendations on the Locking of a Domain Name subject to Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP)s. Comment Period: 19 May 2014 - 18 Jun 2014 23:59 UTC Reply Period: 19 Jun 2014 - 18 Jul 2014 23:59 UTC Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose The Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) unanimously approvedat its meeting on 1 August 2013 the recommendations of the Locking of a Domain Name subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Working Group. The 17 recommendations, which were adopted by the ICANN Board 28 September 2013, are intended to clarify and standardize the process for locking of a domain name subject to UDRP Proceedings, including: - Definition of 'locking' - Requiring registrar to apply lock within 2 business days following request for verification - Removing obligation for complainant to notify the respondent at the time of filing, but add automatic extension of 4 days to response time upon request - Step by step clarification of requirements of different parties involved - Development of educational and informational materials to assist in informing affected parties of new requirements and recommended best practices For the full details of these recommendations, you are encouraged to review section 7 of the Final Report[PDF, 1 MB] as well as the Board resolution adopting these recommendations (see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-28sep13-en.htm#1.c ). In consultation with the GNSO Implementation Review Team, which was formed as directed by the GNSO Council to work with ICANN Staff to ensure that the resultant implementation fulfills the intentions of the approved policy recommendations, ICANN Staff reviewed the UDRP Rules and has proposed revisions as outlined in this redline version[PDF, 202 KB] to implement the GNSO PDP Recommendations which include amongst others: - Addition of the definition of "Lock" and pendency; - Deletion of the requirement for the complainant to notify the respondent; - Updates to the section concerning the notification of complaint to reflect amongst others the requirement for the registrar to lock the domain name registration within 2 business days following a request for verification from the UDRP Provider; - Updates to the section concerning response to add, amongst others, the automatic extension of 4 days to response time upon request by the respondent; - Updates to the section concerning settlement or other grounds for termination to add the steps of a settlement process. ICANN Staff and the GNSO Implementation Review Team are now looking for input on the proposed revisions to the UDRP rules, which aim to satisfy the intent of the GNSO Policy Recommendations. Furthermore, any feedback on the expected time needed for affected parties to implement the revised UDRP rules before coming into effect, would be appreciated. The current plan is to announce implementation in November or December with a six-month implementation deadline. Section II: Background Currently there is no requirement to lock names in period between filing complaint and commencement of proceedings and no definition of 'status quo', which has resulted in different interpretations and confusion of the UDRP. To address this issue, the GNSO Council decided to initiate a Policy Development Process on 15 December 2011. As part of its deliberations, the WG was required to consider the following questions: 1. Whether the creation of an outline of a proposed procedure, which a complainant must follow in order for a registrar to place a domain name on registrar lock, would be desirable. 2. Whether the creation of an outline of the steps of the process that a registrar can reasonably expect to take place during a UDRP dispute would be desirable. 3. Whether the time frame by which a registrar must lock a domain after a UDRP has been filed should be standardized. 4a. Whether what constitutes a "locked" domain name should be defined. 4b. Whether, once a domain name is 'locked' pursuant to a UDRP proceeding, the registrant information for that domain name may be changed or modified. 5. Whether additional safeguards should be created for the protection of registrants in cases where the domain name is locked subject to a UDRP proceeding. The Working Group published its Initial Report for public comment on 15 March 2013 (see http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/locking-domain-name-15mar13-en.htm), followed by its Final Report (see Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Final Report[PDF, 1 MB]) on 5 July 2013. The GNSO unanimously approved the recommendations at its meeting on 1 August 2013 followed by the ICANN Board on 28 September 2013. Section III: Relevant Resources - Revised UDRP Rules[PDF, 202 KB] - Locking of a Domain Name Subject to UDRP Proceedings PDP Final Report[PDF, 1 MB] - Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy - Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (current version) Section IV: Additional Information None Staff Contact Caitlin Tubergen caitlin.tubergen at icann.org Glen de Saint G?ry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Thu May 22 04:31:51 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 10:31:51 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] NCSG Teleconference with Bill Graham In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello, reminder to fill the doodle poll. Best Regards, Rafik 2014-05-20 9:02 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi everyone, > > please fill your availability in the doodle poll, it is about the confcall > with Bill Graham prior to London meeting. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Glen de Saint G?ry > Date: 2014-05-19 23:44 GMT+09:00 > Subject: With LINK! NCSG Teleconference between ICANN Meetings > To: Bill Graham , Rafik Dammak < > rafik.dammak at gmail.com> > Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" > > > > > Dear Bill and Rafik, > > > > Please send the doodle poll to the appropriate mailing lists. > > > > Please complete the doodle poll below to find a suitable time for a call > of the NCSG and Bill Graham. > > http://doodle.com/a9f5kvtv68fd74z3 > > > > > > Thank you. > > Kind regards, > > > > Glen > > > > Glen de Saint G?ry > > GNSO Secretariat > > gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org > > http://gnso.icann.org > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rudi.vansnick Thu May 22 11:08:53 2014 From: rudi.vansnick (Rudi Vansnick) Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 10:08:53 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?windows-1252?q?=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Draft_NCSG_response?= =?windows-1252?q?_to_=93Enhancing_ICANN=92s_Accountability=94-process=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <537B34AB.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> Message-ID: <6B0F6FB4-ADD3-427E-B6F6-58100BA6B7CE@isoc.be> If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the proposed document (googledoc) a week ago. Maria, can you proceed ? Kind regards, Rudi Vansnick NPOC chair Policy Committee NPOC treasurer rudi.vansnick at npoc.org Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 www.npoc.org Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak het volgende geschreven: > Hi everyone, > > We have this draft commenting ICANN accountability. The comment deadline is 27th may. > I count on PC to act quickly. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Niels ten Oever" > Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM > Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing ICANN?s Accountability?-process. > To: > Cc: > > Dear all, > > Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from Brenden and Avri, have > drafted a potential NCSG response to the ?Enhancing ICANN?s > Accountability?-process. You can find it and comment here: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing > > The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be great if you could > share your comments before Monday the 26th. > > Best, > > Niels > > > Niels ten Oever > Acting Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Thu May 22 15:17:12 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 08:17:12 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?windows-1252?q?=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Draft_NCSG_response?= =?windows-1252?q?_to_=93Enhancing_ICANN=92s_Accountability=94-process=2E?= In-Reply-To: <6B0F6FB4-ADD3-427E-B6F6-58100BA6B7CE@isoc.be> References: <537B34AB.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <6B0F6FB4-ADD3-427E-B6F6-58100BA6B7CE@isoc.be> Message-ID: <537DEAC8.6010302@acm.org> Hi, I do not recall a decsion to approve. Maybe you can point to it. In any case, I think I am close to agreeing to the text, but there were a few things i thought needed to be fixed, which I noted in the government before I was ready to agree. for example, i do not accpt the undefine - no ICANN members - prohibition. No Board or Staff sure, but no registrants, no volunteer policy workers? I do not believe this was agreed to. But if i slept through a last call that you called Rudi, I am willing to stand down because i will have missed my chance. avri On 22-May-14 04:08, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the proposed document > (googledoc) a week ago. > > Maria, can you proceed ? > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > NPOC chair Policy Committee > NPOC treasurer > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 > www.npoc.org > > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak > het volgende geschreven: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> We have this draft commenting ICANN accountability. The comment >> deadline is 27th may. >> I count on PC to act quickly. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Niels ten Oever" > > >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing ICANN?s >> Accountability?-process. >> To: > >> Cc: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from Brenden and Avri, have >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the ?Enhancing ICANN?s >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and comment here: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing >> >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be great if you could >> share your comments before Monday the 26th. >> >> Best, >> >> Niels >> >> >> Niels ten Oever >> Acting Head of Digital >> >> Article 19 >> www.article19.org >> >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From rafik.dammak Thu May 22 15:22:59 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 21:22:59 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Draft_NCSG_response_to_?= =?utf-8?b?4oCcRW5oYW5jaW5nIElDQU5O4oCZcyBBY2NvdW50YWJpbGl0eeKAnS1w?= =?utf-8?q?rocess=2E?= In-Reply-To: <6B0F6FB4-ADD3-427E-B6F6-58100BA6B7CE@isoc.be> References: <537B34AB.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <6B0F6FB4-ADD3-427E-B6F6-58100BA6B7CE@isoc.be> Message-ID: Hi Rudi, no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are getting comments now. Rafik 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the proposed document > (googledoc) a week ago. > > Maria, can you proceed ? > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > NPOC chair Policy Committee > NPOC treasurer > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 > www.npoc.org > > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak het > volgende geschreven: > > Hi everyone, > > We have this draft commenting ICANN accountability. The comment deadline > is 27th may. > I count on PC to act quickly. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Niels ten Oever" > Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM > Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing ICANN?s > Accountability?-process. > To: > Cc: > > Dear all, > > Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from Brenden and Avri, have > drafted a potential NCSG response to the ?Enhancing ICANN?s > Accountability?-process. You can find it and comment here: > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing > > The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be great if you could > share your comments before Monday the 26th. > > Best, > > Niels > > > Niels ten Oever > Acting Head of Digital > > Article 19 > www.article19.org > > PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Thu May 22 17:47:04 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 15:47:04 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Draft_NCSG_response_to_?= =?utf-8?b?4oCcRW5oYW5jaW5nIElDQU5O4oCZcyBBY2NvdW50YWJpbGl0eeKAnS1w?= =?utf-8?q?rocess=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <537B34AB.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <6B0F6FB4-ADD3-427E-B6F6-58100BA6B7CE@isoc.be> Message-ID: Hi guys, No final call has yet been made. Avri, would you mind marking up the text with your suggestions and re-circulating? Many thanks, Maria On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Rudi, > > no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are getting comments now. > > Rafik > > > 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick : > > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the proposed document >> (googledoc) a week ago. >> >> Maria, can you proceed ? >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Rudi Vansnick >> NPOC chair Policy Committee >> NPOC treasurer >> rudi.vansnick at npoc.org >> Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 >> Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >> www.npoc.org >> >> Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak het >> volgende geschreven: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> We have this draft commenting ICANN accountability. The comment deadline >> is 27th may. >> I count on PC to act quickly. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Niels ten Oever" >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing ICANN?s >> Accountability?-process. >> To: >> Cc: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from Brenden and Avri, have >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the ?Enhancing ICANN?s >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and comment here: >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing >> >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be great if you could >> share your comments before Monday the 26th. >> >> Best, >> >> Niels >> >> >> Niels ten Oever >> Acting Head of Digital >> >> Article 19 >> www.article19.org >> >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri Thu May 22 19:55:46 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 12:55:46 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?windows-1252?q?=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Draft_NCSG_response?= =?windows-1252?q?_to_=93Enhancing_ICANN=92s_Accountability=94-process=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <537B34AB.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <6B0F6FB4-ADD3-427E-B6F6-58100BA6B7CE@isoc.be> Message-ID: <537E2C12.3000001@acm.org> hi, had already indicated it in comments. have now added words to Rafik's added words. added some other weasel words too in response to some of Milton's concerns. when do we get a lock down on the language and a removal of brackets. [we have become so ITU.] avri On 22-May-14 10:47, Maria Farrell wrote: > Hi guys, > > No final call has yet been made. Avri, would you mind marking up the > text with your suggestions and re-circulating? > > Many thanks, Maria > > > On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak > wrote: > > Hi Rudi, > > no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are getting > comments now. > > Rafik > > > 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick >: > > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the proposed > document (googledoc) a week ago. > > Maria, can you proceed ? > > Kind regards, > > Rudi Vansnick > NPOC chair Policy Committee > NPOC treasurer > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 > www.npoc.org > > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak > > het > volgende geschreven: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> We have this draft commenting ICANN accountability. The >> comment deadline is 27th may. >> I count on PC to act quickly. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Niels ten Oever" > > >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing >> ICANN?s Accountability?-process. >> To: > > >> Cc: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from Brenden and >> Avri, have >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the ?Enhancing ICANN?s >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and comment here: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing >> >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be great if you >> could >> share your comments before Monday the 26th. >> >> Best, >> >> Niels >> >> >> Niels ten Oever >> Acting Head of Digital >> >> Article 19 >> www.article19.org >> >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D >> 68E9 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From rafik.dammak Fri May 23 08:42:12 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 14:42:12 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Draft_NCSG_response_to_?= =?utf-8?b?4oCcRW5oYW5jaW5nIElDQU5O4oCZcyBBY2NvdW50YWJpbGl0eeKAnS1w?= =?utf-8?q?rocess=2E?= In-Reply-To: <537E2C12.3000001@acm.org> References: <537B34AB.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <6B0F6FB4-ADD3-427E-B6F6-58100BA6B7CE@isoc.be> <537E2C12.3000001@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Avri, Niels and Gabrielle will answers comments soon. and yes we should lockdown on language soon. hope that next comments would propose some wording. I think we will be more efficient than ITU.. hopefully :) Best Regards, Rafik 2014-05-23 1:55 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > hi, > > had already indicated it in comments. have now added words to Rafik's > added words. > > added some other weasel words too in response to some of Milton's concerns. > > when do we get a lock down on the language and a removal of brackets. > > [we have become so ITU.] > > avri > > > On 22-May-14 10:47, Maria Farrell wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > No final call has yet been made. Avri, would you mind marking up the > > text with your suggestions and re-circulating? > > > > Many thanks, Maria > > > > > > On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: > > > > Hi Rudi, > > > > no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are getting > > comments now. > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick > >: > > > > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the proposed > > document (googledoc) a week ago. > > > > Maria, can you proceed ? > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Rudi Vansnick > > NPOC chair Policy Committee > > NPOC treasurer > > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org > > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 > > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 > > www.npoc.org > > > > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak > > > het > > volgende geschreven: > > > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> We have this draft commenting ICANN accountability. The > >> comment deadline is 27th may. > >> I count on PC to act quickly. > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: "Niels ten Oever" >> > > >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM > >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing > >> ICANN?s Accountability?-process. > >> To: >> > > >> Cc: > >> > >> Dear all, > >> > >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from Brenden and > >> Avri, have > >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the ?Enhancing ICANN?s > >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and comment here: > >> > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing > >> > >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be great if you > >> could > >> share your comments before Monday the 26th. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Niels > >> > >> > >> Niels ten Oever > >> Acting Head of Digital > >> > >> Article 19 > >> www.article19.org > >> > >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D > >> 68E9 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Sat May 24 00:45:21 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 17:45:21 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] ICANN Announcement on Whois Requirements and National Law Conflicts References: Message-ID: <352E85E1-3A83-4217-929D-F41A46228BEC@mail.utoronto.ca> Folks this is really important, and the window to submit comments is not that long. You might have thought that I would have known this was coming, given that I am spending hours every week working on privacy issues at the EWG, on Whois, but you would be wrong, I had no clue this was coming. ICANN is an odd place. Anyway, we need volunteers to help draft comments. Kind regards, Stephanie Perrin Begin forwarded message: > From: Don Blumenthal > Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] ICANN Announcement on Whois Requirements and National Law Conflicts > Date: May 23, 2014 at 5:16:42 PM EDT > To: PPSAI > > I expect that this announcement will interest many WG members. I am passing it along for people who are not on the ICANN News email list. > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-05-22-en > > Don > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Sat May 24 04:20:03 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 24 May 2014 10:20:03 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: RE: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, CSG still discussing about Sam candidature. Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Metalitz, Steven" Date: May 24, 2014 4:01 AM Subject: RE: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 To: "Rafik Dammak" Cc: Hi Rafik, > > > > We had a CSG leadership call on this today and are undertaking further > consultation within our constituencies on a couple of points. We are to > meet again next Friday. > > > > Steve > > > > *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:56 PM > *To:* Metalitz, Steven > *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 > > > > Hi Steve, > > > > is it possible to know when CSG will respond to us about Sam candidature? > > > > Best Regards, > > > Rafik > > > > 2014-05-21 9:53 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > > Thanks Steve, > > > > Rafik > > > > 2014-05-21 4:36 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven : > > > > Rafik, > > For circulation to NCSG. > > Steve > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nathalie Peregrine [mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org] > Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:48 AM > To: Rosette, Kristina; Metalitz, Steven; tony holmes ( > tonyarholmes at btinternet.com); Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ( > Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de); Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com; > marilynscade at hotmail.com; harris at cabase.org.ar > Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org > Subject: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 > > Dear all, > > Please find attached the transcript of the CSG call held with Sam > Lanfranco on May 19th 2014. > > Kind regards > > Nathalie > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mariliamaciel Mon May 26 02:03:08 2014 From: mariliamaciel (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 20:03:08 -0300 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Draft_NCSG_response_to_?= =?utf-8?b?4oCcRW5oYW5jaW5nIElDQU5O4oCZcyBBY2NvdW50YWJpbGl0eeKAnS1w?= =?utf-8?q?rocess=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <537B34AB.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <6B0F6FB4-ADD3-427E-B6F6-58100BA6B7CE@isoc.be> <537E2C12.3000001@acm.org> Message-ID: Thanks, Rafik. Made a few comments, mostly on top of others. Good contribution. Thanks to folks of Article 19 and others who worked on it. Best, Mar?lia On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Avri, > > Niels and Gabrielle will answers comments soon. and yes we should lockdown > on language soon. hope that next comments would propose some wording. > I think we will be more efficient than ITU.. hopefully :) > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > 2014-05-23 1:55 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > > hi, >> >> had already indicated it in comments. have now added words to Rafik's >> added words. >> >> added some other weasel words too in response to some of Milton's >> concerns. >> >> when do we get a lock down on the language and a removal of brackets. >> >> [we have become so ITU.] >> >> avri >> >> >> On 22-May-14 10:47, Maria Farrell wrote: >> > Hi guys, >> > >> > No final call has yet been made. Avri, would you mind marking up the >> > text with your suggestions and re-circulating? >> > >> > Many thanks, Maria >> > >> > >> > On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak > > > wrote: >> > >> > Hi Rudi, >> > >> > no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are getting >> > comments now. >> > >> > Rafik >> > >> > >> > 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick > > >: >> > >> > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the proposed >> > document (googledoc) a week ago. >> > >> > Maria, can you proceed ? >> > >> > Kind regards, >> > >> > Rudi Vansnick >> > NPOC chair Policy Committee >> > NPOC treasurer >> > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org >> > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 >> > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >> > www.npoc.org >> > >> > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak >> > > het >> > volgende geschreven: >> > >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> >> >> We have this draft commenting ICANN accountability. The >> >> comment deadline is 27th may. >> >> I count on PC to act quickly. >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >> From: "Niels ten Oever" > >> > >> >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM >> >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing >> >> ICANN?s Accountability?-process. >> >> To: > >> > >> >> Cc: >> >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from Brenden and >> >> Avri, have >> >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the ?Enhancing ICANN?s >> >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and comment here: >> >> >> >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be great if you >> >> could >> >> share your comments before Monday the 26th. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Niels >> >> >> >> >> >> Niels ten Oever >> >> Acting Head of Digital >> >> >> >> Article 19 >> >> www.article19.org >> >> >> >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D >> >> 68E9 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > PC-NCSG mailing list >> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -- *Mar?lia Maciel* Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Mon May 26 07:12:47 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 13:12:47 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] meeting with Bill Graham Wednesday 15:00 UTC Message-ID: Hi everyone , the call with Bill Graham will be in Wednesday 15:00 UTC, I will send the confcall details when I receive them Bill asked about the list of topics we want to discuss. so I compiled what Joy and Avri suggested, but others should recommend topics too. @Avri can you please clarify what you mean by separation? Best Regards, Rafik Topics (tenative): * please give 3 examples of the issues that are of concern to the non-commercial stakeholder group * identify how you have weighed NCSG issues in the balance against other non-contracted party house groups in your role as a Board member (shall we ask for some specific cases?) * in what ways do you consider yourself representative of and accountable to NSCG in your Board role? * please explain your lack of engagement with NCSG during your tenure on the Board and why you believe you merit a further term. * focus on current issues and where you stands on issues (e.g. separation) and explain your vote: * on .amazon; * where you stands on next steps for the TMCH+50 action; * what is happening with excess funds that can be expected from the auctions about to begin; * what does you think about the problem issues with ICANN privacy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Mon May 26 07:33:06 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 13:33:06 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] ICANN Announcement on Whois Requirements and National Law Conflicts In-Reply-To: <352E85E1-3A83-4217-929D-F41A46228BEC@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <352E85E1-3A83-4217-929D-F41A46228BEC@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, thanks for sharing this, the public comments from ICANN are piling and sounds never ending. yes we need volunteers to draft, do you think that you can lead and coordinate them ? Best Regards, Rafik 2014-05-24 6:45 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: > Folks this is really important, and the window to submit comments is not > that long. You might have thought that I would have known this was coming, > given that I am spending hours every week working on privacy issues at the > EWG, on Whois, but you would be wrong, I had no clue this was coming. > ICANN is an odd place. > Anyway, we need volunteers to help draft comments. > Kind regards, > Stephanie Perrin > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Don Blumenthal > *Subject: **[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] ICANN Announcement on Whois Requirements > and National Law Conflicts* > *Date: *May 23, 2014 at 5:16:42 PM EDT > *To: *PPSAI > > I expect that this announcement will interest many WG members. I am > passing it along for people who are not on the ICANN News email list. > > https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-05-22-en > > Don > _______________________________________________ > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list > Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Mon May 26 08:34:37 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 14:34:37 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Draft_NCSG_response_to_?= =?utf-8?b?4oCcRW5oYW5jaW5nIElDQU5O4oCZcyBBY2NvdW50YWJpbGl0eeKAnS1w?= =?utf-8?q?rocess=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <537B34AB.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <6B0F6FB4-ADD3-427E-B6F6-58100BA6B7CE@isoc.be> <537E2C12.3000001@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Marilia, thanks for the review and commenting. the deadline to submit was Tuesday 23:59 UTC but checking the announcement, we get 3 additional days because the technical issuers with migration to new website ( https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en ). Policy Committee should endorse asap. I think that Maria will handle the last call as PC chair. then having the green light I will submit before the deadline. there will be reply period after this and I think we can expand with another comment about missing parts or clarifying others, in addition to commenting the contributions of other groups. Niels and Gabrielle are working on resolving remaining questions in the document. Best Regards, Rafik 2014-05-26 8:03 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel : > Thanks, Rafik. Made a few comments, mostly on top of others. > Good contribution. Thanks to folks of Article 19 and others who worked on > it. > Best, > Mar?lia > > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Avri, >> >> Niels and Gabrielle will answers comments soon. and yes we should >> lockdown on language soon. hope that next comments would propose some >> wording. >> I think we will be more efficient than ITU.. hopefully :) >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2014-05-23 1:55 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : >> >> hi, >>> >>> had already indicated it in comments. have now added words to Rafik's >>> added words. >>> >>> added some other weasel words too in response to some of Milton's >>> concerns. >>> >>> when do we get a lock down on the language and a removal of brackets. >>> >>> [we have become so ITU.] >>> >>> avri >>> >>> >>> On 22-May-14 10:47, Maria Farrell wrote: >>> > Hi guys, >>> > >>> > No final call has yet been made. Avri, would you mind marking up the >>> > text with your suggestions and re-circulating? >>> > >>> > Many thanks, Maria >>> > >>> > >>> > On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak >> > > wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi Rudi, >>> > >>> > no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are getting >>> > comments now. >>> > >>> > Rafik >>> > >>> > >>> > 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick >> > >: >>> > >>> > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the proposed >>> > document (googledoc) a week ago. >>> > >>> > Maria, can you proceed ? >>> > >>> > Kind regards, >>> > >>> > Rudi Vansnick >>> > NPOC chair Policy Committee >>> > NPOC treasurer >>> > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org >>> > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 >>> > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >>> > www.npoc.org >>> > >>> > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak >>> > > het >>> > volgende geschreven: >>> > >>> >> Hi everyone, >>> >> >>> >> We have this draft commenting ICANN accountability. The >>> >> comment deadline is 27th may. >>> >> I count on PC to act quickly. >>> >> >>> >> Best Regards, >>> >> >>> >> Rafik >>> >> >>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> >> From: "Niels ten Oever" >> >> > >>> >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM >>> >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing >>> >> ICANN?s Accountability?-process. >>> >> To: >> >> > >>> >> Cc: >>> >> >>> >> Dear all, >>> >> >>> >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from Brenden and >>> >> Avri, have >>> >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the ?Enhancing ICANN?s >>> >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and comment here: >>> >> >>> >> >>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing >>> >> >>> >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be great if you >>> >> could >>> >> share your comments before Monday the 26th. >>> >> >>> >> Best, >>> >> >>> >> Niels >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Niels ten Oever >>> >> Acting Head of Digital >>> >> >>> >> Article 19 >>> >> www.article19.org >>> >> >>> >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D >>> >> 68E9 >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > > > -- > *Mar?lia Maciel* > Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law > School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ > Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - > http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Mon May 26 10:55:28 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 16:55:28 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCSG call with Bill Graham Wednesday 28th May 2014 1500 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FYI the details for confcall with Bill Graham this wednesday 15:00 UTC please check previous email about the topics to discuss with him. Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nathalie Peregrine Date: 2014-05-26 16:00 GMT+09:00 Subject: NCSG call with Bill Graham Wednesday 28th May 2014 1500 UTC To: Rafik Dammak Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" Dear Rafik, The NCSG call with Bill Graham is therefore scheduled for the *Wednesday 28th May 2014 1500 UTC;* *Please find the AC room and dial in details here, please share with your members and with Bill Graham (*bill.graham at icann.org) *Adobe Connect room*: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/_a819976787/ncsg/?launcher=false *Passcodes/Pin codes:* Participant passcode: NCSG *For security reasons, the passcode will be required to join the conference. * *Dial in numbers:* *Country* *Toll Numbers* *Freephone/Toll Free Number* ARGENTINA 0800-777-0519 AUSTRALIA ADELAIDE: 61-8-8121-4842 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA BRISBANE: 61-7-3102-0944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA CANBERRA: 61-2-6100-1944 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA MELBOURNE: 61-3-9010-7713 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA PERTH: 61-8-9467-5223 1-800-657-260 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY: 61-2-8205-8129 1-800-657-260 AUSTRIA 43-1-92-81-113 0800-005-259 BELGIUM 32-2-400-9861 0800-3-8795 BRAZIL 55-11-3958-0779 0800-7610651 CHILE 1230-020-2863 CHINA CHINA A: 86-400-810-4789 10800-712-1670 CHINA CHINA B: 86-400-810-4789 10800-120-1670 COLOMBIA 01800-9-156474 CROATIA 080-08-06-309 CZECH REPUBLIC 420-2-25-98-56-64 800-700-177 DENMARK 45-7014-0284 8088-8324 ESTONIA 800-011-1093 FINLAND 358-9-5424-7162 0-800-9-14610 FRANCE LYON: 33-4-26-69-12-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE MARSEILLE: 33-4-86-06-00-85 080-511-1496 FRANCE PARIS: 33-1-70-70-60-72 080-511-1496 GERMANY 49-69-2222-20362 0800-664-4247 GREECE 30-80-1-100-0687 00800-12-7312 HONG KONG 852-3001-3863 800-962-856 HUNGARY 36-1-700-8856 06-800-12755 INDIA BANGALORE: 91-80-61275204 INDIA MUMBAI: 91-22-61501629 INDIA INDIA A: 000-800-852-1268 INDIA INDIA B: 000-800-001-6305 INDIA INDIA C: 1800-300-00491 INDONESIA 001-803-011-3982 IRELAND 353-1-246-7646 1800-992-368 ISRAEL 1-80-9216162 ITALY MILAN: 39-02-3600-6007 800-986-383 ITALY ROME: 39-06-8751-6018 800-986-383 ITALY TORINO: 39-011-510-0118 800-986-383 JAPAN OSAKA: 81-6-7739-4799 0066-33-132439 JAPAN TOKYO: 81-3-5539-5191 0066-33-132439 LATVIA 8000-3185 LUXEMBOURG 352-27-000-1364 8002-9246 MALAYSIA 1-800-81-3065 MEXICO GUADALAJARA (JAL): 52-33-3208-7310 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MEXICO CITY: 52-55-5062-9110 001-866-376-9696 MEXICO MONTERREY: 52-81-2482-0610 001-866-376-9696 NETHERLANDS 31-20-718-8588 0800-023-4378 NEW ZEALAND 64-9-970-4771 0800-447-722 NORWAY 47-21-590-062 800-15157 PANAMA 011-001-800-5072065 PERU 0800-53713 PHILIPPINES 63-2-858-3716 1800-111-42453 POLAND 00-800-1212572 PORTUGAL 8008-14052 ROMANIA 40-31-630-01-79 RUSSIA 8-10-8002-0144011 SAUDI ARABIA 800-8-110087 SINGAPORE 65-6883-9230 800-120-4663 SLOVAK REPUBLIC 421-2-322-422-25 0800-002066 SLOVENIA 0-800-81310 SOUTH AFRICA 080-09-80414 SOUTH KOREA 82-2-6744-1083 00798-14800-7352 SPAIN 34-91-414-25-33 800-300-053 SWEDEN 46-8-566-19-348 0200-884-622 SWITZERLAND 41-44-580-6398 0800-120-032 TAIWAN 886-2-2795-7379 00801-137-797 THAILAND 001-800-1206-66056 TURKEY 00-800-151-0516 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 8000-35702370 UNITED KINGDOM BIRMINGHAM: 44-121-210-9025 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM GLASGOW: 44-141-202-3225 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LEEDS: 44-113-301-2125 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM LONDON: 44-20-7108-6370 0808-238-6029 UNITED KINGDOM MANCHESTER: 44-161-601-1425 0808-238-6029 URUGUAY 000-413-598-3421 USA 1-517-345-9004 866-692-5726 VENEZUELA 0800-1-00-3702 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5457 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak Mon May 26 14:21:15 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 20:21:15 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Decision Re SO-AC High-Interest Topic Session in London In-Reply-To: <4957A389A865044DAC0545D93A57B80C05393B6B@MSG-MB-02.icent.ic.gc.ca> References: <4957A389A865044DAC0545D93A57B80C05393B6B@MSG-MB-02.icent.ic.gc.ca> Message-ID: Hello, proposals from GAC to have sessions open to the rest of community for London meeting e.g. open forum any suggestion about day/time? Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: 2014-05-24 7:59 GMT+09:00 Subject: RE: Decision Re SO-AC High-Interest Topic Session in London To: michele at blacknight.com, david.olive at icann.org, jonathan.robinson at ipracon.com, byron.holland at cira.ca, adiel at afrinic.net, louie at louie.net, junsec at wide.ad.jp, liman at netnod.se, paf at netnod.se, mllemineur at gmail.com, wjdrake at gmail.com, rafik.dammak at gmail.com, krosette at cov.com, Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com, tonyarholmes at btinternet.com, ocl at gih.com, kdrazek at verisign.com Cc: olof.nordling at icann.org, david.olive at icann.org, julia.charvolen at icann.org Dear fellow SO/AC leaders, The GAC is planning to hold a couple of sessions with the community in the future and I would really appreciate your thoughts and feedback on timing and approach: 1. ?Geographic Names? The GAC would like to arrange for a session with community in London to consider the topic of geo names in the planning of future gTLD application rounds. This work is led in the GAC by Argentina as part of a sub-group focused on geo names that is located within a working group on the topic of gTLD issues for future rounds. In view of the tight scheduling for us all in London, I would appreciate your input on preferred time slots ? or time slots to avoid ? for this session from your perspective. In practice, I believe Wednesday AM or Thursday early AM are the overall options. Your assistance in defining the slots more precisely would be greatly appreciated in order to avoid scheduling conflicts (to the extent possible) for London participants interested in the above session. 2. ?GAC Open Forum? The aim of the forum is to explain how the GAC works and how GAC Members prepare on a national level for a GAC meeting (not to explain a particular communiqu?). The idea is to get outside of the GAC room, be interactive, and have lots of opportunity for questions. This work is led by Sweden in the GAC, following a recommendation from ATRT2, and is also the result of the positive experience with GAC participation in the ICANN Open Forum at the IGF in Indonesia last year. The GAC was planning to hold an open forum in London but this is looking increasingly difficult schedule. In any event, such an information session is aimed at the community, so your guidance on timing and/or approach would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks all, Heather Dryden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin Mon May 26 19:08:09 2014 From: stephanie.perrin (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 12:08:09 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] ICANN Announcement on Whois Requirements and National Law Conflicts In-Reply-To: References: <352E85E1-3A83-4217-929D-F41A46228BEC@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: I am delighted to report that I just got email from Achim Klabunde, of the European DP Supervisor, pasted below. He is coming to our meeting, and he is a perfect person to come. He also serves on the reference group of the ABC4Trust project, and is familiar with anonymous credentials. I sent him the paper and a brief outline of possible topics. This is great news! Cheers Stephanie Dear Stephanie, I hope you are well. I think we met last at an ABC4Trust reference group meeting in Frankfurt. I learned about your exchanges with Peter and Giovanni about the meeting in subject of this message. I was planning to be in London for another event during that week and had wanted to attend some ICANN meetings and meet some participants. In fact, the meeting you referred to would still fit in my agenda. I have been in contact with Michael Niebel. I think I am broadly oriented about the work of your group without any knowledge of details or specific issues, so I would be very glad for any indications you could give me in view of participation in the meeting of 25 June pm. Kind regards Achim Klabunde Achim Klabunde Head of Sector IT policy Tel. +32 2 28 31 993 | GSM +32 473 85 63 72 | Fax +32 2 283 19 50 achim.klabunde at edps.europa.eu European Data Protection Supervisor Postal address: Rue Wiertz 60, B-1047 Brussels Office address: Rue Montoyer 30, B-1040 Brussels @EU_EDPS www.edps.europa.eu On 2014-05-26, at 12:33 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > thanks for sharing this, the public comments from ICANN are piling and sounds never ending. > yes we need volunteers to draft, do you think that you can lead and coordinate them ? > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > 2014-05-24 6:45 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin : > Folks this is really important, and the window to submit comments is not that long. You might have thought that I would have known this was coming, given that I am spending hours every week working on privacy issues at the EWG, on Whois, but you would be wrong, I had no clue this was coming. ICANN is an odd place. > Anyway, we need volunteers to help draft comments. > Kind regards, > Stephanie Perrin > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Don Blumenthal >> Subject: [Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] ICANN Announcement on Whois Requirements and National Law Conflicts >> Date: May 23, 2014 at 5:16:42 PM EDT >> To: PPSAI >> >> I expect that this announcement will interest many WG members. I am passing it along for people who are not on the ICANN News email list. >> >> https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-05-22-en >> >> Don >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list >> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.png Type: image/png Size: 567 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.png Type: image/png Size: 599 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image004.png Type: image/png Size: 657 bytes Desc: not available URL: From avri Tue May 27 06:24:53 2014 From: avri (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 23:24:53 -0400 Subject: [PC-NCSG] meeting with Bill Graham Wednesday 15:00 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <53840585.9060906@acm.org> On 26-May-14 00:12, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone , > > the call with Bill Graham will be in Wednesday 15:00 UTC, I will send > the confcall details when I receive them > > Bill asked about the list of topics we want to discuss. so I compiled > what Joy and Avri suggested, but others should recommend topics too. > @Avri can you please clarify what you mean by separation? I mean separation between the policy making function of ICANN and the Administrative/Implementation function of IANA. Probably good to clean up the sentences. I tried but i am sure i missed something. * focus on current issues and where you stand on issues * separation of policy function in ICANN and the implementation/administrative function in IANA * explain votes on .amazon; * where he stands on next steps for the TMCH+50 action; * what is happening with excess funds that can be expected from the auctions about to begin and the excess income from applications * what does he think about the pervasive Privacy problems with both ICANN policy and processes. BTW, why are we still asking him questions as if he was a candidate for the Board? avri > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > Topics (tenative): > * please give 3 examples of the issues that are of concern to the > non-commercial stakeholder group > * identify how you have weighed NCSG issues in the balance against other > non-contracted party house groups in your role as a Board member (shall > we ask for some specific cases?) > * in what ways do you consider yourself representative of and > accountable to NSCG in your Board role? > * please explain your lack of engagement with NCSG during your tenure on > the Board and why you believe you merit a further term. > > * focus on current issues and where you stands on issues (e.g. separation) and explain your vote: > * on .amazon; > * where you stands on next steps for the TMCH+50 action; > * what is happening with excess funds that can be expected from the > auctions about to begin; > * what does you think about the problem issues with ICANN privacy. > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > From rafik.dammak Tue May 27 06:30:22 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 12:30:22 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] meeting with Bill Graham Wednesday 15:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <53840585.9060906@acm.org> References: <53840585.9060906@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Avri, Thanks for the clarification, He asked about topics that we may want to discuss with him as current board member . We are not talking about election. You think that question may confuse about the intention? Rafik On May 27, 2014 12:25 PM, "Avri Doria" wrote: > > > On 26-May-14 00:12, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi everyone , > > > > the call with Bill Graham will be in Wednesday 15:00 UTC, I will send > > the confcall details when I receive them > > > > Bill asked about the list of topics we want to discuss. so I compiled > > what Joy and Avri suggested, but others should recommend topics too. > > @Avri can you please clarify what you mean by separation? > > I mean separation between the policy making function of ICANN and the > Administrative/Implementation function of IANA. > > Probably good to clean up the sentences. I tried but i am sure i missed > something. > > * focus on current issues and where you stand on issues > * separation of policy function in ICANN and the > implementation/administrative function in IANA > * explain votes on .amazon; > * where he stands on next steps for the TMCH+50 action; > * what is happening with excess funds that can be expected > from the auctions about to begin and the excess income > from applications > * what does he think about the pervasive Privacy problems > with both ICANN policy and processes. > > > BTW, why are we still asking him questions as if he was a candidate for > the Board? > > avri > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Rafik > > > > Topics (tenative): > > * please give 3 examples of the issues that are of concern to the > > non-commercial stakeholder group > > * identify how you have weighed NCSG issues in the balance against other > > non-contracted party house groups in your role as a Board member (shall > > we ask for some specific cases?) > > * in what ways do you consider yourself representative of and > > accountable to NSCG in your Board role? > > * please explain your lack of engagement with NCSG during your tenure on > > the Board and why you believe you merit a further term. > > > > * focus on current issues and where you stands on issues > > (e.g. separation) and explain your vote: > > * on .amazon; > > * where you stands on next steps for the TMCH+50 action; > > * what is happening with excess funds that can be expected from the > > auctions about to begin; > > * what does you think about the problem issues with ICANN privacy. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Tue May 27 09:45:18 2014 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 08:45:18 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] meeting with Bill Graham Wednesday 15:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <53840585.9060906@acm.org> References: <53840585.9060906@acm.org> Message-ID: <9D65AC10-80CC-4996-99EC-07D4E84BF12D@gmail.com> On May 27, 2014, at 5:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > BTW, why are we still asking him questions as if he was a candidate for > the Board? That was my question. What?s the purpose of the call, what message are sending, that we are willing to reconsider our stance on his candidacy? BD -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Tue May 27 09:48:39 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 15:48:39 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] meeting with Bill Graham Wednesday 15:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <9D65AC10-80CC-4996-99EC-07D4E84BF12D@gmail.com> References: <53840585.9060906@acm.org> <9D65AC10-80CC-4996-99EC-07D4E84BF12D@gmail.com> Message-ID: as I said it is not about election, not about his candidacy he want to have call before london to discuss like what we did in singapore and as follow-up. he is still board member representing NCPH he already explained the purpose when he sent his request to NCPH list. QUOTE: "Most of us were able to find time to meet in Singapore, and one of the suggestions I heard repeatedly was to try to schedule at least one teleconference between the various components of the NCPH and me, as your current Board member. We are now about 5 weeks out from the London ICANN 50 meeting, so I thought I would reach out to you to ask if you would like to schedule such a call in the next week or so. I am open to joining a general call, or separate calls with each constituency. Please let me know your preferences. My schedule is not too difficult for the next 10 days, but I do live in the same time zone as Los Angeles, so would appeciate it if any calls could be scheduled between 15:00 to 00:00 UTC if at all possible. " 2014-05-27 15:45 GMT+09:00 William Drake : > On May 27, 2014, at 5:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > > BTW, why are we still asking him questions as if he was a candidate for > the Board? > > > That was my question. What?s the purpose of the call, what message are > sending, that we are willing to reconsider our stance on his candidacy? > > BD > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Tue May 27 10:18:14 2014 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 09:18:14 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] meeting with Bill Graham Wednesday 15:00 UTC In-Reply-To: References: <53840585.9060906@acm.org> <9D65AC10-80CC-4996-99EC-07D4E84BF12D@gmail.com> Message-ID: <424D0BAF-3271-4C4F-B08C-7AD44DCE79CD@gmail.com> Yes of course, his interest in talking to us is completely and totally divorced from the fact that he happens to have been up for reelection. In which case some of our questions might seem a bit after the fact... On May 27, 2014, at 8:48 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > as I said it is not about election, not about his candidacy he want to have call before london to discuss like what we did in singapore and as follow-up. he is still board member representing NCPH > he already explained the purpose when he sent his request to NCPH list. > > QUOTE: > "Most of us were able to find time to meet in Singapore, and one of the suggestions I heard repeatedly was to try to schedule at least one teleconference between the various components of the NCPH and me, as your current Board member. We are now about 5 weeks out from the London ICANN 50 meeting, so I thought I would reach out to you to ask if you would like to schedule such a call in the next week or so. I am open to joining a general call, or separate calls with each constituency. > > Please let me know your preferences. My schedule is not too difficult for the next 10 days, but I do live in the same time zone as Los Angeles, so would appeciate it if any calls could be scheduled between 15:00 to 00:00 UTC if at all possible. > " > > > > 2014-05-27 15:45 GMT+09:00 William Drake : > On May 27, 2014, at 5:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> BTW, why are we still asking him questions as if he was a candidate for >> the Board? > > That was my question. What?s the purpose of the call, what message are sending, that we are willing to reconsider our stance on his candidacy? > > BD > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Tue May 27 10:24:34 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 16:24:34 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] meeting with Bill Graham Wednesday 15:00 UTC In-Reply-To: <424D0BAF-3271-4C4F-B08C-7AD44DCE79CD@gmail.com> References: <53840585.9060906@acm.org> <9D65AC10-80CC-4996-99EC-07D4E84BF12D@gmail.com> <424D0BAF-3271-4C4F-B08C-7AD44DCE79CD@gmail.com> Message-ID: we already told CSG clearly that he cannot run again. he will have a call with CSG too. for questions, can you please propose something concrete or some edits? Rafik 2014-05-27 16:18 GMT+09:00 William Drake : > Yes of course, his interest in talking to us is completely and totally > divorced from the fact that he happens to have been up for reelection. In > which case some of our questions might seem a bit after the fact... > > > On May 27, 2014, at 8:48 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > as I said it is not about election, not about his candidacy he want to > have call before london to discuss like what we did in singapore and as > follow-up. he is still board member representing NCPH > he already explained the purpose when he sent his request to NCPH list. > > QUOTE: > "Most of us were able to find time to meet in Singapore, and one of the > suggestions I heard repeatedly was to try to schedule at least one > teleconference between the various components of the NCPH and me, as your > current Board member. We are now about 5 weeks out from the London ICANN 50 > meeting, so I thought I would reach out to you to ask if you would like to > schedule such a call in the next week or so. I am open to joining a general > call, or separate calls with each constituency. > > Please let me know your preferences. My schedule is not too difficult for > the next 10 days, but I do live in the same time zone as Los Angeles, so > would appeciate it if any calls could be scheduled between 15:00 to 00:00 > UTC if at all possible. > " > > > > 2014-05-27 15:45 GMT+09:00 William Drake : > >> On May 27, 2014, at 5:24 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> BTW, why are we still asking him questions as if he was a candidate for >> the Board? >> >> >> That was my question. What?s the purpose of the call, what message are >> sending, that we are willing to reconsider our stance on his candidacy? >> >> BD >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From maria.farrell Tue May 27 14:56:06 2014 From: maria.farrell (Maria Farrell) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 12:56:06 +0100 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Draft_NCSG_response_to_?= =?utf-8?b?4oCcRW5oYW5jaW5nIElDQU5O4oCZcyBBY2NvdW50YWJpbGl0eeKAnS1w?= =?utf-8?q?rocess=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <537B34AB.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <6B0F6FB4-ADD3-427E-B6F6-58100BA6B7CE@isoc.be> <537E2C12.3000001@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi all, Are Niels and Gabrielle happy with the current draft of the document at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit? As Rafik has pointed out, we have another couple of days to finalise. So I'd just like to check if the interested people are still working on the draft / or satisfied with it? All the best, Maria On 26 May 2014 06:34, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Marilia, > > thanks for the review and commenting. the deadline to submit was Tuesday > 23:59 UTC but checking the announcement, we get 3 additional days because > the technical issuers with migration to new website ( > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en > ). > > Policy Committee should endorse asap. I think that Maria will handle the > last call as PC chair. then having the green light I will submit before the > deadline. > > there will be reply period after this and I think we can expand with > another comment about missing parts or clarifying others, in addition to > commenting the contributions of other groups. > > Niels and Gabrielle are working on resolving remaining questions in the > document. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > 2014-05-26 8:03 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel : > > Thanks, Rafik. Made a few comments, mostly on top of others. >> Good contribution. Thanks to folks of Article 19 and others who worked on >> it. >> Best, >> Mar?lia >> >> >> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi Avri, >>> >>> Niels and Gabrielle will answers comments soon. and yes we should >>> lockdown on language soon. hope that next comments would propose some >>> wording. >>> I think we will be more efficient than ITU.. hopefully :) >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2014-05-23 1:55 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : >>> >>> hi, >>>> >>>> had already indicated it in comments. have now added words to Rafik's >>>> added words. >>>> >>>> added some other weasel words too in response to some of Milton's >>>> concerns. >>>> >>>> when do we get a lock down on the language and a removal of brackets. >>>> >>>> [we have become so ITU.] >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> >>>> On 22-May-14 10:47, Maria Farrell wrote: >>>> > Hi guys, >>>> > >>>> > No final call has yet been made. Avri, would you mind marking up the >>>> > text with your suggestions and re-circulating? >>>> > >>>> > Many thanks, Maria >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak >>> > > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Hi Rudi, >>>> > >>>> > no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are getting >>>> > comments now. >>>> > >>>> > Rafik >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick >>> > >: >>>> > >>>> > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the proposed >>>> > document (googledoc) a week ago. >>>> > >>>> > Maria, can you proceed ? >>>> > >>>> > Kind regards, >>>> > >>>> > Rudi Vansnick >>>> > NPOC chair Policy Committee >>>> > NPOC treasurer >>>> > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org >>>> > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 >>>> > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >>>> > www.npoc.org >>>> > >>>> > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak >>>> > > het >>>> > volgende geschreven: >>>> > >>>> >> Hi everyone, >>>> >> >>>> >> We have this draft commenting ICANN accountability. The >>>> >> comment deadline is 27th may. >>>> >> I count on PC to act quickly. >>>> >> >>>> >> Best Regards, >>>> >> >>>> >> Rafik >>>> >> >>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> >> From: "Niels ten Oever" >>> >> > >>>> >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM >>>> >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing >>>> >> ICANN?s Accountability?-process. >>>> >> To: >>> >> > >>>> >> Cc: >>>> >> >>>> >> Dear all, >>>> >> >>>> >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from Brenden and >>>> >> Avri, have >>>> >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the ?Enhancing ICANN?s >>>> >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and comment here: >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >> >>>> >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be great if >>>> you >>>> >> could >>>> >> share your comments before Monday the 26th. >>>> >> >>>> >> Best, >>>> >> >>>> >> Niels >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Niels ten Oever >>>> >> Acting Head of Digital >>>> >> >>>> >> Article 19 >>>> >> www.article19.org >>>> >> >>>> >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 >>>> 636D >>>> >> 68E9 >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> > >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> *Mar?lia Maciel* >> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio >> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law >> School >> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >> >> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu >> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ >> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Tue May 27 15:05:48 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 21:05:48 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?=5BNCSG-Discuss=5D_Draft_NCSG_response_to_?= =?utf-8?b?4oCcRW5oYW5jaW5nIElDQU5O4oCZcyBBY2NvdW50YWJpbGl0eeKAnS1w?= =?utf-8?q?rocess=2E?= In-Reply-To: References: <537B34AB.6050402@digitaldissidents.org> <6B0F6FB4-ADD3-427E-B6F6-58100BA6B7CE@isoc.be> <537E2C12.3000001@acm.org> Message-ID: Hi Maria, Niels and Gabrielle are going to work in the comments today to resolve the comments. I guess we can have clean version by tomorrow? I can confirm with them Rafik 2014-05-27 20:56 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell : > Hi all, > > Are Niels and Gabrielle happy with the current draft of the document at > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit? > > As Rafik has pointed out, we have another couple of days to finalise. So > I'd just like to check if the interested people are still working on the > draft / or satisfied with it? > > All the best, Maria > > > > On 26 May 2014 06:34, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Marilia, >> >> thanks for the review and commenting. the deadline to submit was Tuesday >> 23:59 UTC but checking the announcement, we get 3 additional days because >> the technical issuers with migration to new website ( >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en >> ). >> >> Policy Committee should endorse asap. I think that Maria will handle the >> last call as PC chair. then having the green light I will submit before the >> deadline. >> >> there will be reply period after this and I think we can expand with >> another comment about missing parts or clarifying others, in addition to >> commenting the contributions of other groups. >> >> Niels and Gabrielle are working on resolving remaining questions in the >> document. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2014-05-26 8:03 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel : >> >> Thanks, Rafik. Made a few comments, mostly on top of others. >>> Good contribution. Thanks to folks of Article 19 and others who worked >>> on it. >>> Best, >>> Mar?lia >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Avri, >>>> >>>> Niels and Gabrielle will answers comments soon. and yes we should >>>> lockdown on language soon. hope that next comments would propose some >>>> wording. >>>> I think we will be more efficient than ITU.. hopefully :) >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2014-05-23 1:55 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : >>>> >>>> hi, >>>>> >>>>> had already indicated it in comments. have now added words to Rafik's >>>>> added words. >>>>> >>>>> added some other weasel words too in response to some of Milton's >>>>> concerns. >>>>> >>>>> when do we get a lock down on the language and a removal of brackets. >>>>> >>>>> [we have become so ITU.] >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 22-May-14 10:47, Maria Farrell wrote: >>>>> > Hi guys, >>>>> > >>>>> > No final call has yet been made. Avri, would you mind marking up the >>>>> > text with your suggestions and re-circulating? >>>>> > >>>>> > Many thanks, Maria >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak >>>> > > wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > Hi Rudi, >>>>> > >>>>> > no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are getting >>>>> > comments now. >>>>> > >>>>> > Rafik >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick >>>> > >: >>>>> > >>>>> > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the proposed >>>>> > document (googledoc) a week ago. >>>>> > >>>>> > Maria, can you proceed ? >>>>> > >>>>> > Kind regards, >>>>> > >>>>> > Rudi Vansnick >>>>> > NPOC chair Policy Committee >>>>> > NPOC treasurer >>>>> > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org >>>>> > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 >>>>> > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >>>>> > www.npoc.org >>>>> > >>>>> > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak >>>>> > > het >>>>> > volgende geschreven: >>>>> > >>>>> >> Hi everyone, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> We have this draft commenting ICANN accountability. The >>>>> >> comment deadline is 27th may. >>>>> >> I count on PC to act quickly. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Best Regards, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Rafik >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> >> From: "Niels ten Oever" >>>> >> > >>>>> >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM >>>>> >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing >>>>> >> ICANN?s Accountability?-process. >>>>> >> To: >>>> >> > >>>>> >> Cc: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Dear all, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from Brenden and >>>>> >> Avri, have >>>>> >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the ?Enhancing ICANN?s >>>>> >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and comment here: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >> >>>>> >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be great if >>>>> you >>>>> >> could >>>>> >> share your comments before Monday the 26th. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Best, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Niels >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Niels ten Oever >>>>> >> Acting Head of Digital >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Article 19 >>>>> >> www.article19.org >>>>> >> >>>>> >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 >>>>> 636D >>>>> >> 68E9 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Mar?lia Maciel* >>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito >>> Rio >>> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law >>> School >>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu >>> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ >>> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >>> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Wed May 28 06:16:19 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 12:16:19 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?Draft_NCSG_response_to_=E2=80=9CEnhancing_ICA?= =?utf-8?b?Tk7igJlzIEFjY291bnRhYmlsaXR54oCdLXByb2Nlc3MuIDogUEMgZW5k?= =?utf-8?q?orsment?= Message-ID: Hi Maria, Gabrielle and Niels worked on the comments and made the edits in the document. so we have an updated version https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit I circulated the document again in NCSG mailing list. I would like to ask kindly NCSG PC members to review the document and getting consensus with due diligence to submit this comment. can you please set the start and end date for last call? as reminder the deadline for submission is *30th May 23:59UTC*. getting the green light after the confirmation of last call, I will submit the comment on behalf of NCSG. we have then later the reply period where I think we can work to add additional comments and responding to other groups submissions Best Regards, Rafik 2014-05-27 20:56 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell : > Hi all, > > Are Niels and Gabrielle happy with the current draft of the document at > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit? > > As Rafik has pointed out, we have another couple of days to finalise. So > I'd just like to check if the interested people are still working on the > draft / or satisfied with it? > > All the best, Maria > > > > On 26 May 2014 06:34, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi Marilia, >> >> thanks for the review and commenting. the deadline to submit was Tuesday >> 23:59 UTC but checking the announcement, we get 3 additional days because >> the technical issuers with migration to new website ( >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en >> ). >> >> Policy Committee should endorse asap. I think that Maria will handle the >> last call as PC chair. then having the green light I will submit before the >> deadline. >> >> there will be reply period after this and I think we can expand with >> another comment about missing parts or clarifying others, in addition to >> commenting the contributions of other groups. >> >> Niels and Gabrielle are working on resolving remaining questions in the >> document. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Rafik >> >> >> 2014-05-26 8:03 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel : >> >> Thanks, Rafik. Made a few comments, mostly on top of others. >>> Good contribution. Thanks to folks of Article 19 and others who worked >>> on it. >>> Best, >>> Mar?lia >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Avri, >>>> >>>> Niels and Gabrielle will answers comments soon. and yes we should >>>> lockdown on language soon. hope that next comments would propose some >>>> wording. >>>> I think we will be more efficient than ITU.. hopefully :) >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2014-05-23 1:55 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : >>>> >>>> hi, >>>>> >>>>> had already indicated it in comments. have now added words to Rafik's >>>>> added words. >>>>> >>>>> added some other weasel words too in response to some of Milton's >>>>> concerns. >>>>> >>>>> when do we get a lock down on the language and a removal of brackets. >>>>> >>>>> [we have become so ITU.] >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 22-May-14 10:47, Maria Farrell wrote: >>>>> > Hi guys, >>>>> > >>>>> > No final call has yet been made. Avri, would you mind marking up the >>>>> > text with your suggestions and re-circulating? >>>>> > >>>>> > Many thanks, Maria >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak >>>> > > wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > Hi Rudi, >>>>> > >>>>> > no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are getting >>>>> > comments now. >>>>> > >>>>> > Rafik >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick >>>> > >: >>>>> > >>>>> > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the proposed >>>>> > document (googledoc) a week ago. >>>>> > >>>>> > Maria, can you proceed ? >>>>> > >>>>> > Kind regards, >>>>> > >>>>> > Rudi Vansnick >>>>> > NPOC chair Policy Committee >>>>> > NPOC treasurer >>>>> > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org >>>>> > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 >>>>> > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >>>>> > www.npoc.org >>>>> > >>>>> > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak >>>>> > > het >>>>> > volgende geschreven: >>>>> > >>>>> >> Hi everyone, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> We have this draft commenting ICANN accountability. The >>>>> >> comment deadline is 27th may. >>>>> >> I count on PC to act quickly. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Best Regards, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Rafik >>>>> >> >>>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>> >> From: "Niels ten Oever" >>>> >> > >>>>> >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM >>>>> >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing >>>>> >> ICANN?s Accountability?-process. >>>>> >> To: >>>> >> > >>>>> >> Cc: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Dear all, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from Brenden and >>>>> >> Avri, have >>>>> >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the ?Enhancing ICANN?s >>>>> >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and comment here: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >> >>>>> >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be great if >>>>> you >>>>> >> could >>>>> >> share your comments before Monday the 26th. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Best, >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Niels >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Niels ten Oever >>>>> >> Acting Head of Digital >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Article 19 >>>>> >> www.article19.org >>>>> >> >>>>> >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 >>>>> 636D >>>>> >> 68E9 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> *Mar?lia Maciel* >>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito >>> Rio >>> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law >>> School >>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>> >>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu >>> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ >>> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >>> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> PC-NCSG mailing list >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake Wed May 28 11:14:18 2014 From: wjdrake (William Drake) Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 10:14:18 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?windows-1252?q?Draft_NCSG_response_to_=93Enhancing_IC?= =?windows-1252?q?ANN=92s_Accountability=94-process=2E_=3A_PC_endorsment?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1A6A7244-2A9A-44C7-8435-BDEB460117CF@gmail.com> I?m utterly slammed today but added some quick comments. It?s crazy that such an important topic is given such a short time line? BTW NCUC and Robin will both have workshops on accountability and the AoC at IGF, this doc could serve as a background paper and basis for further interventions there and elsewhere. BD On May 28, 2014, at 5:16 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Maria, > > Gabrielle and Niels worked on the comments and made the edits in the document. so we have an updated version https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit > > I circulated the document again in NCSG mailing list. I would like to ask kindly NCSG PC members to review the document and getting consensus with due diligence to submit this comment. > > can you please set the start and end date for last call? as reminder the deadline for submission is 30th May 23:59UTC. getting the green light after the confirmation of last call, I will submit the comment on behalf of NCSG. > > we have then later the reply period where I think we can work to add additional comments and responding to other groups submissions > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > 2014-05-27 20:56 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell : > Hi all, > > Are Niels and Gabrielle happy with the current draft of the document at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit ? > > As Rafik has pointed out, we have another couple of days to finalise. So I'd just like to check if the interested people are still working on the draft / or satisfied with it? > > All the best, Maria > > > > On 26 May 2014 06:34, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Marilia, > > thanks for the review and commenting. the deadline to submit was Tuesday 23:59 UTC but checking the announcement, we get 3 additional days because the technical issuers with migration to new website (https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en). > > Policy Committee should endorse asap. I think that Maria will handle the last call as PC chair. then having the green light I will submit before the deadline. > > there will be reply period after this and I think we can expand with another comment about missing parts or clarifying others, in addition to commenting the contributions of other groups. > > Niels and Gabrielle are working on resolving remaining questions in the document. > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > > 2014-05-26 8:03 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel : > > Thanks, Rafik. Made a few comments, mostly on top of others. > Good contribution. Thanks to folks of Article 19 and others who worked on it. > Best, > Mar?lia > > > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Avri, > > Niels and Gabrielle will answers comments soon. and yes we should lockdown on language soon. hope that next comments would propose some wording. > I think we will be more efficient than ITU.. hopefully :) > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > 2014-05-23 1:55 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : > > hi, > > had already indicated it in comments. have now added words to Rafik's > added words. > > added some other weasel words too in response to some of Milton's concerns. > > when do we get a lock down on the language and a removal of brackets. > > [we have become so ITU.] > > avri > > > On 22-May-14 10:47, Maria Farrell wrote: > > Hi guys, > > > > No final call has yet been made. Avri, would you mind marking up the > > text with your suggestions and re-circulating? > > > > Many thanks, Maria > > > > > > On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak > > wrote: > > > > Hi Rudi, > > > > no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are getting > > comments now. > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick > >: > > > > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the proposed > > document (googledoc) a week ago. > > > > Maria, can you proceed ? > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Rudi Vansnick > > NPOC chair Policy Committee > > NPOC treasurer > > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org > > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 > > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 > > www.npoc.org > > > > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak > > > het > > volgende geschreven: > > > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> We have this draft commenting ICANN accountability. The > >> comment deadline is 27th may. > >> I count on PC to act quickly. > >> > >> Best Regards, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: "Niels ten Oever" >> > > >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM > >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing > >> ICANN?s Accountability?-process. > >> To: >> > > >> Cc: > >> > >> Dear all, > >> > >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from Brenden and > >> Avri, have > >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the ?Enhancing ICANN?s > >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and comment here: > >> > >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing > >> > >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be great if you > >> could > >> share your comments before Monday the 26th. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Niels > >> > >> > >> Niels ten Oever > >> Acting Head of Digital > >> > >> Article 19 > >> www.article19.org > >> > >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D > >> 68E9 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> PC-NCSG mailing list > >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > PC-NCSG mailing list > > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > > -- > Mar?lia Maciel > Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio > Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School > http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts > > DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu > PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ > Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From rafik.dammak Wed May 28 11:22:30 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 17:22:30 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] =?utf-8?q?Draft_NCSG_response_to_=E2=80=9CEnhancing_ICA?= =?utf-8?b?Tk7igJlzIEFjY291bnRhYmlsaXR54oCdLXByb2Nlc3MuIDogUEMgZW5k?= =?utf-8?q?orsment?= In-Reply-To: <1A6A7244-2A9A-44C7-8435-BDEB460117CF@gmail.com> References: <1A6A7244-2A9A-44C7-8435-BDEB460117CF@gmail.com> Message-ID: that would be good question for Fadi who is looking to add new 2 tracks. I really appreciate the work of Niels, Gabrielle for drafting Avri, Brenden and others to comment and propose edit in such short time. Rafik 2014-05-28 17:14 GMT+09:00 William Drake : > I?m utterly slammed today but added some quick comments. It?s crazy that > such an important topic is given such a short time line? > > BTW NCUC and Robin will both have workshops on accountability and the AoC > at IGF, this doc could serve as a background paper and basis for further > interventions there and elsewhere. > > BD > > > On May 28, 2014, at 5:16 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Maria, > > Gabrielle and Niels worked on the comments and made the edits in the > document. so we have an updated version > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit > > I circulated the document again in NCSG mailing list. I would like to ask > kindly NCSG PC members to review the document and getting consensus with > due diligence to submit this comment. > > can you please set the start and end date for last call? as reminder the > deadline for submission is *30th May 23:59UTC*. getting the green light > after the confirmation of last call, I will submit the comment on behalf of > NCSG. > > we have then later the reply period where I think we can work to add > additional comments and responding to other groups submissions > > Best Regards, > > Rafik > > > 2014-05-27 20:56 GMT+09:00 Maria Farrell : > >> Hi all, >> >> Are Niels and Gabrielle happy with the current draft of the document at >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit? >> >> As Rafik has pointed out, we have another couple of days to finalise. So >> I'd just like to check if the interested people are still working on the >> draft / or satisfied with it? >> >> All the best, Maria >> >> >> >> On 26 May 2014 06:34, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi Marilia, >>> >>> thanks for the review and commenting. the deadline to submit was Tuesday >>> 23:59 UTC but checking the announcement, we get 3 additional days because >>> the technical issuers with migration to new website ( >>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en >>> ). >>> >>> Policy Committee should endorse asap. I think that Maria will handle the >>> last call as PC chair. then having the green light I will submit before the >>> deadline. >>> >>> there will be reply period after this and I think we can expand with >>> another comment about missing parts or clarifying others, in addition to >>> commenting the contributions of other groups. >>> >>> Niels and Gabrielle are working on resolving remaining questions in the >>> document. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2014-05-26 8:03 GMT+09:00 Marilia Maciel : >>> >>> Thanks, Rafik. Made a few comments, mostly on top of others. >>>> Good contribution. Thanks to folks of Article 19 and others who worked >>>> on it. >>>> Best, >>>> Mar?lia >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Avri, >>>>> >>>>> Niels and Gabrielle will answers comments soon. and yes we should >>>>> lockdown on language soon. hope that next comments would propose some >>>>> wording. >>>>> I think we will be more efficient than ITU.. hopefully :) >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> 2014-05-23 1:55 GMT+09:00 Avri Doria : >>>>> >>>>> hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> had already indicated it in comments. have now added words to Rafik's >>>>>> added words. >>>>>> >>>>>> added some other weasel words too in response to some of Milton's >>>>>> concerns. >>>>>> >>>>>> when do we get a lock down on the language and a removal of brackets. >>>>>> >>>>>> [we have become so ITU.] >>>>>> >>>>>> avri >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 22-May-14 10:47, Maria Farrell wrote: >>>>>> > Hi guys, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > No final call has yet been made. Avri, would you mind marking up the >>>>>> > text with your suggestions and re-circulating? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Many thanks, Maria >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > On 22 May 2014 13:22, Rafik Dammak >>>>> > > wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Hi Rudi, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > no, Niels shared the document two days ago and we are getting >>>>>> > comments now. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Rafik >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > 2014-05-22 17:08 GMT+09:00 Rudi Vansnick >>>>> > >: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > If I?m not wrong we agreed on the content of the proposed >>>>>> > document (googledoc) a week ago. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Maria, can you proceed ? >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Kind regards, >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Rudi Vansnick >>>>>> > NPOC chair Policy Committee >>>>>> > NPOC treasurer >>>>>> > rudi.vansnick at npoc.org >>>>>> > Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 >>>>>> > Mobile : +32 (0)475 28 16 32 >>>>>> > www.npoc.org >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Op 20-mei-2014, om 13:06 heeft Rafik Dammak >>>>>> > > >>>>>> het >>>>>> > volgende geschreven: >>>>>> > >>>>>> >> Hi everyone, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> We have this draft commenting ICANN accountability. The >>>>>> >> comment deadline is 27th may. >>>>>> >> I count on PC to act quickly. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Best Regards, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Rafik >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>> >> From: "Niels ten Oever" >>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> Date: May 20, 2014 7:58 PM >>>>>> >> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft NCSG response to ?Enhancing >>>>>> >> ICANN?s Accountability?-process. >>>>>> >> To: >>>>> >> > >>>>>> >> Cc: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Dear all, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Gabrielle and I, with the great comments from Brenden and >>>>>> >> Avri, have >>>>>> >> drafted a potential NCSG response to the ?Enhancing ICANN?s >>>>>> >> Accountability?-process. You can find it and comment here: >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xz9-BCYY8sMWgACs1OWxDypfQH_DXlzaqlCw-OqlAiY/edit?usp=sharing >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> The deadline is Tuesday next week, so it would be great if >>>>>> you >>>>>> >> could >>>>>> >> share your comments before Monday the 26th. >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Best, >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Niels >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Niels ten Oever >>>>>> >> Acting Head of Digital >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> Article 19 >>>>>> >> www.article19.org >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> PGP fingerprint = 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 >>>>>> 636D >>>>>> >> 68E9 >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>>>> > PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>> > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>> > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> *Mar?lia Maciel* >>>> Pesquisadora Gestora - Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito >>>> Rio >>>> Researcher and Coordinator - Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law >>>> School >>>> http://direitorio.fgv.br/cts >>>> >>>> DiploFoundation associate - www.diplomacy.edu >>>> PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Committee - http://www.politics.org.br/ >>>> Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Caribbean" - >>>> http://www.digitalrightslac.net/en >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> PC-NCSG mailing list >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg >>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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: From rafik.dammak Thu May 29 01:44:57 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 07:44:57 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Recording and attendance NCSG call - 28 May 2014 at 1500 UTC In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, Please find here the recording of the call with Bill Graham. Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Nathalie Peregrine" Date: May 29, 2014 2:48 AM Subject: Recording and attendance NCSG call - 28 May 2014 at 1500 UTC To: "rafik.dammak at gmail.com" Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" Dear Rafik, Please find here the attendance and the MP3 recording of the NCSG call held today on the 28 May 2014 at 1500 UTC : https://icann.box.com/shared/static/qkwrzxhcdsxv3f5g085v.mp3 *Attendees*: Rafik Dammak, Avri Doria, Maria Farrell, Bill Graham *Apologies:* none *Staff:* Nathalie Peregrine Thank you, Nathalie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak Fri May 30 02:57:41 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 08:57:41 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: NCSG Transcription 28 May 2014 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, attached the transcripts of the call with Bill Graham. Best Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Terri Agnew Date: 2014-05-29 21:45 GMT+09:00 Subject: NCSG Transcription 28 May 2014 To: Rafik Dammak Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" Dear Rafik, Please find attached the transcript of the NCSG call held on Thursday 28th May 2014 Kind regards Terri Agnew -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: transcript NCSG 28 May 2014.doc Type: application/msword Size: 77824 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rafik.dammak Sat May 31 01:54:45 2014 From: rafik.dammak (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 07:54:45 +0900 Subject: [PC-NCSG] CSG decision regarding our candidate Message-ID: Hi Everybody, Steve Metalitz just informed me that CSG cannot support Sam candidate. I am really for Sam and definitely don't like bringing those kind of news. we shouldn't wait for CSG to come with proposals and we should be more proactive in this regard. first thing is to agree about deadline to elect board member to impose some visibility. agree on election process. I don't know if they will propose to meet in London but I would like the NCSG PC to work on that before. looking to hear your comments. Regards, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Metalitz, Steven Date: 2014-05-31 6:11 GMT+09:00 Subject: RE: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 To: Rafik Dammak Rafik, I wanted to let you know that on our call today, CSG concluded that we cannot support Sam as a Board candidate at this time. We are continuing to explore further options for moving forward. I will let you know as soon as we have something further to propose. Steve *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] *Sent:* Saturday, May 24, 2014 9:56 PM *To:* Metalitz, Steven *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 Thanks Steve, so we will wait then for the final decision. Rafik 2014-05-24 4:01 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven : Hi Rafik, We had a CSG leadership call on this today and are undertaking further consultation within our constituencies on a couple of points. We are to meet again next Friday. Steve *From:* Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com] *Sent:* Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:56 PM *To:* Metalitz, Steven *Subject:* Re: FW: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 Hi Steve, is it possible to know when CSG will respond to us about Sam candidature? Best Regards, Rafik 2014-05-21 9:53 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : Thanks Steve, Rafik 2014-05-21 4:36 GMT+09:00 Metalitz, Steven : Rafik, For circulation to NCSG. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Nathalie Peregrine [mailto:nathalie.peregrine at icann.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 8:48 AM To: Rosette, Kristina; Metalitz, Steven; tony holmes ( tonyarholmes at btinternet.com); Wolf-Ulrich Knoben ( Wolf-Ulrich.Knoben at t-online.de); Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com; marilynscade at hotmail.com; harris at cabase.org.ar Cc: gnso-secs at icann.org Subject: CSG call with Sam Lanfranco Transcription - 19 May 2014 Dear all, Please find attached the transcript of the CSG call held with Sam Lanfranco on May 19th 2014. Kind regards Nathalie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: